[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-May-24, 10:55, said:

That would be good prior to their 1-2 hour drive home.

It is not really relevant how far the players and AC have to drive. The players have a right to an appeal, and this must be carried out according to the procedures in the NBO's regulations. If the AC do not have time to give due consideration for their decision directly after the event, the appeal must be scheduled for a different time.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2011-May-30, 04:01, said:

It is not really relevant how far the players and AC have to drive. The players have a right to an appeal, and this must be carried out according to the procedures in the NBO's regulations. If the AC do not have time to give due consideration for their decision directly after the event, the appeal must be scheduled for a different time.

Thank you for clearing that up. I was referring to going to the bar to wait for the ruling, then driving home --a practice frowned upon in some places.

[blackshoe]

It may surprise you to know that some people can spend time in a bar without drinking alcohol.

[aguahombre]

Yeh? Never tried that.

[mrdct]

ahydra, on 2011-May-29, 23:15, said:

If their methods "say" (i.e. deduced from the similar auction 2H-2S) that 2H is NF, why should East have to bid at all? Facing a 2H opener West would bid 2S with something like J109xxxx - xxx xxx, no? In a similar vein, if West had a hand with spades interested in game, he would bid 2NT or something I assume.

That is to say, East is entitled to play West for a rubbish hand and shouldn't have a 3H bid forced upon him in the notional auction. After all, the general rule is "once you pre-empt don't bid again". Yes the opps haven't bid but my understanding is that this is irrelevant - they may well have miscounted or taken a view.

East has already done a fair amount to avoid using the UI by not bidding 3D - he settles for the 3-2 fit... I think the ruling is a bit harsh, particularly the 1 VP fine.

ahydra

Most people I know play mandatory courtesy raises with 3-card support after a non-forcing change of suit and in this case with AQx support, a void, undisclosed extra length in ♦ and green vs red, I couldn't imagine any remotely sensible bridge player not raising to 3♥ or 4♥.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

It is not really relevant how far the players and AC have to drive. The players have a right to an appeal, and this must be carried out according to the procedures in the NBO's regulations. If the AC do not have time to give due consideration for their decision directly after the event, the appeal must be scheduled for a different time.

I'm sure you are theoretically right but as a practical matter it is awkward if quite a few people are waiting for results etc at the end of a long event. In the final of the EBU Premier League weekend this year the results and presentation were delayed for 40 minutes or so for an appeal. No way really to avoid this.

Yesterday at Bournemouth the Chief TD had 40/50 people waiting at the end of an event whilst a team decided whether or not to appeal at the end of the event. They were most put out at being hurried and in the end decided not to proceed. I don't think you can hold this sort of appeal later and for committees you are reliant on the help of long suffering volunteers who have probably already had their drinking eating and sleeping time impinged on earlier in the weekend!

Quote

It may surprise you to know that some people can spend time in a bar without drinking alcohol.

Add me to the list of those who are surprised

[bluejak]

helene_t, on 2011-May-24, 16:34, said:

4♥X-6=1400, I think this is clear enough that I see no reason for a weighted score.

How can it be that clear when there are so many views in the thread?

Players do not certainly and unambiguously take a particular action which another play can decide very often. Far better is to accept that.

Vampyr, on 2011-May-23, 16:50, said:

I do not like regulations that require mind-reading. Why not treat a misbid as a psych? Not doing so is illogical and is also a license to cheat.

Mind-reading is a buzz word meaning judgement. Many rulings are based on judgement. Why not?

If you disallow misbids you really are trying to kill the game by putting off very poor and inexperienced players whose misbids are based on ignorance or strupidity. No, please let us have psyches and misbids treated differently where necessary and not worry that a TD or AC has to make a judgement as they do in many other cases.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-June-02, 16:56, said:

Mind-reading is a buzz word meaning judgement. Many rulings are based on judgement. Why not?

I have consulted Chambers and it turns out that you are wrong.

Quote

If you disallow misbids you really are trying to kill the game by putting off very poor and inexperienced players whose misbids are based on ignorance or strupidity. No, please let us have psyches and misbids treated differently where necessary and not worry that a TD or AC has to make a judgement as they do in many other cases.

Let us ignore the fact that this view represents a "cheat's charter" and also forget that disallowed psyches are a regulation that doesn't deserve enough respect to be obeyed.

If an NBO bars psyching X, that means that their position is that a player should be penalised if he bids X when he does not hold what X says he holds. So what difference can it makes what the player's stated(or even true) intention is?

