My turn for a rant

[mr1303]

Just got kicked out of a tournament recently. Events were something as follows:

 

I held

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sxxxxxxhxxdxxckxx]133|100|[/hv]

 

and opened a 13-15 NT in 3rd seat. Tournament rules said nothing about disallowing psyches. TD was playing. Anyway, partner went a bit overboard and we ended up in 5H doubled. My hand goes down as dummy, and the conversation goes as follows: (RHO was silent throughout)

 

LHO: What?

LHO: 1 point

Partner: 3

P: K=3

LHO: You bid 1NT and alerted 13-15

LHO: mr what is this?

Me: Yes thats correct

LHO: I called TD

Partner: well, psyche isn't disallowed is it?

me: it was a psyche

LHO: you alerted and said 13-15 HCP

Me: Yes, that is what our agreement is

LHO: Look at your alert

 

At this point, I'm starting to get wound up. LHO was one of these self-confessed experts you get these days.

 

Partner: hahahahaha

Me: I don't have to tell you what is in my hand, I have to tell you what our agreement is about what my bid shows

Partner: Mate, I thought you were expert, do you not know what a psyche is?

LHO: It's not, you alerted and said 13-15

LHO: It's lying

Me: Call the director then

Me: It is a psyche. It is 100% legal

LHO: I did

LHO: but you were lying

Me: THAT IS WHAT A PSYCHE IS!!!!

LHO: You said 13-15 alerted by you

LHO: It is not psychic if you are not alerted yes but you were lying us

LHO: It's a lie

Me: I only alerted because a weak NT isn't considered standard on BBO

Me: that was the only reason

Me: and my alert was only telling you our agreement about what my bid shows

Partner: (LHO's name) are you going to play or not?

LHO: Look what you have written on your alert 13-15 HCP you said why were you lying then

Me: partner has assumed I have 13-15 HCP and bid accordingly

LHO: No I am not until TD is coming

LHO: It's a lie

Me: TD is playing and can't come

 

At this point we get an announcement from the playing TD

 

TD: TD is playing and somne problems can't be solved right now. But you can tell me after the tournament

 

LHO: Not nice you are lying not psychic

Me: I do not have to tell you that my bid is a psyche

Me: And it is 100% legal to psyche. If you don't believe me I suggest you learn how to play bridge before starting these arguments

LHO: you shouldn't lie

LHO: Why 13-15 HCP alerted by you

LHO: It's A LIE

 

Automated announcement: you have been replaced from this tournament....

 

My partner was similarly booted. I was never able to find the TD afterwards, as he/she logged off before I could get a chance

[luis]

ROFL

What can you do? One of the wonders of online bridge is ability to share the space with all sorts of players and directors. You got a novice opponent and a careless director.

[hrothgar]

As I noted several times in the past, BBO players require some kind of feedback system by which they can rate tournament directors...

[inquiry]

Luis is right Mark, laugh it off. You might want to officiailly report your opponent to a yellow as a favor for him. The purpose of this is so that a yellow (as opposed to yourself) can explain the responsibility for alerts (tell what your agreement is, not what you actually hold).

 

I have seen this very situation a number of times, with both 1NT opening bids, and 1NT overcalls that were psyches and when asked, properly explained by agreement, and yet people respond as your opponent did.

 

As for your director, 1) he was playing, 2) his only rules where no adjustments and have fun. I suspect he considers such a psyche as your not having fun. I will discuss this with him, but directors are given very wide authority to run their events, so not much will come of this other than hopefully a better understanding.

[the hog]

Just as a matter of interest - if you unjustly get kicked out of a tournament for which an entry fee is charged, should you not get a refund.

[luke warm]

i think "have fun" is a nice instruction, but i think it's a stretch to take that and interpret it to mean psychs are not fun... i'm sure mark had fun... it seems to me if anyone should be upset it would be his partner who supposedly had to play 5H x'd heheh... that's just a part of the game, for ops and partners

 

and i agree with ron, the money should be refunded... mark did nothing wrong

[ehhh]

:P Everyone here seems to automatically accept this call as a psych. What about the adage 1 point 1 card. How do calls evolve to eventually become a destructive bids?

