Notification of Host booting a player

[inquiry]

I have just read a thread elsewhere in which a host abruptly booted a player during the play of a hand. To the other players at the table this could look as if the booted player simply left during the play. Not being a table (I don't think) when a host boots someone, I was wondering if notifications of the host action can be sent the remaining players and kibitizers? (If it is not already done).

 

Other than for a completely frozen player, or a player using profanity or sexual innappropriate language or other extremely poor behavior, I can't see a host booting anyone.

 

 

[BurnKryten]

Other than for a completely frozen player, or a player using profanity or sexual innappropriate language or other extremely poor behavior, I can't see a host booting anyone.

 

It's happened to me.  I had a rather ill-timed psych backfire, and a couple hands later my new partner passed a bid I thought would be forcing.  I ended up playing in a 3-3 fit.  The host (an opponent) removed me without comment at the end of the hand.

 

Agreed, it's rare, but these things do happen.  Perhaps I should have reported the incident, but everyone has bad days...  Even so, BBO is by far the most friendly site I've ever played on.

 

John

[inquiry]

On the plus side... you were booted at the END of a hand, rather than during the play like the other fellow... ::)

[Mike]

Hosts frequently boot. More table, more boot. More people even more boot. Why?

 

In most of the cases booting could be reportable against the host as abuse of power.  But it would be boring and absolutely useless. Why?

 

If there is a feature that can be abused, it will be abused. Lot's of people have shallow mentality or a bad day. Some even bragging openly on booting in this forum. Many open table for having this right to remove anybody who dears to have own opinion. Simply, it is human though not the nicest part of human nature.

 

Solution is simple if we can mark these hosts. Hopefully a version will come where we can make our own marks. And avoid the table of these petit tyranns.

[bglover]

I have now put into my profile not to sit at my table if you do not grant undos since we all make mismouse mistakes and the like. I will boot a player (after giving them a chance to correct an ungranted undo for an obvious mistake) but that is the only reason I will boot someone. If someone is so desparate to get imps that they will prey on an obvious mistake, I do not want to play with that person, plain and simple. (I have a recent story i can relate about this very thing... A kibbitzer saw me do this very thing and accused me openly of cheating! Since BBO doesn't have ratings based on IMP totals, how was this cheating? Well, I won't go on beyond this tidbit).

 

On the other hand, I frequently ask players to leave the table (nicely) when it is apparent their skill level is not as advertised on their profile and they are out of place at my table. Many times, after several polite requests they won't leave, and so I am forced to leave my own table where I have 2 other good players because the 4th player refuses to vacate.

 

I don't really like this. Why should 3 players be penalized because one won't cooperate? But, it happens on a quite regular basis.. Since I am not supposed to boot a player for this kind of reason I don't... but I really would like to be within the rules and those rules should include that a host may request a player to leave and. if that request is refused, then be able to boot someone without fear of repercussions.

 

I recently was booted in the middle of a hand for making a quite good double that was not going to hold up...

 

Here was my hand:

 

AQ10

K987

AKxx

xx

 

I opened 1nt, my p passed my rho overcalled 2h, passed back to my p who eventually bid 3c and righty bid 3h.. I of course now doubled and dummy hit with no useful cards EXCEPT the KJ of spds and opener had a diamond void...

 

Now, my double was perfectly reasonable but this hand was making an overtrick. Once it was obvious declarer was making, my partner, the host, booted me. THAT is not a bootable offense.. This was not a silly double..It just didn't work out (sometimes they don't). Had my partner asked me to leave after the hand, I would have... Even tho, in my estimation, I hadn't done anything egregious... but booting me in the middle of a hand?

[inquiry]

All i was really asking for when I started this thread was for a notification to all players that the host booted someone. So everyone would know why a player left.... especially in the middle of the play of a hand.

 

But Mike and Steve raise two points. Mike is that booting is going to happen as long as the option exist. I agree with his comments, and that is why I asked for notification... if the host at my table boots someone for whatever reason, I want to know about it so I can do as Mike suggested.

