Booting a client from your Tournement

[inquiry]

The BBO has instituted a very successful (at least imho) policy of banning players who bolt from too many tournments for one week. This, as we all know, is handled automatically by the software (thanks Uday!!!).

 

Which brings me to this post. Say you are directing a tournment and you get called to a table. There is a dispute going on, say over alert or failure to alert, or some other dispute. You can make your ruling, and give a score, but in trying to determine the facts, all the players are yacking at you. You tell to them to play on (say the next hand) while you review the movie of the last hand.

 

The yacking continues. Do you think it is right to boot one or more of the players? How much does it take to boot a player? What if as you are trying to rule, one of the players is explaining the rules to you, the director?

 

I ask because today, unlike a long time ago, booting a player from your tournment can have a much more dramatic effect (getting a person one more abandoned tournment closer to a week long ban). Do we have a responsibility to make sure we have some minimum requirement for a quick boot?

 

To non-TD reading this. When the TD comes to your table. Answer any questions asked, and then, stop squeeking. Give the TD time to investigate and do their job. Sometimes they really will actually get it right. If they get it wrong. Then, if you must, ask for an explaination, or ask if you can explain a point they might have missed... if they say, no, then fine, take your lump. There is no appeal process.

 

Ben

[keylime]

I'll start my response with the following:

 

Law 9 - PROCEDURE FOLLOWING AN IRREGULARITY

 

Law 12 - DIRECTOR'S DISCRETIONARY POWERS

 

Law 16 - UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION

 

Law 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS

 

Law 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES

 

Law 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE

 

With all that fun stuff out of the way, now on to my point.

 

TDs, if you're going to remove a player, in my eyes, you better have enough justification under these mentioned laws to warrant a removal if that player fusses at Uday and crowd, especially when you fail to post a condition of contest LIN file. Simply saying the time per round, number of boards, and the general "be nice" comment isn't enough. Far too often I've seen players removed for reasons that were not jurisprudent under the Laws for various reasons.

 

TDs, let me state firmly Law 12B:

 

"The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side."

 

This means that you simply can't just assign a 7NTXX down 13 to punish a bidding side that forgot that Wilkosz 2♦ isn't permitted in your event, nor can you do the same for a psychic bid (surprise!). Law 12 simply allows the TD to make an assigned score if and only if the TD can satifactorily determine the most likely end result, with of course the condition of the most advantageous score being assigned to the non-offenders (the dreaded 12C1-3 series). I've seen far too often TDs unilaterally punishing/adjusting/booting players that did something they felt necessary during the play of the hand. I consider booting a player on the sole grounds that the player justified his/her actions via Law and the TD not liking it as analogous to infringing upon Law 12B.

 

Speaking of psychics, let's consult Law 40:

 

"A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.

 

TDs, to ban psychics, is to go against Law. Just because a player took a view and bid 1♥ on a 4-1-4-4 shape to generate action, doesn't necessarily mean that you can do anything about it. As long as partner wasn't clued in, you can't do a single thing except a caution about repeated psyches. Often, the opponents of the psychics have simply failed to play bridge and are now taking a double-shot in trying to acheive a result that they simply did not earn. TDs are not in the business of adjudication of supposed results; they are in the business of maintaining continuity.

 

And guess what troopers, Law 72A1 says this:

 

"Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the laws."

 

Why so? It's to protect the entire field. It's to provide a uniform platform where the beginner and the Meckstroths (go Meckie!) can compete with the same general protections afforded to each.

 

Lastly, Law 74B5:

 

"As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants. "

 

TDs, that means that if a player is stating Law in their defense of a supposed irregularity and it is proven that the player was correct, this does not mean that player was "rude" or "difficult". It means that player was more aware of the situation that some of the TDs and the players are!

 

Folks, the Laws are there to serve as a sentinel in case something wrong happens. There is a great amount of structure, yet flexible enough to allow decisions that are fair to the group en masse to be performed without prejudice. Just because the "squeaky wheel" is sounding out does not premeditate an instant removal based on at best circumspectual evidence. Often, the squeaky wheel is in the right. :)

[Dwayne]

It's not often that there are intelligent, well-articulated and apparently (bridge) legally sound responses to threads in this forum. Well done key.

