Constant new "rules" in tourneys

[jillybean]

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.

These "lazy TD's" are giving their time FREE so YOU can play tournaments - if you dont like the way they run a tournament - dont join!

 

sigh

[hrothgar]

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.

McBruce raise a VERY significant point:

 

The most significant difference between tournaments on BBO and those in the real world is the length of events... In turn, this has enormous impact on the style of play that is required to win.

[Brandal]

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.

My problem with psyches isn't the psyche itself,

but a partner who "knows" enough from previous

occasions to "call the bluff" before the opponents.

 

I find it unethical,unfair and.....guess what...not bridge :)

 

Reason for this is many feel "what's the point in

psyching if we need to tell the opps"?

 

Not saying everyone,I know there are many who have

strong ethics about this issue,but not everyone.

 

I think this is why some prohibits psyche,not because

they're lazy or anything.

 

It is sooooo easy to become an understanding that

one must not speak about ever again then we can

illude ourselves that we don't suspect partner is psyching.

 

"Yes to fair Bridge!" :D

[candybar]

These "lazy TD's" are giving their time FREE so YOU can play tournaments - if you dont like the way they run a tournament - dont join!

Let's consider this point of view very carefully. What you are saying is that because people are willing to donate their time to run a tournament, it's ok that they do a half-baked job of it.

 

That means we are making a choice between having a lot of free tournaments with TDs that don't really want to do the whole TD job, versus having fewer tournaments with good TDs who know the rules and take care of the more difficult aspects like alert failures, monitoring abusive use of psyches, potential cheating, etc.

 

We certainly have a lot of tournaments with playing TDs, who don't even have the ability to visit a table in answer to a director call, so they are clearly unable to deal with player issues.

 

We certainly have a lot of TDs who are not certified in any national organization, and who do not know the basics of the Laws or how to apply them.

 

For example, I've found some TDs that think that psyches are ok as long as they are privately alerted to the opponents(!), if that makes sense to anyone at all. And some who are convinced that out-of-system bids where the partner has no knowledge must still be alerted to the opponents. This lack of understanding on the part of the TD causes even more problems with the players who are trying to play fairly.

 

And don't forget, this thread was started over an issue in a PAY tournament, so it's not just the free tournament TDs who are part of this problem.

 

So it seems to come down to a choice between TDs who are certified in some way that demonstrates they understand more than how to sub a missing player, versus TDs who think because they are giving their time free that they should be able to run a tournament in any way they want.

 

Which do we really want running the tournaments on BBO?

[jillybean]

I agree with your initial concerns over a pay tournament TD. This thread has now become a general TD bashing forum yet again, ask some of the players who play in free tournaments each day if they would prefer only pay tournaments with qualified TD's. I think the answer is obvious.

 

Why not spend all this time & effort helping to improve the situation.

[McBruce]

To get back to the original point (if I can remember it... :D ), here is a pertinent question:

 

If a player in a pay tournament asks to be replaced in round one because of a silly rule that he will not play under, and one that was not publicized, is there a way to get BBO to issue a refund?

 

Such a procedure might involve some risk on the protester's fault--if an investigation showed that the rule was clearly available before the tourney began, or not contrary to the Laws, the protester might face a short suspension.

 

The pay-tourney TD might risk losing some of his 'take' if it was found that a rule was not made public, or was contrary to the Laws.

 

A procedure like this would dissuade pay tournament TDs from making rules that skirt the Laws and keeping them secret until the cash box was locked.

[helene_t]

To get back to the original point (if I can remember it...  :D ), here is a pertinent question:

 

If a player in a pay tournament asks to be replaced in round one because of a silly rule that he will not play under, and one that was not publicized, is there a way to get BBO to issue a refund?

 

Such a procedure might involve some risk on the protester's fault--if an investigation showed that the rule was clearly available before the tourney began, or not contrary to the Laws, the protester might face a short suspension.

 

The pay-tourney TD might risk losing some of his 'take' if it was found that a rule was not made public, or was contrary to the Laws.

 

A procedure like this would dissuade pay tournament TDs from making rules that skirt the Laws and keeping them secret until the cash box was locked.

What was the entry fee for the tournament? A friend of mine who is a civil attorney of law refuses to take cases that concern less than 4000 Euro if I recall correctly (we're talking about those trivial cases that can be dealt with by her secretary and just requires her signature and a short phone chat). She's not working for Abuse, incidently, but you get my point.

 

Come on, if somebody is smart enough to fool you for 75 cents, get over it.

[Brandal]

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?

Posting (very) detailed tournament rules in pay

tournaments if these rules violate the laws of Bridge

must be a requirement.

 

"Maybe I'll post them next year" not quite good enough.

[Rain]

I can comment on a few procedures that usually happen in relevant cases.

