Barring disconnectors from Tourneys

[inquiry]

Hmm.

 

So you think that the ban process should only apply to the original players, and not to the subs?

 

Do we agree?

I think no one should start a tournment unless they plan to finish it. But I agree with Maaa that subs might be a special case. I am willling to go along with whatever a majority of TD would vote, but if I was to vote I would also give subs much more leaway.

 

Ben

[Cascade]

I use subs sometimes in a way that would get them on your or up your defectors list.

 

In fact I have even subbed myself in temporarily and then out later to make the tournament run more smoothly.

 

So I would vote for subs to be exempt or at least treated by a different set of rules.

[Maaa]

Yes! Terrific idea - different rules.

 

It would be great to check out the reason why a SUBplayer leaves.

If subbed out -> ignore! Intentional disconnect -> act!

 

 

 

Marta

[spwdo]

hi,

 

We in our tourneys replace players unwillingly to play with a sub, had a star today(btw no name in his profile) , constant nagging against his subpartner, so i offred him a choice, either continui in a decent way or be replaced himself.

 

I coud never replace a sub, we use tds as temporary subs if needed in special occasions for short time.We never sub outside the table, so we are well aware when a player is rebooting or returning .

In swiss/unclocked u can wait in survivor they go out and are not counted for disconnect.

 

I understand the demands for a private club to favour the return of thier members but i do not see any advantage for open tourneys.

 

 

Overall i think the stricter we are for unfinisching( lower the % that is allowed),

the lesser subs we are going to need, in all fairness i think 60% finisching what u started is not enough(shoud be at least 3 out of 4), this means still 4 out of 10 events u entered u didnt finisch and the the cuts in survivor are not included there.

 

 

further i think that sending the # of baords to play togheter with a invitation to subs woud be helpfull.

 

So my vote is yes/no .If a sub is subbed out from td it coud be ok(only in case of allowing original player back, all other reasons to be subed out are not good ones) , so maybe give subs diffrent % , allowing them some more room to manouver in

 

spwdo

[spwdo]

I'm now settling in on this set of paramters:

 

People who abandon more than 40% of tourneys over the past 6 days and have entered at least 6 tourneys will be banned from tourneys for 1 week.

 

This week's batch was 160 users.

 

I am about to automate this and run it daily.

hi,

 

 

something not correct/inperfect (cant find corect word,trying to say good effort but there is stil a whole in the defence) .

 

It means that someone playing and not ending five out of five tourneys in six days will be not barred.

 

Dont know how/if u can change that too maybe look at every 10 tourneys someone entered and not finisching XX% he gets a bann, 6 tourneys in six days maens actually playing and brakiing rules every day before a barr is taking place

 

 

spwdo

[Gerardo]

We in our tourneys replace players unwillingly to play with a sub, had a star today(btw no name in his profile) , constant nagging against his subpartner, so i offred him a choice, either continui in a decent way or be replaced himself.

I prefer to have A- on time rather than playing with a sub, particularly if my partner is a regular (and even if is not).

 

I just want to play with my partner when/if is back.

 

Some TDs just get a sub compulsorily, in that case I'd certainly want my partner back (which is not fair for the sub). Would my partner get a bar point then? And the sub?

[spwdo]

We in our tourneys replace players unwillingly to play with a sub, had a star today(btw no name in his profile) , constant nagging against his subpartner, so i offred him a choice, either continui in a decent way or be replaced himself.

I prefer to have A- on time rather than playing with a sub, particularly if my partner is a regular (and even if is not).

 

I just want to play with my partner when/if is back.

 

Some TDs just get a sub compulsorily, in that case I'd certainly want my partner back (which is not fair for the sub). Would my partner get a bar point then? And the sub?

hi gerardo,

 

 

off course that is your choice, if u say when td arrives , i prefer the A-, we no problem to adjust the baords for time/slowplay.we give u then a couple of baords A-, if after that time player still isnt back i think its time to sub either missing player or both players to not to many baords passed where opps cant play , afterall opps enter the tourney to play , and not for receiving a load of A+

 

 

 

 

marc

[Gerardo]

Maybe, but should still be player's choice. Getting A- after A- is not pretty either.

 

Opps would get just a round of A+, then different opps (usually).

 

But, once sub request is issued, former partner shouldn't be able to come back.

That's why is important the right to wait.

 

Make the request of a sub mandatory, receive no complains afterwards.

[Maaa]

I am one of those who ask players and try first to give "time".... usually till the end of a round, later I am trying to chat with the left player more often, begging/forcing him to accept a sub.

 

In my point of view a small percetange wants a replacement for partner immediately, lots wish to wait a few min. The majority accept a sub at some point - like you Gerardo, but there are a few which do not and leave ...

