A Question

[sceptic]

Ok, I may not have the most popular opinion of Tournements in the forums and the requirements for TD's

 

I happen to think there is a call for quick 8 - 10 or 12 boarders with little officialdom managing them i.e me and some others in it for a bit of fun

 

My question to you all is what do you consider makes a good TD, someone willing to study the laws and understand the finer points of what a law is

 

my biggest issue with good TD's is how can someone become a profesional TD or even a top class TD or even a mediocre TD, when they have not got the basics of studying a hand to know what is and is not good play or UI, surely to become a TD you must at least be an expert player to stand in judgement of other players?

 

i.e. if east did not hesitate I would have made the contract as his partner would have led or returned a different card, how does someone that is not an expert player judge these things or become remotely qualified to comment on such rulings, it is all well and good coming into BBO forums and asking an opinion, but you have already made the judgement and made your ruling and the nature of the net, you cant adjust the score two weeks later after (if there was one) the appeals commitee have made thier decision.

[hrothgar]

You've raised a complicated topic. I've typically seen this discussed in the context of World Championship level tournaments. Assume that you have a directorial staff who is of expert, but not world championship calibre. Can said staff necessarily understand the issues that a world champion calibre player is considering? I'm not sure whether there is a definitive answer to this question. In the mean time, folks plod along and do the best they can.

 

From my own perspective, I don't mind playing in very informal tournaments that don't have any TDs present. I really don't worry much about about a hesitation or a case of UI or whatever. Its just a game.

 

What I do find incredibly annoying is when blantantly unqualified individuals insert themselves into the process. Case in point: Last we saw a horrific ruling in which a Director decided to adjust a score because he didn't like the bid in question. I've been on the receiving end of rulings like that one. I get really ticked off. If you're going to act as judge, jury, and executioner you damn better well know what you are doing.

 

In answer to some of the specific points you raised: I don't think that MI is necessary the best example to use. I can't recall ever seeing a hestitation ruling discussed on the forums, however, these seem to form the bulk of all rulings during face-to-face games. From what I can tell, the bulk of the online directors calls are associated with mechanical issues (disconnects and the like). After this, there seem to be 101 complaints from people who disapprove of the opponent's bidding.

 

One thing that I've occasionally wondered about is the feasibility of building a web site that Tournament Directors can use for polling. The Web Site would provide a standard form that TDs could use to input a problem. (You might have different templates for hesitations, missing alerts, what have you). The TD is able to specify the level of player he wants to poll, as well as necessary background information. Hypothetically, I might want to see what expert players familiar with Polish Club think about a given sequence. This type of feature would be very useful for a "serious" online tournaments. One could make an argument that F2F games would benefit from this type of functionality as well.

[blackshoe]

surely to become a TD you must at least be an expert player to stand in judgement of other players?

Heh. Take the best football (any flavor) referee you can think of. Put him on the field. How well is he going to play?

 

You don't need to be an expert player to be a good TD. You need calm, common sense, sometimes command presence (or the players will walk all over you) and a stable of experts you can - and will, when necessary - consult. Plus, of course, a knowledge of the laws and regulations, and to some extent the "bridge culture" under which you administer the game.

 

If some self-described "expert" objects to a ruling on the basis that the TD doesn't know how to play the game as well as the "expert", then the TD ought to be perfectly willing to assemble a committee of the player's peers and let him try to convince them that the ruling was legally incorrect. In which case the committee will presumably change it - and as far as I'm concerned they're welcome to do so. I would treat it (as a TD) as a learning experience.

[hrothgar]

surely to become a TD you must at least be an expert player to stand in judgement of other players?

Heh. Take the best football (any flavor) referee you can think of. Put him on the field. How well is he going to play?

 

You don't need to be an expert player to be a good TD. You need calm, common sense, sometimes command presence (or the players will walk all over you) and a stable of experts you can - and will, when necessary - consult. Plus, of course, a knowledge of the laws and regulations, and to some extent the "bridge culture" under which you administer the game.

There are qualitative differences between bridge and football. The most significant involves concepts like a logical alternative. Bridge rulings often depend on the calibre of player...

 

Hypothetically, whats logical to Rosenberg might not even be apparant to a TD...

