[blackshoe]

Several questions have been raised in this thread, in addition to the original poster's question whether the TD's ruling was correct. Let me try to address the various points.

First, did this player psych? His 1 ♠ response was certainly deliberate - he said so himself. However, it is not, IMO, a gross misstatement of values - he has the appropriate strength, and is lacking only one card for the appropriate length. The bid is not a psych.

Second, whether bidding 1 ♠ on this hand is a good idea may be an interesting question for bidding theorists, but it is irrelevant to a legal ruling.

May a sponsoring organization ban psychs? No, not if the game is "duplicate contract bridge" according to the international laws thereof. It was suggested that TDs are free to make their own rules. They are not. Neither are sponsoring organizations, beyond the authority granted in the laws. The relevant laws are 80F, 81B2 and 82A.

What can you do if a sponsor sets rules that aren't in compliance with the laws of the game? Well, I agree with Jillybean. "Vote with your feet" - don't play in that sponsor's games. There seems little else that would be practical.

Regarding alerts. These are in the purview of sponsoring organizations - see the aforementioned 80F. IMO, though, it is incumbent on the SO to explicitly state what regulations are in force, particularly since whether this bid is alertable may depend on those regulations. Note: if the bid is not a matter of explicit or implicit agreement, it cannot be alertable. See 40A and B.

I read through the ACBL LC minutes for the last several years - they're posted on the ACBL web site. I did not find any statement regarding what constitutes a gross misstatement. I would like to know where the ACBL LC said that. In any case, I would call this "2 points or 2 cards" thing a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. And it applies only where ACBL regulations apply - other sponsors are free to use other guidelines, and I'm sure some do.

Echognome is right - when you have the player's own statement that he did not psych, you should probably believe him.

The answer to the original poster's "is there any law to support this ruling?" is "no."

[uday]

When we can't agree on whether

1D-1H

shows 3 or 4 hearts, how're we all going to agree on every single ruling by every single director?

We're not.

Not every ruling will be to your taste. Not every ruling will be rational. This is true here, and this is true at the Bermuda Bowl.

[uday]

btw, is blackshoe the well-respected DS? if so, thats a very official opinion, imo. if not, i'm sure he's a nice guy anyway.

[inquiry]

uday, on Oct 6 2006, 11:10 AM, said:

btw, is blackshoe the well-respected DS? if so, thats a very official opinion, imo. if not, i'm sure he's a nice guy anyway.

DS is in england, yes? blackshoe is not. However, his arguements are correct whether he is or is not.

[paulg]

uday, on Oct 6 2006, 05:10 PM, said:

btw, is blackshoe the well-respected DS? if so, thats a very official opinion, imo.  if not, i'm sure he's a nice guy anyway.

Probably not DWS as he would definitely have the location specified in his profile!

[david_c]

Echognome, on Oct 6 2006, 03:09 PM, said:

I think we're all missing one big point here.  If you were a director and were called to the table, I believe you should ask the player why he bid 1♠.  If he answers as he did above, how can we call it a psyche?  That is basically calling the player a liar.  Now the direct will have to make a judgment call on the testimony he hears, but prima facia I'd take the player's word.

The player said he was intending to show spades. Fine, we can believe that. But why do you think that means it can't be a psyche? Can it not still be a "deliberate and gross misstatement"? It was certainly a misstatement. It was certainly deliberate. And whether it was gross or not - well, that seems to be purely a matter of degree.

There seems to be some idea that for a bid to be a psyche there must have been some intention to deceive the opponents. I don't believe that is a necessary part of the definition.

[hrothgar]

uday, on Oct 6 2006, 07:10 PM, said:

btw, is blackshoe the well-respected DS? if so, thats a very official opinion, imo. if not, i'm sure he's a nice guy anyway.

