Full Disclosure in ACBL BBO

[glen]

My favourite one from last week is this one: opponent is self-assessed as “expert” and opens 1♦ and rebids an alerted 2♥ over responder’s 1♠ bid (we are just passing). When this is clicked for explain we are told “suit”.

 

I private message opponent and ask if it is a reverse, and told “no, not after a minor opening”. This was quite correct, as the expert only had about minimum opening values for the 2♥ rebid.

 

So I agree with Dr Todd13 – it is better these players don’t have a sayc cc, and certainly don’t have a Full Disclosure (i.e. Bull Disclosure) cc.

 

What the default setting should be is no cc. And if a partnership has no cc, then they must enter something into the white box before they are allowed to make any non-pass call. Sort of a pay-as-you-go cc. However they can’t use the no cc approach and play any formal system (sayc, 2/1, precision, polish, TOSR etc.) – it has to be just play-as-you-go. For leads and carding, it will be “please ask if we are defending”. The system could pre-announce at the start of each round e.g. “NS are playing no cc” since they are “world class”.

[pigpenz]

as just a sidelight her what i have found very interesting is that a majority of the players who have AKQ's by their names that play in the ACBL online games have.......and I found this very interesting.....almost no experience at playing at real ACBL Live tourneys. Some that I have talked to say that all the masterpoints they have won are what they have won here, yes, right here on BBO.

 

So I have come to the conclusion that some of these people, who play in all 9 ACBL games every day either have glue on their chairs, no life at all, or have butts wider than my wide screen monitor.

 

So those of us that have played in real life tourneys find it odd that people dont want to explain what their bids are but probably they just havent been through the system to understand it.

[barmar]

Getting back to the original issue of this thread, I think FD does raise some new problems.

 

With a regular ACBL-style convention card it's not hard to scan the whole card to see what agreements you have marked. The old-style BBO convention cards aren't quite as easy, since you have to drill into a number of places (e.g. the NT responses), but once you're in there you can see everything.

 

But FD's extensive tree structure makes it pretty difficult to see all your agreements quickly. It's great for the automated explainer, but too hard for a human. So it seems quite likely that players will agree to use an FD card without really knowing what's on it, unless there's a good human-readable summary of it somewhere.

 

Of course, that's not the total solution, either. Many players agree to play SAYC without really knowing the whole system (some don't even realize that it includes Jacoby 2NT), despite the fact that the booklet and a graphical CC are available from a number of sources. Prior to FD, those players might fail to alert some bids, and you could infer that they don't realize it has special meaning (you have to guess whether it's this or they just didn't realize it was alertable), but FD now alerts for them even if they didn't intend that convention.

 

The root of the problem is that making a FD convention card is a lot of work, much harder than a traditional card. So unless pre-filled cards are provided, few players will go to the trouble. But the pre-filled cards are not likely to match any specific partnership's style exactly, and they won't realize this until they see it explain something that wasn't intended.

[hrothgar]

Simple recommendation:

 

Online bridge isn't the same as the face-to-face game. The sooner you recognize this, the happier you're gonna be...

 

The majority of the participants in online tournaments are pickup pairs with only the most rudamentary agreements with their partners. You aren't going to get much satisfaction asking TDs to apply a set of regulatory standards that evolved arround the face to face game. Even if the TDs were willing to try to enforce the laws, its unclear whether they're appropriate for online tournaments.

 

I see two easy solutions and to your complaints (as well as one complicated one)

 

1. Accept the fact that online tournaments are "just for fun" and don't get worked up about disclosure isues

 

2. Stop playing in online tournaments (In all honesty, you can get much better competition playing in set games)

 

3. Here's the hard one. If you're really pissed off about things, start organizing your own tournaments and establish some formal proceedures regarding partnership agreements, disclosure, and the like. If you think that this requires too much work, you can always pay someone else to do this... Its entirely possible that there is sufficient player demand to establish a "premium" fee based league. However, I suspect that you're going to need to pay a premium in terms of card fees.

[Al_U_Card]

How small a minority are the "I can't stand playing with the "unwashed"? Surely some bright TD will start an "EPT : Established Partnership Tournament" where only pairs with completely filled out c.c.s are allowed. Oh, I guess a 5 table tournament once a month is not much of a draw.......

