Pay tourneys

[Deanrover]

It seems to me that some people are adverse to pay tourneys because they don't know what level of service they will receive. Why pay for a tourney if you can get another for free? How do you know which tourneys are best?

 

How about at the end of the tourney you get the chance to vote on your satisfaction. i.e.

 

"How satisfied were you with this tourney? Very/OK/Not"

 

The tournament director's approval rating is then displayed whenever you want to sign up for a tourney. This is good both because it lets the users know how good the tournament will be, plus accountability will encourage good directorship. There is no reason why this should only be for pay tourneys. Any director who has a above x% "not" rating can have their licence removed.

[bearmum]

It seems to me that some people are adverse to pay tourneys because they don't know what level of service they will receive. Why pay for a tourney if you can get another for free? How do you know which tourneys are best?

 

How about at the end of the tourney you get the chance to vote on your satisfaction. i.e.

 

"How satisfied were you with this tourney? Very/OK/Not"

 

The tournament director's approval rating is then displayed whenever you want to sign up for a tourney. This is good both because it lets the users know how good the tournament will be, plus accountability will encourage good directorship. There is no reason why this should only be for pay tourneys. Any director who has a above x% "not" rating can have their licence removed.

I am adverse to "rating" tourneys for all to see - :D Why not put comments on a particular director on their profile -- so you can avoid a director you dislike? IMHO ALL the directors I have played under have been hardworking volunteers doing their best to provide folks like ME with a place to play bridge.

 

HOWEVER if some tournaments are being run by PROFESSIONAL directors I support somewhere to send legitimate complaints BUT I think some would not be upheld in a review -and for that reason I'm against any 'rating' being performed at all ;)

 

I for one prefer to play in non pay tourneys as I have rarely played with the same person twice online so PAYING for that raffle for partners to ME isn't worth it :D -- but there seem LESS FREE tourneys at my preferred time to play :( -- NOT BBO's fault tho :rolleyes: )

[xx1943]

How about at the end of the tourney you get the chance to vote on your satisfaction. i.e.

"How satisfied were you with this tourney? Very/OK/Not"

Hi Deanrover,

 

I think the feedback is a great idea. But I believe it is not fair to announce the statistics in public. Give the votes to every TD personally and to UDAY and Fred and perhaps to the yellows.

What would you say if TDs would publish their blacklists about players for everone to see? There would be a great yelling. It would be just the same to publish TDs ratings.

 

I am adverse to "rating" tourneys for all to see

That is ecactly the point.

Feedback to TDs would be very helpfull particularly if accompanied by specific complaints. This is exactly what Malucy provides with his InternetBridgeDomain:

 

IBD

The site has a breakdown at the the moment, but will be available at the coming weekend.

 

Sincerly

 

Al

[hrothgar]

It seems to me that some people are adverse to pay tourneys because they don't know what level of service they will receive. Why pay for a tourney if you can get another for free? How do you know which tourneys are best?

 

How about at the end of the tourney you get the chance to vote on your satisfaction. i.e.

 

"How satisfied were you with this tourney? Very/OK/Not"

 

The tournament director's approval rating is then displayed whenever you want to sign up for a tourney. This is good both because it lets the users know how good the tournament will be, plus accountability will encourage good directorship. There is no reason why this should only be for pay tourneys. Any director who has a above x% "not" rating can have their licence removed.

Hi Dean

 

As I have noted several time in the past, I think that a feedback system is critical to the long term success of Pay tournaments on BBO. More-over, I think that a fairly comprehensive system should be implemented - potentially modelled after the one that buyers and sellers use to rate each other on EBay.

 

Here are a few general comments.

 

1. Any system that requires that BBO license directors is tragically flawed. I fail to understand why so many people seem obsessed in building a Nanny state in which Fred/Uday will be enshrined as some kind of benevolent dictators. Why would anyone in their right mind want to insert themselves in the middle of all sorts of political crap. BBO should focus on providing a platform while allowing market dynamics to control quality.

