candybar Posted August 9, 2005 Report Share Posted August 9, 2005 Today I joined a pay tournament hosted by "sky club". AFTER the tourney started, the TD announced: !H REMEMBER , for opening 1 or 2 NT ( natural ) in 1st. or in 2nd. seat , WITHOUT BALANCED hand , YOU receive Ave- ! !H This was not posted anywhere in the tourney description, and if it had been, I would never have played, and certainly never have paid to play in a tournament with a TD who makes new 'rules' for whatever is his favorite hot button. Can we PLEASE put a stop to these self-appointed bidding policemen TDs who keep making up their own new rules for what is and isn't allowed in tournaments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted August 9, 2005 Report Share Posted August 9, 2005 I wonder how they define "ballanced". Would you dare open 1NT with a 4432 with a small doubleton? Maybe the safest solution is to play a system with artificial 1NT- and 2NT-openings. You could also ask TD if it's ok to open off-shape 1NT if you alert. "13-19 no void no 7-card major" would probably do. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candybar Posted August 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2005 I did ask, and was told, "Your score will be adjusted if you do". I also had a long discussion about hands such as [hv=d= &v= &s=sahak109daqj10ck1098]133|100|Scoring: [/hv] trying to make him understand that there is no intelligent way to bid this hand except to open 2N in sayc or 2/1. He was oblivious to the problem and intractable about his 'rules'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrTodd13 Posted August 9, 2005 Report Share Posted August 9, 2005 There is a word for this behavior. It is FRAUD and it is illegal and unethical.You should immediately contact a yellow and send a message to abuse@bridgebase.com and ask for a reimbursement of your entrance fee and demand that Fred have a talk with this director before allowing him to host any more tournaments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted August 9, 2005 Report Share Posted August 9, 2005 Todd, Ditto. Ditto. Ditto times a googleplex. Ditto times the number of times I will miss Canada. Ditto the number of Skittles I will eat in my life. Ditto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double ! Posted August 9, 2005 Report Share Posted August 9, 2005 That's an awful lot of dittos for sure. Sounds to me like this TD is trying to avoid disputes over hands such as the one that Sceptic recently posted. However, I agree with the Dr. that, unless this restriction is clearly posted as a condition of play, it seems highly improper to me to then insert such a restriction and threaten you with Ave -. As I understand it, the TD may impose restrictions provided that they are posted ahead of time. Sort of makes me wonder what other "heinous violations" might warrant an adjusted score in this TD's mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBruce Posted August 9, 2005 Report Share Posted August 9, 2005 While I agree that this is a pretty bad rule, contrary to the Laws of Duplicate, one example hardly meets the requirement of "constant" new rules in tourneys. Do you have others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epeeist Posted August 9, 2005 Report Share Posted August 9, 2005 Today I joined a pay tournament hosted by "sky club". AFTER the tourney started, the TD announced: !H REMEMBER , for opening 1 or 2 NT ( natural ) in 1st. or in 2nd. seat , WITHOUT BALANCED hand , YOU receive Ave- ! !H This was not posted anywhere in the tourney description, and if it had been, I would never have played, and certainly never have paid to play in a tournament with a TD who makes new 'rules' for whatever is his favorite hot button. Can we PLEASE put a stop to these self-appointed bidding policemen TDs who keep making up their own new rules for what is and isn't allowed in tournaments? I agree with all others, it sounds bad. One question, though. You said it wasn't in the tournament description; was it in the tournament rules? If not, sure, complain, but if it was, and if you didn't notice or read it...the comment "Remember" suggests, maybe it was in the rules? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candybar Posted August 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2005 You said it wasn't in the tournament description; was it in the tournament rules? If not, sure, complain, but if it was, and if you didn't notice or read it...the comment "Remember" suggests, maybe it was in the rules?No, it was not in the tournament rules, and the TD told me quite specifically that he hadn't "got around to putting it in the rules yet, but all the players know ..." I, of course, asked ... HOW would I know? He replied, it's Sky Club rules. And where are they posted, I asked. They aren't yet, he replied, I haven't had time. I did not have an opening 2N hand with a singleton, but if I had, I would have opened 2N and then when he adjusted, filed a complaint. My concern however is that no one is managing the TDs or the tournaments and it is becoming a circus of different rules -- psyches not allowed, psyches allowed only 3rd/4th seats, psyches not allowed for opening bids only, multi 2D not allowed, opening any NT with singleton not allowed, opening 1N with singleton not allowed but 2N ok, wilcosz not allowed, polish club not allowed, and on and on. I was actually told by BBO administration that if I want to run a tourney with 1N opening bids forbidden, it was ok. This is not bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epeeist Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 ....I was actually told by BBO administration that if I want to run a tourney with 1N opening bids forbidden, it was ok. This is not bridge. Given what you state, it wasn't in the rules or anything I agree with you. However, that's because you weren't informed before paying and entering, not because I think TDs should be forbidden from running such or because "that's not bridge". If that's your opinion, fine, I tend to agree, so long as you don't go further and think that TDs should be prohibited from running no-psyche tournaments. If I want to run e.g. a goulash no-psyche tournament, all bids must strictly comply with SAYC descriptions or something, I think that would be silly, but so long as I am upfront (UNLIKE the situation in the tournament you entered) so that people know, then I think that should be permitted. I'm sure that when Vanderbilt invented contract bridge, some auction bridge players said "that's not bridge" :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 I do see one problem with those home-made rules though, even if anounced proberly. If you run a tournament according to normal bridge laws, there is a lot of legal practice to listen to. With home-made rules, you're on your own. What exactly constitues a ballanced hand in this context? What if opps could have got more than ave+ if they had been informed that the opening might be off-shape in spite of the rules, and/or if the hand was not opened 1NT? What if opener misclicks? Does it also apply to a notrump rebid after a strong artificial opening? Does it apply to notrump overcalls? Also, the rules stated that a "natural" notrump opening must be ballanced, so presumably you can circumvent the problem by playing artificial notrump openings, whatever that means. However, Candybar was told that an alert of an off-shape notrump opening would not help. I don't get it. Local rules are fine if you set up tournaments exclusively for a group of players with special needs. For example, a tournament for the BIL lounge could have some special restrictions. And once a "cool systems" tournament was announced in which standard systems were prohibited. However, if a non-certified TD invents his own rules for a vanilla tournament that is open to the public, it is begging for trouble. Especially if it's a payed tournament. When an association writes its laws, it uses a template developed by lawyers. Maybe there should be some template tournament rules that TDs could use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spwdo Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 hi, i think that at least to pay for fee based tourneys , tourneyrules should be posted all the time, its a little timecomsuming but its safest for players and organisations, if one makes up funny rules like this they can be found somewhere.All these "new rules" are made up after a dispuut about something in a prior tourney, i always wonderd why first adn second seats are not allowed to spyche for instance. is it only because Tds cant handle it correctly if and when they do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candybar Posted August 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 There seem to be three reasons for not allowing psyches: 1. Lazy TDs who don't want to bother with the director calls about them.2. Ignorant TDs who don't know the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and think it's cool to make their own.3. Poor players who don't want to bother to learn how to recognize and deal with psyches in the auction. Law 40A of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (Right to Choose Call or Play) expressly permits psyches. The sometimes quoted Law 40D (Regulation of Conventions) does not apply to them as psyches are not conventions and are expressly illegal to have partnership agreements about. Psyches are legal in the game of Bridge, forbidding them is not bridge, it's some other game. If the TDs in BBO want to forbid them and the admin allows it, that's their privilege, but don't ever call it Bridge. ===== spwdo, you have probably got it right! The TD in question here obviously doesn't like to have opponents open NT and then misdefend because he plays them not to have a singleton, so he makes the rule that you are not allowed to open NT with a singleton, like he thinks everyone else would feel the same. Certainly the same with psyches, the TDs that forbid them are lazy or don't like to be psyched (none of us do, but it's still part of the game), so they make their own rules to forbid them. Most likely the same with TDs who forbid Multi or any other specific convention, they don't know it and don't want to bother to learn, so they don't like it played against them. That is the case with most US players that the ACBL thinks they are protecting by banning Multi. There is no reason I can imagine for banning Polish Club systems, other than TDs who don't want to play against systems different from their own favorite, so they believe no one else does either. I even saw one tournament yesterday that posted "NO STRANGE SYSTEMS", with no further definition of that phrase. To me, that's the height of idiocy about a game that has clear and well-defined Laws. If I've ranted enough about this, go ahead and start the flames, but I still say allowing TDs to violate the Laws of Duplicate Bridge is simply wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandal Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 Psyches are legal in the game of Bridge, forbidding them is not bridge, it's some other game. If the TDs in BBO want to forbid them and the admin allows it, that's their privilege, but don't ever call it Bridge. This one is getting old..... What does it mean? That players who don't psyche don't play bridge? Although I agree that banning them is wrong,I reallycan't agree with "don't ever call it Bridge". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerardo Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 <BBO Hat off, spoking by myself>Free tourneys are currently able to have rules in contradiction with Laws of Bridge. Pay tourneys should not be allowed to have such rules. This rule of this thread is a perfect example. They may forbid methods for looking for/showing a singleton after a NT bid, though. Requires TD working in investigation.Couldn't ban bids but regulate methods. <BBO hat on> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candybar Posted August 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 Psyches are legal in the game of Bridge, forbidding them is not bridge, it's some other game. If the TDs in BBO want to forbid them and the admin allows it, that's their privilege, but don't ever call it Bridge. This one is getting old.....What does it mean?That players who don't psyche don't play bridge? Although I agree that banning them is wrong, I really can't agree with "don't ever call it Bridge".No, it doesn't mean you have to psyche, it means that if you want to psyche, you have the right to do so. By definition, games have rules, and the rules define the game. The essence of gaming is that all players in a game follow the same rules. If the rules are different, then it's a different game. The game rules for competitive bridge are specified in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. If you use different rules, then you are playing a different game. That's what I mean when I say if you are not following the Laws, don't call it Bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 Psyches are legal in the game of Bridge, forbidding them is not bridge, it's some other game. If the TDs in BBO want to forbid them and the admin allows it, that's their privilege, but don't ever call it Bridge. This one is getting old..... What does it mean? That players who don't psyche don't play bridge? No, it's only "not bridge" if you prohibit psyches. As an analogy, if you never bid slams you're still playing bridge (but your score may suffer as a result). But if a club disallows bidding slams, or doesn't let you score the slam bonus when you do, then they're playing a different game than the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrTodd13 Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 1. I'm aware of no regulation from Fred that states that "only bridge according to the official laws of duplicate bridge shall be played on BBO."2. As such, if someone wants to host a tournament and _EXPLICITLY_ say which of those rules do not apply then no one should have a problem with it.3. It is more serious if it is a pay tournament and rules are made up on the fly but it is unethical for free or pay tournaments to do this.4. In my opinion, if you do something in your tournament that the rules don't explicitly allow sponsoring organizations to do then you aren't playing bridge but according to my #1 point above, so what? We are all free to boycott such tournaments and deride their silly rules but trying to force them out of existence is wrong as well.5. If you host a tourney and don't post any rules, the full set of laws of duplicate bridge are in effect and there are no system restrictions. There is no presumption that ACBL rules apply w.r.t. system restrictions and alerting.6. We may not like it if people start to flock to these highly restricted tournaments but that is the price of freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBruce Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 There seem to be three reasons for not allowing psyches: 1. Lazy TDs who don't want to bother with the director calls about them.2. Ignorant TDs who don't know the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and think it's cool to make their own.3. Poor players who don't want to bother to learn how to recognize and deal with psyches in the auction. 4. Wise TDs who realize that in a short tournament many pairs will try to psyche their way to victory, because nobody wins a short tournament with 60%.5. Frustrated TDs who have tried in the past to determine whether the psyching pair has a concealed partnership agreement and gets only angry responses from the pair that 'psyches are legal.'6. Suspicious TDs who look at the results of their tournaments and notice that a certain pair's frequent psyches never seem to lead them astray... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 It should be pretty clear that you can't charge an entry fee if you don't follow the Laws of Dupicate Bridge. As far as free tourneys on BBO are concerned, however, TDs can do anything they like in my opinion, as long as it is clearly stated in the Tournament Rules. Quite simple really. Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBruce Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 LAW 80 SPONSORING ORGANIZATION A sponsoring organization conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and powers: F. Supplementary Regulations to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws. LAW 40 PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS D. Regulation of Conventions The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions... Under these two Laws, and assuming that the only reasonable definition of sponsoring organization in the case of online tournaments run by a BBO TD is that the TD is the sponsoring organization, it seems that these laws allow a TD to run a tournament under any kind of systemic restrictions, and stay within the bounds of the Laws, provided the rules are published or announced. Psyches are a different matter, but a TD would be within his rights to assume a concealed partnership agreement if a player opened a disallowed convention and then his partner bid as though the convention was being used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uday Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 The august 2005 Bridge World editorial talks about the two laws - 40A, 40D. It is generally against regulation of psychic bids (i think violently against the same) and other bridge actions/conventions. I will see if i can get permission to quote it in its entirety. Meanwhile, i will post a snippet of Jeff Ruben's prose. Banning psychics is not bridge. It is kicking at one of the main supports of a game whose intrigue lies on several delicate balances. The continuing attempts to interfere with a critical mechanism represents a failure to come to grips with the underlying problem: Where players need protection is not against honest psychics that fool both partner and opponents but against undisclosed partnership knowledge, including implicit understandings that arise from tendencies to violate agreements (as explicitly stated in Law 75B). As an administrator of this site, I think that we need protection from no-cost (frivolous) psyching as well. In an environment where access is as convenient as the next internet cafe, we can't really impose meaningful sanctions on the bad boys. It is totally unclear to me that this site should attempt to regulate any of this. My unwillingness to prohibit variants of the game that are not pure bridge stem from an inability to do so, as well as a belief that in the long run, natural selection will weed out the unsuccessful variants. Where does BBO stand in the hierarchy? Are we a sponsoring organization? We're certainly not a zonal organization. We're not even a bridge club except in the limited sense that we have an ACBL bridge-club-franchise. Are we just a community center where people come in and play cards? Is it our job to supply cards, tables, lights, bathrooms and no more, leaving the details of the games to the people who are playing? What are the implications of us attempting to enforce the laws of bridge at all our tables? Does it make sense for us to prohibit no-psyche Ts ? I think the answer is in that Bridge World snippet. Maybe we should allow everything and encourage pure behaviour via education of the members. Dunno :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candybar Posted August 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 4. Wise TDs who realize that in a short tournament many pairs will try to psyche their way to victory, because nobody wins a short tournament with 60%.A legal strategy, even if you don't like it, employed at the highest levels of competition, and one that is almost always doomed to abysmal failure. 5. Frustrated TDs who have tried in the past to determine whether the psyching pair has a concealed partnership agreement and gets only angry responses from the pair that 'psyches are legal.'6. Suspicious TDs who look at the results of their tournaments and notice that a certain pair's frequent psyches never seem to lead them astray...Such uses of pseudo-psyches are, of course, unethical, and it is the job of the TD to notice and report abuse, not ban legitimate use. Hence my characterization of these TDs as lazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 "Banning psychics is not bridge" - Jeff Rubens. No one can put it any clearer than that. I agree 100%, as long as those psyches are not based upon a partnership *understanding* (according to Laws of Duplicate Bridge). If you disallow psychic bids, you actually wave goodbye to the game of bridge, since they are allowed according to the Laws. Feel free to call it ... well, "bridge-ish"? Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 Wise TDs who realize that in a short tournament many pairs will try to psyche their way to victory, because nobody wins a short tournament with 60%.so what? and what makes the TD "wise?" Frustrated TDs who have tried in the past to determine whether the psyching pair has a concealed partnership agreement and gets only angry responses from the pair that 'psyches are legal.' other tourneys (abalucy is one) keep records of players/pairs who psych more than once... if the same pair does it, it's an agreement (unless they warn their opps in certain situations) Suspicious TDs who look at the results of their tournaments and notice that a certain pair's frequent psyches never seem to lead them astray... the rules cover that, also... if they don't clue the opps in to their propensity for psychs in certain situations, adjust the board... as far as uday's view that natural selection will take care of it, i'm not so sure... there are many who play in those tourneys who don't even know that psychs are an accepted and intrinsic part of the game, and there are many more who would know and think they gain an advantage if the opps can't psych Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.