[jillybean]

Sceptic, I agree calls involving MI and BIT are the most difficult to resolve and the more experienced player you are the easier these decisions will be. I disagree that to be a good TD you need to be an expert player, I think the online environment has created the expectation that all TD decisions will be made expertly and immediately, this is unrealistic and usualy unnecessary. I make very few decisions immediately but say I need time to review the hand or need time to consult with others. People don’t seem to mind this at all, I think the problems arise when a TD makes an adjustment to a board without first talking to the players involved and/or when an adjustment is questioned and they refuse to discuss it or they mis quote or make up rules.

 

Many people want to run games using rules they dream up and many more players are happy (or perhaps ignorant of the laws) to play in these games. Other than complaining that the host didn’t accurately describe what type of game they were running, I don’t know what people are bitching about. We are all aware of how tournaments are being run, some good, others badly. The onus is on the player to read the tournament description. If the rules say something like “3 trick penalty for failure to alert, ‘alert all artificial bids’, no psyches in position 1 and 2 and so on – you should know what to expect.

While I disagree with these games and would like to see people running actual bridge games and players learning to play the game as it should be played, I am obviously in the minority here. As long as these ‘games’ have willing participants nothing will change.

(lets hope these new online bridge players don’t expect the same ‘rules’ to apply when they start playing at their local club :) ).

 

 

Richard, if you mean an instant online polling facility for TD’s where a TD could enter a problem and get an immediate response from a number of players – that would be great. On the other hand, we have this forum, the bridgetalk forum, Lusobrasil hosted 2 excellent TD sessions and now Golfacer has run the same. We have numerous references to the laws and appeals available online, many yellows and other qualified players will help with TD calls when they occur, I don’t think a lack of information has much to do with the way rulings are made. If only you could come up with a way to reduce the size of a persons

EGO

:)

 

jb

[1eyedjack]

The main difference between an expert and a good-ish player is the ability of the expert to get it right at the time, where the good-ish player may see the merits of the act only in hindsight. TDs tend to act in hindsight, and do not require the level of expertise for making decisions on the fly in order to appreciate their merits when ruling. It is sufficient that they have the expertise to appreciate the merits when explained to them, as I am sure that Rosenberg would be capable of doing.

 

I am no expert player, but show me the solution to any bridge problem (and one which I may well have got wrong initially) and I am fairly sure that I will understand the solution.

[golfacer]

I think there are several more important characteristics of a good BBO director than memorizing all of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge:

 

 

1. Running the tournament as announced and in accordance with the tournament description, and adding any unusual rules or settings to the description. This would include starting the tournament at the scheduled time without delay, not adding extra time to the tournament, and announcing and then following your own tournament structure, whatever it may be. I think most complaints occur when there is no tournament description or an incomplete description, and then the director announces when the tournament starts that psyches are not allowed, etc. Many people may not read the tournament description, but it is not the fault of the director if they fail to do so.

 

2. Good "people skills." Treating the players with respect, not subbing out players quickly if they might return, etc.

 

3. A reasonable maximum number of tables, so that the director can give full attention to all of the director calls.

 

4. The ability to make board adjustments. Often, just knowing that a "policeman" is somewhere within range is enough to prevent many problems. It is very important for the players to feel that their opponents arer disclosing their partnership agreements and can not successfully stall to run out the clock.

 

 

I think a basic understanding of the laws and how to apply them is sufficient. Knowing the general guidelines is enough to handle most common situations. What is also important is if there is a situation in which the director is unsure of how to rule, that he/she knows to ask someone who can provide a good answer, as opposed to making a guess of how to rule. If a director just knows that a hesitation is a potential problem, then he/she can ask for advice for how to rule in a particular case. The players are much more concerned about receiving the right ruling than if the director makes the ruling by him/herself.

 

 

Why did I list these characteristics in this order? The tournament structure and format affect 100% of your players, while a possible law infraction may affect only about 5% of players in a reasonably long tournament. It appears to be a lot easier to learn the laws than it is to learn "people skills."

[Trinidad]

The most important skills for a director:

 

1) People skills. These are necessary to run the tournament properly, and on time. They are needed to give the players a good time for their money. They are also needed when a ruling is needed.

