An interesting TD's ruling ?

[itzo75]

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=s9743hkqdaj973cak&w=sakj5h42dkq86cq87&e=st6ha7653dt2c6532&s=sq82hjt98d54cjt94]399|300|Scoring: MP

N E S W

- p p 1♠

X p 2♥ p

3♦ all pass[/hv]

 

Hi all,

 

here an interesting TD's ruling I'd like to discuss with you.

 

A friendly pair (EW) asked me to give a statement about the following TD's ruling related to the above showed hand. (I was offline on BBO at the same time and I wasn't a TD in that tourney)

After failure on 3♦ 4 down NS-pair started to murmur that 1♠ opening is some kind of psychics, which was not allowed in the tourney.

So East, a very kind person, called the TD himself to clarify if there was a problem.

The TD stated directly that psychs are not allowed and adjusted the board to Ave+- (60% for NS, 40% EW) :ph34r: , pretending that West should open 1NT.

 

The EW-pair are playing Precision Club with 1NT 14-16 (allowing 5th Major) and are known as a regular partnership. They have NO special agreement for opening 1 Major (10-15 hcp) with 4 cards.

Here all results for the same board in the tourney:

4DxW-4, 4HxE-3, 2SxW-2, 1NxN+1, 2NW-2, 1SW-2, 2DE-2, 1NN+1, 2HW-1, 1NN=, Ave+-, 2DN-2, 2DN-3

So 3DN-4 would bring 100% score for EW.

 

The West's explanation were, that he would prefer to search for a ♠ fit at Matchpoints, rather to open 1NT w/ weak doubleton ♥ and passed partner.

 

As I know ±1 card and ±1 hcp deviation of the bid's meaning couldn't be treated as a psychic ?

 

So my opinion is that the TD's ruling is a little bit offending, and it's better not to make an adjustment than to cause bigger damage ... :(

I suspect , that NS were a TD's frendly pair B) and the ruling was no unprejudiced.

 

So no damage and no abuse claimed at all, but I'm curious about your opinion.

 

Best regards,

 

Itzo

[david_c]

Very simply: this 1♠ bid is not a psych.

 

However, if you choose to play in a "no psychs" tourney, it shouldn't surprise you that this sort of ruling happens.

[mink]

I suspect , that NS were a TD's frendly pair xxxxx  and the ruling was no unprejudiced.

I would not go that far. As "no pyches" is stated, maybe the td was eager to find and punish psyches, even if they are not there. No special relationship to the NS pair needed for that. Edited June 16, 2005 by inquiry

[inquiry]

Remember, it is ok to discuss a ruling in general, but not ok to make allegations against a player or director in a public forum. If you have a problem with a director or player (or both), write to abuse at bridgebase dot com.

 

As for this ruling, it was horrible. 1♠ is not a psyche. It is not even close to a psyche. Directors are not allowed to judge "what should be bid"... it isn't in their job description. Never was, never will be.

 

ben

[itzo75]

Sorry, I didn't mind to offend any TD or player.

 

My "suspicion" was with a little sense of humour :(

 

I'm just curious 'bout the ruling :ph34r:

[Finch]

Sorry to sound rude, but it's not an interesting TD ruling at all, unless you find grotesquely poor rulings interesting.

 

Of course it's not a psyche. Opening 1S on the East cards, now that's a psyche.

[hrothgar]

Yet another example why we desperately need a system to rate the performance of Tournament Directors.

 

North's bidding was HIDEOUS. The off shape takeout double is bad. However, introducing that Diamond suit at the three level is inexcusable.

 

In a none-too-surprising developing, NOrth's bidding backfires on the pair and they desperately look for some way to save the board and seizing upon West's diabolical 1♠ psyche. The clueless TD somehow agrees.

 

Comment 1: 1♠ is not a psyche. Any number of players would choose to treat that Spade holding as a 5 card suit. Admitly this may be more attractive when the alternative is a nebulous Diamond, however, this type of evaluation is far from uncommon playing standard.

 

Comment 2: Tournaments that ban psyche aren't playing according the rules of bridge, so its hard to guess how a ruling should go. However, even IF the the 1♠ bid were a psyche, its hard to understand how the North-South's poor result was consequent to West only having 4 Spades.

 

Comment 3: If you willingly choose to play in tournaments where the TD openly announces that they are violating the laws of bridge then you need to accept that you're living under the rule of an idiosyncratic dictator. Don't get surprised if said individual produces a doozy of a ruling every now and then.

[inquiry]

Comment 3: If you willingly choose to play in tournaments where the TD openly announces that they are violating the laws of bridge then you need to accept that you're living under the rule of an idiosyncratic dictator. Don't get surprised if said individual produces a doozy of a ruling every now and then.