PS I am sure that many poor and inexperienced players do not play anything that can become a disallowed psych under Australian regulations. It is probably much easier to fall foul of the ACBL's regulations, since a very large number of bids are banned from being psyched, but I do not want this discussion to degenerate into a pointless discussion about the ACBL's shocking system regulations. It has been done before.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-02, 18:28, said:

but I do not want this discussion to degenerate into a pointless discussion about the ACBL's shocking system regulations. It has been done before.

Of course you do. Otherwise you wouldn't have called them shocking --or even brought the ACBL into an Australian issue.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-June-02, 19:14, said:

Of course you do. Otherwise you wouldn't have called them shocking --or even brought the ACBL into an Australian issue.

No, they have been described as shocking by many people. I would rather discuss what should be done under psych-banning regulations then whether it is desirable to ban some psyching.

This is not solely an Australian issue -- there are other NBOs that ban certain psychs. The principle is the same wherever there are such regulations in place. I brought up the ACBL because it is the only other psych-banning NBO I know of; and in their case it might be harder to treat a misbid of a banned psych the same as a deliberate psych, because they have a lot of illegal psychs. So the idea that they should be treated the same is probably a good one in places where only one class of psych is banned, but impractical in places that ban a number of psychs, because it would be easier for weaker players to fall foul of the regulations.

[shintaro]

Jeremy69A, on 2011-May-31, 07:08, said:

Add me to the list of those who are surprised

I your Cicles perhaps Jeremy

[Oof Arted]

bluejak, on 2011-June-02, 16:56, said:

How can it be that clear when there are so many views in the thread?

Players do not certainly and unambiguously take a particular action which another play can decide very often. Far better is to accept that.

Perhaps so many different views by TD's who like to sit on razor blades and not actually have to make a straight ruling in case others who are of the ilk 'Do a Split score at all costs' jump up and down at L&E

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-02, 18:28, said:

Let us ignore the fact that this view represents a "cheat's charter" and also forget that disallowed psyches are a regulation that doesn't deserve enough respect to be obeyed.

If an NBO bars psyching X, that means that their position is that a player should be penalised if he bids X when he does not hold what X says he holds. So what difference can it makes what the player's stated(or even true) intention is?

Let us not ignore the supposition that it is a cheat's charter because it isn't. That is a baseless view.

Just because you think that certain regulations are wrong is not a reason to not obey them. Cheating is deliberately and knowledgeably breaking the rules which is unacceptable, and a justification that you do not like the rule is a pretty poor justification.

If an NBO bars psyching that means the position is that a player should be penalised if he makes a call deliberately and knowledgeably and intentionally when holding a different hand. What difference is it if the situation is different? Simple: that is neither illegal nor intended to be so, so making it illegal just because you do not like the rule is not good enough.

I think that your idea of calling beginners rule-breakers when they are not, merely ignorant, is very bad for the game, and fortunately not followed by the authorities.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-June-05, 18:44, said:

I think that your idea of calling beginners rule-breakers when they are not, merely ignorant, is very bad for the game, and fortunately not followed by the authorities.

Perhaps it should be mentioned in the regulations precisely at what level a player can be considered experienced enough to psych a strong opening? I do not like rules that require mind-reading, but I do think that if players truly are beginners, then an adjusted score and a warning are probably sufficient.

As I have mentioned in a previous post, beginners are not likely to fall foul of a regulation that bans artificial strong opening bids. Beginners will play an opening 2♦ bid as strong and natural, weak and natural, or strong and artificial. They will never have played another treatment and so will not get confused.

I'm not sure what to make of your suggestion that the players were breaking the regulation deliberately because they disapproved of it; I did not get the impression that this was considered a serious possibility in the OP.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-06, 04:53, said:

I'm not sure what to make of your suggestion that the players were breaking the regulation deliberately because they disapproved of it; I did not get the impression that this was considered a serious possibility in the OP.

I got it from your post not the OP:

Quote

...that disallowed psyches are a regulation that doesn't deserve enough respect to be obeyed.

The suggestion is there to disobey a regulation.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-June-06, 06:46, said:

The suggestion is there to disobey a regulation.

You're right; I didn't mean it that way. Though I come from a country with an honourable tradition of non-violent civil disobedience, I do not believe that this can extend to a game. I would try to get this regulation changed though, if I had to play under it. I am pleased that my own local regulations have removed a similar rule.