[glen]

...start organizing your own tournaments...

Speaking for my wife and I, we moved to playing tournaments on BBO (from Okb) due to ACBL games being available (a secondary factor was that it supports BBO via BBO $). So the only tournaments I would wish to organize would be ones that awarded ACBL masterpoints, and I don't believe I would have that opportunity. For the online games, I don't expect the bridge etc. to reach the ACBL sectional level, but if we were allowed to organize games, and if BBO made some software changes to make the work of the TDs easier, I feel we would over time approximate the maturity of a brick and mortar club game.

[pigpenz]

Glen

i had asked to run an experimental 26 board match and Direct for Free for acbl. Never reall got a real answer, person in charge kept saying they had responded by mail but never received any sort of answer....but was told by the person in charge by chat "in short the answer is no".

 

So there are alot of things that they can do, even in cities there are acbl games in competition with other acbl games. In short what deremines where people play is the competancy of the directors and the quality of the bridge.

 

Even here they could have upper level games say for people over 2500 mp or even teams games....the ideas are endless...but in general you dont find anyone from the acbl reading these forums ;)

[uday]

but in general you dont find anyone from the acbl reading these forums

 

The ACBL in Memphis allows anyone to run an "Acbl sanctioned" club. There are about 5,500 such clubs. We - BBO- are one such club.

 

The ACBL in Memphis has no involvement in BBO beyond occasionally keeping an eye on the franchise, as it presumably would with any of the 5,500 clubs.

 

The people who organize and direct the ACBL games on BBO have nothing to do with the ACBL in Memphis beyond having been certified by Memphis at some point.

 

I (one of the 3 owners of BBO) read these forums. Gweny (who co-ordinates the ACBL games ) reads these forums. Fred (another of the 3 owners) reads these forums.

 

No one in Memphis will care to get involved in this endless carping. Hey, I work here, and...

[pigpenz]

but in general you dont find anyone from the acbl reading these forums

 

The ACBL in Memphis allows anyone to run an "Acbl sanctioned" club. There are about 5,500 such clubs. We - BBO- are one such club.

 

The ACBL in Memphis has no involvement in BBO beyond occasionally keeping an eye on the franchise, as it presumably would with any of the 5,500 clubs.

 

The people who organize and direct the ACBL games on BBO have nothing to do with the ACBL in Memphis beyond having been certified by Memphis at some point.

 

I (one of the 3 owners of BBO) read these forums. Gweny (who co-ordinates the ACBL games ) reads these forums. Fred (another of the 3 owners) reads these forums.

 

No one in Memphis will care to get involved in this endless carping. Hey, I work here, and...

therfore if Officeglen or anyone else wants to run an acbl game on bbo why cant they if they are certified directors.

[glen]

I (one of the 3 owners of BBO) read these forums. Gweny (who co-ordinates the ACBL games ) reads these forums. Fred (another of the 3 owners) reads these forums.

 

No one in Memphis will care to get involved in this endless carping. Hey, I work here, and...

I take it the "..." means you don't want to get involved with the "endless carping" either, and since you are the only one of the three you listed posting here, it appears they don't wish to get involved with the "endless carping" too. So it seems that "carping" is futile and a waste of everybody's time. I do appreciate the clarity.

[uday]

I am usually appreciative of constructive criticism, and usually dismissive of destructive criticism. It is unlikely that I am unique in this regard.

 

Perhaps there is some grain of truth in some of the complaints-just-because but it is mighty hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

[uday]

therfore if Officeglen or anyone else wants to run an acbl game on bbo why cant they if they are certified directors.

 

Same reason they can't walk into a random bridge club and start directing. The owner, or the scheduled TD, might get confused.

 

Officeglen certainly appears to be qualified to be a TD, if that is what you mean.

 

gweny@ would be the place to start, if interested. Maybe you can convince her that there is demand for a more "serious" acbl game ( if one can be set up. unclear how you'd keep out the people that are reluctant to explain, or who dont know what they are playing. We could restrict by MP or something but that would reduce the field further).

[pigpenz]

I am usually appreciative of constructive criticism, and usually dismissive of destructive criticism. It is unlikely that I am unique in this regard.

