[fred]

glen, on Jun 8 2009, 11:21 PM, said:

fred, on Jun 8 2009, 06:15 PM, said:

... As I have said before, we prefer to handle such incidents privately (via e-mail to acbl@bridgebase.com) since there is not much point in publicly embarassing a TD who makes a mistake. ...

but this is not what it is about (if it was embarassing a TD we would have names and/or numbers etc.). Also I was not looking for this particular incident to be handled. This is about publicly discussing, sometimes calmly, sometimes not, ACBL BBO policies, as illustrated by an example.

Yes, it was nice of you not to mention the name of the TD, but I doubt that any of our ACBL TD's who read such threads appreciate being called imcompetent, power-hungry, etc. If the TD who made the ruling in question read some of the comments here, I strongly suspect he/she would feel embarassed despite no names being mentioned.

Quote

Customer feedback can be good - it doesn't all need to be buried - let the stories the customers tell each other help make BBO better by engaging discussion and finding better ways of doing what you are doing.

We don't bury anything. Jacki, who you yourself correctly stated is wonderful, also happens to take a great deal of pride in her work. She cares deeply about customer satisfaction and the performance of our ACBL TDs. She is the one who responds to the acbl@bridgebase.com e-mail address and she does not take this responsibility lightly. If she doesn't know how to handle a given situation she will consult with me, Uday, Memphis, or whoever else seems appropriate. If she thinks that one of her TDs made a mistake, she will take steps to ensure that it does not happen again.

Of course we value and appreciate customer feedback, but we prefer that it remains private. When our perceived dirty laundry gets aired in public, it is not only embarassing, it also gives people the false impression that we consistently screw up. That can only be bad for business and what is bad for BBO business is bad for all BBO members (even those who have never played in a single ACBL tournament on our site, some of whom never miss the opportunity to make comments in Forums about how bad our ACBL TDs are).

Anyways, even if you think we are making a mistake by asking you to keep such discussions private, that is what we are asking you (repeatedly) to do. Is it that big a deal for you to respect our wishes in this area?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.co,

[matmat]

fred, on Jun 8 2009, 09:44 PM, said:

If the TD who made the ruling in question read some of the comments here, I strongly suspect he/she would feel embarassed despite no names being mentioned.

so? shame and embarrassment are very suitable feelings for when someone screws up. I actually find it a little disturbing that some cultures seem to be turning toward making everyone only feel good about themselves trying to minimize their feelings of guilt.

the TD in question should feel embarrassed about making the poor ruling, perhaps reviewing some of the manuals etc., and possibly apologizing to the players involved (in private). the shame should not come from the error being pointed out on a bulletin board.

[hrothgar]

fred, on Jun 9 2009, 05:44 AM, said:

Of course we value and appreciate customer feedback, but we prefer that it remains private. When our perceived dirty laundry gets aired in public, it is not only embarassing, it also gives people the false impression that we consistently screw up. That can only be bad for business ...

Hi Fred

Not sure whether I agree with you on this one.

I don't think that many people labor under the impression that anything in life is perfect. ***** happens. (Or, to quote a lesser know SF luminary “Ninety percent of everything is crud”)

I don't expect that the companies that I deal with will provide me with a crud free experience. I do, however, expect that said companies have open and accountable processes to identify crud and eliminate this from the system.

I derive confidence from visibility into the process.
I don't think that in any way, shape, or form unique in this regard.

[qwery_hi]

I personally don't see much upside in debating Fred while the open trials are on. I guess that's where Uday was coming from, and I apologize to Fred if I took something away from the 100% focus that the trials require.