[hrothgar]

:P Everyone here seems to automatically accept this call as a psych. What about the adage 1 point 1 card. How do calls evolve to eventually become a destructive bids?

1 point / 1 card is specific to the concept of a "deviation"

This is very different that a psyche.

 

"Destructive" is not a term that is defined anywhere in the Laws, nor are the regulatorswilling to define this.

 

Destructive bids are bids that the regulators want to ban. They are using language to frame the debate in a way that they believe is favorable to their cause.

 

Consider the expression "destructive Bid" in much the same light as

 

"Pro-Life"

"Death Tax"

"Healthy Forests Initiative" or

"War Against Terror"

 

Nothing more, nothing less...

[spwdo]

If they were any more stupid, they have to be watered twice a

week.

 

This td has delusions of adequacy

 

Takes them 2 hours to watch '60-minutes

 

The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead

 

One neuron short of a synapse

 

If you stand close enough to them , you can hear the ocean

 

Gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train isn't

coming

 

When their IQ reaches 50, they should sell

 

I would not allow this td to breed

 

I would like to go hunting with opps sometime

 

are things that come to mind

[TimG]

LHO: It's lying

It is a lie, and most of us are taught not to lie. The word he used to describe your action is very telling. If he had called it a psyche, or a bluff or even a little white lie, the situation would likely have resolved itself differently.

 

What I have learned from these types of situation is that no amount of explaining on your part is going to make this guy feel any better. And, all your attempted explaining is just going to make this guy madder -- you're trying to teach something he knows is wrong. Best to simply wait quietly for the director. Too bad the director was never going to come in this case, but you were aware that this was a potential problem when you entered a tournament with a playing director.

 

As for being kicked out of the tourney: obviously unfair. But, rather than immediately conclude that the director is incompetent, I would suggest that the description of events your opponent conveyed to the director may not have represented what actually happened. Your opponent probably said something like: he misdescribed his hand and then tried to pass it off as a psyche, this is a game of full disclosure and he lied to us.

 

Frustrating for sure.

 

Tim

[slothy]

To me the most illuminating observation of this whole farce and which shines the brightest light onto the LHO's competence as a bridge player, understanding of the the more nebulous parts of the game and his self-evaluation of his expertise is that on seeing dummy he sees a hand with a K and accuses you of having....

 

 

ONE POINT

 

had you put down

 

Kxxx

Kx

Kxxx

Kxx

 

he would still have called the TD as according to his point evaluating system you would only have 4 points :))

[ojars]

One hopes the TD's receive a bit of training.

 

In the event of a misclick, a correct explanation of the partnership's agreements is required for all the opponents, but no more need be said. Yet the TD did not so rule.

 

Alas!

[hotShot]

Seems that your opponent does not know what a psyche is. This could be a language problem. And he seems to have given the TD a hard time, hitting the TD Button a lot.

 

 

To improve the TD quality please read my post on:

 

How the software could help TD's

[nickf]

Seems that your opponent does not know what a psyche is. This could be a language problem.

....

 

No, no, no. You have missed the whole point of this opponent's complaint. He was aggrieved because Mark described *the agreed meaning* of his 1NT as 13-15 yet turned up with a solitary King. So he believed Mark had lied to him.

 

Who knows, he may not have been as unhappy had Mark still opened 1NT but privately told his opponents he was psyching.

 

Sadly, misconceptions about psyches abound in all forms of bridge. But the best advice is in this case is forget it, and if you're so inclined, don't play in that TD's tourneys again.

 

nickf

sydney

[DrTodd13]

So what is BBO's policy on discussions that take place outside BBO administrative boundaries? For example, if someone gets upset at ridiculous behavior such as these opps and posts a message to rec.games.bridge or puts an entry in his blog and names names then what, if anything, will BBO do?

 

If somebody wanted to set up an external site to allow players to rate tournament directors then would BBO have any comment?