 

2. Market regulated systems are great in theory but often work poorly in practice. In particular, a perfect market requires a lot of assumptions including perfect information, zero friction, etc. In order for BBO to use a market regulated model, BBO may have to invest resources to make the market more "perfect". A rating system is best viewed as a mechanism to improve information flow regarding the Buyers and Sellers.

 

(A) The entire point in implementing a feedback system is to empower individuals to make well informed decisions in choosing tournament directors. According, the results of this feedback structure needs to be made available to end users.

 

(B) It is equally important that tournament directors have the right to rate players

 

3. The structures that are being discussed all exist today, albight in a highly informal manner. I think that it is much better to replace rumor and innuendo with above board discussion in an open forum. From my perspective, many of the problems that Abalucy encountered had to do with a closed system and lack of accountability.

[Deanrover]

Agree wholeheartedly with Richard's approach.

Re the point about it somehow being "unfair"to give out statistics on how well run the tourneys are, I don't buy that sorry. If people buy a product, they have the right to know how good it is. TDs have nothing to be scared of. If they are good TDs then they will ahve very positive feedback. The only need be frightened if they are likely to receive bad ratings.

The more information that is available, the more perfect the markte will be and this will lead to a more efficient and enjoyable BBO for all.

 

And what happens if Mr A. has 95% positive whilst Mrs B. has 99%? Well either Mr. A accepts this, or hopefully he will try and consider why Mrs B. rates higher and try and raise the quality of his tourneys as a results. Everyone is a winner (except bad TDs!)

[inquiry]

Well there are bad players (cheats, disruptive behavior, bad connection, you name your reason).. and bad directors (rude, arbitrary, lack of knowledge of the rules, name your reason).

 

Right now, directors have the ability to "black list" bad players, and players have the right to boycott tourneys run by bad directors. That is market forces at work. Now, I think Richard is advocating an open forum where we dicuss (I guess) bad directors, and where presumably, directors can discuss bad players.

 

Now I agree with the pretty much hands off approach that Fred and Uday take in this manner. But I am very leary of a system that will allow players to publically bash tournment directors by name in an effort to "share information". OR for TD to do the same with players.

 

I guess I would be in favor of a system where we have a poll of "rate this director" and users get one vote and can vote on a number of issues.. like "now the rules", "give balanced rulings", "has pleasant table manner", etc... Now, any user can look up a numerical score... and I guess I would withhold the displaying the scores on any director until at least 10 people have voted. If the majority of the people think that director "inquiry" has no clue about the rules of bridge, then fine, share that with the world. But I am all against the ability the ability to allow an individual user to share some of the venom that is spewed towards a particular director (especially after he has ruled against some one and in the process hurt their feeligss). Already such post in this forum are being edited, and peopel trying to do this are warned aor santioned.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

But I am very leary of a system that will allow players to publically bash tournment directors by name in an effort to "share information". OR for TD to do the same with players.

In all honesty, I think that those very same qualities are critical to the success of any such system. As I've noted in the past, I think that EBay provides a very useful example. the following URL will take you to an EBay ranking system. [i chose this completely at random]

 

http://feedback.ebay.com/ws1/eBayISAPI.dll...9433131&frm=284

 

Individuals have the ability to post very detailed and very specific comments. There is a lot of good business literature that suggests that EBay's feedback structure was critical to the success development of their business.

 

From my perspective, a voting system isn't necessary useful, since we're primarily looking for information regarding exceptions rather than normal behaviour. More over, controversial issues are liekly to be too complex to summarize via anything as "simple" as voting.

 

BTW, Ben - for whats its worth, I think that you're dead wrong to remove names when these types of issues come up. Players have the right to know when players think that a director behaved like a wanker. And directors should be able to publically critique the behaviour of players.

