Old York

Thanks for the usefull suggestions Perhaps future builds will allow removal of tables in all Tourney types? .... or give the host an ejector seat button? lol Tony (Duke of York) :P

Hi During Tournaments, why are empty tables admitted to the next round? It would help with subbing if all red pairs could be removed, for example if N/S on table 80 are both red and E/W on table 120 are both awol, then remove 1 table from the tournament, instead of trying to find 4 subs? After mass disconnections it is impossible to find enough substitute players, so why not allow fewer tables to enter the next round? Tony (Duke of York)

Actually, FD is broken down into modules The real problem is that we are failing to update the "Conventions" part of the program, examine C:/Bridge Base Online/Conventions Bergen/RKCB/Inv Minors and all the other "add-ons" are being neglected because people are trying to develop a fully comprehensive cc to suit their own personal agreements. The basic convention cards found in C:/ Bridge Base Online/Convcards were never meant to cover such wide-ranging definition. Alter, if you must, the basic cc but use the "Manage Convention" Button to include your favourite add-ons, this seems to be the way forward to avoid file size problems. The BBO 2/1 card seems to be stand-alone and much duplication is included... Bergen seems to be part of the "basic" card, this cannot be right? Perhaps we should also re-examine our usage of FD, a convention card is designed to notify oppo, NOT partner. The only Ethical way to use FD is to switch off partner's alerts. Click CONV. > Options... and untick explanations of partner's bids. Imho this should always have been the default setting, and then FD would be accepted by all (as was originally intended) Tony (Duke of York)

At the moment I can only include high scorers from my own Tournies. I realise that OP was ACBL oriented, but think that most masterpoint players honestly prefer Speedball, so slowball may be doomed as pay tournies. (Market forces etc) Also the restrictions on Systems cannot help promote ACBL. My original idea was to compile a Roll of Honour for all players who scored over 70% in Duke of York Tournaments, this was originally featured on my websites as The Over Seventies Club. ;) I have used this list as the Custom List in Dukebox Challenge Tournies. As I said, I think it worked well, but it is impossible to advertise a small monthly tourney. Larger Clubs (like Hornets etc) might like to expand on this idea, creating challenge tournies for Fun Points winners etc. I would also love to have Duke's versus Hornet's Challenge Matches or something along those lines I think the possibilities are endless Tony (Duke of York)

I have experimented with running an occasional small Serious Challenge Tourney alongside my Social Tourneys, and have compiled a custom list of High Scorers. This means that I can restrict entry to the Serious Tournaments while simultaneously running my normal Games. This worked extremely well, but I was forced to extend entry to all Advance/Expert/World Class in order to fill the seats and for subbing. Now, if all players were honest about their level there would be no problem, but it is all to easy for a novice to display "Expert" on his profile..... I hope other TD's might follow this idea, many bbo members want a true challenge occasionally, while still having the option to play in fun games. These players typically do not care for masterpoints, numbers next to their names or cash prizes, and like to have a reasonable amount of thinking-time available. I am fairly sure that clocked, Swiss MP% Pairs is the most popular event, but would welcome feedback. Tony (Duke of York) Dukebox@live.se

Quote.... Myhands only reflect the boards you actually played.... If Declarer exits during play, I always adjust the board before subbing. It is totally unfair to expect a substitute player to complete a hand without access to all the cards played up to that point. If a sub attempts to complete an impossible contract, then this result WILL be inherited and appear in Myhands, this is especially true of Sabotage attempts. (where a player bids to 7NTxx and then exits, there will be no record of this abuse) Tony (Duke of York)

Hi I agree totally. If we can switch off enemy chat, lobby chat and Viewgraph messages then why not have the option to switch off Tournament chat? or have a simple method to only allow chat from friends? (table chat must always be left on) I always try to switch off Kibitzer chat in the last round of any Tournament, but some unwanted comments are unavoidable. I have worn out my F6 key. lol Tony (Duke of York)

Temporary disconnections for no apparent reason have always been a problem, I have always suspected the advertising cookie-handling, but this is pure guesswork, but it does seem to me that the system is more likely to freeze or boot at the same moment that adverts change, I often get blank adverts too. I wonder if BBO Flash/MSN has a more stable connection? Has anyone any thoughts? Tony (Duke of York)