 

Perhaps there is some grain of truth in some of the complaints-just-because but it is mighty hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Well Uday welcome to the Real World, the business World :blink:

In the past when complaints were posted here it was always said its up to the acbl since these are their games here, now you have posted that the ACBL games belong to BBO.

The reason I say that is cause its hard to tell who runs what here.

 

Carping or listening to your customers complaints is and always will be part of running a business ;) The reason I say this in the past I always thought BBO owned the building and ACBL rented the space and Gweny was the office manager here for the ACBL. Now it appears that BBO owns the building leases rights for ACBL games from the ACBL and Gweny is office manager or secretary for the club.

 

The reason is that if people had complaints about the acbl games they normally wouldnt go to the landlord to complain about the way the games were run. So people start threads here about what they experience in acbl games, so either the owners of BBO if they run the club or Gweny who manages need to make a stand here on the forums once in awhile when they are complaints.....instead of the endless emails to abuse@

[bendare]

In ACBL sponsored or "sanctioned" games, ACBL rules and laws should be applied, enforced, respected, abided--in club rated games, tournaments, online and FTF. I believe ACBL's "sanctioning" of club games is basically equivalent to a franchise and franchise owners are expected to maintain "company" standards.

 

However, one of the major problems (and IMO THE major problem) in the BBO ACBL online games is that these games are open to thousands of players who are either not familiar with or experienced in ACBL standards, rules, laws and regulations. Many of those players also have no interest in learning or respecting and regarding those rules and laws. Someone here put it as "not having been through the system."

 

Then there are those who have "been through the system" in the FTF ACBL world and rightfully expect that ACBL games ARE ACBL games where ACBL rules and laws should and will be applied and enforced. Integrating huge numbers of players who know not and care not about ACBL rules and laws into ACBL games with those who do know and care creates big time problems and dissatisfaction and makes even reasonable enforcement impossible. What has happened in the BBO ACBL games is that even some who do know the rules and laws choose not to respect and abide them as enforcement is close to nil. Add those to the ones who do not and care not to know.

 

I personally do not fault the TDs for this, at least not to the extent that many here do. Last night I played in a 42 table ACBL game (84 pairs) and only ONE opp had a posted CC and the other 5 pairs were NOT playing the default SAYC cc posted for them. Three times I reminded opps that their cc was not posted. It was like pulling hens teeth (hens have no teeth) to get a response when I inquired opps system and carding. Most were not alerting alertable bids, and when I clicked on bids to inquire, it was, with few exceptions, either futile or at best a ridiculous response.

 

Had I called the TD for every occasion I would naturally have called a TD in a local club game, it would have taken one TD full time at my table. There were 42 tables!!! Instead, I did not call the TD at all except to private message the TD to announce again about requirement of posted ccs. How can the TDs distinquish between the players who simply are not familiar with the rules and those who are wittingly disregarding them and those who really do have "no agreement" and those who do have agreements but say they don't??? In many TD rulings, it all boils down to whether opps have been "damaged". Subsequently, the players who committed an infraction of the rules go right to the next table and does the same.

 

The situation is absolutely horrendous, Uday and Fred, and it is so out of hand I do not know how any reasonable order could be restored. Maybe that is the problem, there was never any order to be restored.

 

For those who "carp" here, I do not think it is necessarily about the one particular incident they cite in their carping, but the overall situation.

 

Under "Ruling the Game" in Feb. Bulletin, a TD reports that his club manager actively recruits new players (a good thing) but there are problems integrating the new players in with advanced and very advanced players when it comes to making rulings. The newer players often do not know alertable bids, they may have certain understandings that they consider standard which are not, etc etc., one or both is unhappy with rulings they consider unfair---------------------

 

Multiply that by 1000 for the BBO ACBL games, and personally I often feel I am trying to play tennis without a racket.

 

I noted a recent ACBL game here with 60 tables. That is 240 players-and ONE TD!!! And of those 240 players, I would guess that no more than 40 both knew and made conscientious effort to abide ACBL rules and laws to an extent one more or less takes for granted at the "other 5000" ACBL FTF clubs.

