golfacer

I agree... At 10 (or so) minutes before a tournament's scheduled start time, would it be possible to no longer allow changes to a few of the options? (I'm thinking MP/IMPs, start time, time per round, and maximum number of players/pairs). To answer the original question, I don't think that BBO currently has the option for a full round-robin tournament. If a 10-pair tournament is set to nine rounds of one board/round and unclocked, does the system currently prevent "replays" until every pair has played against every other pair?

When in doubt, I use the following: intermediate = probably intermediate advanced = most likely intermediate expert = most likely intermediate with big ego I think the self-rating tool provides some useful information, if not taken literally.

Yuck, please, don't encourage more Survivor tournaments than there already are. 1. The Survivor format tells people that it's fine to quit if you don't have a good score. 2. If partner or I get disconnected at the wrong time, we are thrown out and can't finish. 3. If I register for a tournament, I want to play all of the boards, regardless of whether the score is good. 4. If the opponents are slow, either time must be added to the round or we might get thrown out of the tournament before the board is adjusted (albeit no so much if the rate is set to zero). Adding time creates bad feelings for the other players who are already waiting much too long. Let's (conservatively) say that 2% of all of the BBO names belong to undesirable people. That would be 40,000 names that a director would need to exclude from a tournament.

That is the main reason that I rarely direct tournaments anymore. I would need to replace at least 1/4 of the players in an 8-board or 10-board tournament. I think two possible ways to improve the problem would be to: 1. Allow directors to restrict tournaments to players who finish at least 85-90% of the time. 2. Include, in each player's profile (or make it optional), the player's finished tournament percentage.

For the GIB tournaments, I see a disadvantage to allowing claims. [hv=n=saj7hdc&w=shdc&e=shdc&s=sk4h5dc]399|300|[/hv] Declarer lost count of hearts and is unsure of whether the 5♥ is a winner...so declarer presses the claim button. If rejected, declarer can now try the spade finesse.

Having one every 10 minutes would probably be counterproductive since you would lose about half of the players for each game, then you lose the people that won't play unless there are 15+ people registered. There is a bug that sometimes prevents some of the results from being shown at myhands.

As a director, if someone calls to tell me "opp is missing", I go to the table, greet the players, and give the partner of the disconnected player time to ask for me to wait before finding a sub. I'd guess about 60% won't say anything, 20% ask for a sub, and 20% ask to wait. My target time from the moment of disconnection to getting a sub is about 2-3 minutes, or longer upon request. It would sometimes take that long for a player to return if there is a brief power outage and the computer needs to be restarted. Since many directors are not even allowing 20 seconds, is there anything that can be done? Maybe BBO can give players an option that, when activated, can disable the sub function for partner's seat for 2-3 minutes?

It may be more of a problem now than years ago because (by default) the director gets an automated message when someone gets disconnected. As a director, I've found it to be annoying, so I deactivated it. Of course, I appreciate all of the time that volunteers take to provide tournaments. Having said that, here are some of the issues: 1. There are too many players who don't care about finishing the tournament. 2. Many directors/tournaments allow far more pairs than can be served effectively. 3. Some directors do not have an appreciation that a lot of players want to play only with a chosen partner. Once every year or two, I suggest that a director can restrict tournament players by, let's say, 87% or higher completion percentage, with a minimum of 30 tournaments played. That would encourage more people to direct tournaments (less work) and encourage players to not leave (more tournament choices).

I also played in #1783. At my table, nothing happened in the last 4 minutes. I also had the 25-second delay at times for a few minutes before that. From looking at the scores, I would think almost everyone was affected by the server problem.

Let's approach this problem another way. What can be done to significantly reduce the number of subs needed? 1. Have some tournaments that are available only to players who have completed at least 85% or 90% (?) of their lifetime number of tournaments played. Players would be encouraged to not leave tournaments as often, and more people would be encouraged to direct tournaments since less work is required. 2. Change the idea of trying to quickly replace a missing player, in cases where the player is reasonably likely to return. Yes, there is the downside of their opponents not being able to play for 5-10 minutes, but it may be reasonable if it helps tournaments run better.

Based on the most recent information I could find, tournament players are allowed to have up to a 40% unfinished percentage over a 6-day period (minimum of 6 tournaments played) before there are any consequences. In recent tournaments I have directed (8-10 boards in length), about 1/4 of the players who started did not finish the tournament. The result is much more work for the director and less enjoyment for all of the players. What can be done to try to fix the problem, or to encourage more players to finish what they start? 1. I would want to direct tournaments that allow only players with an unfinished percentage of less than 10%. Since I would have much less work (not nearly as many sub requests as I have now), I can allow many more tables than I currently do. If BBO players see that there are tournaments with an unfinished limit of 10% or 15%, players may be encouraged to quit less often. Also, more people (including myself) would be willing to direct more often. 2. I would want to see a player's unfinished percentage and number of tournaments played as part of a player's profile. Players with a 35% unfinished percentage know they may have more difficulty finding a partner at the partnership desk. 3. I would set the autoban threshold much lower, but over a longer period of time than six days, so that one bad day from an ISP does not distort the statistics. I think 20% or 25% over a 3-week period (minimum of 4 disconnections) is fair enough to the people who have a legitimate bad connection. 4. Subs who do not finish the tournament should not be included in these averages.

Based on the posts and the evidence, it appears as if the director did remove khjbsc from the tournament before the next round started, contrary to the stated BIL policy. In that case, the director made a mistake. All directors make mistakes. Some choose to learn from their mistakes to become better directors. Hopefully the director in question is one of them. If I were the manager of the club, I would have apologized to khjbsc (for not being able to continue playing) and to loubel (for not being able to continue with his/her choice of partner). The latest information I could find was from Uday's posts from April 2004: and from Barring disconnectors from Tourneys, First batch barred

We have some unanswered questions: 1. For how long was the player disconnected? Based on this statement, he was disconnected only during part of the break, not during actual play. 2. Who asked for the sub? Was it khjbsc's partner or the opponents? Or neither; the director saw a red space and filled it without asking anyone? I was not watching, so I do not know what happened. My experience has shown that directors, in general, are way too quick to sub out a player. It often takes several minutes for someone who is disconnected to return. Although are a few cases where the director can guess the player will not return (for example, if their last board was 4♠xx-3), I think it is a very bad idea for directors to generally assume the player will not return.

As the others said, your results are compared to every other table in the tournament, at the end of the tournament. While a tournament is in progress, the IMP scores you see on the movie are computed using only the results from your section.

Nobody said anything about memorizing the laws. A good TD reads his rulings from the book. He doesn't need to memorize the laws, nor should he (if he tries, he might well get a ruling wrong). I agree. I might have misinterpreted this part of sceptic's original post: