candybar

Sometimes a TD has to make judgments about explanations and the possibility of concealed or implicit partnership agreements. It occurs to me that the software could easily keep a count of the number of hands that player1 has played with player2. In a tournament, the TD should then be able to see that number for any given partnership. That would tell him/her if the partnership is experienced together.

My point is that TDs SHOULD be professional, even on BBO, maybe ESPECIALLY on BBO! What other bridge club in the entire world has several thousand people, of all levels, playing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Of all places in the world, this is the one that MOST needs competent directors! I did report this situation to abuse, complete with screenshots, and I'm sure they will deal with the specific individuals involved in whatever way they think best. Also, you are mistaken that the TD should ever explain for a player. (1) The TD cannot know what the partnership agreements are, and (2) the TD is looking at all the hands and must certainly NOT reveal what he can see. I posted here, because I want to continue to campaign for STANDARDS for BBO TDs. The standards needed for online directors are not necessarily the same as for f2f. For example, in live bridge, a high percent of the director calls I receive are for leads out of turn, revokes, dropped cards, etc, which never happen online. An online director certification does not even need to include those Laws in detail. On the other hand, alerts and explanations are extremely important online, where the huge variety of systems, partnership agreements, and high numbers of first-time partnerships and individual events make knowledge in that area crucial to a competent TD. A director online needs to clearly and fully understand the alert procedure as well as the spirit of it, full disclosure rules, and the Laws about the violations of partnership agreements including psyches. S/he also needs to be more cognizant of abuse such as concealed agreements and potential cheating. So instead of sticking our heads in the sand and saying "it's only online bridge", let's face up to the new paradigm and begin shaping it up, starting with standards for online directing.

Here's another example of a really poor TD. I entered a tournament this morning, and during an auction in the second round, a 2S bid was alerted, with 'no explanation available". I clicked the bid and the opponent instantly reclicked "no explanation available". This sequence was repeated several times, and I finally asked him to openly to explain or I would call the director. I clicked the bid again several times and each time he immediately clicked back with 'no explanation available". I called the director. In front of the director, I asked the opponent to explain, and he replied "No". The TD then (incorrectly but immediately so I know he didn't have time to ask) stated the bid was natural overcall, and I replied that the director is not allowed to explain a bid for a player and that I wanted the opponent's explanation. I even said if it was natural, just say so. He refused. The director then corrected his explanation of the bid to natural new suit. The director insisted that rsz did not have to explain his bid and ordered me to play on. I told the director that I was entitled to an explanation from the player who had alerted, and he disconnected me from the tournament. When are we going to set some standards for BBO TDs?

I agree with McBruce that procedural penalties are badly needed. I also agree with Walddk that no one should ever be penalized for calling the director and asking about a situation. It's true that some players will continue arguing because they think they are right, and some (even in f2f) call the director hoping for an adjustment they don't deserve. If you tell them no, explain your reason, and they still become obnoxious, then they deserve a procedural penalty. In the case I posted, however, the opponent was not harassing me, not even arguing for an adjustment he didn't deserve, but he was simply incensed that someone could open that light and not tell him via an alert. It took me the four exchanges to educate him, and I kept thinking about TDs who might not be willing to take the time to do it. I'm certain this was not intended to be argumentative, but done in ignorance of how alerts are supposed to work, hence my suggestion of an article, perhaps in the BBO Library, explaining about alerting, psyche bids, and related issues, that a TD could refer a player to.

The solution is to play indys. Then you have no problems with partnership understanding. Bridge is a partnership game. To me, working with a partner to develop a good partnership, learning and adapting to each others' styles, and doing the care and feeding of a partner is an important part of the game. I rarely play Individuals because this important aspect of bridge is absent.