[inquiry]

You want to say on this board that "inquiry" is a horrible director, or that "inquiry" makes too random and unnecessary post edits, fine. I am here to defend myself. But to come here and slam people who are not regular poster and are not here to defend their actions will never be allowed.

 

Now lets take Gweny as an example. She reads this forum. You unhappy with a Gwney ruling, post the FACTS of the ruling, call her by name if you like. I am fairly sure I will not edit the post. She is a big girl and stand up to any of us. Now, call her "weirdo director gweny", or something like that, and you will get edited everytime. Turn that around, pick a director who does not post here, and state the facts about what this director did, and I will edit. Who knows if you are telling the truth? How will we ever here the other side of the issue? How will it benifit the director to see the feedback if he/she is not a member here?

 

Let me give an example.. people have jumped on McBruce over not allowing kibitzers. IT is a fact he doesn't, and he is here to defend his views, and does so adequately. So that is allowed. Now jump on one of the italian directors who don't speak english for the same thing here, and I will step in.

 

Ben

[Gerardo]

Ben, Richard's proposal success depends on a high grade of participation, of both directors and players.

 

It seems to me it would need a good way of combating flamefests, though.

[inquiry]

I don't think it would be possible... let's handle look at the review of players.. A TD comes here and says pair X and Y clearly cheat. Now we have liability issues (can you prove they cheat). And if you were X or Y, are you going to take this laying down?

 

Now lets look at it from a TD perspective. A TD throws player X and Y out and bans them for cheating. X and Y both come and say horrible things about the TD. That is two players... against one director. Maybe the egg on someone else.

 

No, I think a numerical approach would be doable. Ricard slams the numercial approach and yet the key think on the link he posted was just that.. number of favorable verus neutral, versus unfavorable review in the last month, 6 months, and year. That is what I would look at... and that has the force of lots of votes behind it... 3907 positive votes, and only 18 negative... Guess good experience can be expected there... And no chance for flames...

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

No, I think a numerical approach would be doable. Ricard slams the numercial approach and yet the key think on the link he posted was just that.. number of favorable verus neutral, versus unfavorable review in the last month, 6 months, and year. That is what I would look at... and that has the force of lots of votes behind it... 3907 positive votes, and only 18 negative... Guess good experience can be expected there... And no chance for flames...

Popular does not equate to correct...

[hotShot]

How about at the end of the tourney you get the chance to vote on your satisfaction. i.e.

 

"How satisfied were you with this tourney? Very/OK/Not"

I as an director could live the the original suggestion, if every paticipant of the tourney would have to give a ruling.

 

The satisfied players usually do not report, it's the unsatisfied players that would take any efford to rank the TD.

 

This could lead to problems. By the way how do you -as a player- get the name e.g. of the particular TD who ruled over your unfinished board, if he is not at your table?

[sceptic]

May be rather than rank directors by players comments, is it possible to have different classes of TD's i.e.

 

bronze TD = one who can sub and host them, but has little or no director qualifcations

 

silver TD = competant

 

gold TD ABCL sanctioned or one who directs live bridge

 

 

put your own standards in here, this is just an idea and may be even TD helper, who is limited to subbing issues and behaviour issues, time control etc, but not allowed access to adjust scores or make decisions

[jtfanclub]

Popular does not equate to correct...

I could not disagree more. BBO tournements are here for one purpose only- to entertain people. The more people you entertain, better you're doing, and the more correctly you're doing it.

 

Most of the TDs aren't ACBL or WBF certified. It's not asked that they be pedantic and give penalties just because the rules say you should even if there was no damage. In fact, most TDs aren't really TDs at all- they're just there to help with subs, adjust late boards, and mediate if the opps start screaming at each other. A caddy can do that.

 

A TD who's popular but doesn't even know how to play bridge is far more useful than a TD who's correct all the time but nobody plays his tourneys.

[Frosty]

Lacking the "Y" chromosome, my solution to ranking is much simpler. If the TD is good, play in his/her games. If not - don't. Adding another layer of administrivia is just tedious.