Now at this point (and in the current "subsituation", what means as much as often we have 4-5 tourneys at the same time on BBO) we often just not have enough subs to replace 2 missed players. Additionally to this , orginal players (those who loosed connections, those who just left i see are replaced most often immedietaly - the partner usually knows what happened) return very often after 10-15 min.

It helps very often to propose a temporaly sub - till partner is back. Players are happy and also lots of players from lobby offer such help, even point out, they will be only able to stay for x of boards and will need to be subbed out if org players not back till that time.

So I think this is a much better solution then 10 sitouts or to run every tourney in the survivor movement.

 

Of course i do not mean - seat a sub and kick her/him out just like that when no longer needed.

Host/TD should have take the time to: announce, a temporary sub is needed ( if that is known before asking) or at least speak with the sub, if she/he dont mind to leave as the orginal player is back

I reseated org players 100´s of times till today, and only one time i heard " I would prefer to finish", the majority was happy, they could offer help and can (often finally!! ufff) leave. Not to mention those subs who call me personally and ask to leave, bcs org players are kibitzing and they wish to leave.

 

Marta

[hallway]

Gosh I hadn't thought about that - I could be banned for life ! I let the TD's for our Teaching Tourneys sub me in while they find a Real Sub.

 

In and out in one hand.

 

Different rules for Subs please

 

We NEED Subs - we must be KIND to Subs.

[spwdo]

hi,

 

 

Hope nobody misunderstands me with my yes/no.We very appreciative of and for subs but we believe that beeing more stricter so making sure players percentages of finisching events woud be more higher would eliminated the subs issues.

 

When u only enter a tourney with staying finisching players and only a sub woud be needed as exception not as rule we woudnt be having this discussion.

 

If we have to say yes to change rules i can only hope we DO NOT ALLOW barred players as a sub in tourneys(not sure if this is already the case).

 

We are again suggesting higher those % of finisching events players need to reach to be able to keep playing tourneys to solve this problem.

 

If a disconnected player gets subbed on exception and gets back in, i see no harm, but if this happens to often and we "help" them finisch every tourney we are not working properly

 

WE hosted one time a tourney with 68 tables and we needed only 3 subs during 12 baords, isnt this how tourneys are suppose to run?

 

We simply dont like this arteficial aide for terrible connection and we like to see that disconnects for "emergency" alias bad scores woud be barred more often and faster.

 

Isnt 80% a fair goal, so this still allowes 2 out of 10 non-finischers.

 

I know i for one that i only not finisched one tourney out of all tourneys i played, and only twice i ended up with a sub as partner.

 

 

And if the majority off ppl on bbo wasnt like that hosting tourneys woud become impossible

 

 

BBO TD FRIENDS

[patrobo]

Hi,

I have joined forum to speak particularly about banning players with poor connections. I hope that this is the correct place to talk.

 

I am unfortunate enough to have had 2 partners (both keen and honest players) suspended from tournaments for 1 week. I appreciate that slow/bad conns are a stress for many, but is there no fairer solution to allow these players to be able to compete in tournaments? In both cases, their conns vary each time they login and they cannot predict whether it will be a "good" or "bad" connection.

 

Not all are fortunate enough to have access to/ability to pay for a good connection and I feel there is discrimination if people are banned because of connection issues.

 

Will we eventually have a site that is exclusive to the more fortunate?

 

BBO is a tremendous site and I would hope that it will be primarily for the playing of bridge globably. I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to play and meet players in various parts of the world - ty BBO.

 

I await the replies that advise mainly of the difficulty of bad conns!!!! lol I am more interested to hear thoughts on a positive solution for these people))

 

Sorry I have no immediate thoughts myself on a solution.

 

Pat

[Gweny]

:D Our fishy policy is simple.

 

We sub agressively in rounds 1 and 2. If original player return then we ask sub if they mind yielding to original partner. If they say fine no problem we replace... IF AND ONLY IF we time to do all of this but if it happen 2nd time then sub stays in.

 

Our subs do this ( I think,) for maybe it is they who experience problem next time.

 

I understand wanting to finish with original partner but at same time waiting - even when opps agree to a- is very very time consuming for we need keep checking back to see if it is ok now. and in 8 min round what is reasonable wait? if we wait 3 min and person return and the opps experience problem and we need wait suddenly we lose entire board and who is to blame?

 

sigh.

 

in perfect world we pass glue and no people ever boot.

[Gweny]

Not all are fortunate enough to have access to/ability to pay for a good connection and I feel there is discrimination if people are banned because of connection issues.

