Do You Beye This?

[jonottawa]

If he doesn't bust out laughing first.

 

-Matthew Huntington

Speaking of busting out laughing ...

 

PLEASE tell me that you're not this guy (with about 200 masterpoints.)

 

Page 4

 

No wonder you have such a big chip on your shoulder. Next time, keep your mouth shut and your ears open and you might learn something from people with more smarts, more class, and vastly more bridge experience than you.

[jdonn]

"And I am done. Have a nice day."

 

I thought you were done ... Do you mean anything you say?

Sorry, sometimes trolls can get me to respond if they produce enough random insults.

 

To the rest of the board, I apologize.

No need, I'm enjoying this thoroughly.

 

Speaking of busting out laughing ...

 

PLEASE tell me that you're not this guy (with about 200 masterpoints.)

 

Page 4

 

What guy? Page number? (never mind found it)

[jikl]

Now I am glad this is in the Water Cooler.

 

Please add another option to your poll: "The OP is a bored troll"

 

And now the troll is a masterpoint snob as well, to be truthful that seemed fairly obvious from the original post. Where do you get off deciding someone's right to post on this subject by the number of masterpoints they have?

 

You are a troll; nothing more and nothing less.

 

Sean

[bid_em_up]

The poll results reveal that 75% of the people don't wholeheartedly agree with Rick Beye.  That in itself should be enough to get him to clarify his position.

This is a dumb position to take.

 

While 75% may not "wholeheartedly" agree with Rick Beyes expression, some 90+% either agree with it, agree with what he said even if it was worded poorly or really don't think it amounts to anything. Most of us at least have enough sense not to make a mountain out of a molehill, as you are doing.

 

Only 1 3 other people have actually agreed with your side, so far. That should tell you something.

 

Edit: I changed the number after re-reading through the thread to correctly reflect that jonottowa did not vote in the poll. One additional vote occured after this post was initially made.

[bid_em_up]

Speaking of busting out laughing ...

No wonder you have such a big chip on your shoulder.  Next time, keep your mouth shut and your ears open and you might learn something from people with more smarts, more class, and vastly more bridge experience than you.

Why don't you try following your own advice?

[rona_]

If he doesn't bust out laughing first.

 

-Matthew Huntington

Speaking of busting out laughing ...

 

PLEASE tell me that you're not this guy (with about 200 masterpoints.)

 

Page 4

 

No wonder you have such a big chip on your shoulder. Next time, keep your mouth shut and your ears open and you might learn something from people with more smarts, more class, and vastly more bridge experience than you.

More class? <_<

 

La culture, c'est comme la confiture.............

[uday]

I'm starting to think we need a "flames" discussion area just so we can bang on each other for fun.

 

Until we set that up, tho, pls recall that while Watercooler is considerably more relaxed about language and potential abuse than the normal boards, it is still moderated and there are lines that we should be reluctant to cross.

[cherdano]

jonottawa, did you really just make fun of someone because of his number of masterpoints????

 

I have about 30, please point at me and laugh.

[Walddk]

jonottawa, did you really just make fun of someone because of his number of masterpoints????

 

I have about 30, please point at me and laugh.

I can beat that. I have zero in ACBL-land, so I guess Jon is about to suffocate from laughter.

 

Roland

[HeavyDluxe]

http://images22.fotki.com/v754/photos/1/127099/1923196/ike_where_this_thread_is_going-vi.jpg

 

sry... Just had to employ the infrequently used IMG tag.

[jonottawa]

Well, thanks everyone for showing me that when someone is perceived to be bullied that good samaritans rush to their defense. That's the point I was making earlier. A pity you weren't around then ...

 

For the europeans, you know better than to bring up the number of ACBL masterpoints you have. You know full well that's completely irrelevant. But whatever floats your boat.

 

If you'll recall, mycroft said that he himself had very few masterpoints (monsterpoints). It has almost nothing to do with masterpoints. It has to do with bridge experience. It has to do with logical reasoning. It has to do with not being the first to start insulting people.

 

This guy has very little experience (as evidenced by the article itself,) comes in here and starts name-calling, throwing around profanity, making nasty insinuations, distorting other people's arguments, and only gets worse when he's called on it.

 

I'd appreciate it if we all took uday's advice and returned to the topic of the thread. If you want to discuss some other issue that has been raised here, please start a new thread. Thanks.

[jtfanclub]

I'd appreciate it if we all took uday's advice and returned to the topic of the thread. If you want to discuss some other issue that has been raised here, please start a new thread. Thanks.

You know, I think there are some forums that work that way.

 

These don't.