 

Steve raises a counter argument, with is if it ok for a host to ask a player to leave for whatever perceived fault (less than skillful player, a former disconnected player is trying to return, a favorite partner has just showed up, the requested player is way to bad or perhaps way too good for the current players at the table...or what ever reason... )  and if they refuse to leave, then it is ok to boot them. I never mind a host asking, politely, if someone would give up a seat for a favorite partner or a returning player. But the problem is what if there was a language problem and the person asked doesn't even understand you asked them to leave?

 

And is it really any better to say... hey partner, I don't think you are good enough player, would you please leave, or simply booting the same person. Isn't this kind of comment specifically forbidden by the Rules of the site... The following are a few quote from the rules where this might be a violation. " (It is a violation) to insult your partner or opponents. Wouldn't you find such a comment insulting, especially in public if you really thought yourself a good player? Give unsolicited bridge lessons or criticize the bidding/play of others. Clearly such a comment violates this rule.  

 

So I do not favor 2over1's reasonably sounding logic for asking an inapproriately rated player to leave and then booting them if they do not. As unfair as it seems, politely leaving your own table and starting a new table is a lot less offensive and more within the guidelines. (In fact this is exactly what the guidelines state, I quote "If you don't like how your partner bids or plays... finish the hand and send a polite chat message to the table before leaving.") Three players can even send private chats to each other (parnters of course can't but messages can be relayed through the third member of the table) to arrange for the departue and starting a new table if you want to drag three people from one table to a new one.

 

I have never denied an undo and doubt I ever will. And 2over1's concept of putting into his profile comments about undo's seems reasonable. However even here the BBO has guidelines, they state that " All members have a right to reject an undo, redeal or claim request for any reason.,,,and it is inappropriate for a player to be offended if his request is objected." I think this addresses 2over1's booting comments if an undo is rejected in sorts (he does have more validity in that he specifically requested you join the table only if you allow undo's). But I have seen plenty of people get what appears to be very angry when their claims are rejected.  Someone spent a long time comming up with EXCELLENT rules for the BBO site. Now if onlly everyone could live up to follow them!!!  

[fred]

In the next version we are going to experiment with various options for trying to reduce the number of improper boots.

 

We will be able to try several things because the BBO program will have a "generic message box" facility so that the server can send any user any message at any time and that message will appear in a dialog box. In this way we can customize the messages that users will see without requiring a new download.

 

So for example, we could try sending a warning when a host tries to boot a player like: "It is a violation of the rules of this site to boot somebody because you don't like their bidding. Are you sure you want to continue?". Or we could send a notification to all players at a table after a boot has taken place like, "Fred has been booted by the host, but this event has been recorded in our logs. Players who abuse the booting function will be barred from BBO."

 

We can use the same facility for things like sending warning messages to players who intentionally leave a table in the middle of a hand.

 

Not sure exactly when to send these messages and what they should contain, but in the upcoming version we will have a great deal of flexbility to experiment in these areas and I am sure we will eventually come up with some good answers.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[bglover]

Well I do admit that is the one thing that will get to me.. not granting undos on obvious mistakes... that's why it is in my profile.. It makes for a very contentious game and I simply do not want to play in that type of atmosphere.

 

I do often have to start a new table (probably have to two to three times a week) after asking someone politely to leave (and i always do so privately and nicely... I make a point of this I am not trying to insult anyone). Often, due to the vagaries of the software (discussed elsewhere on this board) I accidently buzz someone in who I do not know and now I must play with that person although I intended to allow someone else to sit (I always require permissions at my table).

 

I generally try to play with people I am familiar with so that I don't get into this very situation, but sometimes people do get in accidently and sometimes I need a fourth and an unknown person requests to sit,,, their profile appears appropriate and I do allow them. If, after a few hands, it is apparent they are not what they advertise, it becomes a problem because their partner is now going to leave rather than continue... So, in essence 3 people get penalized...