Dear Pat,

 

Here is my thoughts.

 

Playing in tournaments is not right it is priveldge. People who direct for you is volunteers and at some point when we see same people over and over all time booting it gets little bit exhausting. Is it discrimination to other players to knowingly allow people who consistently boot into tournament? For it is how many people who suffer from 1 person with bad connection?

 

Here is what happen...

We need sub for this person if they turn red

We need keep checking to make sure they is connect

We need maybe extend time of round for they do long lags/lapses

Poor opps often do not get to play last board in round and often ave or ave+ do not really cover this for it is annoying to come to play and spend entire round waiting for good connection to occure

People often mistake bad lags as cheating (i know i know but we tds do hear this)

 

Perhaps uday can write some filter who allow people with bad connections to play in special bad connection tournaments.

 

I also think if you bad connection this maybe keep you out of tournaments but it do not prevent you from playing in main, in public clubs, or in team matches.

 

it is not prejudice it is practicality.

[spwdo]

Hi,

I have joined forum to speak particularly about banning players with poor connections.  I hope that this is the correct place to talk. 

 

I await the replies that advise mainly of the difficulty of bad conns!!!!  lol  I am more interested to hear thoughts on a positive solution for these people))

 

Sorry I have no immediate thoughts myself on a solution.

 

Pat

hi,

 

u were/are wondering for tourneys for the bad connected, i guess "unclocked" events are for all, its kinda very easy it seems.

 

1. U read tourneyinfo/format/rules

2.U register for tourneys when you

. HAVE read rules

. AGREE with rules

. ARE ABLE to follow rules

.WILLING to folow rules

 

So when u see 8 min/ baord dont sign up plaese if your connection is lets say very poor and u cannot follow this pace.

 

There is always a possiblity to ask uday to get td facilitys and do something for the poor connected if u feel they are not enough provided for( why not).

 

We td adore tourneys where we coud focuss on bridgeissues instaed of subbing&dealing with slowplay in clocked events.

 

 

BBO TD FRIENDS

[3asi]

B) I thing there would be other ways to solve conn. problems. And all of them don´t follow the way of punish people.

 

Maybe all this players with a bad conn. could find a subs. in "stand by" before check in one of them.

 

Maybe they are waiting for Loto prices to change their old P.C.

 

I agree with patrobo.

 

And I understand 2 what kind of problems BBO´s org. is having for all these red spots.

 

Diff. offences = diff. punishment.

[Gerardo]

I understand wanting to finish with original partner but at same time waiting - even when opps agree to a- is very very time consuming for we need keep checking back to see if it is ok now. and in 8 min round what is reasonable wait? if we wait 3 min and person return and the opps experience problem and we need wait suddenly we lose entire board and who is to blame?

Well, you DON'T check, that's the idea B)

You wait for calls, like "Now my partner is gone", and you adjust only in that case (if the call is timely, you can evaluate fairly). If missing long time, an "I'm back" call is in order.

 

I made this policy when I was TDing often (now very rare) to have LESS work, making players responsible of the calls (which I think it's the right thing to do).

 

No "opp need sub" calls (well, yes. explain once, then ignore). Now it can be put in the rules, so no explanation. Worked nicely, and still do (when occasionally used).

[patrobo]

I have read the responses to my query re suspension of players with bad conn.

 

Ty spwdo, I think your suggestion re unclocked tourneys is an excellent suggestion.

I know that people with bad conns already try to opt for these. However, with the present suspension system in place, it would be necessary for a suspended player to be enabled to play in an unclocked tourney.

 

Well done, ty Maybe this can be extended even more))

 

Pat B)

[spwdo]

B) I thing there would be other ways to solve conn. problems. And all of them don´t follow the way of punish people.

 

Maybe all this players with a bad conn. could find a subs. in "stand by" before check in one of them.

 

Maybe they are waiting for Loto prices to change their old P.C.

 

I agree with patrobo.

 

And I understand 2 what kind of problems BBO´s org. is having for all these red spots.

 

Diff. offences = diff. punishment.

hi,

 

 

its beyond me , really is.I love to drive fast cars yet im not driving formula one, why? first they wont let me(not fast enough) second if they let me i wont enter why? im not fast enough.

 

 

I really dont get why some woud like to play something that they are incapeble of(for whatever reason) and this time and time again.

 

There is nothing more to it and its very selfabsoberd to ask +200 ppl to wait several minutes every round for a couple of slowplayers.No solution this suggestion of "stands in"(wont find any to stand in and tourneys still have same problems), we just spend tomany times on subbing every tourney (always the same names over and over)

We want to focuss on delibrately slowplayers (when they are down), alertissues, chaeting , just on bridge nothing more nothing less.

