An interesting TD's ruling ?

[Finch]

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.

Maybe online play is different (I don't play online).

 

But in f2f bridge, I want to encourage people to call the TD, not discourage them, so I would never penalise anyone for a "frivolous" call. Problems get worse when people try and make their own rulings rather than calling the TD, and the less that happens the better. Of course, it should always be done politely, but that's a different matter.

[rigour6]

1) I still don't understand how someone can post "no psyches". It's like posting, "no falsecarding."

 

2) What are the people who ban psyches trying to do? Spare players the feeling of "they put one over on us"? You might as well post "no pre-empts" to spare people that awful feeling they get when the guy in front of them opens 3♠. Avoid crazy irrational bids from players who don't really know how to play, have been drinking, haven't any cards for a few hands and are despairing, look at the barometer and realize it doesn't matter what they do at this point? Good luck with that. Or are they trying to make a point that if you are psyching a lot, that needs to be alerted? If it's the last one, I agree with their inclination anyway. If you're psyching often, your opps have a right to know.

 

3) I don't see how that bid even qualifies as a psyche. Is any minor deviation from a system a psyche? What if my convention card says my 1 NT range is 16-18 and I sometimes open with 15? Is that a psyche? Would it be one if I had 15 and a couple of 10s? All a bidding system does is try to describe your hand. In this case 1♠ seems to actually be trying to describe the hand. A psyche is the intentionally misdescribing of your hand. And it carries with it the risk that your partner will be deceived and you'll end up in a trainwreck. Every player who's ever psyched 1♠ has watched in horror to see X- and then 3♠ or 4♠ from p. In a case like this had this happened I'd be saying "Oh well, maybe the suit's a little short but if p has the Q we still have no trump losers." If that's my reaction, then SURELY I didn't psyche.

[candybar]

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

In exactly the same way that any director deals with players who violate Law 40.

 

Dealing with frivolous psyches is the job of the director. Forbidding them entirely is a lazy copout.

[jillybean]

quote:" In exactly the same way that any director deals with players who violate Law 40."

 

Law40 deals with partnership agreements, not frivolous td calls.

 

My question was in regard to how you handle frivolous TD calls online, not psyche bids.

[LH2650]

My question was in regard to how you handle frivolous TD calls online, not psyche bids.

Assume all calls are non-frivolous. The last thing a director should do is to even hint that he should not be called, since many more problems arise from a delayed call than excessive calls. There is simply no need for sanctions here.

[McBruce]

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

I would agree if we could find some way of getting the folks who jump to the forums every time there is a bad ruling to also come here to tell us about the ones that TDs got right....

[candybar]

quote:" In exactly the same way that any director deals with players who violate Law 40."

 

Law40 deals with partnership agreements, not frivolous td calls.

 

My question was in regard to how you handle frivolous TD calls online, not psyche bids.

My apologies. This thread was about psyches, and I guess I'm just tired of psyche bids being called frivolous just because they are psyches.

 

Psyches are legally permitted by the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, and I cannot imagine anyone seriously wanting to change that, or in the abstract, to regulate what every bid must mean.

 

I think people who want to ban psyches are simply too lazy to deal with the very rare cases of abuse. I have yet to see a single problem over a psyche in any tourney I have TD'd. The reply to a psyche TD call is very simple -- "psyches are permitted by the Laws of Duplicate Bridge".

[pigpenz]

i have heard of people getting banned in ACBL tournaments for capricious bidding. It distorts the results for all the others playing in it. Now if someone is going to get banned it shouldnt be up to BBO to police it but the sponsoring tourney, if its acbl then its their call, if its someone else its their call.

 

I myself have run into this once with a partner in the last round who redoubled a contract for no apparent reason and instead of losing -800 it became -1600, and the round before he had mad a quesionable balance against our game bid and went for -1100. Granted he had paid his $1 but i was on the receiving side of both ends.

[jillybean]

I myself have run into this once with a partner in the last round who redoubled a contract for no apparent reason and instead of losing -800 it became -1600, and the round before he had mad a quesionable balance against our game bid and went for -1100.  Granted he had paid his $1 but i was on the receiving side of both ends.

IMHO, those players should be added to the TD's ban list and the boards sent to abuse so perhaps other action can be taken.

Unfortunately it doesnt always happen, the player goes offline, there are other calls to deal with.

When a player is added to the ban list it works remarkably well. It doesn’t seem to matter where in cyber space they signon or what Id they use – they can’t get in

:)

[keylime]

I totally agree. Bring forth a TD rating system and weed out some of the nonsense.

 

That, and "no psyche" tourneys are just ridiculous. Don't these people read Law 40E?