[Gweny]

:lol: Greetings... lets take it from the top -

 

Pigpenz - I send and resend and resent again and again trying to reply to you. If you like I can post those emails here since my frequent requests for you to fix your spam filter were not followed. For now I will put in header of my last try:

 

From: "Gweny" <gweny@bridgebase.com>

To: <xxx>

Subject: Fw: 26 board acbl game

Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:08:18 -0500

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001E_01C58CAE.5E9F1810"

X-Priority: 3

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506

Disposition-Notification-To: "Gweny" <gweny@bridgebase.com>

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506

 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

 

------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C58CAE.5E9F1810

Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

 

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Gweny1=20

To: KJ King=20

Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 10:39 PM

Subject: Re: 26 board acbl game

 

 

----- Original Message -----=20

From: "Gweny" <gweny@bridgebase.com>

To: "KJ King" <xxx>

Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 8:08 PM

Subject: Re: trial 26 board game

[Gweny]

:lol: Next - Officeglen

 

Clearly you are very well educated and have a very superior knowledge of ACBL and bridge in general, and I am sure that your intent is only to improve ACBL games here on BBO.

 

I will tell you that there is ALWAYS ongoing education and efforts to improve our directing skills. We are blessed with two national tds and they, along with others (like Fred) provide guidance when sticky situtations arise. Are we going to post our internal communications with you or with this forum?

 

Absolutely not. There is no upside and considerable downside to making public what we discuss in private. You are maybe surprise by this but even BBO ACBL tds have feelings.

 

Do tds make every effort to get it right? Of course they do! Do you honestly believe that anyone likes to appear foolish? We are all human and in the heat of battle yes mistakes will happen. When they do we discuss them and use them as learning tool so that we might avoid that problem in the future.

 

Will ACBL TDs reply here? Very unlikely and if they did it will be as private person instead of rendering opinion as ACBL (on BBO.) Is there any rule or policy that prevents them from doing so? Of course not but in general it is me, Uday and or Fred that answers questions concerning ACBL on BBO. Tds render opinions in games they direct and as much as possible we try to keep it consistent so that all ACBL tds rule the same way. This way people know what to expect.

 

Hrothgar get it right (as he most always does) and the sooner people accept that online bridge IS different than face to face bridge the happier everyone will be. Please consider that there are people playing every day who never once experience face to face bridge yet they have grown to love this game so much that I think Fred/Uday need to start selling groceries online so BBO bridge addicts do not starve. (Hi, My name is Gweny and I am a BBO bridgealholic... giggle)

 

In online bridge there are things that we cannot do - for example an announcement. In online bridge if someone does an announcement in public chat it is basically unauthorized information and you can guess what happens next. If something is an announcement with current software environment on BBO we either it is treat as an alert or nothing at all. Which do you prefer?

 

As far as psyches are concerned... for the record it is me/ACBL who come to you and privately ask you to restrain yourself or we are maybe going to have issues, NOT one of our ACBL TD. Why you want to claim this is some "new" rule is something only you know - it is clear from other thread that when psyches are part of a partnership agreement they are illegal in ACBL games. Inquiry did research on this topic and showed that you have a propensity to psych on some occasions. A warning from me is just that - I wanted you to know that we do pay attention and do not want to have a problem. That is all. Psychs ARE part of bridge and you have no idea how mad I am when I see nonsense like tournaments where they demand someone alert td that they are going to psych or worse that places like Total Points club "outlaw" psychs. My dear departed Baronreit is probably spinning in his grave at such things.

 

As far as where to send comments, etc you send them to ACBL@Bridgebase.com, sending them anywhere else only delays response since abuse will then forward them to me/ACBL. Since this is on each tds profile and tds will happily tell anyone who asks where to write I do not think it is very hard to find proper outlet for your concerns/comments, etc.

 

Are we perfect? of course not or we are not still here on earth. We are a new club and we will continue to improve and do our best to serve the needs of our customer.

 

New and exciting games will come soon and hopefully you will enjoy them.

[uday]

Bendare, some of what you say makes some sense ( I'll disagree w/your sampling of t posted CCs bec. I know the system posts SAYC for every pair without a CC). I have reason to think the TDs make efforts to follow the ACBL rules. Some of them actively direct for the ACBL-in-memphis at at ACBL Nationals.

