[lamford]

---

Table Result: 1NTx-7 N/S EW+1700

SB stopped off en route to Reno at the appropriately named Ten Sleep in Wyoming, where there was a 5-table Monday morning game with tea and cakes for only $5. He noticed the sign "Strictly No Psyches" on the wall as he came in, but also saw another sign that "Games are played in accordance with ACBL laws". All the players seemed in their nineties, and he played with the host, not the sharpest pencil in the box, and he trundled along at around 55% until the last board when he decided some excitement was in order to wake up the place.

West could do little other than double, and SB decided to gamble that EW could make a slam, when -1400 would be ok. He was right about that, and when the traveler was opened, West, a sweet lady called Gloria, said "It's a complete bottom partner, all the other four pairs bid and made grand slam". "That was a takeout double and you should have taken it out". East, a lady called Alice, replied: "I thought of bidding my hearts, but I think that double is penalties, Gloria. You should have bid 7S or 7NT which makes." "And I think we need the director," she continued. "South has psyched and that is not allowed in this club."

The TD came and seemed to be agreeing with Alice and Gloria, but SB quickly quoted Law 40A3 to the TD: "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." "It is clear that there was no undisclosed understanding", he continued. "But we do have a "no-psyches" rule", replied the elderly TD, "and also your partner should have alerted the unusual no-trump, which we do allow". "That was not the unusual NT, you cretin", replied SB. "It was an out-and-out psyche, which you are not allowed to prohibit."

How would you rule?

[Cyberyeti]

It being America I'd probably shoot the SB for the cretin remark, he probably doesn't get to make the second part of it.

[barmar]

Someone need to remind SB that he's heading to the Wild West, where there are lots more guns than in his native land. Cowboys don't take kindly to that kind of insult.

The club has two signs on the wall, which directly contradict each other. Why does he assume that the sign about playing in accordance with the Laws is the one that the club really obeys? The TD seems to be giving precedence to the no-psyche policy.

[mycroft]

"It's legal, and we're going to record it and send it to Unit and (since you're going to Reno) ACBL recorder. There is the door, please use it - you are no longer welcome in this club. No, we'd prefer if you not wait for the results or a copy of the hand records - they're available on the site." Any further delay will be met with "you are now trespassing; please leave before we call the police."

How we end up scoring it is something very interesting - but not terribly relevant to SB.

What I would do if this were *not* the last hand is also a very interesting question.

Note: I was "burned" by this one (although it was not technically a psych, as the opening was a Precision 1♣. We only got it 1400). In a much bigger event than the 5-table club game in Worsley, Alberta. Ah well.

[billw55]

Adjust score to par. Assess full board PP for verbal abuse. Any more sauce, politely ask SB to not return.

[barmar]

Since he's just passing through and doesn't expect to be in this neck of the wood ever again, I suspect the "not return" requests are superfluous. But it does express the club's feelings about his behavior.

[richlp]

lamford, on 2016-March-08, 09:31, said:

---

Table Result: 1NTx-7 N/S EW+1700

SB stopped off en route to Reno at the appropriately named Ten Sleep in Wyoming, where there was a 5-table Monday morning game with tea and cakes for only $5. He noticed the sign "Strictly No Psyches" on the wall as he came in, but also saw another sign that "Games are played in accordance with ACBL laws". All the players seemed in their nineties, and he played with the host, not the sharpest pencil in the box, and he trundled along at around 55% until the last board when he decided some excitement was in order to wake up the place.

West could do little other than double, and SB decided to gamble that EW could make a slam, when -1400 would be ok. He was right about that, and when the traveler was opened, West, a sweet lady called Gloria, said "It's a complete bottom partner, all the other four pairs bid and made grand slam". "That was a takeout double and you should have taken it out". East, a lady called Alice, replied: "I thought of bidding my hearts, but I think that double is penalties, Gloria. You should have bid 7S or 7NT which makes." "And I think we need the director," she continued. "South has psyched and that is not allowed in this club."

The TD came and seemed to be agreeing with Alice and Gloria, but SB quickly quoted Law 40A3 to the TD: "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." "It is clear that there was no undisclosed understanding", he continued. "But we do have a "no-psyches" rule", replied the elderly TD, and also your partner should have alerted the unusual no-trump, which we do allow". "That was not the unusual NT, you cretin", replied SB. "It was an out-and-out psyche, which you are not allowed to prohibit."

How would you rule?

If necessary, justifiable homicide.