I'm rooting for Diamond to be USA2, and when that happens I'll be back with my 'troll-bait'

[Oof Arted]

mmm firstly in EBU land competitions ALL psyches are recored as a matter of course and collated at HQ This way the Ardent Psychers are monited and KNOWN to TD's

However let us concern ourselves with ONLINE games does anyone think that it is acceptable for people to go around psyching ad - infinitum in OLNINE tournies especially as there is NO way recording psyches thus people who so wish can disrupt tournies if they wish having little or no regard for those who merely want to play Bridge

[oojah]

Oof Arted, on Jun 9 2009, 02:30 PM, said:

However let us concern ourselves with ONLINE games does anyone think that it is acceptable  for people to go around psyching   ad - infinitum in OLNINE tournies  especially as there is NO way recording psyches thus people who so wish can disrupt tournies if they wish having little or no regard for those who merely want to play Bridge

Obviously not but excessive psyching is not the problem. A growing number of players and TD's believe psyches must be banned completely and will also decide on whim, what a psyche looks like.

[Cascade]

Oof Arted, on Jun 10 2009, 07:30 AM, said:

mmm firstly in EBU land competitions ALL psyches are recored as a matter of course and collated at HQ This way the Ardent Psychers are monited and KNOWN to TD's

However let us concern ourselves with ONLINE games does anyone think that it is acceptable for people to go around psyching ad - infinitum in OLNINE tournies especially as there is NO way recording psyches thus people who so wish can disrupt tournies if they wish having little or no regard for those who merely want to play Bridge

I think it is very unlikely that all psyches are recorded in offline games whatever the regulations say. For example some psyches go without notice.

In online games there is a record of every psyche.

In theory at least it will be much easier to establish an inappropriate pattern online than offline.

Psyching is a subset of merely playing bridge.

[david_c]

Oof Arted, on Jun 9 2009, 08:30 PM, said:

mmm firstly in EBU land competitions ALL psyches are recored as a matter of course and collated at HQ This way the Ardent Psychers are monited and KNOWN to TD's

Actually that's not true. Certainly the EBU has a procedure for recording psyches, but the TD is not obliged to record every one. The EBU's Orange Book (section 6C1) says:

Psychic bids do not have to be reported but a player may request the TD to record them if he wishes. To do so is not to accuse the opponents of malpractice. The TD may record any hand if he thinks fit.

[mr1303]

I used to be david_c's partner, and I used to psyche reasonably frequently. The only hand I've ever had recorded was a misbid/misinformation case. None of my psyches were ever recorded.

[Oof Arted]

mr1303, on Jun 10 2009, 03:50 PM, said:

I used to be david_c's partner, and I used to psyche reasonably frequently. The only hand I've ever had recorded was a misbid/misinformation case. None of my psyches were ever recorded.

Well if they were in a National event and the TD was called then they should have been

If by your admission you used to psyche regularily then it is no longer a psyche as your partner must have in his mind the possibilty that you HAVE psyched

[1eyedjack]

Eh? Partner will always have in mind the possibility that you have psyched, even if you have never psyched before in your life.

Almost everyone psychs with different frequency from the next. It is inevitable that any regular partnership will have a better feel for the likelihood of partner having psyched than as predicted by the opposition. Provided that on any given hand the chance of partner having psyched is negligible (and it will be even for those who psych relatively frequently) and furthermore that you don't field it if you suspect it, that is about the only practical way to proceed and indeed it is difficult to see how the opponents are damaged. You would have a similar advantage over the opponents if from your knowledge of your regular partnership you are aware that partner psychs less frequently than the average player in the event.

[Oof Arted]

1eyedjack, on Jun 11 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

Eh? Partner will always have in mind the possibility that you have psyched, even if you have never psyched before in your life.

Almost everyone psychs with different frequency from the next.  It is inevitable that any regular partnership will have a better feel for the likelihood of partner having psyched than as predicted by the opposition.  Provided that on any given hand the chance of partner having psyched is negligible (and it will be even for those who psych relatively frequently) and furthermore that you don't field it if you suspect it, that is about the only practical way to proceed and indeed it is difficult to see how the opponents are damaged.  You would have a similar advantage over the opponents if from your knowledge of your regular partnership you are aware that partner psychs less frequently than the average player in the event.

My last post was in response to mr1303 who seems to admit that when he played with davidc he regularily psyched thus it becomes a 'partnership' understanding as partner will know that partner has done x y z in this situation before therefore it is a partnership understanding

And as a psyche should by law hold the same element of surprise for the other 3 THREE people at the table this is broken

[Cascade]

Oof Arted, on Jun 12 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

And as a psyche should by law hold the same element of surprise for the other 3 THREE people at the table this is broken

This is at best a distortion of what the law says ...

perhaps it is deliberate...

and hence a psyche.