I believe that in all cases you should:- 1. Message the TD immediately 2. Complete the hand to the best of your ability 3. Ask TD to examine the board 4. Ask TD to consider an adjustment This is the only logical way to deal with any infraction of the rules, whilst playing on-line. On-line hesitations are impossible to prove due to bad connections, but if UI causes partner to act unethically, then TD must adjust Tony (Duke of York) p.s. This is not an ACBL problem, it affects all tournaments

Hi 3 easy rules for tournament players 1. Provide a convention card. 2. Provide basic info on profile. 3. Alert any bid which might cause oppo to claim an adjustment if you fail to alert. Alerting is self preservation and common sense. Failing to alert is not cheating. Tony (Duke of York)

Hi Obviously, I was pulling your legs, but Echognome and Uday raise valid points, which I happily concede. We would all like stricter guidelines for online play, they do not have to be rules cast in stone, but many situations cry out for clarification..... and quoting the off-line rules does not seem to help very much. This thread was entitled " Very poor handling by Acbl TD" I dont believe it was that bad, that the OP should publicly humiliate the TD concerned, and I am not alone in this. I still think that 50% was a fair adjustment, for reasons I have outlined.... but if OP thinks an extra 10% will fulfil his life, then I am happy to lend it to him. Tony (Old York) added... As any game evolves, then so do the rules. Culbertson would not recognise the game we play, and we may even use the 6-suit pack in future. I am certain that later BboFlash versions will include extra controls and help for td's, like an undo button etc.

Hi There is a hard-core of bbo forum members who think that it is their job to quote the rules to us all at every conceivable opportunity. I vote that these members are immediately promoted to "BBO Police" and given the task of patrolling every table on bbo, reporting all infractions of the Rules, Regulations and Guidelines to a newly formed BBO District Attorney, who will fine everyone suspected of any crime a minimum of BBO$1 Anyone agree? Tony (Duke of York) :)

I have always thought that using Acbl/Wbf/Ebu rules that are designed for f2f Tournaments simply does not make sense for on-line bridge. There are many situations where these rules simply cannot be applied. It is not possible to undo a call. It is not practical to stop play and demand the immediate intervention of Td. It is not possible to examine your oppo convention card. It is not possible to prove that oppo have an "agreement". The list is endless. Bending the rules to suit our environment is not breaking the rules. Scores can be adjusted, even after the tourney has finished. Tony (Duke of York)

It is unfortunate that the td did not explain the decision at the time, but perhaps that is understandable in a busy speedball, where one table is slow. All we can do is view the matter with an open mind and trust the td to base his/her decision on the facts, as presented at the time. We will never know for sure if E/W had an "alertable partnership agreement" so, perhaps this entire thread is based on speculation? Tony (Duke of York)

If you had taken the trouble to read the traveller, you would see 2SS= You would also see 2HW=, 2HE= and 2HWx= This is a stoopid hand. lol Tony (Duke of York)

From the hand as given....... http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...ayed=1213048800 It may be clear that North, perhaps, might have suffered some damage from the alledged failure to alert, BUT it is blatantly obvious that South did not. You have NOT proved that E/W had an Alertable Partnership Agreement, only that West appeared to make an artificial bid. South opened 1NT, and then went on to bid 2NT and finally 3NT AFTER he was fully aware of the true meaning of the 2D bid......why???? We will never know what questions were asked of whom, by the TD, and will never know what answers were given, so we cannot leap to conclusions Does South have no responsibility for the final contract? Tony (Duke of York) added We must also remember that the alerting of artificial bids in acbl tournaments is only a guideline, and not a Tournament Rule

The words "appartently" and "Agreements" are very important We have NO evidence either way, so CANNOT make any judgements, and the fact remains that declarer continued to make unjustifiable no-trump bids, despite his partner's attempts to sign-off, even after he was aware of the full meaning of the unalerted overcall, so must shoulder some of the blame for the final "ridiculous" contract. Tony (Duke of York)