 

I try to stay within the rules (I realize it is a privilige to play here) and I do not abuse them... I have never booted someone for bad play and I immediately blacklist someone who doesn't grant undos so that I don't ever play with them again... matter of fact that is about the only way for someone to make my blacklist.

 

I realize BBO says players don't have to grant undos... but I also do not have to play with people that don't (or worse, grant them when they won't be damaged but not grant them when they clearly will get a huge imp result due to a mismouse). This is the reason why my profile says what it says.. if you do not grant reasonable requests for undos then you are probably trying to get a good score through devious means and I just don't need to play with you..and you don't want to play with me...everyone is happier this way.

[easy]

What exactly are the rights of the Table Host/Server

 

I think steve is right about the rights of the table host with regard to asking someone to leave. Many times i have not seen a table with a skill level i felt was adequate and therefore opened a table to play with players of my level.

If a person opens a table (table host) and advertises for expert opponents, 3 others sit ,2 "experts" and 1 novice (to use an extreme example) it seems perfectly reasonable to ask the novice to leave. If one doesnt have the skills that have been requested why should the other players be forced to play at that level. At my home if i have an invitational only party must i allow a gate crasher to stay! If i am serving a table (host) the table is my home.It seems ludicrous that the person that started the table must leave so that they dont offend someone.

 

With regard to language problems....yes it's certainly possible that the person that has been asked to leave may not understand the language of the table. Does this mean that the table host's right to have an enjoyable time of bridge is negated... i think not.

 

Is it an insult to ask someone to leave because their skill level is not adequate? Not in my opinion. How can the truth be considered an insult?

[inquiry]

YAHOO... Thanks Fred... your solution sounds like it will solve my concerns.

 

I have to admit, despite my last post to 2over1's comments, I have kibitzed him for countless hours and played at his table some too, and I find his table manners on a whole as quite reasonable (but perhaps too much lessons at the table from time to time... but I actually like that).

 

As for easy's comment "Is it an insult to ask someone to leave because their skill level is not adequate? Not in my opinion. How can the truth be considered an insult? " Well, I just can't leave this comment sitting there unresponded too. How would you feel if I said anyone over the age of 12 would disagree with this comment? Would you want to disagree, maybe talking about liable and the truth? Would you want to drag a lot of other people who know you to explain to me and the readers here how reasonable, nice and intellegent you are? What if I really believe the age of 12 comment to be the truth rather than joke I meant it as? How do we settle any problems it might cause between us if I truely felt that way and yet my comments make you mad?

 

Let change from that artificial situation to an example in 2over1's post a little earlier in this thread to where he was booted. Given that post, do you think he was insulted when he was booted? Do you even think he agrees today that his bid was wrong? Do you think if instead of booting the table host has said "buddy you suck, please leave" he would have been any less insulted?

 

Let me put it another way. Your tag line here says "club level expert  -  flite A tournament player"... what if you were at a table and made a reasonable bid, one that you even think is the "expert" bid that would be made by 90% of all world class players and it turns out badly (bad split, unexpected partner action, whatever... think an unusual 2NT that your partner took as natural and leaped to 6NT hammered hard). Now your partner, who is the table host and who can't send you a nice, polite private message says to you what they honestly believe...  that your bid was horrible, that there is no way you can possibily be a club level expert, and would you kindly vacate the table.

 

Surely you disagree on several levels. First you think your partner must be out of his mind, how could he want  a player as insightful and skilled as you to leave? Second, you know your bid was 100% right, it just turned out badly for some reason, what could he possibily be talking aobut. Third how bad must he be not to see how wonderful you bid really are and how truly unfortunate that something bad happened to it. So is his comments the truth? Are you insulted?

 

Clearly you would leave in that situation (after all who wants to play  with both a rude and poor player... some might make exceptions for rude but excellent, not me, but rude and poor, no way, everyone would gladly leave)... but wouldn't you feel at least strongly tempted to point out to your partner (and anyone seeing his comments) that his views are all wrong? Isn't this EXACTLY what the BBO site guidelines are written to AVOID? Who make your partner, or you, or anyone else who happens to be the table host for that matter the judge of the ability of the other players and the final arbitrator of what is the "truth".