 

 

If you detect an infraction that matters to you, call the TD.

I cannot stress this enough. Call the TD and let us and the TD worry about supporting his workload. If you keep the TD busy at your table for the entire tourney, we'll find more TDs .

 

Most of thesgames are only 6 rounds (some are 4). that's only 6 sets of opponents (we all know it is really 7, but we'll ignore partner for now). Six TD calls won't break the bank.

 

I might experiment with a sterner set of rules in a game or two; perhaps with a restricted-entry game (LM only or some such); my instinct tells me these games will quickly die out for lack of interest, but lets see.

[Gweny]

:lol: Bendare

 

Dear lady - you have completely encapsulated one of our major concerns - educating new players. I will, however, point out that most of the time it is not that they do not want to follow rules, just that they have not learn them yet. That is where you come in and every other ACBL member that does know how to play tennis with rackets.

 

It is you and other experienced ACBL members who will help us foster and grow this new generation/group of ACBL members. We (ACBL on BBO) need your help and appreciate that you care enough TO call td - we WANT those calls because without them we cannot know that there is a problem and cannot educate our new ACBL players about proper procedures like alerts, claiming, agreements, etc.

 

As far as size of tournaments our tds are not alone in large games. There is always at least one back-up td on hand to help. We did this so that we CAN better serve you.

 

Please remember we ARE a relatively new club (our 2nd birthday is 7 June) and as we grow we will improve our methods of integrating/educating new players. One of our first steps in this direction is when we start offering 299er games. At present these games are small but in many ways that is an advantage because td can better moniter behaviors and make sure that players are following the rules as well as helping them learn mechanics such as posting convention cards, etc.

 

As to how we distinguish between deliberate naughty and unknowing beginner/intermediate that is a function of being a td and knowing our players - which we do. As you point out we have very large audience but still we can recognize new players and those who are unfamilar with BBO interface. But again, we cannot do anything about something we are not aware of - the ONLY way to solve some problem is for you to let us know - we WANT you to call us so we can improve everyones playing experience.

 

And yes please DO check skill level of people you play - remember when you start playing? Can you remember a time when you did not know terms and conventions and how someone taugh you these things? We KNOW that many of the people who play in ACBL games earn their first ACBL masterpoints here in BBO and because of that we warn first, make note in profile, and if they repeat that mistake they will get penalty. However in some cases we are constrain by certain problems - mainly that often to penalize your opp we are forced to cap your board to at best 60% (average +) So in some cases penalizing your opp will result in more damage to you than to them. In cases like this we often forgo penalty because it will damage you.

 

Please do know that we appreciate your help and welcome your comments and suggestions. You are welcome to write to us anytime at ACBL@bridgebase.com with any suggestions/comments.

[hrothgar]

Bendare, some of what you say makes some sense ( I'll disagree w/your sampling of t posted CCs bec. I know the system posts SAYC for every pair without a CC). 

 

...

 

I might experiment with a sterner set of rules in a game or two; perhaps with a restricted-entry game (LM only or some such); my instinct tells me these  games will quickly die out for lack of interest, but lets see.

Hi Uday,

 

I'd like to make a suggestion: Much as I value the FD convention cards, I think that its a mistake to set these cards as a "default" for pairs who don't post their own convention card. In an ideal world, new players/partnerships would make use of the information provided by the FD card to guide their bidding, ensuring that theory matched practice. In reality, I suspect that the player who MOST need the information that FD provides are the ones least likely to use the technology.

 

Equally significant, the FD technology is complex. Unfortunately, introducing complex new systems to a broad user base is a pain in the butt. This is not to say that its impossible, but you need to be very careful how you proceed. I work that imposing a convention card on novice pairs may create more problems then it solves. If people suspect that that the FD convention cards are providing inaccurate information they're simply going to tune out all that "noise".

 

I very much prefer an affirmative system in one member of the partnership posts a convention card and the second needs to confirm that they are playing it. "Raising the bar" for loading the CC's should help (somewhat) to ensure that the information provided is accurate.