 

2) Again people skills.

 

3) Did I mention people skills?

 

4) Integrity.

 

5) Knowledge of the Laws. Of all the necessary skill for a TD, this one is by far the easiest skill to acquire. Off all the books that I ever had to study, the bridge law book is the thinnest of them all. And hey, you can even take the book with you when you make a ruling!

 

6) Bridge knowledge. It helps to know what the players are talking about. :) But if you feel that you lack the bridge knowledge to solve the problem, just consult somebody who does have that knowledge.

 

Rik

[helene_t]

In the Netherlands, we have three levels of qualified TDs. Only the highest one requires a test in playing/bidding skills. I barely passed the playing test, and got a top mark for bidding skills. So obviously you don't have to be an expert even to aquire the highest level of TD qualification. In fact, the professional TDs that direct international events and national championships have about said level.

 

But this is different from online bridge in three ways:

- Most IRL events, even those with a TD with the lowest qualification level (sometimes even a playing TD) are (much) more expensive than the most expensive BBO tourneys.

- Most of the laws that an IRL TD has to memorize are about IRL specific stuff.

- In IRL events there is an appeal commitee.

 

I agree that it would be desirable if the TDs were expert players. But:

- UI is rarely an issue since a BIT could also mean a bad connection or a phone call.

- The alert rules are much simpler online than IRL.

- For every adjustment you need to make because of damage caused by missing alerts or use of UI, you'll need to blacklist tens of rude players and sub hundreds of red or sleeping players out. So the ethical issues are not that crucial.

- To decide on logical alternatives you need to be able to think at the level of the player in question, which probably isn't expert level. In fact, many LA discussions are mood if you have no clue to the players level.

- Players shouldn't expect to get more than what they pay for.

[csdenmark]

The problems coming up in all of these threads about ruling and TD's arise because some think they need to apply to rules others don't know about and which have no authority on internet at all.

 

Bridge rules which is mostly referred to applies only to the members of the respective organizations. There is no such organiazation on Internet and therefore no general rules to apply and no rules to violate. The binding rules on BBO are the general rules as outlined in 'Rules for these sites' and nothing else.

 

Rules for tournaments are set by the organizer alone. The repeatedly appealings to BBO Forum makes no sense as we dont know the specific rules to be applied by ILACY, BBO Land, Satto, ACBL etc. What they have in common is they offer their service on BBO platform. Their rules are likely to be the same ones organizing tourneys on JBridge, Swan Bridge, Yahoo etc. but they decide for themselves.

 

Often it looks to me that posters here appeal to BBO Forum bypassing the rules for their joined event specifying how to appeal decisions.

[hrothgar]

Richard, if you mean an instant online polling facility for TD’s where a TD could enter a problem and get an immediate response from a number of players – that would be great.

I'm specifically thinking about hands like the one AWM posted last week in the thread "Ethical Question".

 

In many cases TDs need to determine whether a specific action was suggested by a Break In Tempo or, alternatively, misinformation. On occasion, the TDs need to resort to some kind of poll to determine whether a specific action was suggested by the hesitation.

 

I suspect that that a well designed web site would improve the polling process. In theory, you should be able to sample many more players in the same amount of time. Ideally, the web site would improve the quality of the survey process.

[hrothgar]

The problems coming up in all of these threads about ruling and TD's arise because some think they need to apply to rules others don't know about and which have no authority on internet at all.

 

Bridge rules which is mostly referred to applies only to the members of the respective organizations. There is no such organiazation on Internet and therefore no general rules to apply and no rules to violate. The binding rules on BBO are the general rules as outlined in 'Rules for these sites' and nothing else.

 

Rules for tournaments are set by the organizer alone. The repeatedly appealings to BBO Forum makes no sense as we dont know the specific rules to be applied by ILACY, BBO Land, Satto, ACBL etc. What they have in common is they offer their service on BBO platform. Their rules are likely to be the same ones organizing tourneys on JBridge, Swan Bridge, Yahoo etc. but they decide for themselves.

 

Often it looks to me that posters here appeal to BBO Forum bypassing the rules for their joined event specifying how to appeal decisions.