 

You originated this thread. This gives you...no authority whatsoever in the direction that the thread goes. If we want to discuss some other issue that has been raised here, we'll discuss it here, thanks. That's how it's done here, and how it's always been done here. The exception is that, for example, if a Beginner thread gets too advanced they might move it off and create an Advanced thread.

 

I understand, you're effectively a newbie here, regardless of when you originally registered. Maybe you're used to another style of threading. Go take a look at the way most threads work here. Somebody comes in with a bidding question. The next dozen or so posts are about a direct answer to his question. From there it usually evolves to the next level...is there some other bidding system or gadget which handles it better? Was there some earlier bid that caused the issue? And so forth. You aren't going to find cases with the originators complaining that these are "some other issue" and should start a new thread.

 

If you're not interested in what Mycroft and I are discussing, don't read it. We're not here for your entertainment. Creating a thread doesn't let you determine where the flow of conversation goes, and it sure as hell doesn't give you the right to try to start a fight between us simply because you're bored.

 

As for the "good Samaritans", they aren't here because you insulted me. They're here because you rather viciously smeared them.

 

If you want to return to the original topic of the thread, all you have to do is make an interesting post. Conversation will naturally flow that way. You might want to start with whether you believe that the director should always be called for a hesitation pass if their partner gets another bite at the apple, and if so why.

 

I mean, I'm not interested, but I'm sure there are others who are.

[jonottawa]

To bid's point that only 3 people answered 'No! WTF was ...' I'd only concede that the poll answers/options were poorly worded.

 

Everyone agrees that what Rick said was factually correct, so the only issues are:

 

a) did he leave a false overall impression and

 

b ) is it worth clarifying?

 

I think anytime the chief tournament director leaves a false overall impression in the membership magazine that it's worth clarifying. Others seem to disagree.

[jonottawa]

Why should you (in ACBL land) call the director when UI occurs (such as a BIT-pass in a competitive auction) and not later?

 

1. Because as mycroft rightly points out you ARE more likely (admittedly not guaranteed) to get agreement that there was a BIT. If you read the story I posted on my blog about a BIT-pass on BBO you'll see that in spite of a 2 minute tank and the comment 'thinking ...' that the other opponent (after balancing back in with zip and pip) tried to argue that there was no UI. That's not uncommon if you wait until 'later.'

 

2. Because you are giving fair warning to the opponents NOT to take advantage of the UI. That's the sportsmanlike thing to do, particularly against inexperienced players. Yes, if you wait until later you're guaranteed a 2-way shot if you didn't do anything egregious and can establish that a BIT occurred. No, that's not how I want to win.

 

3. Because some opponents won't be aware of their rights/obligations and this provides the director an opportunity to remind/teach them. I've argued that this is a very poor way to teach them, but how else will they learn if we don't teach them about ethics in classes and beginner games? By waiting until they do take advantage of UI (or maybe just appear to take advantage of UI) and then punishing them for unethical behavior? Yeah, great idea, that won't upset them at all.

 

4. Because the common ACBL interpretation of the Laws says that's what you're supposed to do.

 

How you call the director is important. What you say to the director when he arrives is important. How you say what you say to the director is important. Doing what we can to get new players comfortable with director calls is important. Teaching new players a concept that's fundamental to the game is important.

 

Unfortunately, Rick Beye conveyed a different message altogether.

[cherdano]

Well, thanks everyone for showing me that when someone is perceived to be bullied that good samaritans rush to their defense. That's the point I was making earlier. A pity you weren't around then ...

 

For the europeans, you know better than to bring up the number of ACBL masterpoints you have. You know full well that's completely irrelevant. But whatever floats your boat.

I would still be below 200 MPs if you translated my German Clubpunkte to ACBL Masterpoints. You should know better than bringing up MPs the way you did. It was one of the most ridiculous things I have read on BBF.

[bid_em_up]

Jon,

 

I will not say that I disagree with your sentiment that Mr. Beye's response was poorly worded. It comes across as if the person making the director call was at fault, when it is the BIT that caused the problem.

 

The director should be called when the BIT occurs (imo). If you don't do it then, you may lose your right to appeal it later on. It shouldn't matter whether the guy is a beginner, intermediate or expert, he evidently acknowledges his BIT. And it quite possibly was longer than 6-8 seconds.

 

However, rather than continue on about how its right, wrong or indifferent, you must realize that Mr. Beye simply cannot say "you imbecile, the guy was only following proper procedure by calling the director", especially not for publication in the ACBL bulletin. That would make the "slight" to the guy even worse.

 

"Hey Joe, I saw your letter in the bulletin last month. That Rick Beye really set you straight, didn't he? HAR HAR HAR!!"