 

For what its worth, I think that it would be a good idea to conduct a some serious experiments with more serious/formal/structured tournaments. I think that there is a portion of the membership base that would value online tournaments where the rule sets and behaviour conform to the expectations generated by the face-to-face game. Furthermore, I think that the ACBL club is in the best position to run this experiment (they ACBL brand SHOULD mean something more than just selling masterpoints. Ideally, players competing in an ACBL tournament should be able to expect a consistent playing environment). As I've noted in the past, I have a lot of trouble understanding what "value" many of the fee based tournaments provide to justify their fee strucutres. In many cases, these "bridge games" feel more akin to a lottery (or less chartiably, a number's racket). I think that its a mistake to go down this path. If the cash prizes are awared based on skill, you create incentives to cheat. If cash prizes are awarded based on luck, you're running an illegal lottery.

 

I think that BBO has a strong vested interest in ensuring that the fees that individual clubs charge are clearly linked to bridge related services. Such services could be the skill of a particular TD (either technical or social). Alternatively, clubs could offer hand records along with analysis of the bidding/play/par contracts. (You can even award master points if you want). However, I think that its critical to maintain the fiction that the card fees compensate for services specifically related to bridge.

 

In retrospect, using the word "experiment" might be a mistake. Potentially it would be more valuable to think of these highly structured tournaments as a loss leader... I think that these tournaments would take some time to get established and start rolling. However, in an ideal world I think that the ACBL franchise should be plotting how they might be the dominant form of competition within the ACBL club.

 

One last note, I still see some value in tournaments that feature some kind of monetary bond to be refunded if they coimplete the full tournament. (Admittedly, I'm lucky enough to have a good internet connection and fairly reliable power). From my perspective, one of the most significant differences between the face-to-face game and online play is the length of the events. From my perspective, "short" events cause a lot of the problems. Specifically, short events encourage high variance strategies and discourage investing much time in detailed partnership agreements. I recognize that 8-12 board tournaments evolved in reaction to high disconnect rates for long events. Even so, I see a lot of value to running traditional events featuring 24 or 27 boards with "balanced" movements. Posting a monetary bond that will be refunded upon completion of the tournament would seem like a logical way to achieve this end...

[pigpenz]

now after reading all the this convention card thingy......where people dont even want to use the basic ones ....how in the world are we going to get people to use use the ones that is being introduced with the full disclosure work convention card ;)

 

 

and Gweny thank your for xxx out my real name in the email headers :blink:

[uday]

I think that its a mistake to set these cards as a "default" for pairs who don't post their own convention card.

 

I don't disagree. I am unsure of the wisdom of what we do with the old cards (ie, set default to sayc ) and I'm waiting to see what happens w/FD before changing anything.

 

Currently, there are no FD defaults in any tourneys .

[inquiry]

I think that BBO has a strong vested interest in ensuring that the fees that individual clubs charge are clearly linked to bridge related services.  Such services could be the skill of a particular TD (either technical or social).

BBO's ACBL club does a remarkable job under trying circumstances. The fact is that most of the people playing in the ACBL games are not ACBL members and many don't know the general rules of formal bridge, much less ACBL mandated rules.

 

The large turnout for these tourneys however, benefit all ACBL members who play in them. It allows more sections, so more chances to win ACBL Masterpoints, the large turnout also means more ACBL masterpoints for placing in the overall.

 

Against these advantages, you have the slight annoyance of people not knowing or if knowing, not following the rules. The ACBL club hires not only professional TD's, but well reconginzed one. This is good for the ACBL tourneys in general and the BBO overall.

 

Top notch directors, very inexpensive (and easy from home) way to win ACBL Masterpoints, and large tournament turnouts: the ACBL tournaments on BBO are a tremendous value for the money. One just has to understand the nature of online bridge.

 

As I've noted in the past, I have a lot of trouble understanding what "value" many of the fee based tournaments provide to justify their fee strucutres.  In many cases, these "bridge games" feel more akin to a lottery (or less chartiably, a number's racket).  I think that its a mistake to go down this path.  If the cash prizes are awared based on skill, you create incentives to cheat.  If cash prizes are awarded based on luck, you're running an illegal lottery.