[inquiry]

So what is BBO's policy on discussions that take place outside BBO administrative boundaries?  For example, if someone gets upset at ridiculous behavior such as these opps and posts a message to rec.games.bridge or puts an entry in his blog and names names then what, if anything, will BBO do?

 

If somebody wanted to set up an external site to allow players to rate tournament directors then would BBO have any comment?

This is a difficult area.. what if I create a fake DrTodd name and go somewhere and wail against inquiry. Can then I as inquiry, say look what DrTodd is doing to me. Second, it is impossible for BBO to police all the sites and indivual webpages. I mean, should we go after the people behind godofthemachine for their post?

 

You could add to this gossip on line in private and in chat rooms and in MSN messenger. The Administrators really, really don't want to be policemen. We all have better things to do, or at least more fun things to do. We stop rudeness when we can, on sites belonging to the BBO. I for one don't see how else to do it.

 

I will say this, however, if someone goes and makes a huge problem of themselves for Uday and Fred off the BBO site, I have no doublt they will banned.... it's their site and know troublemakers are not welcome.

 

Ben

[Rebound]

One hopes the TD's receive a bit of training.

I wish. From the number of times I have seen the same thing happen to me and to those posting here, it's apparent that many td's suffer under the same ignorance regarding the purpose of alerts and explanations. I've also seen the opposite, where opponents change their descriptions of bids to include what they hold rather than providing the agreed meaning. It's rediculous. Where do people learn this stuff? Frankly, it irritates me beyond all reason.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[hotShot]

I wish. From the number of times I have seen the same thing happen to me and to those posting here, it's apparent that many td's suffer under the same ignorance regarding the purpose of alerts and explanations.

 

I've also seen the opposite, where opponents change their descriptions of bids to include what they hold rather than providing the agreed meaning. It's rediculous. Where do people learn this stuff? Frankly, it irritates me beyond all reason.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Taking the amout of tourney that run on BBO every day, I think the number of complaints posted here is rather small.

 

The people that run tourneys are more like "hosts" than TD's.

 

I often see that people describe their hand, if asked. They do it to avoid discussions about wrong explanations. This is of cause wrong, but it avoids a lot of trouble.

[mr1303]

So what is BBO's policy on discussions that take place outside BBO administrative boundaries? For example, if someone gets upset at ridiculous behavior such as these opps and posts a message to rec.games.bridge or puts an entry in his blog and names names then what, if anything, will BBO do?

 

If somebody wanted to set up an external site to allow players to rate tournament directors then would BBO have any comment?

 

Just in case it wasn't clear, I haven't gone anywhere like rec.games.bridge to whinge about the TD or opponents or anything. I just felt hard done by at the time, and the incident has long-since been forgotton.

 

HotShot's ideas about how to improve the lot of directors seem quite good to me though, especially the psyche button. I frequently psyche when the hand seems right for it, and these sort of arguments occur more often than I'd like.

[DelfinoD]

I frequently psyche when the hand seems right for it, and these sort of arguments occur more often than I'd like.

Hello

 

If you frequently psyche (and your p. knows about it) I think you should announce it to the opponets at the beginning, because frequent psyche is an agreement :rolleyes:

 

Anyway if you announce it I guess ops. won't be so mad when it happens.

[inquiry]

I frequently psyche when the hand seems right for it, and these sort of arguments occur more often than I'd like.

Hello

 

If you frequently psyche (and your p. knows about it) I think you should announce it to the opponets at the beginning, because frequent psyche is an agreement :rolleyes:

 

Anyway if you announce it I guess ops. won't be so mad when it happens.

My "profile" says "I psyche occ" It use to say I psyche freq, but I decided that freq makes people think I psyche once every 10 or 12 hands. I don't psyche anywhere near that frequently. Providign this info is very useful.

 

I do alert my opponents that I open very light. I don't mention a number of hcp, because I pass some 11 or 12 point hands, and the other day, I passed a 13 point hand but that is so rare, I don't remember doing that in the past.

 

But the point is, like you, I think any unusual agreement or understanding (like frequent psyche) need to be described to your opponents.

