Rubbish on BBO

[1eyedjack]

In the UK, at club level you are granted a fair amount of autonomy over the regulatory environment. Well, absolute autonomy in non EBU sanctioned events. But even in EBU events. They have a template for "no-fear" events, but clubs do not have to run all their events under that banner. It would be nice if IBF provided guidelines or templates to which clubs could adhere but could equally disapply.

 

As regards the online event discussed in this thread, I wonder whether the players themselves were consulted in any manner regarding whether they would object to psychs being permitted. Not the easiest thing to arrange, I warrant, but we often see organisers making assumptions on behalf of beginners that oh so coincidentally mirror their personal preferences.

 

 

 

[LghtnngRod]

As regards the online event discussed in this thread, I wonder whether the players themselves were consulted in any manner regarding whether they would object to psychs being permitted.

Astute question. Not related to psyches, but some weeks ago I played in an Acol Club tournament and partnered a robot. Apparently robots are normally banned in Acol Club tournaments, but the host set it up wrong and permitted them. Half way through the tournament I entered into a dialog with an opponent who it later transpired is one of the Acol club officers, who informed me of the rules. I asked him why robots were banned, expecting it to be because the robots don't know acol. But he said no, it is because the players do not want to play against robots. I asked him when the members were polled on the matter and received silence in response. Because, I suspect, there was no answer, the members not having been consulted in the matter and the reality being that this official, and perhaps some of his croneys, simply did not want robots present. Well, that is fine, but a bit of honesty would not go amiss.

[nige1]

Playing on-line, I can understand why directors prohibit psychs and players feel comfortable with that restriction. Covert communication is easy, on-line. Some cynics believe that opponents might actually collude. This is bad enough when opponents adher to their declared system :( But unsystemic actions by colluders are even harder to combat :( :( :(

 

In all probability, opponents would never stoop to such tactics. Perish the thought! But if opponents psych successfully and often, then the overly paranoid might start to worry.

[nige1]

deleted

[Jinksy]

Yeah, BBO is not the same game as face-to-face bridge. There's no psyche-book for a start, and little hope of a pair getting appropriately penalised for fielding, or even for outright cheating.

 

Personally I'd prefer to play in tournies with psyches allowed, but I don't understand getting angry about it when a) directing on BBO tournaments is generally (and probably unavoidably) far short of club standard anyway, and b) rules about what systems you're allowed change from country to country, and have a far bigger impact on the type of hands.

 

As for protecting beginners, I think it's a pretty reasonable concern. When they're trying to understand what various bids mean, and how to use the information they convey in defence, it's going to be quite distracting for them when bids bear no discernable relation to the hand that made them.

[helene_t]

In the UK, at club level you are granted a fair amount of autonomy over the regulatory environment. Well, absolute autonomy in non EBU sanctioned events. But even in EBU As regards the online event discussed in this thread, I wonder whether the players themselves were consulted in any manner regarding whether they would object to psychs being permitted. Not the easiest thing to arrange, I warrant, but we often see organisers making assumptions on behalf of beginners that oh so coincidentally mirror their personal preferences.

Yes but it's not so easy to poll the players about such issues. First of all, you don't know in advance who is going to play in the event (in this case the Women's Bridge Festival). Also, it's not very helpful to know how many players would prefer psyches to be banned. Most players don't understand what a psyche is. And also, to give them an informed choice, you would have to explain how it would be enforced, and how the ways putative CPUs are dealt with might be influenced by such a ban, and how it relates to misclicks and dumping etc.

 

That said I agree with your feeling that "average club players don't want this and that" could easily be an tactical way of saying "I don't want this and that".

[1eyedjack]

Playing on-line, I can understand why directors prohibit psychs and players feel comfortable with that restriction. Covert communication is easy, on-line. Some cynics believe that opponents might actually collude. This is bad enough when opponents adher to their declared system :( But unsystemic actions by colluders are even harder to combat :( :( :(

 

In all probability, opponents would never stoop to such tactics. Perish the thought! But if opponents psych successfully and often, then the overly paranoid might start to worry.

 

Where there is a discrepancy between perception and reality, I don't think that we should just kowtow to perception.

 

Collusion (ie cheating) is certainly possible, dare I say a certainty, but is far more rife, in my opinion, in minor systemic deviations and undisclosed implicit partnership agreements than in abuse of psychic calls (where permitted).

 

No, I think that the reality is closer to what Vampyr noted - a deep-rooted dislike born of poor education.

 

As for protecting beginners, I think it's a pretty reasonable concern.

A reasonable concern, certainly. Jury's out (in my head) whether banning psychs addresses that concern. But even if it does, the question remains whether it is reasonable to ban them in an open competition just on the offchance that there may be one or two beginners interested in playing in it who would be put off. I am all in favour of a variety of events, some of which may be geared to that end of the market.

 

 

 

[diana_eva]

Yes but it's not so easy to poll the players about such issues. First of all, you don't know in advance who is going to play in the event (in this case the Women's Bridge Festival). Also, it's not very helpful to know how many players would prefer psyches to be banned. Most players don't understand what a psyche is. And also, to give them an informed choice, you would have to explain how it would be enforced, and how the ways putative CPUs are dealt with might be influenced by such a ban, and how it relates to misclicks and dumping etc.

 

That said I agree with your feeling that "average club players don't want this and that" could easily be an tactical way of saying "I don't want this and that".

 

Right, I think that's pretty much what happened. Whoever wrote the first rules knew they'd have to deal with all the complaints so chose a practical way to deal with everything.