 

It is hard (darn hard) for other pay tournaments not only to compete against the ACBL tournaments on BBO, but as you correctly point out, to compete against the many "free tournaments" offerred daily. I myself enjoy "Bella's Balls", "the madman returns", "Deer Park" and "friends of Misho" tournaments, all free. The other pay directors have approached this problem with a one-solution fits all. This includes cash prizes which mandates blocking kibitzers. They also typically have webpages (some excellent pages btw). But you overlook the hard work these directors do to be here at scheduled times, so you can find their game, and to track winners, post results to the web, etc. There is value in that (although some free directors do the same, they offer far fewer events per day).

 

Alternatively, clubs could offer hand records along with analysis of the bidding/play/par contracts.

 

I think you you check out the plans for the HomeBase Club richard (see Opening Day Announcement ) you will see that the BBO is looking for ways to add value to pay tournaments (one way is by allowing HomeBase to exist) that include what you suggest here (full hand record, not only including analyis of bidding/play and makeable contracts, but also including opening lead at each table, all on a single html document). And more, such as option to receive email version of traveler customized with the bidding, alerts, play, and overall results at your table, and different levels of BridgeBrowser online access to hands played in the tournament sponsored by Homebase, or nearly all hands played on the BBO. But note, HomeBase Club will not offer ACBL Masterpoints, which is clearly the number one incentive for playing in fee-based tourneys.

 

So variety will exist. Those looking for ACBL Masterpoints, have a great option to play in the many ACBL events a day on the BBO. Those wanting a chance to compete for cash have a lot of pay events to compete in, and those wanting the kind of things you mentioned above might want to seek out the HomeBase. No doubt additional value-added tournament ideas will arise in the future. Some are already in the works. :-)

[bendare]

"Bendare, some of what you say makes some sense ( I'll disagree w/your sampling of t posted CCs bec. I know the system posts SAYC for every pair without a CC). I have reason to think the TDs make efforts to follow the ACBL rules. Some of them actively direct for the ACBL-in-memphis at at ACBL Nationals. "

 

Uday---

 

Apologies if I did not make myself clear. Yes, the default SAYC was posted for those who did not post their own, but the players were not actually playing that CC. (Auctions at my table clarified that, or I was familiar enough with some of the opps that I knew they were not playing simply the default cc posted for them.)

 

As a habit from FTF, I almost always look at opps cc prior to start of auction of first hand of a round. For me, opps convention card is a wealth of disclosure and often all the disclosure I might need-- IF that CC can be trusted to accurately represent what players are playing. That is why I focused on the proper posting of CCs.

 

I personally have no complaints with the TDs nor do I question their credentials.

 

 

Problems cannot be solved unless they are first identified, and I was simply offering my two cents worth (well, it turned out to be a long winded two cents worth!!) to hopefully help in getting to a CORE problem.

 

I appreciate that you will consider some way to create an ACBL game for those of us who want to play an ACBL online game in which players know what is expected of them and are "serious" in their personal effort to comply with the "rules". Perhaps this could be incorporated in ACBL's plans (Jan. Bulletin, page 9) to "Develop a pilot progam to test the viability or a sectional and/or regional tournament online." I cannot imagine there is any viability unless the participants are reasonably educated in and respectful of ACBL rules, so maybe they can do some experimenting with BBO ACBL games in their pilot program.

 

 

 

Thank you--

 

Bendare

[uday]

Who would you encourage to enter this kind of restricted game? And who would you block from entering ?

 

How does this sound?

 

- Restricted to: ACBL members with more than XX points (say, 500) ? That feels like enough experience to understand the rules. Or would you allow any ACBL member in?

 

- Restricted to GCC/SAYC? or open to anything with adequate disclosure?

 

- Longer games (18? 24?) with 3 bds per round. Still clocked.

 

- Eventually, limited in size (per TD)

 

I will discuss the sectional/regional issue w/the ACBL ( it is more along the lines of beg for the sanction, as it has been for over a year ) in case they are feeling charitable. I understand their reluctance in this area.

 

 

Maybe what we're looking for is a serious game w/full disclosure (the philosphy, not the BBO add-on). Perhaps this can only be done one language at a time. Maybe we should be trying to get a "serious" game going and not worry about limiting it to ACBL?

[han]

Maybe we should be trying to get a "serious" game going and not worry about limiting it to ACBL?

 

Difficult in practice, but a great idea in my opinion.