David normally uses the User ID "Bluejak"

[DrTodd13]

Somebody else said it very well. Here you have a director who is already proven to be intentionally ignoring the laws of bridge by forbidding psyches and then we expect this director to be able to exercise any kind of judgement about what is and what isn't a psyche? Such directors should be called dictators rather than directors. They make up the rules as they go along. You have no idea whether what you are about to do will be punished or not. If the dictators were logical, they would have to ban misbids as well because if you psyched you could always claim that you misclicked or didn't know what the bid meant or you were confused about the meaning. If they punished misbids, then everyone who is sick of "no psyche" tourneys should enter and call director every time your inept opponents violate the system that they claim they are playing. Dictators would be hopelessly swamped with calls.

[barmar]

A number of posters have pointed out that the sponsor of a tournament is not entitled to make his own rules that contradict the Laws of Duplicate Bridge? But what force do the Laws really have? What's the penalty for a sponsor violating the Laws? If the game were in a club or tournament with a sanction, they could have their sanction revoked. But as far as I know there's no organization that overseas BBO tournaments and requires them to follow the Laws, unless BBO management decides to revoke the right of someone to run a tournament on these grounds. But it seems like their attitude is more laissez-faire.

I've sometimes read people say that if you don't follow the Laws "it's not bridge". But who decides this? The name "bridge" isn't trademarked, so the World Bridge Federation (which arranged for the Laws to be written) doesn't have the right to decide what is or isn't bridge. Bridge is whatever bridge players play, and if bridge players are willing to play in no-psyche tournaments, then this is bridge.

[inquiry]

I will try to speak to this issue. The BBO allows the directors to run their tournaments pretty much as they see fit, as long as...

1) they are not rude to players (public cheating accusatinos, yelling at people, etc)
2) they do not cause problems for BBO in some way
3) they do not arbitrarily rule against one class of players (or ban players in an unacceptible manner... say all players from any one country)
4) they do not have in their profile or in the description fo their tournaments anything inflammatory

This means they can ban psyches, or any bidding system or convention they want. No one is forced to play in their events. I personally try to avoid tournaments that ban psyches (even those that ban them only in 1st or 2nd seat) (I do play in belladonna things sometimes and she bans them), I do not play in unclocked events, and I do not play in events with a playing director. And you know what, I don't feel avoiding these limit my ability to play on line. Others avoid fee-based tournaments (why pay when you can play for free I guess is their thoughts). We all have options.

IF I was running a beginner event, I would ban psyches and "funny" bidding systems and conventions. And I see nothing wrong with that... the purpose is to provide a place for the beginners to learn about the mechanics of the game and not get flustered with artificial bids and payches they can not possiblly handle.

[jillybean]

…and the 100’s of people who play in these tournaments each day agree with you barmar
The vast majority of online players
1. Never call the TD
2. Dont have a clue about the rules
3. Don’t care about the 'rules' as long as they can play cards


Unfortunately its only the minority who cry foul and bring out the rule books


jb

[Mr. Dodgy]

I don't think this is a psyche.

I think it's an alertable agreement. Chaos' system, by his own explanation, requires he bid 1♠ naturally on a 3-card suit. This would be unexpected by opponents.

The failure to alert may well have damaged the defense. Some adjustment may be called for.

[jikl]

For starters: I don't think it is a psyche and I think the director made a crap decision.

However, isn't something being missed here?

The first questions to be asked are things like:

1: Are you an established partnership?

2: If so, have you done this before?

3: Could partner raise you on a 3154?

These are some of the questions to be asked before it becomes an "alertable agreement".

Sean

[pigpenz]

chaos2k, on Oct 5 2006, 11:21 PM, said:

today i play a free tourney and
hold ♠Txx ♥x♣KT9x♦KJ9xx
partner open 1d (we play weak nt) and i decide to bid 1s
after all partner play in 2nt and did well to score 2 over tricks
they call director and the director ,[xxxx - name removed by BBF administrator as director is not here to defend herself ] claim i psyched and adjust this board to A-+(otherwise we win 76%)
that's unfair to us and why one men who bid a suit hope to play it is psyche?
we were playing MPs,play minor would never win any MPs if we can make something else.and the only way to play 43 fit sp is bid 1s by me.no sure why one MP tourney didnt allow people play majors.and our opps why should get an ave+ score?they did nothing righ to deserve it(except call director)

i see nothing wrong with this bid, you are willing to play the 4-3 bid from the three side. Its more of a tactical bid. I find myself frequently bidding a 3 card major over a diamond opening when i have a diamond fit and stopper in the three card major and no stopper in the other major

[blackshoe]

cardsharp, on Oct 6 2006, 11:28 AM, said:

uday, on Oct 6 2006, 05:10 PM, said:

btw, is blackshoe the well-respected DS? if so, thats a very official opinion, imo.  if not, i'm sure he's a nice guy anyway.