 

There is a certain amount of butt-kissing "polite phrasing" that has to go into his response. Surely, you can recognize this. He wants to make the guy "feel" good, while at the same time pointing out that it is desirable to maintain a steady tempo.

 

There also may be facts unknown (i.e., the player calling the director might be "known" for attempting to intimidate lesser players with their director calls) that Mr. Beye is privy to that we are not. Or he may have just gotten the impression that this is the type of player this particular "offender" is. He was simply pointing out (as an aside) that the club director does have the ability to warn the lightning fast director caller that he might want to cut some slack to lesser players in the future. Now the guy can take his response and show it to the club director and feel proud of himself.

 

And, if you have ever had any communication directly with Mr. Beye (I do not know if you have or have not), but it has been my experience that most of his responses aren't always worded in the best fashion. He simply does not seem to be a clear communicator, imo. I have read similar sentiments from others regarding their dealings with him as well. In many cases, he never directly answers the question he was actually asked, but skirts all around it instead.

 

With all of this said, I still don't think his response rises to the level of "offense" or "indignation" that you seem to be portraying in your sentiments regarding his response.

 

jmoo.

[Echognome]

The director should be called when the BIT occurs (imo). If you don't do it then, you may lose your right to appeal it later on. It shouldn't matter whether the guy is a beginner, intermediate or expert, he evidently acknowledges his BIT. And it quite possibly was longer than 6-8 seconds.

Without delving into the whole other imbroglio of this thread, I just wanted to comment on this one bit.

 

When there is a BIT, whether the TD should be called immediately depends on the NBO. My understanding is that in the ACBL, they want you to call the TD to establish that there has been a BIT. In other locations, you can simply agree to the facts with your opponents and carry on. So in England, I might say "Do you agree there was a BIT?" If the opponents nod, then I just carry on and call the TD later if I feel there was a problem. If the opponents disagree, then I would have to call the TD.

 

Now, IMO, I believe the latter is a much better way to run things. Sure the opponents could agree to a BIT and then later lie about it. But really, what's to stop them from lying about it when the TD comes initially? So I don't worry about that. Calling for a TD takes time and all the TD is going to do is try to establish whether there was a BIT or not, then tell the players to carry on and call them back if they feel they were damaged.

[jonottawa]

Jon,

 

I will not say that I disagree with your sentiment that Mr. Beye's response was poorly worded. It comes across as if the person making the director call was at fault, when it is the BIT that caused the problem.

 

The director should be called when the BIT occurs (imo). If you don't do it then, you may lose your right to appeal it later on. It shouldn't matter whether the guy is a beginner, intermediate or expert, he evidently acknowledges his BIT. And it quite possibly was longer than 6-8 seconds.

 

However, rather than continue on about how its right, wrong or indifferent, you must realize that Mr. Beye simply cannot say "you imbecile, the guy was only following proper procedure by calling the director", especially not for publication in the ACBL bulletin. That would make the "slight" to the guy even worse.

 

"Hey Joe, I saw your letter in the bulletin last month. That Rick Beye really set you straight, didn't he? HAR HAR HAR!!"

 

There is a certain amount of butt-kissing "polite phrasing" that has to go into his response. Surely, you can recognize this. He wants to make the guy "feel" good, while at the same time pointing out that it is desirable to maintain a steady tempo.

 

There also may be facts unknown (i.e., the player calling the director might be "known" for attempting to intimidate lesser players with their director calls) that Mr. Beye is privy to that we are not. Or he may have just gotten the impression that this is the type of player this particular "offender" is. He was simply pointing out (as an aside) that the club director does have the ability to warn the lightning fast director caller that he might want to cut some slack to lesser players in the future. Now the guy can take his response and show it to the club director and feel proud of himself.

 

And, if you have ever had any communication directly with Mr. Beye (I do not know if you have or have not), but it has been my experience that most of his responses aren't always worded in the best fashion. He simply does not seem to be a clear communicator, imo. I have read similar sentiments from others regarding their dealings with him as well. In many cases, he never directly answers the question he was actually asked, but skirts all around it instead.

 

With all of this said, I still don't think his response rises to the level of "offense" or "indignation" that you seem to be portraying in your sentiments regarding his response.

 

jmoo.

I agree with almost everything you just said. I don't know Rick Beye. I've seen him at tournaments but I don't think I've ever talked to him or had him at my table. I have nothing against him and didn't mean to imply otherwise. If he chooses not to clarify his comments, that's his decision.