If it only came down to a couple of colorful lumps on SB's face I would rule him negligent for using his face to injure a 90 year old's hand.

I would expect a call to ACBL headquarters where a recitation of the facts would lead to a 3 week (however long it would take to finish the event in Reno) suspension for violation of Zero Tolerance.

Not sure about result on hand and don't really care.

[wank]

of course for some interpreting bridge laws is more interesting than playing bridge. the people who attend no psyche bridge clubs are obviously not interested in bridge laws though so he can expect short shrift when he starts whining.

[paulg]

wank, on 2016-March-08, 19:14, said:

of course for some interpreting bridge laws is more interesting than playing bridge

Let's face it, the laws of the game are well written compared to the ACBL regulations. I don't think SB is going to enjoy his trip, it will be like playing against babies.

[lamford]

paulg, on 2016-March-09, 02:54, said:

Let's face it, the laws of the game are well written compared to the AC 54.5BL regulations. I don't think SB is going to enjoy his trip, it will be like playing against babies.

My reporter informs me that the score was adjusted to 60%-40% for Gloria and Alice, and SB was given a DP of 10% of a top for his "cretin" remark. It so happened that SB still won the event with 54.5% in a low-scoring game. SB has retaliated by filing a report to the ACBL that the club has breached, and regularly breaches, the following condition for holding ACBL sanctioned events:

"Every ACBL sanctioned masterpoint club game must designate an active ACBL member as its manager who is a member in good standing whose dues or service fees are current. The manager may be elected, appointed, or hired. The club manager is accountable to ACBL for the enforcement of ACBL rules and regulations in all sanctioned games the club conducts."

He has asked for the chimerical Wyoming club to have their license to hold masterpoint club games withdrawn because of their illegal "no-psyches" rule but he does not expect a response.

[mycroft]

I think I will run a game for SB and anyone else who wishes to play in it. As a legally organized ACBL club, I am accepting the responsibility devolved to my club by the ACBL to modify the convention charts for this game to be "Special Partnership Understandings: all of the Standard Moldavian card. You may play these special partnership understandings provided you do not psych them. All other partnership understandings are not permitted." Note: while I don't agree that you *should* be able to do that, I have WBFLC approval that the Laws *allow me* to do it.

Let's see how that goes. I'd better do it with a compliant bunch - because I know what happens in "one-card" games; what the complainers actually mean by "why do we have to deal with all these weird conventions? Why not just all play the same and have the game remain pure - better judgement and better card play will win" is actually "we want to play *our* pet conventions, because they're useful; we don't want to play against *their* weird stuff." (and "we're better card players than system builders/bidders; let's tilt the field toward our strengths").

I hope that the ACBL takes SB's report, and the report from the club over his behaviour, and combines them in a ceremony to dispel demons.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2016-March-09, 17:02, said:

I think I will run a game for SB and anyone else who wishes to play in it. As a legally organized ACBL club, I am accepting the responsibility devolved to my club by the ACBL to modify the convention charts for this game to be "Special Partnership Understandings: all of the Standard Moldavian card. You may play these special partnership understandings provided you do not psych them. All other partnership understandings are not permitted." Note: while I don't agree that you *should* be able to do that, I have WBFLC approval that the Laws *allow me* to do it.

Let's see how that goes. I'd better do it with a compliant bunch - because I know what happens in "one-card" games; what the complainers actually mean by "why do we have to deal with all these weird conventions? Why not just all play the same and have the game remain pure - better judgement and better card play will win" is actually "we want to play *our* pet conventions, because they're useful; we don't want to play against *their* weird stuff." (and "we're better card players than system builders/bidders; let's tilt the field toward our strengths").

I hope that the ACBL takes SB's report, and the report from the club over his behaviour, and combines them in a ceremony to dispel demons.

The agreement that SB had with his pick-up partner, I am told, was to play SAYC. Basic. As is. With a 1NT opener and overcall showing 15-17 (as an overcall with a stopper). None of the bids on the SAYC are designated Special Partnership Understandings by the ACBL. If they are, then SB would have deleted them. If he was left with no conventions he would have been quite happy, indeed happier with the partner he had. The ACBL would then be powerless and would face a fierce backlash from the National Psyching Association if they attempted to ban the psyche of a 1NT opener or 1NT overcall, as they have not designated either as a Special Partnership Understanding. Just as the club would face a fierce backlash from the National Rifle Association if they attempted to stop SB carrying a gun for his own protection!