-------------------

 

Sometimes you have users who sometimes don't read rules correctly, demand a refund or other compensation when they are really not entitled to it. Does a refund happen then, when they are not entitled to it? (If a $ tourney)

 

Yes, but they probably will be banned from the tourney for that. If the request is too unreasonable, they may be banned from BBO as well.

 

-----------------

If a free tourney TD changes rules suddenly and a player is unhappy with that, what happens?

 

If player leaves in the middle of tourney, failure to complete tournament is logged, but nothing happens from BBO. However, the TD may or may not blacklist this user.

If the player leaves in the middle of tourneys a few times, he will get punished for it (usually with a tourney ban) because its then very likely that he has a major problem with tourneys on BBO and shouldn't be entering them.

If player is rude to TD, he gets punished for being rude to a member of BBO.

If TD is rude to player, he gets punished for being rude to a member of BBO.

If the rule change is some insignificant thing, like "We're adding more time because of a sudden disconnect problem", "Starting from now dummy has to remain silent during play", and a user complains, email is probably ignored.

If there could be a case for the TD not being wholly straightforward or just skewing basic bridge rules (psychics rules excluded), TD probably gets logged as a weird TD and complainer gets a nice reply (imo) that he probably has to join other tournaments, sorry. But if the TD gets reported a few more times for behaving unprofessionally he probably shouldn't be a TD anymore.

 

To sum it up, users get nothing, because it cost nothing to join the tournament, and because although I don't encourage it, users always have the right to exit the tournament in the middle. :o If TDs are in the wrong, reports may be logged.

 

These are free tourneys guys. Its meant to be casual, its meant to be fun. For everyone, TD and players.

 

-------------

If a pay tourney TD changes rules suddenly, what happens?

 

I can't remember the last time this happened. Pay tourney rules are pretty straightforward and spelt out right. But if this happens, and player is unhappy, ask pay tourney org for a refund and they will give it if they were in the wrong. No guarantees that you'll get to join the next tourney by them, but probably will be able to.

 

If still dissatisfied, email abuse who may email uday if you have a case.

 

Unreasonable requests for refunds may result in us declining to keep this user on as a member of BBO.

 

To sum, pay tourneys here have their rules stated quite clearly, for the most part. Most organisations and most players are reasonable, and something can usually be worked out with no acrimony on anyone's part. Just decide if your request is reasonable, and ask for a resolution if so. If your request is unreasonable, try not to email anyone, because I don't like my time to be wasted and can't guarantee a pleasant result in that case.

[candybar]

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

I called this thread to the attention of the TD in question,[edited ] who is running a PAY tournement with the same threat to adjust scores for opening NT with singletons, right now as I type, under the host name [edited].

 

His 'rule' is NOT shown in the tournament description and NO tournament rules were posted. I even checked their webpage and there is nothing there either.

 

He informed me that he would run the tournaments any way he wanted and I could report him if I didn't like it.

 

Please consider him reported.

 

[Edited by inquiry. Correct way to report by name is to email Abuse]

Edited August 11, 2005 by inquiry

[mycroft]

Hmm - I opened 1NT this week with a bad 17 (playing 14-16), a 2=4=2=5 11-count with all the points in the long suits (playing 10-12), and have been known to open a 12-14 NT with 2=3=6=3s. Do I get A- for "unbalanced" NT openers, under Sky Club rules?

 

Michael.

[luke warm]

He informed me that he would run the tournaments any way he wanted and I could report him if I didn't like it.

this is the problem i see over and over... as long as any td has carte blanche to say something like that (and let's be honest, "if you don't like it, don't play" is pretty close), nothing can be done

[spwdo]

hi,

 

this been an old story for free tourneys, dont play if you dont like the way we do things , however since people are actualy spending money i think rules most be clear before we , people enter a tourney, ok acbl does not allow multi , but are acbl special laws about bridge not well informed>?

if other organisations have special rules, would the bbo world online(the people behind thier keybaord) not be a lot happier if they knew what they were getting into?

Obligate rules, made my first set of rules a long while back, yes its timeconsuming to upload them, is it wurth it?

i do not know, as head organiser, head td of bboworld i see that sky attracts a lot of people, do the majority of players prefer non bridge to bridge as its said a couple times?

is acbl bridge?

i do not know, i know they have their rules welll informed to those who enter.(thats a big big plus imho)

many of my friends are trying to make thier organisations popular, but are afraid to come forward here.

Am i`m hurting my organisations to tell how they/we/i see things? probaly.

Anyways, bboworld tourneys allow spyche in all seats.When a bid is a spyche(in dept explained what falls under a " spyche bid" from previuos posters then its allowed(do we lose customers this way who have no clue about bridge in the first place but like to spend dollars?) probaly.

Do i care?

Not a bit, we try to play bridge and we direct our games best way we can as rules tell us to do so.

As a big sportsfan i seeen rules beeing alterd over the years( in various sports) to try and make a game more popular, will i follow if ever there comes a new set of rules?

 

YES, off course, im refereeing the tourneys i direct, im not altering rules to get something i feel comfy with, its there(the rules), i try and keep the game going, some like a game with less challenge , to me its not a game that deserves to be called bridge

 

marc, spwdo on bbo, bboworldorganisation

[Zmey]

Good day

 

I'm responsible for SKY CLUB organization. My name is Andrey Petrenko.

 

Let me make more clear this issue:

 

1st and most important - it's our mistake, to not posted rules in Tournament Rules. We'll try to improve the quality of SKY CLUB and fix this kind of problems

 

To "candybar"

 

If you feel, that you don't want to play in tournament like this, or feel, that doesn't like TD and "his rules", i'll be happy to refund you - in case, that you ...

"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."

This mean, that you finish the tournament, and just want to clear the situation, right? But to say for someone "self-appointed bidding policemen TDs" is like to say "stupid player" on table, which will be away from Zero tolerance Rules, agree?

 

We dont want to create our own rules, we just want players to feel happy when playing in SKY tournaments. As McBruce says...

"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..."

 

If someone use illegal information (and it's much easy here, than in real bridge tournament) the psyche and opening 1NT with single will allow him to have advantage, just because him partner MAY have an information about his single. But IF you like to open 1NT with single, it's OK, but you need to alert it - after all, it's self-alerting in BBO, so, even if your partner know, that you can have single for your opening bid, your opponents doesn't know, and it's like illegal agreement, agree? The level of players, playing paid tournaments, are little higher than "Andvanced", except few players, so, it's more fair, if we clear the situation for them - all bridge book for novice says, that you should open "1NT" (or even 2NT), with balanced hand, shown max 5c minor in hand - it's not Bermuda Finals here, it's normal "local" bridge club level, which mean, not so high. After all, as McBruce says ...

"LAW 40 PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS

 

D. Regulation of Conventions

 

The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions..."

 

SKY CLUB looks to be Sponsoring Organization, as long as we give awards for winners - players need to enjoy, playing bridge online, not to suffer just because some Experts want to enjoy, using psyche always just for their own fun.

 

"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)."

 

This is the main reason to disallow psych bids in 1st/2nd position in SKY - if you have no security, that this is "undisclosed partnership knowledge", how can you enjoy the game?

 

And, last of all - seems, candybar, love very much to use psyche, opening 1NT with singleton - why you, after your previous knowledge about 1NT restrictions and disagreement with it, continue to play in same tournaments and have same problems again?

 

I'll be happy, if we continue to discuss the issues and the problems in BBO and bridge as well, but lets keep good tone, not like "Lazy TDs" and "Ignorant TDs"

 

P.S. Opening 2NT is different story, but it still be better, if you alert it, just because the same reason of "undisclosed partnership knowledge"

[Walddk]

But IF you like to open 1NT with single, it's OK, but you need to alert it - after all, it's self-alerting in BBO

You are wrong! I don't have to self-alert anything if I open 1NT with a singleton. I am not supposed to tell my opponents what my holding actually is. I can open 1NT on a 7600 shape if I want, as long as this is not based upon a partnership understanding.

 

We have had this discussion ½ million times already, but it won't help the cause if you claim to know better.

 

If your agreement is that 1NT shows 15-17 hcp balanced, you should not alert it if you are outside the range or unbalanced for that matter. Let's make this clear once and for all. If asked what 1NT shows, you simply tell your opponent(s) this:

 

"15-17 hcp, balanced". This is true, because this is what your agreement with your partner is. The opponents are not entitled to know anything more than that!

 

Roland

[Zmey]

Sorry Rolland, i'm in "typing" mistake

 

Let "But IF you like to open 1NT with single, it's OK, " to be read as "But IF you HAVE AN AGREEMENT to open 1NT with single, it's OK, "

 

It's typing mistake, of course, if someone make psyche and NOT send illegal information to his partner, no need to alert it :)

[Walddk]

It's typing mistake, of course, if someone make psyche and NOT send illegal information to his partner, no need to alert it  :)

You are wrong again I'm afraid. Opening 1NT on say

 

K

A1054

KJ5

AJ742

 

is not a psyche! It's off-shape, but there is nothing psychic about it.

 

Roland

[Gerben42]

Exactly. A psyche is a gross misdescription of your hand. If you open 1NT on:

 

xxx

xx

x

QJTxxxx

 

that is a psyche.

 

And you shouldn't alert this.