I think that you are confusing result and process.

 

I very very doubt that the discussions that take place on the BBO forums have any meaningful impact on any one specific ruling. Lets assume for the moment tht some TD made the worst ruling the world has every seen. This is pointed out on the forums, and the TD actually changes his mind about the ruling. None of this matters at all. The TD doesn't have any way to change the socres after the fact. Even if he could change the scores, BBO tournaments are (essentially) meaningly. Who really cares if he gets things right or wrong?

 

Even so, I think that the process over discussing these types of issues is a very useful one. There is value in educating Tournaments Directors and players about the law.

 

On a more global level, as you point out individual sponsoring organizations have broad lattitude in how they choose to apply the laws. At the moment, the world of online bridge is extremely chaotic because no one is quite sure who the sponsoring organizations ultimately will be. I think its completely unclear whether a single unified sponsoring organization will ever emerge representing the Online Bridge Community, or, alternatively, whether existing geographically based Zonal Organizations extend their mandate in the electronic arena... If I had to place a bet, I'd guess that both systems will emerge in parallel. (Its going to be VERY interesting when the "Internet" wants to start submitting teams for the Bermuda Bowl)

 

Over the years, I've done a fair amount of work with Internet standards committees. From my perspective, one of the most important things that I've learned is that successful standards are rarely imposed from from the top. Instead, standards ratify and describe systems that have perculated into wide spread use through a process of trial and error.

 

Right now, Internet Bridge is going through a lot of trial and error. Discussions about rulings is part of the process of identifying what works and what doesn't.

[inquiry]

On line directing will be sporatic for a very good reason. Fred and Uday try to have as many options available (especially free ones) so the entry requirement to become a director is, well, extremely low. This is a good thing in many ways.

 

Let me tell you of a case I had in the last tourney I directed. The contract was a hopeless 3NT, down two on pretty much any lead. The opening lead was a fifth best spade from Txxxx. Declerer went down two in his overly ambitious contract. I was called to the table by the dummy (who plays in a lot of BBO tourneys since he had a "7" on his profile.. this WAS NOT a pay tourney however).

 

The complaint? The spade lead was 5th best and the "card" (well profile) said they lead 4th best. The dummy wanted the score adjusted to 3NT making because of the lead, or at least average plus for his side. He argued that this partnership is more likely to know that they don't lead 4th best all the time and it put his partner at a huge disadvantage.

 

The opening leader was aguring that it was a misclick. I explained that the result stands and the dummy explained to me that I had no clue how to direct and that other TD's routinely issue such corrections for deceptive and dishonest leads like this. I doubt that this is true, but who knows? Would a fifth best lead when marked 4th best bump heads against a "no psyche" rule (can a lead be a psyche)? I would say any TD that issues such a correction would have made as big a blunder as the "skewing result" post of cascade.

[csdenmark]

I think that you are confusing result and process.

 

I very very doubt that the discussions that take place on the BBO forums have any meaningful impact on any one specific ruling.  Lets assume for the moment tht some TD made the worst ruling the world has every seen.  This is pointed out on the forums, and the TD actually changes his mind about the ruling.  None of this matters at all.  The TD doesn't have any way to change the socres after the fact.  Even if he could change the scores,  BBO tournaments are (essentially) meaningly.  Who really cares if he gets things right or wrong?

 

Even so, I think that the process over discussing these types of issues is a very useful one.  There is value in educating Tournaments Directors and players about the law. 

 

On a more global level, as you point out individual sponsoring organizations have broad lattitude in how they choose to apply the laws.  At the moment, the world of online bridge is extremely chaotic because no one is quite sure who the sponsoring organizations ultimately will be.  I think its completely unclear whether a single unified sponsoring organization will ever emerge representing the Online Bridge Community, or, alternatively, whether existing geographically based Zonal Organizations extend their mandate in the electronic arena...  If I had to place a bet, I'd guess that both systems will emerge in parallel.  (Its going to be VERY interesting when the "Internet" wants to start submitting teams for the Bermuda Bowl)

 

Over the years, I've done a fair amount of work with Internet standards committees.  From my perspective, one of the most important things that I've learned is that successful standards are rarely imposed from from the top.  Instead, standards ratify and describe systems that have perculated into wide spread use through a process of trial and error.