Here's a good example of dealing with a "psyche" problem. In a tournament I ran today, a player opened 1♦ in first seat holding xxx, x, A10xxxx, KQx. The opponents found their heart game and made it, then called me because the 1♦ bid "wasn't alerted". This is not even a psyche in my opinion, just a very light risky opening in a pickup partnership (I know because I had sub'd in the opener the round before), but in any case, it took me about 4 exchanges of messages to explain that it wasn't alertable, and I'm not sure if the opponent really understood or just gave up complaining. I think there would be some value to a Help file that explains very clearly in non-legalese about alerts being for partnership agreements, not for silly or out-of-system bids, and a few words about psyches in it as well. I don't mind explaining this to a player who doesn't know, but I suspect cases like this are part of why so many TDs don't want the effort of dealing with psyches. I don't want to even think what would happen with this bid at a tournament that forbade psyches.

Thank you for taking this discussion seriously! :wub: Now if we could only convince the ACBL that Multi 2D is not a bugaboo :blink: and the rest of the anti-psyche crowd that psyches aren't the nightmare they seem to fear, we'd be back to playing real bridge! :D

Zmey, I have not played in any tournament run by that TD since I started this thread. I observed the same thing happening again, and checked the posted rules, etc, to be sure of my facts before I posted the second day. As for psyches and opening NT with singletons, I psyche about twice a year, and I open 1N with a singleton less often than that. However, when I believe that it is right to do so, I don't want some TD adjusting my score because he disapproves.

I called this thread to the attention of the TD in question,[edited ] who is running a PAY tournement with the same threat to adjust scores for opening NT with singletons, right now as I type, under the host name [edited]. His 'rule' is NOT shown in the tournament description and NO tournament rules were posted. I even checked their webpage and there is nothing there either. He informed me that he would run the tournaments any way he wanted and I could report him if I didn't like it. Please consider him reported. [Edited by inquiry. Correct way to report by name is to email Abuse]

Let's consider this point of view very carefully. What you are saying is that because people are willing to donate their time to run a tournament, it's ok that they do a half-baked job of it. That means we are making a choice between having a lot of free tournaments with TDs that don't really want to do the whole TD job, versus having fewer tournaments with good TDs who know the rules and take care of the more difficult aspects like alert failures, monitoring abusive use of psyches, potential cheating, etc. We certainly have a lot of tournaments with playing TDs, who don't even have the ability to visit a table in answer to a director call, so they are clearly unable to deal with player issues. We certainly have a lot of TDs who are not certified in any national organization, and who do not know the basics of the Laws or how to apply them. For example, I've found some TDs that think that psyches are ok as long as they are privately alerted to the opponents(!), if that makes sense to anyone at all. And some who are convinced that out-of-system bids where the partner has no knowledge must still be alerted to the opponents. This lack of understanding on the part of the TD causes even more problems with the players who are trying to play fairly. And don't forget, this thread was started over an issue in a PAY tournament, so it's not just the free tournament TDs who are part of this problem. So it seems to come down to a choice between TDs who are certified in some way that demonstrates they understand more than how to sub a missing player, versus TDs who think because they are giving their time free that they should be able to run a tournament in any way they want. Which do we really want running the tournaments on BBO?

A legal strategy, even if you don't like it, employed at the highest levels of competition, and one that is almost always doomed to abysmal failure. Such uses of pseudo-psyches are, of course, unethical, and it is the job of the TD to notice and report abuse, not ban legitimate use. Hence my characterization of these TDs as lazy.

This one is getting old..... What does it mean? That players who don't psyche don't play bridge? Although I agree that banning them is wrong, I really can't agree with "don't ever call it Bridge". No, it doesn't mean you have to psyche, it means that if you want to psyche, you have the right to do so. By definition, games have rules, and the rules define the game. The essence of gaming is that all players in a game follow the same rules. If the rules are different, then it's a different game. The game rules for competitive bridge are specified in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. If you use different rules, then you are playing a different game. That's what I mean when I say if you are not following the Laws, don't call it Bridge.

