Constant new "rules" in tourneys

[helene_t]

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.

Sorry but I have no sympathy for this policy.

 

First, while I can imagine some other sorts of cheating (say using a phone line to tell partner their holding), I find it difficult to imagine pairs cheating in this way.

 

Second, even if concealed agreements about such minor bidding nuances existed, it would be a minor problem compared to, say, pairs playing signals while saying that they just discard randomly, no agreed signals.

 

Third, if I were that afraid of cheating I would not organize tournaments, let alone pay tournaments.

[luke warm]

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

sorry but i don't understand this post... why the need to explain anything to advanced players? i don't know *any* advanced players who haven't, on occasion, opened 4441 or even 1435 hands with a 1nt bid... let me put it another way, i don't know of any advanced player who would be shocked (much less outraged) if an opp opened 1nt with such a hand

 

as for #2, who cares? judgment is king in bridge... there isn't 100% agreement by experts on nearly 100% of bridge topics

[Walddk]

Zmey, your basis seems to be that people cheat in your tourneys. May I kindly suggest that you turn this basis around? People do not cheat until proven guilty.

 

Imposing all kinds of restrictions is bad for the game, and it won't help your cause one bit. Long time ago, you and I had a chat about disallowing spectators in your tourneys for example. We did not agree then, and we do not agree now it appears.

 

Fair enough, but don't be surprised if your tourneys don't get a big turnout if you implement all kinds of restrictions.

 

Roland

[Brandal]

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

Wasn't the whole issue about "alerting won't help,

I will assign Ave- ?"

 

Personally this is what I think is completely off

the wall,not whether to alert when having partnership

agreement to open 1NT with a singleton.

[Zmey]

I'm agree with all of you, that player are fair until there's prove, that they are not.

 

i'm also agree with Helena, that this is minor problem, i think, that we'll reconsider our position about 1 and 2NT open bids

 

Roland also is right, that it's language problem of reading the Laws.

 

Thanks a lot for your help for reaching the solution of the problem.

 

Regards

[Brandal]

i think, that we'll reconsider our position about 1 and 2NT open bids

 

Thanks a lot for your help for reaching the solution of the problem.

You just earned yourself about 1 Ton of respect,

from me anyway.

 

I don't see many people reconsidering anything here,

including myself.

 

:)

[helene_t]

You just earned yourself about 1 Ton of respect,

from me anyway.

 

I don't see many people reconsidering anything here,

including myself.

 

:)

Ditto. I'm impressed.

 

Let's all stop the discussion and go have a beer together.

[barmar]

One of the things I don't think has been mentioned is that it's often not necessary to penalize psyches and other deviations from agreements. Unless the pair employs "psychic controls" (which I think most SOs prohibit), the partner of the psycher will usually be fooled just as much as the opponents, and this can result in them ending up in the wrong contract.

 

At the Atlanta NABC, I held something like AQ9x A AKJx AQxx. Partner put me in a heart slam when he held KJ9xxxx in that suit and a side Jack, and later reprimanded me for opening 2C and rebidding 2NT with this hand (even if I held the hand he expected, I'm still not sure where he expected all the tricks to come from). I showed the hand to several friends whose bridge expertise I respect; not all of them would have done the same as I (one of them said it was actually too good for my 2NT rebid), none felt it was a gross misbid.

 

But my point is still that if you don't have what your partner expects, it can just as easily backfire on you as damage the opponents.

[candybar]

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?

Zmey, I have not played in any tournament run by that TD since I started this thread. I observed the same thing happening again, and checked the posted rules, etc, to be sure of my facts before I posted the second day. As for psyches and opening NT with singletons, I psyche about twice a year, and I open 1N with a singleton less often than that. However, when I believe that it is right to do so, I don't want some TD adjusting my score because he disapproves.

[candybar]

i think, that we'll reconsider our position about 1 and 2NT open bids

Thank you for taking this discussion seriously! :wub:

 

Now if we could only convince the ACBL that Multi 2D is not a bugaboo :blink: and the rest of the anti-psyche crowd that psyches aren't the nightmare they seem to fear, we'd be back to playing real bridge! :D

[mike777]

Zmey, your basis seems to be that people cheat in your tourneys. May I kindly suggest that you turn this basis around? People do not cheat until proven guilty.

Martel, Hamman and others have often been quoted as saying at the top levels of bridge partnership understandings and agreements are grossly NOT explained or revealed in full. They both went on to say they have no solution for this problem.