 

As key points out - Directors must treat each incident on its merits and use the Laws as they would in face-to-face bridge (Ok, I know on-line bridge is not real bridge, but a game quite similar to bridge, but for the purposes of jurisprudence we'll assume it's the same).

 

How often is a player in face-to-face bridge asked to pack up his pencil and system card and escorted from the premises?

 

Yes, in on-line bridge the "yacking continues" because unlike in real life there is not a Director standing at one's should looking intimidating.

 

And yes, I'd like to think that a Director with a modicum of ability and a working knowledge of the Laws will rule equitably (mental note - don't go there).

 

That there is no Appeal process is regrettable but understandable in a practical sense - but Heaven knows what may happen when our North American friends play for ACBL masterpoints and feel aggrieved by a Director's decision.

 

D-Wayneamundo.

[McBruce]

I can see a scenario where I would boot a player for yakking on after being directly told by the TD to continue play on the next board.

 

I would give such a player at least another warning before doing so, but as a TD I am certainly not going to allow a player to hold up the game for others so that he can make his own case publicly. In clocked he will be reducing the chance that the next board can be completed. In unclocked he will likely be holding up several other tables as well.

 

Players who refuse to continue because they have a problem are the bane of online duplicate and deserve to be booted from the tourneys they play in, whatever this does to their completion record.

[bearmum]

I can see a scenario where I would boot a player for yakking on after being directly told by the TD to continue play on the next board.

 

that sounds like a GREAT idea ----- EVEN if the players have BAD connections SURELY they should "SHUT UP" when asked to do so by the director of the tourney

 

MAYBE there could be a way to report to Uday thet the 'disconnect' was for yakking ?? :)

[Gweny]

:unsure: I for one do not like removing players from tournaments.

But I will do so without hesitation for several reasons.

 

like...

curse

abusing partner, sub, or opps

refusing to play

harassing td after ruling.

 

On this last one it is true sometimes you may not agree with td ruling but bottom line here is you may not always agree with td but prolong arguement with td is not going to help in 99% of cases and we do need to tend to other players in tournament. You also need remember bringing new info to attention of td is not same thing as argue. No. 1 thing is patience... in reality if we need pick between subbing red player and reviewing your board i think you guess which one we do first tee hee

 

If you refuse to play due to some problem where you disagree then you is fighting very losing battle. we is going to replace you and move on. you will then sit in lobby and cry "why do you remove me"

 

Same thing if you refuse to play with sub. Subs is lifes blood of tournaments. We are completely unable to run tournaments if no subs. To refuse to play with one is not very nice and frankly maybe you need vacation time from tournaments to consider why it is not very nice. Trust me, tds do not live to replace partners. We want you happy. But if it is necessary to give you sub then we do expect you to accept this gracefully and keep playing.

 

No TD willingly do things to make our players mad or unhappy. But sometimes players do not agree with what we do... and if it do then please remember we are doing this to provide tournament for your enjoyment and we need your cooperation not your arguement or anger.

[keylime]

Gweny,

 

Dear, there are many times that I agree with you. There are many times that you've asked my opinion, and I've given it freely.

 

This is not one of those times. Some of the TDs feel absolutely insulted, affronted, spat upon, etc., if a player raises any dissent, whether justified or not. Some TDs I actually like believe it or not - it's the others that make it terrible to direct because as you know, we fear that dreaded director call window pop-up when someone's in a tizzy about something trivial.

 

Bringing new information to a TD I wholeheartedly agree is not arguing. I know many instances from live bridge where the players involved were more versed in procedures after an irregularity than the TD was. Case in point: 2002 Houston Nationals where we had directors telling us a certain opener we were using was perfectly GCC legal, only to learn that it wasn't! However, there are many TDs that once they arrive at a contentious table and one or more players are vociferous with the establishment of probable existing facts, that a prejudgment is already made, and that's where a lot of problems start occurring.

 

Now I will disagree again on one other thing - there are some TDs that are quite willing to make an unilateral decision due to bias. I've seen TDs verbally accost Polish players when they use the Wilkosz 2♦ opening, when in Poland that's considered "standard". That is totally unacceptable. It's also unacceptable in system restricted events to tolerate ANY deviation of those restrictions. Conditions of contest are establish to PREVENT these matters - why you think they are rather long in scope (USBF's one was a small dictionary practically)?

 

It's hard enough to direct in real life - online with the various NBO's definitions of "standard" and "alertable" it at times becomes nightmarish. Let me firm about this: ALL TDs are NOT bad. TDs are quite human, they have feelings, and they do have good and bad days, like the players. The players have the obligation to act accordingly - we TDs can probably name 5-6 times a player was rude for the one time the player was nice. With the lack of true knowing one's opponents and partner in the online medium, it seems that many are blatantly disregarding the social norms and decorums of the game. I can only imagine how Uday handles the hundreds of abuse complaints, besides the codewriting and other responsibilities he must do on a daily basis (he needs to be paid more!).

 

I want to make BBO better. So do you. So does the Coalition of BBO TDs. However, one of the most important things both sides need to learn and apply: listening. More of that, and well, we'll have less of this. Don't you think? :)

[McBruce]

What *exactly* did you disagree with about Gweny's post, keylime?

 

Are you saying that no TD should EVER expel a player? I hope not. The Laws certainly give him the power to do so.

 

Gweny mentioned four reasons she would consider expulsion. Cursing, abuse, stalling, and TD harrassment. I doubt you have a problem with any of these, as long as they are proven and some warning is given in most cases. (Not all cases: for example I had a report once of a player who used the F word in public chat, referring to partner's actions. I confirmed this with the four at the table and immediately expelled the offender -- who admitted that he had done so!)

 

What you appear to be complaining most about is TDs who run their games and make ad hoc rulings which do not appear to be consistent. None of us can defend TDs who do not uphold the Laws or their own CoCs. They aren't reading this forum and they don't care about what the Laws say. You have a case perhaps with the BBO decision to award TD status to pretty much anyone who wishes it, but one could also argue that there are many tournaments that are well-run and this is a good outcome of that decision. The only recourse you have against bad TDs is to avoid their events in future.

 

To use your example: TDs shouldn't 'verbally accost' players for using Wilkosz, but Polish players do not have the right to expect what they deem standard to be deemed standard on a world-wide site. Are you sure that's not what was happening?

 

Let's dismiss the question that opened this thread. If you are given a week in the tourney penalty box, you have to have failed to complete a significant number of events. It's hard for me to believe that getting expelled without cause is a factor here. Are people really claiming to be kicked out without cause 5 or 6 times a week?

[DrTodd13]

Doesn't the ACBL mandate that an appeals committee be available? Seeing what I consider some incompetent people directing ACBL tourneys online this scares me a little bit. I like the idea of the appeals committee as a back-up. Now that I think about it, if there were an appeals mechanism then there would probably be a lot less arguing with directors. Directors could just say "appeal it" and people could choose to do so with the current punishments for frivolous appeals. Perhaps we'd need new punishments in the online era but it is doable.

 

Todd

[McBruce]

"...incompetent people directing ACBL tourneys"

 

Todd, I believe that the people directing these tourneys must have the ACBL Club Directors certificate. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean a lot. My impressions taking the test two weeks ago were that nobody who can read could possibly fail. You need 65% for a pass and most of the questions are simple:

 

--Opening Lead Out Of Turn. which Law Number? (It's an open book exam, you can look it up if you need to.)

--South passes but West is the dealer. Can West accept South's pass out of rotation? (The very next question is: IF West accepts South's pass...)

 

You get the idea. Even 65% is misleading as there are bonus questions at the end to give you extra chances. One of our locals actually scored 110% and I hope I did as well. :P

 

Anyhow, I could be wrong, but I don't think the ACBL requires clubs to form appeal committees; it's optional, but at the TD's discretion. The usual action is to take the deal or issue and send it to Memphis. They might sympathise with you, or explain where you are mistaken, or if there is a serious problem, Memphis will send a note to a local official to look into it. We had, for example, a club TD who told a habitual Director caller (averaging over five per session) that he would not respond in future unless his partner or the opponents made the call. It took several months, but eventually the District Recorder investigated this apparent breach of the player's rights. During these months, of course, the player continued to play and under the restriction began to learn (from his partner's refusal to call in most situations where he pleaded that it be done) that the TD is not required as often as he had previously thought. So all worked out in the end. I expect the players enjoyed his well-deserved discomfort. :P

[keylime]

If one made the effort to read my posts on this subject, I have never mentioned that TD's can't remove players. If anything, what I am concerned about is the fact that the standard of directoring is so inconsistent that it's no wonder that people in general are up in arms over it (hence, the recruitment of new directors in real life and online). That, and the fact that the feeling of some that people are rude, arrogant, so on, is greatly diminishing the game.