 

Frosty :)

[xx1943]

BBO tournements are here for one purpose only- to entertain people.  The more people you entertain, better you're doing, and the more correctly you're doing it.

If the TD is good, play in his/her games. If not - don't.

Hi jt, Hi Jan

 

You got it to the heart. Those who don't like this approach, should host their own tourneys with their friends und rule-experts. :)

 

:Perhaps with one TD for every table and 15 minutes per board to discuss every footnote of rule XY?:lol:

 

Cheers

 

Al

[TimG]

Popular does not equate to correct...

I could not disagree more. BBO tournements are here for one purpose only- to entertain people. The more people you entertain, better you're doing, and the more correctly you're doing it.

This, to me, is a short-sighted position. Just because you are entertaining as many insiders as you can, does not mean you are promoting the long-term interests of your endeavor.

[mink]

While I read all this I miss 2 points:

 

1. When I play in a tourney, in 90% of the cases all goes well, no director is called at my table ever. The 10 other % consist mainly of cases where opps are missing or play slow, which are handled by nearly any director in an acceptable way. So maybe there is 1% of the tourneys I play where I see relevant director action that is worth to be rated. And even if a player encounters a relevant case, sometimes he just disagrees with the director because he does not know the laws, but instead belives that what he thinks is right has to be right. Or the rude players - what kind of rating would you expect? I conclude that players rating a director does not make much sense.

 

2. On the other hand, when I decide about which tourney I would like to play, I would rather play in a tourney where I know that the direcotors are polite, fight rudeness, check cheating accusations and report to abuse if they look reasonable after reviewing some boards, know the laws of duplcicate bridge and the online regulations in BBO, are willing to rule according to this, try hard to adjust unfinished boards to the most likely result, can type fast, limit the number of pairs to match the number of directors, do not exclude kibitzers, do not delay the start of the tourney and do not add time in clocked tourneys unless the failure to add time would cause too many unfinished boards. All this I cannot know in advance. Maybe I can know by experience, if playing a lot of tourneys, but I have a bad memory for bad experiences and rather like to remember the good ones. :angry:

 

What I would suggest therefore that hosts who care rate themselves in their tourney description, maybe just make a statement to each point I mentioned under 2. I would expect that this rating is correct most time.

 

Karl

[luke warm]

can this work? to keep this 'rating' (or feedback) system from becoming too personality driven, have a central clearinghouse, under the tourney's name (and director, if you're so inclinded) that lists the rulings only

 

iow, if i'm a directior and have a tourney tonite at 7, i list all the rulings i make for that tourney and let *those rulings* be the source of my 'feedback'... this requires some one in authority, someone who is capable of judging my performance, of course.. not sure who'd be willing, or who's qualified, to do that

 

i guess what i'm saying is, don't have a feedback system based on 'votes' from players, have one based on actual tourney rulings

[bearmum]

i guess what i'm saying is, don't have a feedback system based on 'votes' from players, have one based on actual tourney rulings

I totally agree :ph34r:

[jtfanclub]

Popular does not equate to correct...

I could not disagree more. BBO tournements are here for one purpose only- to entertain people. The more people you entertain, better you're doing, and the more correctly you're doing it.

This, to me, is a short-sighted position. Just because you are entertaining as many insiders as you can, does not mean you are promoting the long-term interests of your endeavor.

True enough, if you're Fred or Uday.

 

But if you're a tournement director, it's not your job to think about the long term interests of the endeavor. It's your job to run fun tournements that attract people to BBO, and retain those that are there. If people want to play in 'official' tournements, they can play in the ACBL-certified ones, and know that your TDs are trained by the ACBL. I assume at some point the WBF will do the same, even if it's only certifying that certain players are indeed WBF TDs.

 

Speaking of which, I would love it if they had ACBL Tournement Director training classes on BBO. Has anybody asked the ACBL if they'd be interested in doing this? You'd still have to go to a club to take the test, of course.