 

Truth, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. I would agree that a table that ask for experts and a self-identified novice joins, pointing out the "problem" must surely be allowed. But a table host deciding to boot a  player for bad play, well, it is clearly not in the spirit of this site and must continue to be discouraged. If you want rudeness, go to the MSN gaming zone where it reigns supreme.

[julie5607]

I think a lot of this problem would be solved if it the host of a table had more control over who actually was allowed to sit.  I am always the host when I play with my regular partner, and we always ask for advanced opps, require permission to sit, and put an "advanced opps only" table note on the table.  Yesterday, a good opponent sat, and as I was greeting him a request to play came in from someone.  The way the software works is that that person was automatically seated.  This person had "experienced beginner" as a level on her profile, however rather than being rude I decided to let her sit and play a few hands and see.  After one hand it was clear her level was not up to the standard of her partner's, and her partner quickly left.  Now we had lost the opponent we wanted, and were left with a beginner.  Another player came and sat, and it quickly became apparent that this player was well matched with his partner.  My partner and I decided that it was best to just leave, and so we did, creating a new table a few minutes later so as not to make it offensively obvious that we left due to the skill level of our opps.

 

The whole problem would never have come up if the software didn't automatically sit someone requesting permission while the host is typing in chat.  Also, it would be MUCH preferable to allow the person opposite an empty seat some control over who will sit there.  Perhaps making "seating requests" visible to all players sitting at the table would allow the person looking for a partner to give the host a preference?  I really don't know how difficult this would be to fix, but truly the lack of control for both host AND opponents is bound to cause some problems, regardless of how polite people are trying to be.

 

Julie :)

[inquiry]

Hi julie,

 

This eact topic has been discussed in another thread where splitting the main lobby into several clubs has been discussed. One feature that has been getting a lot of talk is that the tables be coded (either by color or by automatic selection) to give a minimum "self-selected" skill level before people can join. You may want to read that thread and add your comments.

 

I agree with your decision to leave and start a new table under the situation you described.

[bglover]

And yes, Julie is making the same point I was.. It is easier (as host) to send a polite message saying "Perhaps this table is a bit too advanced for you" (my usual polite message) than to have to have 3 people leave to accomodate the one.

 

I realize you do not agree and I also realize that the BBO rules do not agree, but what I am saying is perhaps the rules are inappropriate, not the people like Julie and myself who are trying to follow them but are then forced to leave their own table.

 

If I sat down with Garozzo and after a few hands he asked me to leave I would not be insulted in the least. I don't play as good as he and his partners. Likewise, if I sat at a table full of novices and they felt I was not appropriate to their game and they asked me to leave would I be insulted. The worse insult, to me, is the player who has either (1) been seated accidentally due to the vagaries of the current version of the software (Uday, where are my tiles???? Private joke) or (2) someone either misrepresenting or not actually knowing their own skill level forcing 3 others to be inconvenienced.

 

I do not want to get into a discussion of what is and is not an insult... each person has their own levels of discomfort and that's what this is becoming. What I am trying to say is, I guess, is that I disagree that the current set of rules forces 3 people to be inconvenienced instead of one. Even Inquiry has to admit that is what the current set of rules creates. I can respectfully disagree with that rule and still follow it as I do currently, and I can also hope that the rule is changed.

[easy]

YAHOO... Thanks Fred... your solution sounds like it will solve my concerns.

 

I have to admit, despite my last post to 2over1's comments, I have kibitzed him for countless hours and played at his table some too, and I find his table manners on a whole as quite reasonable (but perhaps too much lessons at the table from time to time... but I actually like that).

 

As for easy's comment "Is it an insult to ask someone to leave because their skill level is not adequate? Not in my opinion. How can the truth be considered an insult? " Well, I just can't leave this comment sitting there unresponded too. How would you feel if I said anyone over the age of 12 would disagree with this comment? Would you want to disagree, maybe talking about liable and the truth? Would you want to drag a lot of other people who know you to explain to me and the readers here how reasonable, nice and intellegent you are? What if I really believe the age of 12 comment to be the truth rather than joke I meant it as? How do we settle any problems it might cause between us if I truely felt that way and yet my comments make you mad?