 

Let me be very clear: I with others have seen TDs absolutely go after pairings that use treatments that are considered "radically unstandard". Furthermore,

there have been times that my integrity has been questioned on the premise that due to my system that I use I was obtaining information outside of accepted norms.

 

It's bad enough that the WBF President José Damiani said the following recently:

 

"Sadly, I must reiterate that the state of the world today remains dreadful. The economy is tottering, exchange rates are unstable and terrorism is still rife.

 

For all that, should we give up and allow ourselves to be submerged by the prevailing pessimism? Or, on the contrary, should we react vigorously and show that we are prepared to fight to overcome the undeniable difficulties that we face?

 

For my part, I would like to believe that, even if World Bridge is suffering from this harmful climate, our proactive approach will bear fruit eventually, provided that everyone becomes aware of the need for solidarity.

 

More than ever, we must accept our differences but smooth them over as much as possible in order to attain our common objectives. "

 

Not only was he referring to the societal conflicts, but also to the game itself. He then goes on to mention that the game must be vigorous in recruiting children (and young people in general). How are we going to do so if we can't even get the people that are in the game currently to actively mentor the beginners and/or intermediates? Simply ask Fifth Chair and ask how long the waiting list is just to get a mentor.

 

Brent Manley of the ACBL Bulletin mentioned the issue of rudeness in general in the June 2004 edition, and I couldn't resist making a comment about it, because I strongly agreed with his sentiments that we simply must do more. Below is an excerpt of what I wrote him:

 

" Frankly, if the ACBL is going to retain members and grow the game amongst the youth, the mindset of those already in the game needs to radically change from one of resentment that a new person/pairing is taking away their masterpoints to one of openness and willing mentoring. It is no wonder to me that I hear many complaints from my friends via an online forum about how rude and grossly insensitive people are over honest mistakes done during the course of the game.

 

<mentioned example>

 

I consider myself fortunate and truly blessed to be a member of the Nanaimo, BC Duplicate Bridge Club - where the people en masse has welcomed my wife and I, without ever questioning the legality of our system (we play a forcing club with transfer positives and follow-ups), without trying to give us gratuitous lessons, without even hinting that we didn’t “belong”. Instead they have actively embraced us as people. Bridge is a people game, and this club has it right.

 

Why can’t clubs be like this, where table counts are good, where the quality of play is excellent, and where a C pair actually has the chance to succeed and grow? If clubs aren’t willing to accommodate new players, aren’t willing to teach and mentor, aren’t willing to protect new players as they make all those inevitable stumbles we all made when learning the game….then the so-called tenets called Active Ethics and Zero Tolerance are merely empty words, the game of bridge has no viable future, and that would diminish the very people that the game serves and entices. "

 

With concern to DrTodd, I actually agree with the fact that there are directors who are very out of touch with the basics of the game. I also agree with the premise that there are no means for appeals either. Granted it's online points, and it's really a low priority in the scheme of things for the ACBL (just go to a big regional or NABC - the TDs are like spawning there are so many). However with the startup of the ACBL games and the ones that they tapped to direct, I want to give them a fair chance at first. For all we know they actually might get things right. Then again....

 

Furthermore, I've played against players that couldn't determine whether or not they were the dummy or declarer or worse off ruff partner's winners on a repeated basis! (poor guy too, feel for him)

 

With that said, it's time for cream soda. B)

[bambi1]

I want to make BBO better. So do you. So does the Coalition of BBO TDs. However, one of the most important things both sides need to learn and apply: listening. More of that, and well, we'll have less of this. Don't you think? B)

Listening is very important........hearing is even better!!