In an individual

[rona_]

[hv=n=sa875haqj1074d65c3&s=s1032hk9daj94cakj10]133|200|1nt-p-2!c-p

2!d-p-4!h- all pass[/hv]

 

 

 

Could you please make comments about the bidding, and also whether the TD is right in booting the North player from the tournament, because an expert opponent called him and said she should transfer with 6-4? I thought it was obvious that since there was no spade fit, and South would have at least 2 hearts that North had a right to bid to game. B) Any alerts necessary? Thanks.

[inquiry]

[hv=n=sa875haqj1074d65c3&s=s1032hk9daj94cakj10]133|200|1nt-p-2!c-p

2!d-p-4!h- all pass[/hv]

 

 

 

Could you please make comments about the bidding, and also whether the TD is right in booting the North player from the tournament, because an expert opponent called him and said she should transfer with 6-4? I thought it was obvious that since there was no spade fit, and South would have at least 2 hearts that North had a right to bid to game. B) Any alerts necessary? Thanks.

In individuals try to keep the bidding as simple and straight foward as possible. Stayman and leap to game seem reasonable, but even if someone thought it the bidding went the wrong way and was "bad", booting a player for this is unbelievable. Imagine if we booted players for bad bidding, we would never have enough players left to finish any tourney.

[rona_]

Thanks Ben. This is part of the chat with the TD after North was booted.

 

TD: sorry no alert bad play

 

North: You could at least ask me for an explanation before booting me

 

TD: No bad play texas play u bad playeru

 

TD: You no biridge

 

North: I do stayman to see if P has spades

 

TD:bye

 

 

If North is a good player, she can laugh it off but if she isn't a good player, I suppose this could be the end of his/her bridge playing career :ph34r: I vote for this TD to be removed from the list of TDs. :)

[cherdano]

I am all for BBO's "TDs have a lot of freedom" policy. But if that is the full story (and I have no reason to doubt this), then I certainly agree with rona that this is a little over the top. Maybe you want to talt to abuse-at-bridgebase . com about this?

 

Arend

[inquiry]

Well, I don;t think we take votes on who should and should not be directors. The BBO gives TD wide lattitude in how they run their events, and if you run into one you don't like, avoid their tourney's in the future. However, no one is allowed to be rude to BBO members on the BBO, this includes TD;s. So if you feel you were treated badly, write to abuse@ you know where.com and let them know the details.

 

Ben

[mpefritz]

Different partners, different ideas.

 

For me with some partners, TEXAS is ON after 1NT-2C-2D, whereas with others it is not on. Perhaps the director felt that EVERYONE who plays TEXAS would bid 4D with your hand after the 2D bid by the 1NT opener. Therefore, your partner (in an INDY of all things) would be in trouble for passing your 4H bid, which is clearly a transfer to spades. Right?? Huh??

 

Hey, it's an INDY where nuances are not discussed. The person who called the director must have been miffed thinking 4H was a transfer to spades and the 1NT bidder didn't accept the "obvious" spade transfer, and therefore they got a "bad" board for not getting a benefit of a non-existent bidding mistake :ph34r: .

 

Certainly if TEXAS was not even agreed then this entire question is even more ridiculous.

 

_rona, I agree that the TD seemed to step over a line here.

 

fritz

[pclayton]

This must have been from an individual run by Dr. Evil (from the Austin Powers movies). If you make a bid he disagrees with, he presses a button and **POOF** your chair falls through a hole in the floor and you get eaten by piranhas.

 

I have no problem with the bidding.

[jikl]

The TD should not have done this, especially in an individual where there is no possibility of collusion. It is a terrible decision. The TD should have read his laws book and gone through the section that covers "logical alternative actions". The fact that you were booted is ridiculous.

 

Sean

[luke warm]

i understand bbo's take on tds having wide latitude... however, there have been so many horror stories that it seems something should be done... maybe the already overworked yellows can get together and form a 'td committee' or something... once 'x' number of complaints are received, talk to the td in question... this should probably be a small number, 2 or 3... after the talk, there might come a time when certain people aren't allowed to host/direct tourneys

 

it just doesn't seem right to keep saying 'avoid tourneys whose td you don't like'... that's all well and good, but it seems to prolong the directing lives of those who don't know what they're doing and, worse, don't seem to care

[hotShot]

The decision is wrong!

