kaydea

I have to agree that the behaviour of some players is unacceptable and T.D's must sometimes feel that they sound like a cracked record repeating the same messages over and over. It is equally as frustrating for the players when their partners up and leave because of a bad bid or partners bad play, or have crabby partners who criticize. In general I have had more good experiences than bad and now have a better understanding of how free tourneys work. I will adjust my participation accordingly and just be more selective in future.

Thank you for your response. I am not suggesting that the TD concerned should be prevented from running tourneys in future, just that if a player is ejected from a tourney at least they should be given an explanation. If I did something wrong (which I doubt) at least I need to know what it was.

Could someone enlighten me about tourneys and the T.D's who run them. I am interested to know how one becomes a T.D., what are their qualifications and what is their relationship with BBO. I ask because I was playing in a Goulash tourney yesterday and was removed by the TD for absolutely no reason whatsoever to my knowledge. It was an independent tourney and I had no conversation with any of the players except to say GL or WD. The TD refused to answer 2 of my enquiries about why I was removed from the tourney and finally sent the following message "DOES THIS ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?", obviously it does not! I found this most frustrating and think I am at least entitled to an explanation. I complained to BBO abuse and I received informing me that generally BBO does not interfere in tourneys (except in certain circumstances), especially in free tourneys. Essentially I was told that if I do not like the style of this particular TD, then I should consider playing elsewhere, I will certainly take their advice It might be helpful if BBO informed members what to expect from tourneys, I can certainly see why some players would be removed since I am now able to recognize "idiot" "A/H" and "jerk" in several languages.

In case of honesty dilemma, set as "Private". I dislike the Private skill level but perhaps I don't accurately fit into the Intermediate skill level . Maybe the options could be widened and include terms that might better describe my level of play. For instance :- Mediocre, Low Intermediate, Aspiring Intermediate :) In any event I am very thankful for this site considering it's free. Thanks Fred.

I knew there had to be something somewhere in the laws of bridge, this is just what I wanted to know. I doubt it will change anyone's behaviour but thank you so much for the information.

That's not always true. Sometimes you suspect that declarer can claim, but you're not 100% sure. However you are right that a defender shouldn't have to tell declarer to claim, since declarer should claim whenever he can. Btw, sometimes if you concede all tricks, declarer declines and just plays every card until the very end while they're all winners. That's a clear violation of the rules, but that doesn't get punished. Imo it would be a lot better if some declarers weren't so childish. If defenders want to draw declarer's attention to the fact that they can claim, they can also be thankful that they can play more hands in the same amount of time. That's what you can call "positive thinking"... :rolleyes: I suppose there is some good reason why declarer is allowed to decline a concession of the rest of the tricks instead of just happening automatically but I am at a loss to think of one. My question was not about whether to claim or not to claim, it is more about why it should be necessary to tell your p to claim in the first place. BBO isn't going anywhere and we are not running a marathon, so what does it matter if the game takes half a minute longer by not claiming? I always feel like asking what's the hurry? Of course there is an excuse if you just have to get outside for a cigarette, not being a smoker I hadn't thought of that. I do claim as soon as it is obvious how many of the the remaining tricks I can win. But I have made mistakes on occasion and once the claim is made in a regular game the hands are visible everyone at the table, so it is possible to give opps an advantage they might not have had otherwise. What has been a surprise to me is the number of people who comment about the note on my profile, so I know I am not the only player with this pet peeve.

Nothing is as irritating as my partner or opps telling me to claim when I am playing the hand. I was under the impression that dummy should be just that, dumb. Not in the sense of being stupid but as a silent observer. I have a note on my profile that says "DO NOT tell me to claim" I added it after watching a game where one of the kibbitzers shouted "CLAIM" to the table. This would be unacceptable in a club so why should it be any different on line? Someone I played with recently told me about playing in a tournament and one of the opps, a "world class" player, told her to claim, she carried on to finish the hand and received a private message from the opp calling her an idiot. She complained to the TD who told the opp to apologise..cold comfort IMHO, but that is a different subject. So, are there guidelines anywhere that I could reference?