 

Right now, Internet Bridge is going through a lot of trial and error.  Discussions about rulings is part of the process of identifying what works and what doesn't.

I very very doubt that the discussions that take place on the BBO forums have any meaningful impact on any one specific ruling. Lets assume for the moment tht some TD made the worst ruling the world has every seen. This is pointed out on the forums, and the TD actually changes his mind about the ruling. None of this matters at all. The TD doesn't have any way to change the socres after the fact. Even if he could change the scores, BBO tournaments are (essentially) meaningly. Who really cares if he gets things right or wrong?

Maybe/maybe not. But there have been many complaints against ACBL. That is broadly discussed despite people signing up there have all accepted that complaints must be filed to a mail-box. I have seen no referring to a response coming from that. Often they put up complaints same or next day. I am not ACBL and have nothing with them to do. But disloyalty, as such are proof of, ought to be rejected instead of debated by those regarding themselves as fair and serious.

 

 

Even so, I think that the process over discussing these types of issues is a very useful one. There is value in educating Tournaments Directors and players about the law.

Which law? Your law? My law? ACBL law? Chinese law? etc.

 

 

On a more global level, as you point out individual sponsoring organizations have broad lattitude in how they choose to apply the laws. At the moment, the world of online bridge is extremely chaotic because no one is quite sure who the sponsoring organizations ultimately will be. I think its completely unclear whether a single unified sponsoring organization will ever emerge representing the Online Bridge Community, or, alternatively, whether existing geographically based Zonal Organizations extend their mandate in the electronic arena... If I had to place a bet, I'd guess that both systems will emerge in parallel.

I would love to join such an organization. I think they will adopt most of ordinary rules - but the really point is they are binding prescriptions to their members and nobody else. But violations of those laws will certainly be right to discuss in this Forum.

 

 

(Its going to be VERY interesting when the "Internet" wants to start submitting teams for the Bermuda Bowl)

Very exciting and difficult to wait for. That is going to be a real challenge from a new world - an eyeopener you may say!

[blackshoe]

I think there are several more important characteristics of a good BBO director than memorizing all of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge:

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've seen TDs who seem to pride themselves on being able to rule from memory. Fine - as long as they get it right. But they don't always do that.

 

I've seen players (in f2f games) who are so impatient that if the TD tries to read a ruling from the book, the player will go ahead and "make his own ruling", ignoring the TD. The first time that happened to me, I was so non-plussed I just walked away from the table. The second time, I told the player her action was illegal, and that I would issue a PP, or possibly a DP, if it ever happened again. So far, I haven't had the problem again. :)

[blackshoe]

Who really cares if he gets things right or wrong?

1. The contestant who got shafted by the bad ruling.

2. The TD who made it, if he's any good.

3. Me. :)

 

I grant you that item 3 is generally irrelevant.

 

By default in the laws, the "correction period" ends 30 minutes after the scores are posted, so even in a major f2f tournament (unless the correction period is modified by regulation) any realization by the TD after that time that he made a wrong ruling and ought to change it, or change a score, is moot. So it's not just online where that problem occurs.

[blackshoe]

Which law? Your law? My law? ACBL law? Chinese law? etc.

There is only one Law Book: The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, as promulgated by the World Bridge Federation. Well, okay, there's also The WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge, but they are substantially the same (and the WBF expressed in the latter the expectation that where software limitation currently preclude playing the game according to the laws as written, it is the software, not the laws, that will have to adapt).

 

Every Sponsoring Organization has, under the laws, the right and duty to make and promulgate regulations supplementary to the laws. Online, that presents a difficulty for some, because they don't understand who the SO is. BBO, as I understand it, is not (generally) the SO for games on its site - BBO merely provides a place for people to play. So the tournament organizer is the SO, whoever that may be. Often the tournament organizer is also the director. In the case of the ACBL, that organization has long asserted that it is an SO for any game in which ACBL masterpoints are awarded. For club games, the ACBL acts as a "co-sponsor", leaving most of the SO decisions (and responsibilities) up to the club owner. Seems to me that would apply online as well as in f2f, but others may know more about that.