Probably not DWS as he would definitely have the location specified in his profile!

hehe. Nope, I'm not David, and we are in different countries. But much of what I know about directing I learned from him, and I do help him out on the IBLF. My name, btw, is Ed Reppert, and I'm "Blackshoe" because I'm a (now retired) Surface Warfare Officer (a "blackshoe") in the USN.

One of these days i'll get around to updating my profile.

[blackshoe]

Mr. Dodgy, on Oct 6 2006, 06:10 PM, said:

I don't think this is a psyche.

I think it's an alertable agreement. Chaos' system, by his own explanation, requires he bid 1♠ naturally on a 3-card suit. This would be unexpected by opponents.

The failure to alert may well have damaged the defense. Some adjustment may be called for.

It can't be an alertable agreement if Chaos' partner doesn't know about it, and we don't know if he does.

Aside from that, alertable under which of the dozens of different alert regulations in different parts of the world?

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on Oct 6 2006, 03:27 PM, said:

…and the 100’s of people who play in these tournaments each day agree with you barmar
The vast majority of online players
1. Never call the TD
2. Dont have a clue about the rules
3. Don’t care about the 'rules' as long as they can play cards


Unfortunately its only the minority who cry foul and bring out the rule books


jb

A game is defined by its rules. Yes, you can play a game very much like Duplicate Contract Bridge whithout recourse to the law book, just like you can play a game very much like football (whichever flavor you like) without recourse to the rule book for that game. But to advertise that the game you offer to people who wish to play is "duplicate contract bridge" is to imply, unless explicitly stated otherwise, that the game is played in accordance with the laws in the book. Those laws allow certain choices by sponsoring organizations, and disallow others. If somebody wants to ban psychs in their game, that's their option - but it should be made clear to the players which other laws the sponsor wishes to declare null and void. To fail to do so is, imo, at least a little bit dishonest, particularly if there is any possiblility that a player who knows the laws may run afoul of such a decision.

In the case in point, about all one can say about the ruling is that it was not in accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, and that therefore opinions about whether it was a good or bad ruling in the context of those laws are irrelevant. Regarding the concept of playing a game where you do not and cannot know the rules, well, IMO, that's just foolish.

If you love the game of duplicate contract bridge, and most certainly if you wish to direct such games, you should, imo, know the rules (as a player, at least know what constitutes proper procedure, and that you must - not should, not "if you feel like it", must - call the director if attention is drawn at the table to a deviation from correct procedure.

People don't, and as directors we have to deal with it. That's life. But we do the players and the game a disservice if we advertise our games as "duplicate contract bridge" and don't then do our best to run them by the rules promulgated by the WBF.

[DrTodd13]

I think somebody made the point that the WBF doesn't have exclusive rights to the term bridge and therefore people get to define for themselves and their tournaments what it means. If someone offers a game of "bridge" then you can have no expectation of what that game will be like. If it is on BBO then you can know certain things but the tourney could allow people to openly discuss their hands as BBO can't prevent that. I find this belief pretty silly and I agree with blackshoe. If you say bridge, it means the laws as promulgated by the WBF. This is because there is only one worldwide group promulgating such laws. If there were two games called bridge with equal participation then the use of the word "bridge" would not be that helpful and would need more clarification but as it is, there is only one such game that dominates any others that might exist. If you said you were hosting a bridge tourney, took people's money and then when play started it deviated in major ways from the official laws and people complained and filed a lawsuit demanding their money back, I'm pretty sure those people would win. The argument would be false advertising. You advertised "bridge" but what you provided was not "bridge" but something else of your own creation. In short, if you ban psyches, it isn't bridge.