[jillybean]

pooltuna, on 2011-January-05, 10:34, said:

IMO this needs to be reported to BBO as abuse of the TD rights and permissions. Clearly the TD has no clue about the rules of bridge and BBO needs to inform him of same and warn him that TD rights are revokeable.

To become a BBO TD you need only to be a BBO member in good standing, there is no requirement to know the rules of the game at all. Being granted BBO TD rights allows a person to create tournaments (the host), that person can then add anyone they please as "TD's".

[helene_t]

jillybean, on 2011-January-05, 17:29, said:

To become a BBO TD you need only to be a BBO member in good standing, there is no requirement to know the rules of the game at all. Being granted BBO TD rights allows a person to create tournaments (the host), that person can then add anyone they please as "TD's".

true but this td was not only clueless, he was also careless (didnt anounce his own rules) and rude (kicked someone out without providing any explanation why). I think this should be enough reason to revoke the td rights, even if one accepts the premise that tds don't have to know the basics about the bridge laws.

[hotShot]

Please let us start to call them "hosts", because thats what they are. Some hosts have experience as TD and some don't.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Psychs are a legitimate element of normal bridge. IMO, however, it makes sense to ban psychs from some BBO tournaments:

* Many of competitors are beginners. Psychs may confuse their learning.
* As a BBO player, you alert and explain your own calls. Opponents are prone to cry foul if your explanation bears no relationship to your hand.
* It is easy to cheat on-line, so the fielding of psychs becomes more suspicious and generates more bad feeling than it would at face-to-face bridge.
* Many on-line tournaments are free. Some competitors are not the full shilling. Many have a low attention-span. In the past, when such players were doing badly, they would quit. Now runners are discouraged. So there is a strong temptation for such players to psych and fool around. This tendency must be discouraged because it can detract from the enjoyment of others.
* Some players try to get round system-restrictions by spurious claims that their banned conventional call is a "psych". (Personally, I don't approve of system restrictions but if we must have them, then I think that they should be enforced).
* Psychs attract director calls. On-line, few experienced directors are available.

* Psychs against beginners is not only bad conduct, but also bad strategy. There is no need for a rule against this, you can feel sorry for those who try this. In BBO, those who are beginners show this on their profile, so rather than F2F, you cannot say that you didn't know.
* You misunderstood #2: You explain your agreement, you don't have to tell what you have. If your agreement is 15-17 and you bid 1NT on 14 because you upgraded, you MUST write 15-17. If you psyched with 2 HCP and 6♣ you still must write 15-17.
* Fielding of psyches is a rare event, and there are easier ways to cheat than psyching. Cheaters who play the same tournament regularly get overconfident first and get caught second.
* Psyching because you are doing badly in a tournament is already covered in other rules.
* If people try to circumvent system restrictions that would mean a fielded psych. These are easily uncovered.
* The more director calls for psychs, the more opponents can be educated that they are part of the game. This is a important issue that is ignored by most bridge teachers, and by many of them purposely to enforce the myth that psyching is cheating. This needs to be countered with force.


In short, TDs who ban psychs themselves are guilty of upholding the myth that they are not part of the game, or are too lazy to deal with their important educational obligation.

[nige1]

hotShot, on 2011-January-06, 03:55, said:

Please let us start to call them "hosts", because thats what they are. Some hosts have experience as TD and some don't.

A BBO Tournament director assumes the director role, so it is reasonable to call him "director". Similarly, many Bridge club "directors" have no training or experience; but do an effective and useful job to enhance the enjoyment of players.

[nige1]

Gerben42, on 2011-January-06, 04:50, said:

You misunderstood #2: You explain your agreement, you don't have to tell what you have. If your agreement is 15-17 and you bid 1NT on 14 because you upgraded, you MUST write 15-17. If you psyched with 2 HCP and 6♣ you still must write 15-17.

I understand the rules. Even in team-matches, however, when his hand deviates from a player's explanation of it, opponents often accuse him of cheating, (although the player correctly disclosed the partnership agreement).

Gerben42, on 2011-January-06, 04:50, said:

Fielding of psyches is a rare event, and there are easier ways to cheat than psyching. Cheaters who play the same tournament regularly get overconfident first and get caught second

There is a lot of confusion about psychs. What many players pass off as psychs are, in fact, concealed partnership agreements (eg about super-light third-seat openers and many so-called "tactical" bids). I don't think such players are deliberate "cheats" but Gerben42 is right that players would benefit from education about disclosure, "fielding" and so on.

Gerben42, on 2011-January-06, 04:50, said:

Psyching because you are doing badly in a tournament is already covered in other rules.

The rules forbid players from mucking about when they are out of contention. The problem is that there are lots of head-bangers among the competitors in free on-line tournaments. They are loose-cannons at the best of times; so, other than ban psychs, it is hard to know what the director can do about it.

Gerben42 makes many other excellent points. But all this re-education takes time. As others have mentioned there is a supervening problem that makes psych-bans a practical necessity for BBO tournaments. There often many competitors but just a few inexperienced directors.

Andrew Marvell, To his Coy Mistress, said:

Had we but world enough, and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime.
We would sit down and think which way
To walk, and pass our long love's day;
Thou by the Indian Ganges' side
Shouldst rubies find; I by the tide
Of Humber would complain. I would
Love you ten years before the Flood;
And you should, if you please, refuse
Till the conversion of the Jews.
My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires, and more slow.
An hundred years should go to praise
Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze;
Two hundred to adore each breast,
But thirty thousand to the rest;
An age at least to every part,
And the last age should show your heart.
For, lady, you deserve this state,
Nor would I love at lower rate.

But at my back I always hear
Time's winged chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
Thy beauty shall no more be found,
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
My echoing song; then worms shall try
That long preserv'd virginity,
And your quaint honour turn to dust,
And into ashes all my lust.
The grave's a fine and private place,
But none I think do there embrace.

Now therefore, while the youthful hue
Sits on thy skin like morning dew,
And while thy willing soul transpires
At every pore with instant fires,
Now let us sport us while we may;
And now, like am'rous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour,
Than languish in his slow-chapp'd power.
Let us roll all our strength, and all
Our sweetness, up into one ball;
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Thorough the iron gates of life.
Thus, though we cannot make our sun
Stand still, yet we will make him run.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2011-January-06, 05:01, said:

A BBO Tournament director assumes the director role, so it is reasonable to call him "director". Similarly, many Bridge club "directors" have no training or experience; but do an effective and useful job to enhance the experience of players.

Any particular reason to be quoting that particular poem?
(No objection - indeed, I think that I've used extracts from it before on the forums; however, its one of my all time favorites and its odd to see it suddenly appear)

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2011-January-06, 06:56, said:

Any particular reason to be quoting that particular poem? (No objection - indeed, I think that I've used extracts from it before on the forums; however, its one of my all time favorites and its odd to see it suddenly appear)

It seemed appropriate to the context of expecting harassed on-line directors to patiently teach and gently persuade paranoid tournament-players to tolerate psychs and related subtleties -- rather than just getting on with a cruder but enjoyable game