But lets face it, how many of the BBO TD's have ever read a rule book?

I have some "Experts" and "World Class" players on my blacklist, because they tried to persuade me to rule in their favor in an Non-Zero-Tolerance way. Sometimes pretending that "redefined" bridge laws are on their side. Since i know the LAWs (at least a few of them), i sometimes wonder if they don't know better, of if they usually get away adapting the laws as needed.

 

I guess, that a lot of decisions are made to end annoying behaviour.

 

Another problem is of cause, that in the heat of a tourney you don't have the time to check, if e.g. a missing alert did any harm at all.

[mpefritz]

Should the player who called for the director be reported to (abuse)@somewhereweallknow.com? If I am reading the original post correctly, another player called the director because the holder of the 4=6=2=1 hand didn't bid according to what (s)he thought was good bridge Only then did the director have a chance to make a very poor choice.

 

I am saying this under the assumption that this was not played in a INDY with very specific rules that either disallowed Stayman, but allowed transfers OR allowed Stayman, but required Texas transfers after a 1NT-2C-2D auction. I kinda doubt that.

 

fritz

[jikl]

Directing on BBO should be much easier than in real life. There are no leads out of turn, and then in turn no penalty cards.

 

However, there are problems with tempo. It is sometimes hard to work out who is slow and therefore who a penalty should go to, especially when both pairs claim the opposition is slow.

 

Unauthorised information is also lessened to some degree. Quick bids and slow bids are still a common problem in face to face bridge and online bridge. If I am thinking I usually cover it up with "sorry, lagged".

 

Sean

[fred]

Directing on BBO should be much easier than in real life. There are no leads out of turn, and then in turn no penalty cards.

 

However, there are problems with tempo. It is sometimes hard to work out who is slow and therefore who a penalty should go to, especially when both pairs claim the opposition is slow.

 

Unauthorised information is also lessened to some degree. Quick bids and slow bids are still a common problem in face to face bridge and online bridge. If I am thinking I usually cover it up with "sorry, lagged".

 

Sean

I actually think TDing online is significantly harder than it is in real life.

 

Yes online play eliminates mechanical irregularities like leads out of turn but:

 

1) TDs in live tournaments are not exactly besieged with these types of rulings and usually these types of TD calls are easy to deal with

 

2) TDs in live tournaments do not have to deal with bad connection problems or having to find substitutes

 

3) In most live tournaments all players speak the same language and are familiar with the same basic bidding systems

 

4) In most live tournaments rules for alerting are well-defined

 

5) In most live tournaments accusations of cheating are few and far between

 

In response to the people who suggested that BBO (or yellows) somehow monitor TDs for quality control purposes, I am sorry but it is not going to happen any time soon. We simply do not have the resources to do this and I believe that a massive % of our members would rather have more free tournaments with TDs of questionable quality then less free tournaments with high quality TDs.

 

Of course that's no excuse for our TDs to be rude to the players (or vice versa), but the only way to stop this is for people to report such behavior to abuse@bridgebase.com.

 

If the time comes that we start making a ton of money then I could see us hiring high quality TDs to run free tournaments, but I don't think you should hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[sceptic]

An interesting point I need to make, is that a lot of people that post here seem to always have a negative side to TD's, I wonder how many of you have tried running a tournament yourselves, it is a thankless task most of the time and the pay is crap (hahaha), if you are having bad connection problems, some of the moaners seem to do little to understand the pressures put on a TD when, you can't find subs and you have someone that is demanding the directors time, when he has a few more pressing issues to resolve.

 

I realise that bridge rules are more complicated than I understand and I am percieved as one of the unwashed that should not be directing tourneys, BUT, it is an opportunity to give some thing back to BBO, all it costs is a bit of time.

 

As for rudeness there is no reson for a TD to be rude, but I personally (I doubt many would agree) have been tempted to be very rude to some people, luckily I have always managed restraint.

