[gnasher]

The WBF doesn't own the term "duplicate bridge" either.

It seems to me perfectly reasonable for the club to say "This is duplicate bridge, but not as defined by the WBF." Nobody can be misled by that, and it's certainly better than what they currently do, which misrepresents both the club's status and the game that is offered.

[barmar]

But as I mentioned above, they probably can't play this "not WBF" bridge if they want to award masterpoints from their NBO.

[blackshoe]

Funny. I don't see anything in the rubber laws that suggests it can be legal to ban psychs in rubber games either.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2011-September-27, 16:51, said:

But as I mentioned above, they probably can't play this "not WBF" bridge if they want to award masterpoints from their NBO.

I'm sure they can't, but they probably regard that as less important than making sure that their novice duplicate is suitable for novices. It seems hard to argue with that attitude.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that to most novices (the ones I know, anyway) the idea of psyching would never occur, so there would be no point in banning psychs in such games. Either that, or some of the "novices" in those games aren't really novices.

There's an art to psyching — not only have most novices never heard of such a thing, even if the idea occurs to one, he's much more likely to damage his own side than the other side. Why should the rules protect him from that?

[TMorris]

The ban on psyching is presumably to stop the more experienced players who enter the novice game from putting off the novices. This seems very sensible to me and will be simpler than banning players from the game altogether. After all a few more experienced players in a novice game will help them to learn.

Surely the EBU won't be concerned about such a situation.

[blackshoe]

If I wanted to shoot fish in a barrel, I'd go find a gun and a barrel full of fish. If I wanted to steal candy from babies, I'd go find some babies with candy. Psyching against novices is not something any reasonable experienced player should be interested in.

As for allowing non-novices in novice games, once you do that it's no longer a novice game. Besides that, IME, most of the novices don't like it, regardless whether the non-novices ever psych.

[TMorris]

Whilst I agree with you about playing in a novice game there are plenty who do not.

There are plenty who like beating up novices to get master points & psyching to show how clever they are is all part of the fun. At least there are in the UK maybe the US is different.

Regarding allowing non-novices in a novice game all you have to do is decide who is not a novice. When you are an amateur non-paid playing director and someone turns up who you think might be too good for the game or might not, many opt for a quiet life. Something like not psyching is more easily recognisable.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-28, 15:12, said:

Psyching against novices is not something any reasonable experienced player should be interested in.

Then no harm is done by prohibiting psyches in a novice game.

[hrothgar]

gnasher, on 2011-September-29, 10:50, said:

Then no harm is done by prohibiting psyches in a novice game.

What is your goal?

Producing bridge players or hothouse flowers?

[TMorris]

Possibly the goal is not putting people off whilst they are still learning.

[hrothgar]

TMorris, on 2011-September-29, 13:24, said:

Possibly the goal is not putting people off whilst they are still learning.

Far better to invest a bunch of time and effort training novices and then see them quit when they hit the real games

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2011-September-29, 10:50, said:

Then no harm is done by prohibiting psyches in a novice game.

I'm not so sure about that. It may make the novice players happy. It may make them more unhappy than they might otherwise be when they find out their "no psych" rule isn't universal. It may make them stay (or try to stay) in the novice game forever. It may lead the club owner/TD down the path of thinking that if he can ban psychs he can do other things the rules say he cannot. (I had a very experienced club director tell me once "I can make any ruling I want!" She was not pleased when I replied "yes, you can, but that won't necessarily make it a legal ruling." There may be other detrimental effects I haven't thought of.

[gnasher]

Quote

I'm not so sure about that. It may make the novice players happy. It may make them more unhappy than they might otherwise be when they find out their "no psych" rule isn't universal. It may make them stay (or try to stay) in the novice game forever.

If those things happen, none of them are anybody's business except the club owner's and the players'.

Quote

It may lead the club owner/TD down the path of thinking that if he can ban psychs he can do other things the rules say he cannot. (I had a very experienced club director tell me once "I can make any ruling I want!" She was not pleased when I replied "yes, you can, but that won't necessarily make it a legal ruling." There may be other detrimental effects I haven't thought of.

A club owner *can* make whatever rules he wants, or make any ruling he wants - it's his club. He just can't do it under the auspices of the WBF or its affiliates.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-September-29, 15:39

[campboy]

gnasher, on 2011-September-29, 15:35, said:

A club owner *can* make whatever rules he wants, or make any ruling he wants - it's his club. He just can't do it under the auspices of the WBF or its affiliates.

I think there is a reasonable expectation if entering a duplicate bridge tournament that it is played according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. If it is not then the organiser of the tournament should make this quite clear.

[gnasher]

campboy, on 2011-September-29, 15:49, said:

I think there is a reasonable expectation if entering a duplicate bridge tournament that it is played according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. If it is not then the organiser of the tournament should make this quite clear.

Yes. Didn't I say that already?

[Vampyr]

TMorris, on 2011-September-29, 05:04, said:

There are plenty who like beating up novices to get master points & psyching to show how clever they are is all part of the fun.

But as has already been established by several posters, players cannot receive masterpoints (at least, not from the NBO) in a game where psyching is prohibited.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2011-September-29, 19:03, said:

But as has already been established by several posters, players cannot receive masterpoints (at least, not from the NBO) in a game where psyching is prohibited.

At my local club (Germany) psyches are limited to 1 per tournament night and they give out masterpoints quite happily. Note that, for example, opening a 3rd seat weak 2 on AKQxx and out or opening 1NT with any singleton are regarded as psyches.

[campboy]

gnasher, on 2011-September-29, 17:23, said:

Yes. Didn't I say that already?

For having special club rules, yes you did, but there is a difference between "a club owner can make any ruling he wants" and "a club owner can make any ruling which is justified by previously announced local regulations".

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2011-September-30, 02:06, said:

At my local club (Germany) psyches are limited to 1 per tournament night and they give out masterpoints quite happily. Note that, for example, opening a 3rd seat weak 2 on AKQxx and out or opening 1NT with any singleton are regarded as psyches.

It wouldn't surprise me if a club or two in the ACBL has some rules which would render them technically ineligible to issue masterpoints for a game, as well. If so, shame on them.

The key is whether the ACBL is aware of it. If it is, shame on it.