 

My guess is the situation at the lower levels of bridge is even worse on this issue. Perhaps there is no satisfactory way to solve this issue without turning bridge games into Marathon sessions.

 

Cheating may not be the best English word for this but a conscious neglect is there.

 

I just asked a couple of 10,000+pt players about this issue and the issue of hesitations at the table. Their response was they hate to call the director, shrug there shoulders and move to the next table. They choose to believe most of this stuff is innocent.

[luke warm]

not sure of the 'official' definition, but to me a person/pair is cheating when they try to gain a competitive advantage by knowingly breaking the laws... it's true that people have and will be penalized for infringements but for me that wouldn't necessarily constitute 'cheating'

[candybar]

Here's a good example of dealing with a "psyche" problem.

 

In a tournament I ran today, a player opened 1♦ in first seat holding xxx, x, A10xxxx, KQx.

 

The opponents found their heart game and made it, then called me because the 1♦ bid "wasn't alerted".

 

This is not even a psyche in my opinion, just a very light risky opening in a pickup partnership (I know because I had sub'd in the opener the round before), but in any case, it took me about 4 exchanges of messages to explain that it wasn't alertable, and I'm not sure if the opponent really understood or just gave up complaining.

 

I think there would be some value to a Help file that explains very clearly in non-legalese about alerts being for partnership agreements, not for silly or out-of-system bids, and a few words about psyches in it as well.

 

I don't mind explaining this to a player who doesn't know, but I suspect cases like this are part of why so many TDs don't want the effort of dealing with psyches.

 

I don't want to even think what would happen with this bid at a tournament that forbade psyches.

[McBruce]

Here's a good example of dealing with a "psyche" problem.

 

In a tournament I ran today, a player opened 1♦ in first seat holding xxx, x, A10xxxx, KQx.

 

The opponents found their heart game and made it, then called me because the 1♦ bid "wasn't alerted".

 

This is not even a psyche in my opinion, just a very light risky opening in a pickup partnership (I know because I had sub'd in the opener the round before), but in any case, it took me about 4 exchanges of messages to explain that it wasn't alertable, and I'm not sure if the opponent really understood or just gave up complaining.

 

I think there would be some value to a Help file that explains very clearly in non-legalese about alerts being for partnership agreements, not for silly or out-of-system bids, and a few words about psyches in it as well.

 

I don't mind explaining this to a player who doesn't know, but I suspect cases like this are part of why so many TDs don't want the effort of dealing with psyches.

 

I don't want to even think what would happen with this bid at a tournament that forbade psyches.

Another (this must be request number 6,025 or so) reason that we need to be able to tack on procedural and disciplinary penalties to a pair's score. This pair made their game and then complained about the light opener. Unless they have some reason to believe that the opposing pair had an AGREEMENT that this was a possible opener, this is a frivolous director call, and should be given an immediate warning at least, with a quarter-board penalty for a second similar offense.

 

If the partner of the opener passed an 8-count, that would be reasonable grounds to suspect that they had agreed on light openers and had not disclosed this. But in this hand the opponents made a game. I doubt the fourth hand had anywhere near 8 HCP.

 

Anyone whose comments reveal that they are more concerned with the opponents getting a penalty than the TD restoring equity deserves a disciplinary penalty. An exchange of four messages is close to the line. Once you explain that it is legal to violate a partnership agreement, that should be the end of the matter. Sadly, many players will not give up arguing. All TDs have seen this type of harrassment at one time or another, and you have to put your foot down and tell the protesters that the decision has been made and is final, and any more arguing will lead to penalties.

 

Except that we can't make the penalties stick. The only thing we can do is toss them.

 

C'mon BBO. It's crystal clear in Law 91A that this is part of the game.

[the hog]

"Unless they have some reason to believe that the opposing pair had an AGREEMENT that this was a possible opener, this is a frivolous director call, and should be given an immediate warning at least, with a quarter-board penalty for a second similar offense."

 

Surely even IF they had an agreement that this was a possible opener, this is a frivolous call. Its just a light opening bid. wtp? I certainly would not regard this as alertable. I suspect a lot of the complainants do not play ftf competition bridge.

[jillybean]

I really don’t think frivolous calls are a huge problem and I would hate to see people getting penalties for calling the director!

It is a perfect opportunity to advise of the rules or clear up misunderstandings.

 

Procedural penalities would be very useful for people who fail to alert or who are intent on talking during the hands. :blink:

[Walddk]

I really don’t think frivolous calls are a huge problem and I would hate to see people getting penalties for calling the director!