 

I totally agree that if you're going to respond to Mr. Lim's letter in the Bulletin that you have to be gentle with him. But when I read the letter and response I pictured dozens of people cutting out that letter and sticking it in their wallet and the next time they break tempo forever and pass and an opponent calls the director, they pull out the letter and say 'The CHIEF TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR of the ACBL says that novices can take all day. I thought TRULY EXPERIENCED PLAYERS and VETERAN TOURNAMENT DIRECTORS understood that. Furthermore, please penalize my opponents for calling you as Mr. Beye suggests.'

 

I think my earlier posts reflected that a more balanced response (or a clarification of the misleading response in this case) was all I was seeking.

[mycroft]

My guess at what actually happened - and it's just a guess - is that the person got into a situation they hadn't seen before, thought for a clearly longer time, in a situation where the A players - not experts, the group I tend to call "experts" - would only have to think if it really was a problem. Of course, they've never met this pair, and it's the first board of two. But they haven't met a lot of pairs in this game, so they don't *know* that these guys are 250-point novices. They called, probably without warning and somewhat obnoxiously, because that's what bridge players do, for the TD, who came, and the explanation of what happened also probably had a bit of accusatory tone to it as well.

 

Of course, the newer player doesn't know the Laws, and has been treated with kid gloves in those non-Gold games for three years, and thinks that whenever the opponents call the TD "on" him, it means he did something wrong (because again, that's what bridge players do), and the first he knew there was a potential problem was a screamed "DIRECTOR!" from his left. Now he's out of his depth and defensive to begin with, and the bit of accusatory tone is heard as "this guy's c****ing". So his back gets up even farther.

 

So he writes a letter to the ACBL - with his POV only, of course - and the CTD, trying to calm him down, explains that he was hard done by.

 

I wish he had been balanced, and explained that yes, the opponents did have a legitimate concern, and that it is up to you, if you are going to play in Flight A, to know and respect the Laws, and be willing to get the bad results that all your actions lead you, not just your bad bids and missed plays. However, the opponents did go overboard, and...

 

Which I guess means that I agree with Jon - the response should have been more balanced. Yes, you can moderate the pace of your opponents, by continuing to bid at your own pace, but I also bet that the auction went:

 

pick up cards, 2 seconds, 1C - 1D - 2C in no time at all - 2D - and now the "6-8" seconds (which probably was more like 10-12 - nobody *ever* underestimates the time they think, same as nobody *ever* overestimates how long their opponents have tanked). Or I was wrong and it's the third board, and they've been bidding to the opponents' pace on all the rest of the hands (Why? because they didn't have a problem. Funny, that, no?).

 

My complaint about MPs is that there are several people with more MPs than I (now, I will grant, I would be higher if I were actually able to play instead of direct) who say "well, we aren't experts like you, you can't get on our case for every little hesitation" (and the one I'm thinking of is smart enough to play every trick in the book, and probably some I haven't noticed yet. But his just-under-1000 MPs means that he "isn't an expert like me"). I know griping about masterpoint inflation is a dead horse, but eventually the kid gloves come off. And to me, that's when you think you're good enough to be an LM.

 

I'm sorry that this went way overboard. I shouldn't have pushed - especially and dropped away. I'm sure that this was at least partially because I was sick on tuesday, and just didn't know it yet (I slept all day wednesday).

 

Michael.

[jonottawa]

My guess at what actually happened - and it's just a guess - is that the person got into a situation they hadn't seen before, thought for a clearly longer time, in a situation where the A players - not experts, the group I tend to call "experts" - would only have to think if it really was a problem. Of course, they've never met this pair, and it's the first board of two. But they haven't met a lot of pairs in this game, so they don't *know* that these guys are 250-point novices. They called, probably without warning and somewhat obnoxiously, because that's what bridge players do, for the TD, who came, and the explanation of what happened also probably had a bit of accusatory tone to it as well.

 

Of course, the newer player doesn't know the Laws, and has been treated with kid gloves in those non-Gold games for three years, and thinks that whenever the opponents call the TD "on" him, it means he did something wrong (because again, that's what bridge players do), and the first he knew there was a potential problem was a screamed "DIRECTOR!" from his left. Now he's out of his depth and defensive to begin with, and the bit of accusatory tone is heard as "this guy's c****ing". So his back gets up even farther.

 

So he writes a letter to the ACBL - with his POV only, of course - and the CTD, trying to calm him down, explains that he was hard done by.

 

I wish he had been balanced, and explained that yes, the opponents did have a legitimate concern, and that it is up to you, if you are going to play in Flight A, to know and respect the Laws, and be willing to get the bad results that all your actions lead you, not just your bad bids and missed plays. However, the opponents did go overboard, and...