 

Some like myself just try to run a game usually with FUN somewhere in the conditions and usually stating that I am not a TD of any note, and that ACBL for $1 you can get better quality TD's.

 

So the easy answer for all perfectionists (this comment is not aimed at Rona BTW) is to run some tourneys yourself and discover just how dificult it can be (sometimes it is so easy it is a pleasure).

 

An alternative is just to avoid TD's you don't like.

 

I DONT like the ideas of yellows policing my tourney and pointing out all my mistakes, or even having someone sit in judgement on me, it would make it unpleasant and would deter me from running them.

 

If the day comes when you have got your way and only noteable experts run tourneys, I hope you will realise that will be the end of free tourneys, something I would hate to see happen.

[keylime]

If the TD booted me for a delayed Texas sequence, you know what I'd do with the TD from that point forward. This is beyond silly.

[luke warm]

An interesting point I need to make, is that a lot of people that post here seem to always have a negative side to TD's, I wonder how many of you have tried running a tournament yourselves

that's the point, wayne... why would i, for example, direct a tourney when i know from the start that i'm not qualified to do so? so i can see my name on the forums, in lights? so i can see stupid rulings i've made? hell i *know* some of my rulings would not only be wrong, some would be terribly wrong

 

i don't think a valid reason to direct a tourney is "i want to direct a tourney"... everyone has limitations... one of mine happens to be my total ineptitude re: directing a tourney

 

a couple other points you made... first, i don't buy into the "give something back" argument... what are you giving back? (forgive me if your tourney is one of the bbo bucks ones, in that case you *are* giving something back and deserve some leeway)

 

i also don't think those of us who have been critical of some tds are "perfectionists"... if i was qualified to run a tourney i would do so... then i'd know how hard it is... but some of the rulings we see are just so ridiculously wrong, it makes one wonder what the td is thinking... how does pointing out his errors hurt bbo, or tourneys in general?

 

I DONT like the ideas of yellows policing my tourney and pointing out all my mistakes, or even having someone sit in judgement on me,  it would make it unpleasant and would deter me from running them.

this i don't understand... if i did, for some strange reason, decide to direct i'd *welcome* someone pointing out my mistakes.. *all* of them... i would not find it any more unpleasant than any other learning experience... i personally wouldn't want to remain in blissful ignorance... if it detered me from running tournaments, it would only support my belief that i shouldn't have been doing so in the first place

 

there are many free tourneys that have decent directors, as you know... having more tourneys with decent directors would result in fewer free tourneys with poor directors, it's true... it's also true that professional directors would need compensation... and i don't think any player would begrudge a td that compensation

 

you and others who direct tourneys are appreciated... but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to say that this appreciation ought to somehow translate into no criticism of those whose rulings (as we've seen on many occasions) are totally illogical, from a rules standpoint

[cherdano]

Luke warm, you are free to have your own opinions, but the free tourneys are very popular among the BBO members. Which obviously means that the directors are doing something for the community, and thus giving something back.

Also, I believe that 98% of the time, the TD's on BBO are not bothered to give rulings from the book, but they just need to deal with people losing connections, sometimes people playing slow, if it gets worse people becoming rude. All this requires skills, but they are pretty unrelated to knowing the law.

In fact, in my not so humble opinion there is nothing wrong with someone running a "just for fun" tournament and just refusing to give any rulings. If you want to play a serious bridge with appeals committees and stuff, you have to go somewhere else. (And yes, these tournaments with a clear "NO ADJUSTMENTS" in their description are popular, too.)

 

I for one am glad that there are still many free tourneys around, thanks to volunteer BBO TDs like sceptic.

[luke warm]

i'm glad he runs tourneys also, cherdano... and i'm also glad there are free tourneys on bbo... but i suspect that most (maybe not sceptic) who run tourneys do so because they simply want to run a tourney... i doubt if 'giving something back' enters the equation...