LOL... Tell us what you really think... :-)

 

As a rule, I never willingly play in a tourney with a playing director, and it takes quite a bit of "nothing else to do and an insistant partner" to get me to play in a tourney that forbids psyches in first and second chair. I will not play in a tourney that forbids psyches out right.

 

This hand shows one reason why forbidding psyches as a rule is wrong, wrong, wrong. This director considered this a psyche... with 15 hcp and bidding his BEST suit. In third chair, playing precision, I would have opened...

 

AKJX

xx

Qxxx

xxx

 

I spade as well, and not condiered it a psyche, but rather a "typical" light 3rd chair opening for lead directing purposes... No doubt I would have been thrown out of the tourney. :-)

[mike777]

Comment 3:  If you willingly choose to play in tournaments where the TD openly announces that they are violating the laws of bridge then you need to accept that you're living under the rule of an idiosyncratic dictator.  Don't get surprised if said individual produces a doozy of a ruling every now and then.

LOL... Tell us what you really think... :-)

OK I will!

 

AHHHH Precision, what a wonderful system.

5 card major by definition.

14-16 NT played by this pair

BUT IN THIRD SEAT LET US PLAY AND BID ANYTHING AND JUNK THIS CRAPPY SYSTEM AND PLAY A STYLE THAT CAN WIN.

 

Note I think what meckwell and cohen/berkowitz play is strong club not precision despite what people call it.

 

Believe it or not there are systems out there that one can bid in third seat as well as first and second seat where an opening bid looks the same. :ph34r:

[helene_t]

Maybe the reason why some TDs disallow psyches is to be able to enforce full disclosure?

 

If I open 1♠ on a four-card, and the opps expect me to have a five-card while my partner knows it may be a four-card, then there is an issue. Now I can always say that my partner didn't expect a four-card more than did the opps. This is impossible to prove or disprove.

 

Now opening 1♠ on a four-card is not a psyche but on a 3-card, it would be. But that's irrelevant. "No psyches" has nothing to do with psyches and everything to do with burden of proof and full disclosure.

 

The reason I suggest this theory is this: on the Dutch StepBridge forum we had a 1000+ postings thread about how to deal with people who open Muiderberg on a 6-card. That has nothing to do with psyches but everything to do with full disclosure. However, those who defended the 6-card-Muiderberg-bidders kept using the argument "I can bid what I want as long as it isn't based on a partnership agreement". That's true and also relevant to the discussion. But subsequently the term "psyche" was used over and over again by both sides of the discussion.

 

This is not an excuse for absurd rulings like the one in this topic, of course. If the real rules are

 

"All players must bid like clones of the TD. Any deviation, whether based on judgement, tactic considerations or lack of knowledge of the only allowed bidding system, will be punished"

 

.... then he must announce that. "No psyches" should read "No psyches".

[hotShot]

As already stated no psyche happend here. But any accusation is somehow believed by someone.

If you are jogging through the park and someone shouts "hold that thief" you might get hurt, without knowing why.

Obviously there are hosts arround who like to get rid of anyone who causes trouble. As usual it's not the mobber who is punished, but the one who is mobbed.

[mike777]

Maybe the reason why some TDs disallow psyches is to be able to enforce full disclosure?

Nice post.

 

But in today' world of third seat opening="I use my full judgement and bridge experience and my third seat openings may or may not depart from our cc listed openings more often compared to my first or second seat openings" is not an alert, disclosure or psyche me thinks.

 

In fact if you find a top class pair that does not deviate in third seat in a world class event that may be an alert.

[Finch]

Comment 2: Tournaments that ban psyche aren't playing according the rules of bridge, so its hard to guess how a ruling should go. However, even IF the the 1♠ bid were a psyche, its hard to understand how the North-South's poor result was consequent to West only having 4 Spades.

True but not relevant.

 

If you ban psyches, and someone psyches, then it shouldn't matter whether any bad result was consequent on the psyche or not. The normal ruling for making an illegal bid* is that both pairs get their result on the board, or 60/40 (sometimes 60/30), whichever is worse for the offending pair. (In the ACBL I believe you might instead give 40% (or 30%) to the offending pair and table result to the NOS if they judge the poor result not consequent on the psyche, but us non-ACBL people don't like that approach).

 

*banning psyches in general isn't legal, but it is legal to have system regulations, for example, so it is normal to have rules for what to do when they are broken.

 

If you choose to have a "no psyches" rule, then I think you should, as a minimum, explain what you mean by a psyche. If you really mean "no deviations from your published system permitted" then you should say so (a bit of a bizarre condition of contest, but at least it's then clear what is permitted and what isn't).

 

As usual, it isn't so much the conditions of contest that are causing the upset, it's the fact that they weren't made clear up front.