 

We agree with gerardo that its everybodys own rensposiblity to inform td when they beeen damaged (= calling in time), so no adjust for slowplay after roundchange, call td in time and we adjust on the spot, obligated writing in the calldirector box woud help, some use it to explain prob, to many dont use this feauture.

 

Agreed with 3aisi that diffrent punishment for diffrent offences

 

We dont see it as a punisching when someone is barred, its simply software giving you realitycheck(incapeble of finisching , then we say dont start and so avoid problems for others)

whole other ballgame is the intentionel disconnects after scoring bad.

We still see redbl games causing a lot of unfinisched baords (covennient slowplay when they down, alias chaeting)and after adjusting too many of these players still close bbo, so scoring bad still causes more then usual red dots:(. We think after a barr of 2/3/4 it might be time to make the barring longer or in xtreem cases permanent

 

BBO TD FRIENDS

[aisha759]

It is very unfair to bar a player with poor internet connection from tournaments, even if its for a week!

One should differentiate between intentional disconnects, and bad connections.... (Sometimes a red dot is not shown even though a player might be frozen), I don't know how one deals with that.. I am talking mostly about RED players...All that said and done, once a player realizes that his/her partner is truly having connection problems, they should accept the consequence of continuing the tourney with a sub.

I have had a bad connection all week long... thank God I didnt play in more than 3 tourneys, otherwise I might have been barred ...

It is very frustrating for the person with the bad connection, the partner, the opponents and the TD's ... you can't please everybody, this is fully understood; but barring them is a punishment which doesnt fit the crime ;)

Unclocked tournaments are the solutions for such problems, as Marc suggested, but there arent that many out there....

 

All my sympathies go out to those who have been barred for poor connections :)

[spwdo]

hi

 

Aisha, think from all barred the ones with bad connection have the most sympathy but unfortunaly fact remains they cant keep pace as stated in tourneysrules.(better not join then? )

 

A momentary bad connection happens to most on occassion and if u have a partner willing to wait couple of minutes or one baord and take an average- for it nothing to wurrie then.

 

What i strongly support and most seem to do so is differentiate between intentionel/unintentionel disconnect.

 

Like i said before in our tourneys we wait as long as possible/reasonable, most of the time players after a while either choce a sub or ask for one.

 

We never sub outside the table, we ask partner first if he wants a sub or prefer the wait with consequences(A-)

 

Agree also with you that there maybe arent enough unclocked events but i see very large amounts of teammatches(maybe a suggestion/alternative for lesser connected players)

 

So overall we very sure that the majority of players we sub out are not present at tourney start or leave after not scoring as planned/hoped for.

 

All my sympathys go to the less fortunate ,poor connected , unable to get better connections members on bbo( i have several friends that are bad connected yet i see them hardly ever not finisch a tourney)

 

 

BBO TD FRIENDS

note that i sign as a group, we talk a lot every day and i been asked to post on thier behalf as well(some have languages prob,some no time,some no interes to post themselves,they like to laugh with my typing im sure is the main reason for most)

[mr1303]

The reason TDs generally don't like to run unclocked tourneys is that the tournament could take ages, especially the last few boards. If I run a clocked tournament, then I can set aside an hour or two, and know that I'll be finished after that set time period. With unclocked tournaments, they could last for a lot longer. I have a life outside of bridge.

[AdOut]

[...]"I have a life outside of bridge."

 

INTRUDER ALERT!!! INTRUDER ALERT!!!

;)

[sceptic]

Hi, in the last week or so I have left 3 tourneys abruptly, two when I was playing badly and one when I was not (must have been a lucky day) if I recall correctly, I was subbed into two of these and the original partner just upped and left because he did not want to play with anyone but his own p, this in my mind is a bit selfish and that in it self deserves a ban.

 

My point is, I subbed to help out, I have had to reboot as my batteries in my mouse went dead and I did not expect them to lock up on me, the delay light on my mouse lasts a few minutes thats all, I have no issue with a weeks ban even if I dont consider it my own fault.

 

One thing I would like to be able to do is to apologise to the TD and the partner that I leave, this is very difficult when the TD is invisible all the time and you can't chat to the pard you left, I would even be happy to sub again as would a lot of people that I have directed and come back after a brief disconnection, let people back in the tourney to sub if they wish and if the sub is agreeable let the original partner back to play with his original P.

 

This is not as hard as it seems and it is something that will keep regular pairs coming back and some subs won't mind being bounced about, you may end up needing less subs if the original partners can come back.

 

The only issue is educating the subs that they may be in and out a few times, that may not be as unacceptable to helpful people as you think