[zasanya]

In state level tournaments do WBF rules allow 'No Psyches at any stage policy'? Can conditions of contest state that there will be no appeals committee?

[blackshoe]

You cannot ban psychs or appeals outright.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-13, 20:13, said:

You cannot ban psychs or appeals outright.

There needs to be an appeal process, though it doesn't have to take the form of a traditional committee.

[hrothgar]

zasanya, on 2017-February-13, 19:32, said:

In state level tournaments do WBF rules allow 'No Psyches at any stage policy'?

My understanding is that Italy and Austria both have regulations to this effect...

[WellSpyder]

zasanya, on 2017-February-13, 19:32, said:

In state level tournaments do WBF rules allow 'No Psyches at any stage policy'?

I think they would allow a team captain to impose this policy on his team (a policy I sometimes think I should try to impose more often!), but the only sanction would be dropping a player from the team, not getting a ruling from a TD......

[lamford]

hrothgar, on 2017-February-14, 03:03, said:

My understanding is that Italy and Austria both have regulations to this effect...

I think that the Laws of Bridge only allow RAs to regulate conventions. I don't think an RA can prevent the psyche of a natural bid. They can decide after a second "offence" that there is a CPU however (40C1). RAs can prevent, for example, a double of a final contract meaning "Don't lead my weak two partner, but try to find the suit in which I really do have a weak two!"

[hrothgar]

lamford, on 2017-February-14, 10:00, said:

I think that the Laws of Bridge only allow RAs to regulate conventions. I don't think an RA can prevent the psyche of a natural bid. They can decide after a second "offence" that there is a CPU however (40C1). RAs can prevent, for example, a double of a final contract meaning "Don't lead my weak two partner, but try to find the suit in which I really do have a weak two!"

1. That changed in 2008

2. Regardless of whether or not this is true, I believe that both Italy and Austria have regulations that ban psyches and that the WBF has choocen to ignore this.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 40B2{d}: The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.

Quote

Law 40C1: 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.

Quote

Law 40C2: Other than the above, no player has any obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has deviated from his announced methods.

What the above says is that psychs are legal, except that the RA may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.

Quote

Law 80B2{f}: The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include:
…
(f) to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws.

Per this law, a regulation which bans or otherwise restricts psychic natural calls is illegal because it conflicts with Law 40C1.

[lamford]

hrothgar, on 2017-February-14, 10:08, said:

Regardless of whether or not this is true, I believe that both Italy and Austria have regulations that ban psyches and that the WBF has choocen to ignore this.

Then ACs should overturn the TD decision (presumably an award of Ave+ or 3 IMPs) on the basis that the regulation breaches the Laws of Bridge. I imagine, however, that their TDs are forced to follow the three-line whip on Psyexit.

[hrothgar]

lamford, on 2017-February-15, 07:23, said:

Then ACs should overturn the TD decision (presumably an award of Ave+ or 3 IMPs) on the basis that the regulation breaches the Laws of Bridge. I imagine, however, that their TDs are forced to follow the three-line whip on Psyexit.

I leave that to the Italians, the Austrians, and the WBF to work out...

[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-February-15, 07:23, said:

Then ACs should overturn the TD decision

ACs are not allowed to overrule the TD a point of law or regulation, only the Director in Charge can do that. If the DIC upholds the TD's decision, and this is appealed, the most the AC can do is recommend to the DIC that he change his ruling.

This is detailed in Law 93.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-February-15, 09:46, said:

ACs are not allowed to overrule the TD a point of law or regulation, only the Director in Charge can do that. If the DIC upholds the TD's decision, and this is appealed, the most the AC can do is recommend to the DIC that he change his ruling.

This is detailed in Law 93.

AC or DIC may refer the matter to the Regulating Authority even when the question relates to a point of Law or regulation.

Law 93C2 said:

The Director in charge or the Appeals Committee may refer a matter for later consideration by the Regulating Authority. The Regulating Authority has authority to resolve any matter finally.

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-February-15, 09:59, said:

AC or DIC may refer the matter to the Regulating Authority even when the question relates to a point of Law or regulation.

And is the RA likely to overturn a ruling consistent with a regulation they promulgated?

Is there any body analogous to the Supreme Court whose job it is to rule on regulations, and determine whether they're in violation of the Laws?

[blackshoe]

In North America, the ACBL BoD has, iirc, stated that the ACBLLC is the final arbiter of the laws in North America. Of course, the ACBL is also the RA, so it's kind of a moot point.

In the rest of the world, the WBFLC is the final arbiter. I suppose if someone submitted a case to that body, and that body deigned to hear it, they might indeed rule that the regulation is illegal. Not sure they have any power to enforce that ruling on an NBO, though.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-15, 10:35, said:

Not sure they have any power to enforce that ruling on an NBO, though.

That was my point. Even if there's a ruling body, it's moot if they have no power.

BTW, I believe ACBL is an RA, but not an NBO. The NBO is the USBF. So I'm not sure what jurisdiction WBF has over ACBL.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL may not technically be an NBO, but they certainly exercise a lot of the powers one would expect an NBO to exercise.

Quote

WBF ByLaws, §4.5: The Executive shall have power to create additional Zones as the activities of the WBF may require and, for cause, may also alter the assigned territory or withdraw recognition of the existing Zones. Any NBO that wishes to change from one Zone to another must obtain the approval of the Executive.
4.5.1 The Executive shall have power to require each Zone to submit its Constitution and By-Laws that must be in conformity with the principles established by the WBF Constitution and By-Laws.

Quote

Law 80A1: The Regulating Authority under these Laws is
(a) for its own world tournaments and events the World Bridge Federation.
(b) the respective Zonal Authority for tournaments and events held under its auspices.
© for any other tournament or event the National Bridge Organization in whose territory the tournament takes place.

The ACBL is a regulating authority under 80A1b because it is the zonal authority for North America.

Even club games are held under the auspices of the ACBL in NA. I don't think that's necessarily true for any other ZA.