[hrothgar]

Believe it or not there are systems out there that one can bid in third seat as well as first and second seat where an opening bid looks the same. :ph34r:

Probably true, but we're interested in good system.

[hrothgar]

One last point that I think is important to make:

 

I think that its crucial that pairs learn early on that there is a cost to bringing bullshit appeals to the table. If Zones fail to do so, they are simple encouraging players to exploit the system. Eqaully significant, I think that its critical that TDs ensure that players learn that that can't protect themselves from playing bad bridge by crying to the TD...

[epeeist]

One last point that I think is important to make:

 

I think that its crucial that pairs learn early on that there is a cost to bringing bullshit appeals to the table. If Zones fail to do so, they are simple encouraging players to exploit the system. Eqaully significant, I think that its critical that TDs ensure that players learn that that can't protect themselves from playing bad bridge by crying to the TD...

As you stated, it was EW who called the TD themselves. NOT NS.

 

If, in post-play chat, I ask the opponents about their bid, maybe I'm wrongly suspicious, but it's not wrong to ask. Even sarcasm "Interesting bid there with only 4 spades" or whatever, sure I'm wrong, but I haven't been insulting or complained to the TD. EW could have been silent, or replied, or whatever. Instead, east chose to call the director.

 

So if anyone should be punished for a wrong TD call, it's EW. Who were "punished", with an adjustment against them... :D

 

It was EW who called the TD "against themselves" so to speak. Might the TD have perceived that as a tacit admission by east that west's bid was questionable? To take an extreme hypothetical example, let's say a TD is called to a table and a player says "My bad, I made a psychic bid in violation of the rules by bidding a 4-card major, opponents deserve an adjustment". Now, I think that's silly/stupid, but I probably won't spend too much time in a free tournament arguing with someone who wants to blame him or herself.

[Rebound]

One last point that I think is important to make:

 

I think that its crucial that pairs learn early on that there is a cost to bringing bullshit appeals to the table.  If Zones fail to do so, they are simple encouraging players to exploit the system.  Eqaully significant, I think that its critical that TDs ensure that players learn that that can't protect themselves from playing bad bridge by crying to the TD...

As you stated, it was EW who called the TD themselves. NOT NS.

 

If, in post-play chat, I ask the opponents about their bid, maybe I'm wrongly suspicious, but it's not wrong to ask. Even sarcasm "Interesting bid there with only 4 spades" or whatever, sure I'm wrong, but I haven't been insulting or complained to the TD. EW could have been silent, or replied, or whatever. Instead, east chose to call the director.

 

So if anyone should be punished for a wrong TD call, it's EW. Who were "punished", with an adjustment against them... :D

 

It was EW who called the TD "against themselves" so to speak. Might the TD have perceived that as a tacit admission by east that west's bid was questionable? To take an extreme hypothetical example, let's say a TD is called to a table and a player says "My bad, I made a psychic bid in violation of the rules by bidding a 4-card major, opponents deserve an adjustment". Now, I think that's silly/stupid, but I probably won't spend too much time in a free tournament arguing with someone who wants to blame him or herself.

I disagree with this. It is not E/W fault that their TD didn't know what he was doing. I applaud their behaviour since it is the Law. The director should be called immediately after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

 

If I'm hosting a tournament, the last thing I want is my players getting into arguments at the table instead of just calling me to resolve the issue. Mind you, I agree that frivolous td calls should be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly ;-)

[luke warm]

another in a long line of ridiculous rulings... i agree 1000000% with richard, if you play in tourneys that *advertise* they don't care for the rules of bridge, you deserve whatever happens.. whether you want it or not, my advice is to just boycott all such tourneys... maybe they'll go away... if they don't go away, at least they'll only attract others with the same disrespect of the rules

[jillybean]

Quote: " Mind you, I agree that frivolous td calls should be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly ;-)

How do you suggest the TD deal with a player who makes a frivolous calls?

 

thanks

jillybean

[epeeist]

I disagree with this. It is not E/W fault that their TD didn't know what he was doing. I applaud their behaviour since it is the Law. The director should be called immediately after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

 

If I'm hosting a tournament, the last thing I want is my players getting into arguments at the table instead of just calling me to resolve the issue. Mind you, I agree that frivolous td calls should be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly ;-)

Yes, attention should be drawn to an irregularity. But I thought the whole point was, there WAS no irregularity. So then no duty on EW to call -- indeed, the fact of calling could be taken as admission that there had been an irregularity...