There seem to be three reasons for not allowing psyches: 1. Lazy TDs who don't want to bother with the director calls about them. 2. Ignorant TDs who don't know the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and think it's cool to make their own. 3. Poor players who don't want to bother to learn how to recognize and deal with psyches in the auction. Law 40A of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (Right to Choose Call or Play) expressly permits psyches. The sometimes quoted Law 40D (Regulation of Conventions) does not apply to them as psyches are not conventions and are expressly illegal to have partnership agreements about. Psyches are legal in the game of Bridge, forbidding them is not bridge, it's some other game. If the TDs in BBO want to forbid them and the admin allows it, that's their privilege, but don't ever call it Bridge. ===== spwdo, you have probably got it right! The TD in question here obviously doesn't like to have opponents open NT and then misdefend because he plays them not to have a singleton, so he makes the rule that you are not allowed to open NT with a singleton, like he thinks everyone else would feel the same. Certainly the same with psyches, the TDs that forbid them are lazy or don't like to be psyched (none of us do, but it's still part of the game), so they make their own rules to forbid them. Most likely the same with TDs who forbid Multi or any other specific convention, they don't know it and don't want to bother to learn, so they don't like it played against them. That is the case with most US players that the ACBL thinks they are protecting by banning Multi. There is no reason I can imagine for banning Polish Club systems, other than TDs who don't want to play against systems different from their own favorite, so they believe no one else does either. I even saw one tournament yesterday that posted "NO STRANGE SYSTEMS", with no further definition of that phrase. To me, that's the height of idiocy about a game that has clear and well-defined Laws. If I've ranted enough about this, go ahead and start the flames, but I still say allowing TDs to violate the Laws of Duplicate Bridge is simply wrong.

No, it was not in the tournament rules, and the TD told me quite specifically that he hadn't "got around to putting it in the rules yet, but all the players know ..." I, of course, asked ... HOW would I know? He replied, it's Sky Club rules. And where are they posted, I asked. They aren't yet, he replied, I haven't had time. I did not have an opening 2N hand with a singleton, but if I had, I would have opened 2N and then when he adjusted, filed a complaint. My concern however is that no one is managing the TDs or the tournaments and it is becoming a circus of different rules -- psyches not allowed, psyches allowed only 3rd/4th seats, psyches not allowed for opening bids only, multi 2D not allowed, opening any NT with singleton not allowed, opening 1N with singleton not allowed but 2N ok, wilcosz not allowed, polish club not allowed, and on and on. I was actually told by BBO administration that if I want to run a tourney with 1N opening bids forbidden, it was ok. This is not bridge.

I did ask, and was told, "Your score will be adjusted if you do". I also had a long discussion about hands such as [hv=d= &v= &s=sahak109daqj10ck1098]133|100|Scoring: [/hv] trying to make him understand that there is no intelligent way to bid this hand except to open 2N in sayc or 2/1. He was oblivious to the problem and intractable about his 'rules'.

Today I joined a pay tournament hosted by "sky club". AFTER the tourney started, the TD announced: !H REMEMBER , for opening 1 or 2 NT ( natural ) in 1st. or in 2nd. seat , WITHOUT BALANCED hand , YOU receive Ave- ! !H This was not posted anywhere in the tourney description, and if it had been, I would never have played, and certainly never have paid to play in a tournament with a TD who makes new 'rules' for whatever is his favorite hot button. Can we PLEASE put a stop to these self-appointed bidding policemen TDs who keep making up their own new rules for what is and isn't allowed in tournaments?

Since someone brought this up, I'd like a 3-way option, so spectators could also have freedom to chat publicly. How about vugraph chat that is open to everyone, with options to see 1. All chat 2. Only commentators 3. Only your own private chat

Thanks for setting it back, this is soooo much easier on the eyes :rolleyes:

No matter what color I click, I still get the same turquoise blue that clashes with everything else. If you can't make it customizable, could we please have the dark blue back?

There may be more or less emphasis on honesty in different cultures, I don't know, but I think the real underlying problem is that a certain percent of the world is sociopathic. A sociopath doesn't need any reason to cheat -- ignoring rules/laws and a total lack of morality is just their normal way of operating. They're also not curable by counseling -- banishment is the only solution.