As usual, I am the lone voice in the wilderness, but I am not 100% convinced that Acbl td actually did anything wrong. It has not been confirmed that oppo had any partnership agreement as to the meaning of the 2D overcall.....or have I missed something? 3rd hand had ample opportunity and experience to question oppo as to their methods. I am sure that such an experienced player would never assume such a call to be 100% natural. The Director must have made the decision to adjust the score, based on the fact that declarer was damaged. However, it is clear that both sides were to blame in some small part, as the final contract was arrived at AFTER the failure to alert was brought to everyone's attention. If both pairs are equally responsible, then Ave== seems to be a fair adjustment. In this case we must rely on the directors skill in asking the correct questions, and basing his/her decision on the answers received........ or am I putting my head on the block again :P Quote.... "Partner's furthur bidding was after the excessive prodding from the TD to 'play on'. " Please follow this link......with particular reference to "ridiculous bids" http://www.geocities.com/bbodirectors/dir_alertfailure.html Tony (Duke of York) p.s. Is it possible for BBO site to have "forgotten your password?" button??

Hi You may have lost the sympathy of td for many reasons. I imagine that the alert for oppo's 2D bid was only given as a reply to your partner clicking on the bid. Your rho then gave a reasonable reply. He could have refused to answer, claiming "no partnership agreement" I notice that your own 2H bid contained the explanation "no information available" does this mean that you also failed to alert, but then refused to explain after oppos clicked on YOUR bid? In any tournament it is a good idea to click on any unexpected oppo bid, before making any bid (natural or artificial). Your partner's subsequent bidding might have seemed unusual, which may have also contributed to td's final decision. Tony (Duke of York)

Confidentiality forbids. But I would not post such a reply to a frivolous complaint....it was genuine (imho)

A good friend e-mailed a genuine complaint to abuse@bbo, this was their answer:- "Hi, We believe in letting the free market forces determine which tourneys are worth joining, which aren't. This is especially true for the free tourneys. The player always has the right to choose which tourney he wants to play or help out in. Similarly, TDs can adjust their rules (some never adjust anything, time or whatever), they can be sterner or nicer, etc. They can choose to direct for just their friends, or for everyone. We interfere only if the TD is doing something wrong like giving their friends top boards. So if this isn't the case here, please try to join other tourneys in the future if you don't like this TD's style. Thank you" The support for free bbo tourneys is awesome. Perhaps this is official BBO policy, or more likely it is because Fred is out of the office until 7th June? While the cat's away....... Tony (Duke of York)

I realise that this is not difinitive but maybe the best we have..... Quote "If the board result can not be determined, and one side is determined to be at fault for the unfinished board, a score of ave+ should be awarded to the pair not at fault, and ave- should be awarded to the pair at fault. "Fault" does not imply that a side did anything dishonest or bad. It just means that the side contributed to most of the delay that caused the board to be unfinished. The delay may be due to a player requesting the director to wait extra time for his/her partner to return (many players would rather have an ave- for a board or two if it allows a friend to return and finish the tournament)." The non-sub oppo should not be booted, he/she has decided to await his original partner, and should expect to recieve Ave- from: http://www.geocities.com/bbodirectors/dir_adjunfboard.html Tony (Duke of York) p.s. Bombarding the TD with messages is not polite, he is much less likely to respect your complaint, sorry but TD's are human too

My appologies to all concerned, the word "libelous" was uncalled for Sorry >reaches for Prozac< Tony (Duke of York) Added June 3rd Devotees of matchpoint re-doubles may like to follow this link :- http://cid-a2215bf240b1bba1.skydrive.live....20Re-double.lin

Is that a libelous comment, I wonder? rofl I am not saying that I disagree, only that the vast majority of on-line players have no wish to play at such a high level. Social bridge IS totally different from serious bridge. I have no wish to impose rules written for f2f serious, high level tournaments on the average bbo player. The alerting rules were never designed to cover self-alerts. Until such time as this is rectified, I will continue to insist that all players self-alert all artificial bids and give full explanations on request. This is exactly the same, imho, as the acbl tourneys insisting on convention cards. I am reminded of a Victor Mollo character called the Secretary Bird. "Knows the laws backwards and would sooner invoke them against himself than not invoke them at all. Opponents dislike him. Partners fear him. Nobody loves the Secretary Bird" I hope this does not stray too far from OP Tony (Duke of York)

Then, the law is an ass :)