 

Or, if you mean, TD should be called when there's an allegation of an irregularity, fine. But "murmuring" about whether the bid was psychic, as the original post put it, doesn't seem to me to be alleging an irregularity. Nor is it "arguing" as you put it. It's just asking a question. An impertinent or wrong question perhaps, but just a question about the bidding. If someone asks "Was that 1♠ bid psychic? I thought this tournament didn't allow psychics" the correct response is "no". Or if you choose to be friendly you might explain about bridge judgment. NOT immediately call the TD!

 

If I were in EW situation, I would say "no, not psychic" and if NS continued, "if you disagree, call the TD". Leave it up to them, don't jump the gun. The frivolous call was by EW. Unfair to blame NS in this situation for simply ASKING.

[itzo75]

...So if anyone should be punished for a wrong TD call, it's EW. Who were "punished", with an adjustment against them... :P

It's a little bit ridiculous. I disagree.

 

East called TD himself to prove to the opps, that West's 1♠ can't be treated as a psychic - as many confirmed here - instead of arguing with the opponents.

 

I admire that kind behaviour at the table. And he deserves to be punished for wrong TD call ?!

And what deserves NS for their poor bidding, playing etc ? 60% instead of 0% ?

And justice for all ... ?

[epeeist]

...So if anyone should be punished for a wrong TD call, it's EW. Who were "punished", with an adjustment against them... :P

It's a little bit ridiculous. I disagree.

 

East called TD himself to prove to the opps, that West's 1♠ can't be treated as a psychic - as many confirmed here - instead of arguing with the opponents.

 

I admire that kind behaviour at the table. And he deserves to be punished for wrong TD call ?!

And what deserves NS for their poor bidding, playing etc ? 60% instead of 0% ?

And justice for all ... ?

Let's say this is the hypothetical chat:

 

North: "I thought you used 5-card majors. Wasn't 1♠ on a 4-card suit a psyche?"

 

East: "How dare you accuse my partner, I'm calling the director."

 

North: "What? Why? I just asked you a question!"

 

[TD called and arrives]

 

TD: "What's the problem here?"

 

East: "I called you because opponents said my partner's bid was an improper psyche".

 

North: "I merely ASKED if the bid was a psyche. I don't understand why you were called, I just asked a question. I wasn't sure it was a psyche, that's why I asked the opponents. I didn't think there was any need to call you."

 

TD: "East, why did you call me?"

 

East: "So you can tell North the bid wasn't a psyche. Merely asking the question was a gross impertinence on his part. How dare he ask us such a question! I thought it best to call you before it degenerated into an argument."

 

North: "What argument? I just asked a question!"

 

TD: "East, stop wasting my time."

 

Calling the TD simply because someone asks you a question is not behaviour to be admired, and it wastes the director's time. If there is a rude question or insult, or repetitive complaints about something that's different. But I really don't understand why east should be praised for wasting the director's time. Nor why NS should be criticized. It's possible to criticize the TD's decision without praising east for calling the TD nor criticizing NS when they were not the ones who "called" the TD to complain!

 

Now, given the description of east as kind, it probably was more like "Oh, good question, let me call the TD to ask". Friendlier, but still a waste of time.

[Finch]

Alternatively, the table chat could have been entirely polite...

 

North: How many spades did you have? I thought you were playing 5CM

West: Yeah, but it looked like a 1S opening

North: Is that a psyche?

West: No, not really

North: Sorry, I'm a bit confused, I thought psyches aren't allowed in this tournament

East: Let's just call the TD rather than argue about it between ourselves, the TD can tell us what the rules are.

 

...and still end up with EW calling the TD, in an entirely proper manner.

 

It's absolutely correct to call the TD BEFORE people get rude or unpleasant, not after.

[itzo75]

I would better accept the FrancesHinden's hypothetical chat as normal behaviour at the table.

I don't really understand why the players are expected to be rough and to put pressure on the table, asking simple questions?

Bridge is a card game, not a war at all. :P

 

The simple question my post was whether 1♠ could ever be treated as a psychic?

 

P.S. If it really matters, I'll ask East for the real chat at the table ...

[Rebound]

My post was based on this statement: "....NS-pair started to murmur that 1♠ opening is some kind of psychics...."

 

There is no mention of a question being asked, only an apparent accusation that is a potential source of conflict. Better to resolve it quickly. Asking simple questions is fine. However, your original post did not specify that N/S merely asked a simple question. Further, while you said E/W were a nice pair, you did not characterize N/S in the same way. Of course, it is a different matter entirely if the conversation was in any way similar to that posted above.

 

To you who say the statement I quoted is nothing more than an impertinent question, I take a different view, but to each his or her own.

 

Re: dealing with frivolous calls. First, I was only half serious. But in any event, to me, it's something to be handled case by case. There are a number of variables: Indy or Pairs event, frequency, skill level of players involved. I would give a stern warning for a first and possibly second offence. Next, procedural penalty would be followed by DQ.