I realise that it is rather moving away from the subject of the thread, but have you not just answered your own point here? Emphasis added by me, but the point being - if it is your partner's suit, it is OK to lead it even if it may be singleton. Sure, there may be other factors in play. Not necessarily..how would my p know this was my suit if we haven't taken part in the auction?

If your partner did something you would never do there are at least two explanations possible. First. Partner does not know what he is doing. Second. You are not good enough to understand what your partner is doing. No guaranties, of cause, but there is a method how to get some ideas which case is more probable. Press this link: http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/index.php Type your nickname and look at your summary for a month. If in average you are losing ~0.5 imps per board - chances are there is something in this game you do not understand yet. You can also check your partner’s stats to see if he is the person you would like to learn from or his ideas does not appear to be very successful. BTW: Cases when bidding and cards require to lead singleton in unbid suit against a NT contract are exist. The person who lead the singleton was a partner in an indy tourney so it is unlikely that we would ever play together again. In retrospect perhaps the only circumstances in which a ratings would be useful would be in tourneys and I would think most people who play in ACBL tourneys play with regular partners anyway. But thanks for your comments, I will certainly pursue NT leads which for me up until now have consisted of top of a sequence, 4th highest of longest and strongest or my p's suit. Obviously I still have a ways to go. :P

Lots of good arguments against a rating system. I know the Lehman rating system isn't perfecct either and some advanced players on OKB played against beginners to advance their points, not to mention bailing out of a game if they had a good score. But re the singleton lead against a NT contract, the only situation that might make sense to me would be leading a singleton in a suit that my p had bid. Anyway, I have met some great players I am happy to play with and against on BBO. Players who rate themselves honestly, and at the end of the day its about personal integrity.

Oh, the horror, how dare he ever lead a singleton? Everybody makes mistakes, being an expert or WC by no means exempts you. In individual tournaments you have no choice who your partner is anyway, so it is completely irrelevant what partner's posted skill level is, you have to play with them anyway. In a pairs tournament, you do have a choice who your partner is, so this is irrelevant. If it's not popular with the public, BBO won't implement it. In general, if the public doesn't like something, it won't be used or done. I am not a programmer, and I think such a system is possible... But is certainly not one of BBO's biggest worries right now, if ever. Although possible, it really wouldn't be popular, and then the trouble of what to base the rating upon etc comes about. It's just plain illogical for them to implement it currently. The sarcastic comments are unnecessary and If you don't have anything more constructive to add why bother? Furthermore, if you are sick of the subject why read it or reply?

I searched this topic after recently playing in an Indy tourney with a "World Class" partner who lead a singleton against a NT contract. Also I occasionallly play with someone who graduated from intermediate to expert within a matter of weeks. When I asked about the change in skill level the player told me he did it for a joke and had forgotten to change the rating, however, he is still advertising himself as an expert. I have also played in numerous tourneys where players rating themselves as advanced, world class or experts have been berated by their partners as being idiots (as well as a few other choice descriptions) for the wrong lead, bid or play As far as duplicate or rubber bridge is concerned one has a choice when it comes to choosing a partner or opps for that matter so, I try to play with others at my own level or advanced at the very highest but this is not possible in Tourneys. Until last year I played on the OK Bridge site where players are rated weekly on a Lehman's system and while players constantly griped about the system, at least it keept everyone honest. So is such a system possible on BBO? Perhaps this question could be answered by the programmers.

Just one further note, Bridge has a a history of cheaters long before Internet Bridge, world class players who used various signals to alert their partners about what they were holding and what to lead. There are lots of articles on the Internet about these players and their methods that make very interesting reading. One can almost understand the motive at the level of International Tournaments, especiallly if money is involved, however, I still believe it comes down to personal integrity and in a lovely paradox those who win by cheating are really losers.

I should have been more on the ball that day and asked why they were using the webcam, maybe they were using msn and had mistakenly used the chat bar. Too late now, I can't even remember their names.

I have played at tables where I was sure opps were cheating, it is almost impossible to prove though. Furthermore cheaters don't have to be playing from the same location, I was in a game not so long ago where one op asked the other "is your webcam turned on?" I was flabberghasted and left the table. In the end its about integrity, I can't see any satisfaction at all in winning by cheating, its akin to filling in the sqares in a crossword puzzle with all the answers in front of you, it requires no intelligence at all.