[barmar]

SAYC includes Jacoby 2NT, which is alertable in ACBL.

[mycroft]

Oddly enough, in Yellow Card games - not that there *are* any, any more, mind you - the only reason the game is legal is because of the Hard version of the Endicott Fudge that I referenced above.

Oh, and by obvious implication all conventions are considered Special Partnership Understandings (as they are, in fact, regulated). Also, ACBL clubs are allowed by the ACBL to set their own regulations as to Special Partnership Understandings; I believe that a general "no-psychs" rule outside of the context of a fixed card is beyond the "as long as they do not conflict" wording, but I think it's a stupid rule for other reasons (viz. the discussion a month ago or so).

Anyway, SAYC includes such SPUs as:
Negative and Takeout Doubles (Do note that 1♠-(3♣)-X is Alertable in the ACBL playing SAYC. Why is an exercise for the reader)
2-level transfers (Announceable, a class of Alerts)
Blackwood, Gerber, Stayman,...

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2016-March-10, 10:37, said:

Oddly enough, in Yellow Card games - not that there *are* any, any more, mind you - the only reason the game is legal is because of the Hard version of the Endicott Fudge that I referenced above.

Oh, and by obvious implication all conventions are considered Special Partnership Understandings (as they are, in fact, regulated). Also, ACBL clubs are allowed by the ACBL to set their own regulations as to Special Partnership Understandings; I believe that a general "no-psychs" rule outside of the context of a fixed card is beyond the "as long as they do not conflict" wording, but I think it's a stupid rule for other reasons (viz. the discussion a month ago or so).

Anyway, SAYC includes such SPUs as:
Negative and Takeout Doubles (Do note that 1♠-(3♣)-X is Alertable in the ACBL playing SAYC. Why is an exercise for the reader)
2-level transfers (Announceable, a class of Alerts)
Blackwood, Gerber, Stayman,...

Firstly the RA has to designate these as "special partnership understandings", and secondly they would have to honestly comply with 40B1(a):
In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as “special partnership understandings”. A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.

You could say, "ah .. then they can decide that a 1NT overcall showing 15-17 with a stopper in the opposing suit could be a Special Partnership Understanding." A court of law would decide that if they offered the opinion that this was not readily understood by the caretaker's cat, they would be lying. "In the opinion of the Regulating Authority" does not give the RA power to decide that everything is a Special Partnership Understanding, and a vexatious litigant such as SB would win hands down.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-March-10, 23:25, said:

Firstly the RA has to designate these as "special partnership understandings"…

I'm not so sure of that. The law also says "A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings, as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning."

[WellSpyder]

lamford, on 2016-March-10, 23:25, said:

a vexatious litigant such as SB would win hands down.

I thought the point about being designated a vexatious litigant was that you don't get the chance to win anything in a court of law!

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-10, 23:53, said:

I'm not so sure of that. The law also says "A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings, as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning."

I do not think a natural 1NT opening bid or overcall can be described as a convention within the normal meaning of the word. Although I do notice that "convention" is missing from the definitions. Maybe the lawmakers decided that its meaning would be readily understood by a significant number of people reading the Laws ...

In addition the RA would need to have a rule that no convention can be psyched. I think there is a rule about strong artificial calls, but that does not extend to all conventions.

[lamford]

WellSpyder, on 2016-March-11, 06:00, said:

I thought the point about being designated a vexatious litigant was that you don't get the chance to win anything in a court of law!

The use was in a general sense, not a legal sense. Also "a single action, even a frivolous one, is usually not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious. Rather, a pattern of frivolous legal actions is typically required to rise to the level of vexatious. Repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in eventual disbarment."

And note that it only says "can" and says "eventual". And the above only applies to litigation in a court of law. In addition, SB sometimes wins his "litigation" over the green baize.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-March-11, 09:31, said:

I do not think a natural 1NT opening bid or overcall can be described as a convention within the normal meaning of the word.

Really? Here is part of Chris Ryall's write-up of NT ranges as an example (bolded as per original, not for effect):

Quote

•A 12-14 opening will on average make 7 tricks. As such it is entirely "natural". You open 1NT: you contract for seven tricks - and on average you'll make seven!
•In contrast your average 15-17 style hand will bring in 8 tricks - and don't lose sleep about making five. The strong NT is actually a convention, evolved in the rubber bridge days to avoid penalties when dummy lacks points (or declarer card technique)!