 

Let change from that artificial situation to an example in 2over1's post a little earlier in this thread to where he was booted. Given that post, do you think he was insulted when he was booted? Do you even think he agrees today that his bid was wrong? Do you think if instead of booting the table host has said "buddy you suck, please leave" he would have been any less insulted?

 

Let me put it another way. Your tag line here says "club level expert  -  flite A tournament player"... what if you were at a table and made a reasonable bid, one that you even think is the "expert" bid that would be made by 90% of all world class players and it turns out badly (bad split, unexpected partner action, whatever... think an unusual 2NT that your partner took as natural and leaped to 6NT hammered hard). Now your partner, who is the table host and who can't send you a nice, polite private message says to you what they honestly believe...  that your bid was horrible, that there is no way you can possibily be a club level expert, and would you kindly vacate the table.

 

Surely you disagree on several levels. First you think your partner must be out of his mind, how could he want  a player as insightful and skilled as you to leave? Second, you know your bid was 100% right, it just turned out badly for some reason, what could he possibily be talking aobut. Third how bad must he be not to see how wonderful you bid really are and how truly unfortunate that something bad happened to it. So is his comments the truth? Are you insulted?

 

Clearly you would leave in that situation (after all who wants to play  with both a rude and poor player... some might make exceptions for rude but excellent, not me, but rude and poor, no way, everyone would gladly leave)... but wouldn't you feel at least strongly tempted to point out to your partner (and anyone seeing his comments) that his views are all wrong? Isn't this EXACTLY what the BBO site guidelines are written to AVOID? Who make your partner, or you, or anyone else who happens to be the table host for that matter the judge of the ability of the other players and the final arbitrator of what is the "truth".

 

Truth, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. I would agree that a table that ask for experts and a self-identified novice joins, pointing out the "problem" must surely be allowed. But a table host deciding to boot a  player for bad play, well, it is clearly not in the spirit of this site and must continue to be discouraged. If you want rudeness, go to the MSN gaming zone where it reigns supreme.

 

Well lets clear up a few thing here. First of all i agree that BBO is a very pleasant place to play and it is that way because people try very hard to be civil and polite to one another.

Frankly i read your paragraph with regard to the 12 year old several times and i have no idea what point you're making. So i will address the skill level comment

 

I would never attempt to judge a persons skill level based on one hand. Was steve insulted when booted from the table...yes im sure.

should he have been booted because he made a bad bid. No he shouldnt have.

However if after several hands it is evident to me (the table host) that the person's level of play is not what i advertised for it certainly should be my right as the person that established the table to ask that person to leave. This should be done politely and in private.

 

"what makes the table host the final arbiter of someones ability" Because in these situations someone must be and the power of the boot has been assigned to the table server.It is unfair to the other players that joined the table expecting a certain level of play not to do so.

Would you prefer that the 3 players leave the table and setup a new one leaving the presumed weaker player there by themselves?

Wouldnt that hurt the weak player's feelings equally?

 

ok enough said , from this point on ill just have to agree to disagree :)

[inquiry]

Easy,

 

I am going to give you, steve and julie that it might be better if one person left rather than 3 in mass to start a new table... but I expect you to do like Steve and at least admit the way the site rules are written this is the expected action.

 

However I think you may have missed my point about the truth. I believe this because of this statement. "I would never attempt to judge a persons skill level based on one hand. Was steve insulted when booted from the table...yes im sure.  should he have been booted because he made a bad bid. No he shouldnt have.  "

 

In fact, Steve doesn't even think (and I agree) that he made a bad bid. In fact he made the normal bid. (We could discuss what Steve;s partner 3C versus 2NT (Lebehnsholish) and pass 3C bid means perhaps which might make his DOUBLE even more clear cut. But my point was (address the "truth can not be an insult issue) is that the person who booted Steve thought in "truth" that Steve must be a bad player. The number of hands is irrelevant.