Spot on K! Everyone is entitled to call the director. That must never lead to procedural penalties. It is much better for a player to call the TD than to try solving the issue among themselves.

 

Roland

[McBruce]

We have seen on this forum the lengths to which players will go in order to defend their ideas that everyone must always have their bid. Some people see a psyche or even a shaded bid, and immediately go psychotic. No TD can stop their arguments by quoting the Laws: they want blood!

 

I would never penalize a pair for simply calling the TD. But this pair, after getting what I assume was the normal result on the hand, complained for four exchanges of messages -- read the post -- before giving up. That, as I said, is close to the decency line. Once the TD has made a decision, you don't continue arguing. The fact that people do -- frequently -- is partly because BBO TDs have no middle ground -- we have to either boot them or put up with them. A quarter-board for ignoring a warning to stop arguing and get back to playing would go a long way with some of these goons.

 

A Director call certainly should lead to penalties if the Director's decision is not accepted by an abusive player. You cannot make a blanket rule that says a TD call must never lead to procedural penalties. You're missing my point. It's not the Director call that concerns me. It is the attitude that says "I will report you if you don't bid/play as I think you should", combined with the refusal to accept the TD's decision that you just don't have a case here, that leads me to wish we could whack them with something less than a red card.

[helene_t]

Martel, Hamman and others have often been quoted as saying at the top levels of bridge partnership understandings and agreements are grossly NOT explained or revealed in full. They both went on to say they have no solution for this problem.

The solution is to play indys. Then you have no problems with partnership understanding.

[candybar]

Martel, Hamman and others have often been quoted as saying at the top levels of bridge partnership understandings and agreements are grossly NOT explained or revealed in full. They both went on to say they have no solution for this problem.

The solution is to play indys. Then you have no problems with partnership understanding.

Bridge is a partnership game. To me, working with a partner to develop a good partnership, learning and adapting to each others' styles, and doing the care and feeding of a partner is an important part of the game. I rarely play Individuals because this important aspect of bridge is absent.

[candybar]

Anyone whose comments reveal that they are more concerned with the opponents getting a penalty than the TD restoring equity deserves a disciplinary penalty.  An exchange of four messages is close to the line.  Once you explain that it is legal to violate a partnership agreement, that should be the end of the matter.  Sadly, many players will not give up arguing.  All TDs have seen this type of harrassment at one time or another, and you have to put your foot down and tell the protesters that the decision has been made and is final, and any more arguing will lead to penalties.

Everyone is entitled to call the director. That must never lead to procedural penalties. It is much better for a player to call the TD than to try solving the issue among themselves.

I agree with McBruce that procedural penalties are badly needed. I also agree with Walddk that no one should ever be penalized for calling the director and asking about a situation.

 

It's true that some players will continue arguing because they think they are right, and some (even in f2f) call the director hoping for an adjustment they don't deserve. If you tell them no, explain your reason, and they still become obnoxious, then they deserve a procedural penalty.

 

In the case I posted, however, the opponent was not harassing me, not even arguing for an adjustment he didn't deserve, but he was simply incensed that someone could open that light and not tell him via an alert. It took me the four exchanges to educate him, and I kept thinking about TDs who might not be willing to take the time to do it.

 

I'm certain this was not intended to be argumentative, but done in ignorance of how alerts are supposed to work, hence my suggestion of an article, perhaps in the BBO Library, explaining about alerting, psyche bids, and related issues, that a TD could refer a player to.

[Gerben42]

The problem really becomes tricky if they ARE right...

[jillybean]

I'm certain this was not intended to be argumentative, but done in ignorance of how alerts are supposed to work, hence my suggestion of an article, perhaps in the BBO Library, explaining about alerting, psyche bids, and related issues, that a TD could refer a player to.

Great idea, I have a few Okscripts (thanks Dwingo) containing WBF law 40B,

WBF alert policy etc which I can use to send this information to a player, a table or the entire tournament.

 

Let me know if you would like a copy.

 

jb

[candybar]

The problem really becomes tricky if they ARE right...

Not necessarily. TDs don't have to be perfect, and I've seen plenty of mistakes in live bridge, too. The key is being willing to reconsider if a player points out something you missed or forgot. It's easier than you may think to say, "I checked and you are correct, sorry for my mistake, I'm readjusting the board."

[Zmey]

Yesterday i had situation - on 4 card endplay dummy say "WDP". 1 of the defenders start argue with me with more than 20 posts, asking me to adjust AVE- because of dummy's words. Here the link to the game :)

 

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...php?id=18618985