BBO should not have any problem with banning anyone they even suspect of cheating. There is no rule that says they have to 'prove' anything. BBO is privately owned and operated, and no fee is charged for membership. I'm sure if they check with their attorneys, they'll find that they can banish anyone they want for any reason they want and not have to explain the reason to anyone. Might be a good idea to put a phrase like "We don't have to prove you are cheating, we only have to be convinced of it" into the Terms of Service. Maybe people would get the point.

Since the Hog asks me to note Sceptic's post, I'll add a few comments on it. 1. If polish club is that hard to explain, then it is certainly unusual enough to alert and give full disclosure to unsuspecting opponents. 2. Whether it is Polish standard or not is irrelevant. It is NOT BBO standard. Obviously not, a worthwhile thing to do, but that still does not eliminate the need to alert the opponents what you are playing. I know multi 2D also, but that does not mean I can play it without alerting. The BBO standard is the one that matters. Country rules are irrelevant. That is what this discussion is about, alerting in tournaments, where people DO care about the results. It has nothing to do with countries. The rule on BBO is that you alert bids which the opponents may not know, expect, understand, etc. The BBO standard systems are well defined, and give the 'expected' meanings of bids. If that happens to be similar to some particular country, it's irrelevant. Bridge is a partnership game. If some people want to play it solo style, that's up to them, but many of us prefer to play it with the structure of partnerships and bidding and play agreements. Partnership is what makes it a great game. Do you think Fred or anyone else got to a high level by ignoring the Laws of the game? Some of us aspire to higher levels, may never get there, but would still like to play serious bridge, not some crap shoot with opponents who refuse to comply with the same rules we ethically follow. It's hard to play the cards well when the opponents have unethically misled you about the meanings of their bids or signals. Yes, because the rules require it, even for 1 hand. I agree 100%. Non disclosure is a way of gaining an advantage over opponents that you cannot beat fairly. Bridge is a game, and games have rules. Players who do not follow the rules are not playing the game, they are doing something else entirely. Personally, I like bridge, and I follow the rules. All I ask is that others do the same. If you don't want to follow the rules, you are not playing bridge, and do not belong on BBO or any other BRIDGE game site or club.

Failure to alert is one of the biggest problems in BBO, tournaments and main tables alike. We need something that makes it EASY to alert and explain. The point is not to punish failures to alert, but to get people to do them as a matter of habit. It would make it MUCH easier to comply with alert requirements just by adding a simple pulldown list to the Alert explanation box when bidding. Then allow players to add phrases to the pulldown list (stored on their computer), which can be selected when making an alertable bid. With this, I could store explanations for just about every bid that might be unknown to anyone, and easily select the explanation. Asking people to find some macro language and set it up is asking too much of most BBO players. It's not worth their time, and many are simply not computer literate enough to do it. The current system, where I have to type in the explanation every time, is far too cumbersome to encourage its use. It's also time-consuming for slow typists. Just add a selectable list to the Alert explanation box, make it easy to alert/explain, and I'll bet the alerting compliance skyrockets.

coyot is right, the point is not to punish alert offenders, but to achieve full compliance. One thing that would make it MUCH easier to comply with alert requirements is to add a simple pulldown list to the Alert explanation box when bidding. Then allow players to add phrases to the pulldown list (stored on their computer), which can be selected when making an alertable bid. With this, I could store explanations for just about every bid that might be unknown to anyone, and easily select the explanation. The current system, where I have to type in the explanation every time, is far too cumbersome to encourage its use. Make it easy to alert/explain, and I'll bet the compliance skyrockets.

In a word, Yes. Well, since cheaters win by playing well, your point is irrelevant. The problem is to distinguish between those who win by playing well honestly (which is what I assume you really meant) and those who win by playing well due to cheating. For example of the latter, I refer you to the thread on B&L. However, my own preference would be for a TD recorder system to document the less than sterling TDs and occasional bad directing decisions on BBO.