 

IAC, it is the responsibility of the SO to make players aware of what regulations are in effect - the laws themselves are pretty much universal.

[blackshoe]

the dummy explained to me that I  had no clue how to direct

So of course you explained to him that showing disrespect to the TD is a violation of law and subject to penalty. Right? B)

 

Regarding the question "can a lead be a psyche?" I would say no (the laws define only psychic calls), but any play can be deceptive (deliberately or otherwise) and there is no law against that. In fact, Law 75E specifically protects the right to make a deceptive call or play

A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience)

 

In the case in point, dummy argued that the defense had a CPU or CPE. "Offender" argued it was a misclick. TD has to make a decision. Absent any other evidence, I too would go with misclick. Dummy doesn't have to like it. And if every other TD in the world automatically rules CPU, well, they're all wrong. :)

[inquiry]

the dummy explained to me that I  had no clue how to direct

So of course you explained to him that showing disrespect to the TD is a violation of law and subject to penalty. Right? :)

I am a bbo--yellow, when I direct, I try NOT TO excercise yellow power in such situations. There are several reason for this. First, I don't want people to choose not to play in my events because of excessive power (additional powers) that I have. Second, I don't mind people disagreeing with me. If he were to call me stupid idiot, or use profanity, then of course, that would be different. He simply suggested I was incompetent. I have a thick enough skin to take such complaints. There is a threshold for complaints when I might remove a player, but this didn't reach that level.

 

I'd rather try to educate the player than punish them for such comments. Needless to say, I did not educate him as he was sure I was wrong. BTW, I full allow psyches in my events so the discussion was related to other's tourneys.

[blackshoe]

Ben,

 

Did you miss my smiley? B)

 

Yes, a thick skin is another TD prerequisite. This one wouldn't have bothered me, either.

 

When I said "subject to penalty" I was thinking of a PP - which, iirc, is not available with the BBO software. :) But never mind - what I was really getting at was that this player needs a bit of education. Though as you say, he probably wasn't minded to be educated at the time.

[csdenmark]

Which law? Your law? My law? ACBL law? Chinese law? etc.

There is only one Law Book: The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, as promulgated by the World Bridge Federation. Well, okay, there's also The WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge, but they are substantially the same (and the WBF expressed in the latter the expectation that where software limitation currently preclude playing the game according to the laws as written, it is the software, not the laws, that will have to adapt).

 

Every Sponsoring Organization has, under the laws, the right and duty to make and promulgate regulations supplementary to the laws. Online, that presents a difficulty for some, because they don't understand who the SO is. BBO, as I understand it, is not (generally) the SO for games on its site - BBO merely provides a place for people to play. So the tournament organizer is the SO, whoever that may be. Often the tournament organizer is also the director. In the case of the ACBL, that organization has long asserted that it is an SO for any game in which ACBL masterpoints are awarded. For club games, the ACBL acts as a "co-sponsor", leaving most of the SO decisions (and responsibilities) up to the club owner. Seems to me that would apply online as well as in f2f, but others may know more about that.

 

IAC, it is the responsibility of the SO to make players aware of what regulations are in effect - the laws themselves are pretty much universal.

Sorry Ben - those rules I know of but they are of no relevance to me. I am not a member and rules certainly are to be binding for members - but also certainly by members only. They are of no relevance online and most discussions in this Forum about rules a pure rubbish due to that.

 

BBO is not a sponsoring organization. BBO is the globe we are working at and nothing else. Therefore 'Rules for these sites' are basic rules for how to behave in a decent way - much similar to United Nations 'human rights'. Very general rules which need to be detailed. We have no organization with authority to do so.

 

We need such an organization! We need to challenge f2f world! We need to know what we are talking about!

 

That lucky day The Bermuda Bowl winner will win the right to challenge The Internet Masters running for World championchip.

[hrothgar]

Sorry Ben - those rules I know of but they are of no relevance to me. I am not a member and rules certainly are to be binding for members - but also certainly by members only. They are of no relevance online and most discussions in this Forum about rules a pure rubbish due to that.