[Oof Arted]

Cascade, on Jun 12 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

Oof Arted, on Jun 12 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

And as a psyche should by law hold the same element of surprise for the other 3 THREE people at the table this is broken

This is at best a distortion of what the law says ...

perhaps it is deliberate...

and hence a psyche.

ok wayne law 40 c 1 in full

A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always
provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation
than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings
which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in
accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the
director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.

Or in brief the bid MUST hold the same element of surprise for the other 3 people at the table.

Thanks for making me type it out in full

[Cascade]

Oof Arted, on Jun 13 2009, 09:25 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 12 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

Oof Arted, on Jun 12 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

And as a psyche should by law hold the same element of surprise for the other 3 THREE people at the table this is broken

This is at best a distortion of what the law says ...

perhaps it is deliberate...

and hence a psyche.

ok wayne law 40 c 1 in full

A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always
provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation
than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings
which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in
accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the
director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.

Or in brief the bid MUST hold the same element of surprise for the other 3 people at the table.

Thanks for making me type it out in full

I still don't see the word "surprise" in the law.

I don't think "surprise" is a proper or reasonable paraphrase of the phrase "no more reason to be aware".

Sure lack of awareness may lead to surprise but it don't think it necessarily does so.

'no more reason to be aware ' is a statement of the situation prior to the event occuring.

'surprise' is a reaction to the event having occured.

I am never going to be surprised by a 1♠ psyche on the auction 1♥ (Dbl) ? Whoever my partner is. Other players might be.

I don't think the law in any way precludes my first time intermediate partner from making this psyche against opponents who might be surprised by it whatever their experience.

[uday]

Quote

his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation

In a regular partnership, this is unlikely to be possible.

[Cascade]

uday, on Jun 13 2009, 10:20 AM, said:

Quote

his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation

In a regular partnership, this is unlikely to be possible.

Are you trying to suggest it is impossible to psyche lawfully in a regular partnership?

[barmar]

Cascade, on Jun 12 2009, 07:15 PM, said:

uday, on Jun 13 2009, 10:20 AM, said:

Quote

his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation

In a regular partnership, this is unlikely to be possible.

Are you trying to suggest it is impossible to psyche lawfully in a regular partnership?

If you psyche very rarely (e.g. once a year) you can get away with it. But if you psyche with any regularity, e.g. once a week, I doubt it. Maybe once in a while you'll come up with a psyche you haven't used several times before, so partner would have no reason to be aware of the possibility, but I suspect most of them will be repeat offenders, because there aren't really that many useful psyches.

[matmat]

barmar, on Jun 12 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

If you psyche very rarely (e.g. once a year) you can get away with it. But if you psyche with any regularity, e.g. once a week, I doubt it. Maybe once in a while you'll come up with a psyche you haven't used several times before, so partner would have no reason to be aware of the possibility, but I suspect most of them will be repeat offenders, because there aren't really that many useful psyches.

Isn't it possible that partner is aware of the possibility, but since they are an ethical player, they do not cater to it until (if) it is exposed?

[awm]

There is also a question of the number of hands we have played, which in some ways makes it easier to psych in a regular partnership.

For example, suppose that I occasionally bid 1♠ in response to 1♥ on a short suit with support. Say partner has seen me do this three times in the course of our partnership.

If I have responded 1♠ to 1♥ a grand total of five times in our partnership, then 3/5 of the times I have not had spades. Partner very much knows how I love to fake this response, and even if he tries to be ethical and not take advantage, it may be difficult for him.

If I have responded 1♠ to 1♥ a grand total of three hundred times in our partnership, then 3/300 is only 1% of the time I have not had spades. Sure, partner has seen me not have spades before, but even if he was willing to be unethical and try to take advantage, the percentage of the times that I did have spades is so overwhelming that his best bet is to play me for a spade suit.