 

Maybe time to reconsider after several years, but since the tourneys still run under BBO Italia umbrella, they'd have to be the ones to change the rules and submit the changes to the WBF.

[Vampyr]

But even in EBU events. They have a template for "no-fear" events, but clubs do not have to run all their events under that banner.

 

In fact such events are few and far between. Clubs around here will allow things that aren't even permitted at EBU Level 5.

[the hog]

Aside from competence/education of TD (or host, or powers thereof), I am intrigued to know what link he posted, and did he quote some specific text? The only relevant WBF links that I could find were here

 

http://www.worldbrid...gguidelines.pdf

 

which I found from the "psychic bidding guidelines" link off here

 

http://www.worldbrid...f-policies.aspx

 

 

There is also some commentary in paragraph 4.4 of the WBF general conditions of contest (page 11) here:

 

http://www.worldbrid...nsofcontest.pdf

 

 

All of this seems to contradict the TD statement "no psyches in first or 2nd seat".

 

 

Did you pay money to play in this tourney? With the free ones you get what you pay for. In the Acol club (free) tourneys psychs are banned in all seats, in all (pairs) tourneys. Count yourself lucky perhaps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is exactly what he posted. When I explained to him that he was misreading the regulations he started to spam the tournament with extracts from the wbf guidelines and claimed his pd, (in life) was a tournament director at Sanya.

[the hog]

Because it is meant to be a friendly, social event, rather than a competitive environment. I don't know where that thing with telling your opp about a misclick comes from, looks like a mistake - as a TD there I can assure you nobody informed their opps they misclicked, nor were they forced to do so :)

 

OK but don't call it Bridge. Call it something else. Snap?

[paulg]

The is an open event, why do beginners need protecting if they chose to play in this event? It is insulting and detrimental to their game.

The WBF event regulations went on to say if you make a misclick which could be interpreted as a psyche , you must immediately tell your opponent and the TD, not your partner.

This attempt to ban psyches and protect me from the game that I enjoy playing left me in no doubt that I would never play in an event with such ill-conceived regulations.

Because it is meant to be a friendly, social event, rather than a competitive environment.

I can fully understand the WBF wanting to increase participation and provide a pleasant environment. They could certainly reduce the competitive element by removing the awarding of BBO$ and WBF Online Master Points from the event.

[diana_eva]

In fact such events are few and far between. Clubs around here will allow things that aren't even permitted at EBU Level 5.

 

So is the Festival. 7 days in April, 7 days in November.

 

I think women like JB, or myself don't "need" protecting, or a women's event at all. But there are women who enjoy their own separate events, and participate, and there is nothing wrong with offering them such an event twice a year.

[Vampyr]

So is the Festival. 7 days in April, 7 days in November.

 

I think women like JB, or myself don't "need" protecting, or a women's event at all. But there are women who enjoy their own separate events, and participate, and there is nothing wrong with offering them such an event twice a year.

 

There is something wrong with the WBF being associated with this event though.

[jillybean]

For a friendly , social event the WBF awarded a fabulous prize!

 

 

Free Entry to the 2015 Women's Pairs Championship at the European Open Championships in Tromso, Norway, which will be held from June 27 to July 11, 2015 for the overall winner of the 2014 Autumn Festival together with a partner of her choice.

[steve2005]

BBO games are classified as a club despite the fact they call them tourneys. As such they are quite free make their own special rules including no psyches.

[olegru]

BBO games are classified as a club despite the fact they call them tourneys. As such they are quite free make their own special rules including no psyches.

No, they are not according the bridge laws. But who cares... :)

[Vampyr]

For a friendly , social event the WBF awarded a fabulous prize!

 

 

Free Entry to the 2015 Women's Pairs Championship at the European Open Championships in Tromso, Norway, which will be held from June 27 to July 11, 2015 for the overall winner of the 2014 Autumn Festival together with a partner of her choice.

 

Perhaps the WBF will prohibit psyches in this event too...

[barmar]

No, they are not according the bridge laws. But who cares... :)

Where does it say that clubs have to follow the bridge laws? Does the ACBL sanction require this, for instance?

 

You could argue that it's misleading for them to call it "duplicate bridge" if they don't follow all the laws. But that's not how language works. Words mean whatever we take them to mean, they're not bound by official documents.

[the hog]

Where does it say that clubs have to follow the bridge laws? Does the ACBL sanction require this, for instance?

 

You could argue that it's misleading for them to call it "duplicate bridge" if they don't follow all the laws. But that's not how language works. Words mean whatever we take them to mean, they're not bound by official documents.

 

So you agree that they should be called tiddleywinks clubs because they are not playing Bridge?

[nige1]

Where does it say that clubs have to follow the bridge laws? Does the ACBL sanction require this, for instance?

You could argue that it's misleading for them to call it "duplicate bridge" if they don't follow all the laws. But that's not how language works. Words mean whatever we take them to mean, they're not bound by official documents.

You might argue that Bridge is virtually unplayable if played strictly according to the letter of the law. :) I've never been to the USA but

• I think ACBL affiliated clubs are obliged to conduct their tournaments according to ACBL regulations, which include compliance with an ACBL version of the laws.
• I'm told that the laws allow local legislatures to ban psychs.

[barmar]

You might argue that Bridge is virtually unplayable if played strictly according to the letter of the law. :) I've never been to the USA but

• I
• I'm told that the laws allow local legislatures to ban psychs.

The Laws allow banning psyching of artificial calls, but not psychs in general. See Law 40B2(d). For example, ACBL prohibits psyching strong artificial openings (e.g. standard 2♣ and Precision 1♣).