 

BBO is not a sponsoring organization. BBO is the globe we are working at and nothing else. Therefore 'Rules for these sites' are basic rules for how to behave in a decent way - much similar to United Nations 'human rights'. Very general rules which need to be detailed. We have no organization with authority to do so.

 

We need such an organization! We need to challenge f2f world! We need to know what we are talking about!

I think that you missed my point about standards processes.

 

You don't create an organization out of thin air, create some arbitrary rules, and then try to impose this code of behaviour upon a group of people. You'll have better luck herding cats.

 

What does work is discussion. You talk about what works. You talk about what doesn't work. Over time, a set of cultural norms starts to emerge that reflects the unique nature of the new environment. Once these norms are establish, you can start to formalize them into laws.

[mycroft]

Here's a quote that has been of much help to me, Ben:

 

"A convention card is an agreement between partners, not a promise to opponents."

 

Law 40A - you are allowed to deviate from your agreements. It can be deliberate or a mistake, but you are allowed to deviate.

 

If that dummy tried this on with me, I would say that first; if he was going to go on with CPU, I would say I would look at the board, and (assuming what you said was right, and 3NT is going off two no matter what) return saying "I have looked at the board, and if declarer had had the correct information, he would still have lost the same tricks. I am not sure that you were misinformed, but even if you were, there was no damage. Result stands, play on."

 

There are people who believe that when the opponents do something wrong, they are entitled to a good board. Also, they get to decide what "wrong" is (see the 4S out-of-the-blue thread). And they get very upset when they find out the Laws aren't written that way.

 

Yeah, a tough skin helps. But having the authority to say "that's exactly enough, sir." and be able to stick it, also helps. So does knowing how not to abuse that power.

 

On another note, what I have seen from LA appeals (MI and UI) is that frequently what the experts have that the almost-experts do not is knowledge of negative inferences. I remember one case locally where we made a ruling and it all seemed right, but the first question of the appeals committee was "what would <sequence X> mean?" And given the answer, and the evidence to back it up - they played something common in the expert community but not in the global one - the "LA" was clearly illogical, and the ruling was reversed. And I've had that with certain directors in my life, because we're playing EHAA, Strong Club, 4-card Majors, or the like, and with the ruling, I point out that that couldn't happen with our system; they do look at the evidence and go back and rework it.

 

Michael.

[blackshoe]

We need to know what we are talking about!

Yeah, we do. So let me ask you: what are you tallking about? B) You replied to Ben, but you quoted me. I don't understand that. You say you are not a member. Member of what? You say you are not bound by "those rules". Which rules? "BBO is not a sponsoring organization." Yeah, I said that. So?

 

We seem to be talking about different things here. I'm just trying to understand what you think the issue is (or issues are) and where you stand.

[csdenmark]

Sorry Ben - those rules I know of but they are of no relevance to me. I am not a member and rules certainly are to be binding for members - but also certainly by members only. They are of no relevance online and most discussions in this Forum about rules a pure rubbish due to that.

 

BBO is not a sponsoring organization. BBO is the globe we are working at and nothing else. Therefore 'Rules for these sites' are basic rules for how to behave in a decent way - much similar to United Nations 'human rights'. Very general rules which need to be detailed. We have no organization with authority to do so.

 

We need such an organization! We need to challenge f2f world! We need to know what we are talking about!

I think that you missed my point about standards processes.

 

You don't create an organization out of thin air, create some arbitrary rules, and then try to impose this code of behaviour upon a group of people. You'll have better luck herding cats.

 

What does work is discussion. You talk about what works. You talk about what doesn't work. Over time, a set of cultural norms starts to emerge that reflects the unique nature of the new environment. Once these norms are establish, you can start to formalize them into laws.

I dont think I missed your point Richard.

 

Organizations, communities or whatever such is called have always been created out of the thin air. What is needed is some enthusiastic persons committed to something. When those persons have agreed that their cooperation might be benefitting for somebody/something they invite others to join. That way everything you see around has arised.

 

Maybe this thread is an opportunity and a moment for a creating something. Maybe we just need instead to go ahead with rubbish discussions. Hopefully something will come from that - but the rating will be poorer.