[fred]

So what is BBO's policy on discussions that take place outside BBO administrative boundaries? For example, if someone gets upset at ridiculous behavior such as these opps and posts a message to rec.games.bridge or puts an entry in his blog and names names then what, if anything, will BBO do?

 

If somebody wanted to set up an external site to allow players to rate tournament directors then would BBO have any comment?

We don't have an official policy in this area. This sort of thing has not happened much in the past (at least as far as I know). Up until now we have handled such incidents on a case by case basis.

 

I believe the most important factor would be the perceived intent of the action. If someone wanted to know to solicit opinions about something like a ruling we would have no problem with that.

 

If someone was upset by a ruling that they didn't like and thought that this was a good enough excuse to try to publicly embarass the management, staff, or the many volunteers who help make BBO possible, we would not be impressed.

 

Uday tends to just bar people who do this sort of thing, especially if he thinks that their actions could damage the BBO community or our business. I can't always control myself and sometimes issue a public response. If appropriate I will fill in the details that these people tend to conveniently omit. I figure that if they want to try to embarass us then it's open season and, although I don't enjoy playing these kinds of games, I am good at them. Uday is probably right that it is not professional to respond in this way.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[DrTodd13]

Fred,

 

If somebody were to create a web site that allowed people to rate tournament directors and somebody on that site was disrespectul to a director or to BBO, what would you do if the comment was anonymous or if the username did not match a BBO user name? Would you avenge your wrath on the (known) owner of the site or would that person be an innocent? I mean somebody can get on r.g.b. and say something, so does it make a difference if it is said on a website instead of usenet?

 

Todd

[uday]

I don't think I would care if the site were unbiased and genuinely attempted to rate TDs for no other purpose than to improve the quality of life of BBO members.

 

Of course, this is the Internet. No one cares what I think. I'm aware of a couple of abusive sites ( principals might disagree with "abusive") aimed at a specific BBO member. They don't care what I think :rolleyes:

 

Most US ISPs protect the identity of their customers and allow anonymous abuse, hacking, spamming, petty crime and what-not, regardless of what they pretend to believe.

 

 

There are a couple of pitfalls if you are contemplating a ratings website

 

1. Allowing people to type in comments about TD quality will assuredly lead to abusive remarks

 

2. You won't be able to stop people from voting multiple times

 

3. Will this become a popularity contest? Votes along the lines of: I hate him but he makes good rulings: will probably be rare

 

4. Will this become the watering hole for the many people we've had to ban from BBO for various reasons?

 

5. Will competitors for our customers ACBL card fees attempt to make our acbl tds look bad using this site?

 

6. Will anyone bother to look up a TDs rating on the web while playing on BBO?

 

7. Will TDs brag about their ratings in their profile? Who will ensure that a person has the rating he claims to have?

 

8. Will TDs quit TDing/BBO, in shame/anger if it turns out they are poor TDs as measured by this site?

 

 

IMO, as you can tell, an unmoderated effort to rate the casual TDs is likely to harm BBO (and thus, the members it is trying to serve). What harms BBO harms FG/SW/UI and takes away from our ability to serve the customers.

 

 

I don't think rating TDs is a bad thing. To do it properly, I think

 

1. the mechanism for rating a TD has to be very easy. Even right-clicking on a name is too much. I'm thinking more along the lines of a popup whenever you complete a tourney, asking for (demanding?) a rating of that event/TD.

 

2. The results of the rating have to be visible inside the description, or maybe even alongside the lock and dollar icons, and also available when inviting, etc.

 

3. We have to find a way to combine ratings when multiple TDs run a T together.

 

 

We'd have to get by with fewer tourneys, I think . Some TDs wont do the work if it isnt fun, so to speak, and the ratings might make TDing less attractive.

 

 

U

[fred]

I doubt I would even visit such a web site so unless someone complained to me about it, I probably wouldn't even know that this was happening. If someone did complain I am not sure what I would do about it, but if I thought such a web site was harming BBO or our business (or that the fallout from such a web site was causing me or our staff to waste a lot of time), then I doubt that the person responsible for creating such a web site would be welcome on BBO.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com