 

Which I guess means that I agree with Jon - the response should have been more balanced. Yes, you can moderate the pace of your opponents, by continuing to bid at your own pace, but I also bet that the auction went:

 

pick up cards, 2 seconds, 1C - 1D - 2C in no time at all - 2D - and now the "6-8" seconds (which probably was more like 10-12 - nobody *ever* underestimates the time they think, same as nobody *ever* overestimates how long their opponents have tanked). Or I was wrong and it's the third board, and they've been bidding to the opponents' pace on all the rest of the hands (Why? because they didn't have a problem. Funny, that, no?).

 

My complaint about MPs is that there are several people with more MPs than I (now, I will grant, I would be higher if I were actually able to play instead of direct) who say "well, we aren't experts like you, you can't get on our case for every little hesitation" (and the one I'm thinking of is smart enough to play every trick in the book, and probably some I haven't noticed yet. But his just-under-1000 MPs means that he "isn't an expert like me"). I know griping about masterpoint inflation is a dead horse, but eventually the kid gloves come off. And to me, that's when you think you're good enough to be an LM.

 

I'm sorry that this went way overboard. I shouldn't have pushed - especially and dropped away. I'm sure that this was at least partially because I was sick on tuesday, and just didn't know it yet (I slept all day wednesday).

 

Michael.

I agree completely with almost everything (except where you imply you're in any way responsible for the brief p***ing contest that broke out.) I think you've got your underestimating and overestimating backwards, though.

 

I read the letter and thought '6-8 seconds? Uh, no. If that's not the most self-serving statement I've ever heard ...'

 

I could be wrong. This guy could be Job reincarnated. But I doubt it.

[jonottawa]

The director should be called when the BIT occurs (imo).  If you don't do it then, you may lose your right to appeal it later on.  It shouldn't matter whether the guy is a beginner, intermediate or expert, he evidently acknowledges his BIT.  And it quite possibly was longer than 6-8 seconds.

Without delving into the whole other imbroglio of this thread, I just wanted to comment on this one bit.

 

When there is a BIT, whether the TD should be called immediately depends on the NBO. My understanding is that in the ACBL, they want you to call the TD to establish that there has been a BIT. In other locations, you can simply agree to the facts with your opponents and carry on. So in England, I might say "Do you agree there was a BIT?" If the opponents nod, then I just carry on and call the TD later if I feel there was a problem. If the opponents disagree, then I would have to call the TD.

 

Now, IMO, I believe the latter is a much better way to run things.

I agree that if all are experienced players that getting an agreement on a BIT without a director call is preferable (here we're talking about what ACBL policy SHOULD be, rather than what it IS.)

 

Against players you suspect might be novices, I still think it is LESS intimidating to politely call the director in the manner suggested by mycroft than to potentially confuse your opponents about whether or not they've done something wrong by asking them to confirm that there was a break in tempo. Most directors (club directors, at least) make a point of greeting new players, learning their names, and making them feel welcome. Calling the 'nice director' over and saying 'there was a break in tempo over 2♦' and letting the director take it from there is the best way to proceed, imo. (And yes, at a club game, you might just cut the beginners some slack. But you shouldn't be REQUIRED to do so (maybe it's a club championship and you want your name on the plaque, or you're having a really bad set and can't afford to risk giving up a board to the worst pair in the room, or you've cut this pair some slack before and they took advantage, etc.))

[ASkolnick]

To me, it makes much more sense to call for the Break In Tempo immediately regardless of the skill set of the opponents.

 

If not, it clearly looks like you are results merchanting, if you want to wait for the score.

 

If you want to explain it to the opponents who are beginners and if they like baseball, give them that calling the director for a hesitation is equivalent to when the catcher asks the umpire if the batter swung at a pitch.

 

The catcher appeals to the umpire (Director).

The director can do nothing with the call.

The director can look later (like appealing to the 1st or 3rd baseman). Just takes a little longer.

 

Many times, even if the catcher requests the appeal, the umpire does not have to grant any sort of adjustment what so ever. Or even listen to the appeal.

 

This is not an infraction of any kind, just if there might be a problem, it may need to be looked at.

[beatrix45]

:) Applying top level 'ethical' standards to even ordinary duplicate players is absurd. Outside of a small top echelon of professionals, the game is played purely for enjoyment.

 

When this sort of harassment happened to me as a beginner, Oswald Jacoby who happened to be playing that night at a nearby table, put a quick stop to it. He said, "take as long as you need". He then turned to my partner and said "you are not to draw any inference from your partner's mannerisms or hesitations, that would be unethical."

 

Bridge used to be a much more popular game in North America, no wonder why.