 

In fact if you forced me to choose in an instanst who was the bad player, I would say that whoever thought steve made a horrible mistake hasn't learned how to play this game yet. But maybe where they come from... 3C on that auction is always a bust warning. His parnters logic could be thus... "I stuck my neck out to balance to get them from the 2-level to the 3-level... it worked, and my partner punished me with his stupid double."  In that case, if 3C meant to the 3C bidder I am really broke with just clubs, and partner should never do anything but pass if I force them higher, would I be wrong to suspect he doesn't know how to play?

 

Anyway, like you, I tire of this discussion, and am ready to say we will not see eye-to-eye on it.

[julie5607]

Inquiry,

 

I wasn't so much saying that it would be better if one person left (which of course it would be, as it is much simpler that way, but it is difficult to make that happen in a friendly way) but that it would be better if the host had more control to keep that one person from sitting in the first place.  I am well aware of the other string where this topic has been discussed, as I actually initiated part of it :).  However, I do think the topics are strongly related.

 

It is of course necessary for the host to have the capabilty of booting a player, mainly to remove people who have lost connections or otherwise disapeared, leaving a seat with a non-playing player in it.  Whenever there is that capability, however, it will be abused by certain types of people.  My comment had more to do with reducing that abuse by giving the host more control over who actually sits than with justifying the booting of inappropriate players from the table.  Once BBO implements more adequate control over who can actually sit at the table, the incidence of "rude" booting should decline significantly.

 

Thanks, Julie

[inquiry]

Julie,

 

I fully support a self-selecting table system (fully automatic based upon announced skill level, so we are in complete agreement there. Even today, I am never insulted when a table with "permission required" rejects my attempt to join (they have probably seen me play before)  8)

[bglover]

This post is directed to Sally: The plain fact is that for some, it is not enjoyable to play with someone who is considerably less skilled. That does not diminish you (or anyone else) as a human being in the least. Rather, it goes directly to MY OWN enjoyment of the game.

 

I strive to enjoy playing... That enjoyment entails (1) playing with people whose company I enjoy and (2) playing with people who give me a good, competitive game. There are many good players on this site that I will no longer play with solely because I don't enjoy their company at the table (and I am sure a few feel the same way about me).

 

So, the fact that I don't care to play with intermediate players is not a reflection of them as people whatsover... it is a purely selfish aspect that I share with a lot of other bridge players.

 

There are a few intermediates who are friends and I rarely play a game or two with them... But I also go to the training rooms with them and try to help them improve. Again, this is for selfish reasons: I like them and because I do I want to see them improve so that I can play with them more down the road.

 

My point is, my not wanting to play with intermediates or beginners is not a reflection on them personally, and I think many, many good players would echo the exact sentiments I've written here... I think you will discover my atittiude about this is quite mainstream.

[Mike]

This thread proves only one thing. There is a problem somewhere, and as you can be sure, Fred is trying to address it.

 

But what the problem is exactly? I am not so sure now. Large part of that thread is getting to be a number game. How many are affected at the table by this or that thing which did not match expectations.

 

Most of the time these are very selfish expectations masked behind the so called interest of the majority.

 

My opinion that BBO's general rules are very well established creating a site with freedom to all participants. The popularity groth of BBO just proves that the basic rules found excellent fit.

 

I would rather avoid the table of those who brag on that they overrule the site's basics.

 

Nothwithholding the above I had never agreed the present booting feature that is open to (tyrannic) abuse. Abuse that is hiding sometimes behind tricky ideology. As I red the comments almost all of us suffered already on both side of that problem, was unjustly booted or left table to avoid booting others.

 

Part of the problem is the right of the opps. Especially when one leaves, the staying opponent has no say who is getting to be his/her next partner. Present solution is leaving the table.

 

I expect the future development of the software will solve most of the difficulties. What will probably stick with us originates from the nature of the game and its participants. Finally, a little humor will certainly help.