[helene_t]

But IF you like to open 1NT with single, it's OK, but you need to alert it - after all, it's self-alerting in BBO

You are wrong! I don't have to self-alert anything if I open 1NT with a singleton. I am not supposed to tell my opponents what my holding actually is. I can open 1NT on a 7600 shape if I want, as long as this is not based upon a partnership understanding.

Zmey apparently suspects such deviations may be based on partnership understanding and will not give Candybar the benefit of the doubt. I don't think this is reasonable but since Zmey is not alone (many Dutch TDs have similar attitudes towards people who open Muiderberg on a six-card) I assume the Sky-Club rules are legal.

 

For what it's worth, I will not participate in Sky-Club tournaments now that I know of this practice. Of course, if I have the partnership understanding that my 1NT openings are less disciplined than opps might expect, I should alert them. However, I refuse to let my bidding restrict by the fear of a TD suspecting me of having concealed agreements.

 

Example: When playing 5-card majors I have never opened 1M on a 4-card in 1st or 2nd seat, nor have I discussed that possibility with any partner. However, if one day I get a hand that begs for an opening of 1M on a 4-card, I will do so. Should I alert it? If so, I would literally have to alert all my calls simply because I might one day get a hand that begs for making that call with an unusual holding.

Edited August 12, 2005 by helene_t

[Zmey]

Agree, but there's 2 reasons to not allow this 1NT open bid in SKY:

 

1st - as i wrote, it's very complicated how will you explain this issue to Advanced players, feelings as Experts, when in this bid (because it's highest level bid and looks like only STARS in BBO and few really good players will use it), and their opponents "blame" you, that only because they're STARS, you didn't penalty them?

 

2nd - there's no 100% agreement even at experts level, that this hands suppose to be treated as 15p NT opener

 

That's why we use our right to disallow this kind of bids in SKY tournaments

 

Regards

[Walddk]

Agree, but there's 2 reasons to not allow this 1NT open bid in SKY:

 

1st - as i wrote, it's very complicated how will you explain this issue to Advanced players, feelings as Experts, when in this bid (because it's highest level bid and looks like only STARS in BBO and few really good players will use it), and their opponents "blame" you, that only because they're STARS, you didn't penalty them?

 

2nd - there's no 100% agreement even at experts level, that this hands suppose to be treated as 15p NT opener

 

That's why we use our right to disallow this kind of bids in SKY tournaments

 

Regards

Your post makes little sense to me. Why on earth would you penalise anybody when they don't violate any law? Secondly, feel free to state anything you like in your Tournament Rules, but please bear in mind that you just changed the game from bridge to something similar.

 

And lastly: it is plain wrong not to follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge in (especially) a pay tourney!

 

Roland

[helene_t]

Now I'm confused. If I open 1NT with an unbalanced hand, and I don't alert, and I say that I have no agreement with my partner about this - will you believe me or not? If not, do you understand that I will be somewhat nervous about what other calls I can't make because the TD might say they are non-standard, say overcall with a 4-card?

 

Once I opened 1NT with 14 points and a 6-card. The TD adjusted my result to ave-. I posted this here and everybody agreed that the ruling was ridiculous, not only because I had no agreement about this but also because such an opening is standard and does not need to be alerted anyway.

 

DO you understand that I will be somewhat nervous about how the TD defines "unbalanced"?

[Zmey]

i don't get it - am i wrong to use:

 

"LAW 40 PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS

 

D. Regulation of Conventions

 

The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions..."

 

if, YES, so, why this rule exists?

 

to Helene - please, imagine the level of cheating in paid tournaments - every week we found new players, lay unfairly, it's more than normal, that we're suspicious. In BBO players are hiding behind Nicks, some of them have more than 1 username. Of course, we believe to our players, but, because of these unfair players, we're more cautious to their reasons to use psyche or off-shape bids.

[Walddk]

i don't get it - am i wrong to use:

 

"LAW 40 PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS

 

D. Regulation of Conventions

 

The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions..."

 

if, YES, so, why this rule exists?

Yes, you are wrong. There is no reason to believe that a certain bid is based upon a partnership understanding. I think your problem is that you can't distinguish between agreement and understanding.

 

That may very well be a language problem on your part, so it's quite useful that we got it sorted out right here.

 

Roland

[helene_t]

i don't get it - am i wrong to use:

 

"LAW 40 PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS

 

D. Regulation of Conventions

 

The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions..."

 

if, YES, so, why this rule exists?

This is a completely different issue. It has nothing say nothing to do with this disussion.

 

Art. 40 gives you the right to state that it's illegal to have the agreement to open 1NT with a singleton. You can also state that it's illegal to ask aces or that it's illegal to play SAYC or whatever you like.

 

But even then, players are still allowed to deviate from the agreement and open 1NT with a 4441 if they like.