 

do you also think tds are off limits when it comes to criticism, simply because they're running a free tourney? if you directed, would you want to know whether or not your rulings comported with the laws? this has nothing to do with 'just for fun' tourneys, those are just fine... everybody knows there are few, if any, rulings

 

serious bridge, with committees etc, is not what i'm talking about... tds making illegal rulings is... and tds who make illegal rulings and *just don't care* are the worst of the bunch.. imho

[DelfinoD]

I also run tourneys and I do it mostly for fun. Who know if directing isn't more interesting than playing at all?

 

I think the better you direct the more fun you have from directing. That's why I'd like to have my mistakes pointed out. I'd like to have a rule book, which would let me improve my directing.

 

Being a TD is a responsible taks, even if it's voluntary. It's also a good training if you want to become a real-life TD. That's why BBO TDs should have at least some knowledge about the law. They also should have a chance to correct their mistakes, by just someone telling them what they did wrong without any penalty :rolleyes:

 

Someone familiar with the law, monitoring a tourney from time to time, could give a TD much help by telling him about his mistakes don't you think? Or even better - a TD should have someone, who he could ask about a problem that involves dealing with law.

[bearmum]

I also run tourneys and I do it mostly for fun. Who know if directing isn't more interesting than playing at all?

 

I think the better you direct the more fun you have from directing. That's why I'd like to have my mistakes pointed out. I'd like to have a rule book, which would let me improve my directing.

 

Being a TD is a responsible taks, even if it's voluntary. It's also a good training if you want to become a real-life TD. That's why BBO TDs should have at least some knowledge about the law. They also should have a chance to correct their mistakes, by just someone telling them what they did wrong without any penalty :o

 

Someone familiar with the law, monitoring a tourney from time to time, could give a TD much help by telling him about his mistakes don't you think? Or even better - a TD should have someone, who he could ask about a problem that involves dealing with law.

I guess that BBO directors do the best they can - but IMHO online directing would not be the ideal way to learn how to direct in F2F games because ALL countries seen to have different alert procedures (eg here in Australia Stayman is alertable and isn't in USA).

The way to learn how to direct is to go to training courses (if available) and take some sort of test - then start directing at a local club ( firstly with only a few tables I suppose ) and work your way up from there ??

[mycroft]

I also run tourneys and I do it mostly for fun. Who know if directing isn't more interesting than playing at all?

 

I love directing. I enjoy playing as well, but I love the feeling I get that I'm helping others do what they love - play bridge. I also enjoy "getting it right".

 

I wish I had more time; if I had, I would TD on BBO. But there's all this weirdness in my life - work, bridge, choir, LoML...

 

I think the better you direct the more fun you have from directing. That's why I'd like to have my mistakes pointed out. I'd like to have a rule book, which would let me improve my directing.

 

Ask, and ye shall receive...

 

Note, finding the local regulations is not quite so easy. But for BBO, this really isn't a problem - you're the Sponsoring Organization for your tournaments, you can make whatever regulations the Laws allow.

 

Michael.

[shoeless]

It seems to me in the BBO system that exists presently - the adage "fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me" might be helpful for people to consider when they chose a tourney to play in. I think BBO Police would be foolhardy at best and destructive at worse. Clearly improving the situation is desirable and my recommendation is a pro-active rather than re-active one. Begin a 'voluntary' (not mandatory) director's certification program and allow certified directors to be easily recognized on-line. That would serve to put a useful tool in the player's hands. In time, I suspect the quality of directing will increase and the number of these regrettable incidents will decrease.

[JSilver]

Getting back to the original question, I think North's bidding was emminently reasonable. Give South something like ♠KQxx and ♣Axx with the same holdings in the red suits, and you'd like to be in 7♠. Why rush into 4♥? That contract will still be there after you hear partner's response.

 

Booting a player from a tournament (or for that matter, calling the director) because you disagree with his bidding decisions is absurdly irresponsible. If bids should be chosen automatically, we may as well have the software do it for us.

[Dragan]

Booting a player from a tournament (or for that matter, calling the director) because you disagree with his bidding decisions is absurdly irresponsible.

Quoted text is Bingo!

 

Solution:

1. Do not play tourney's directing by this director

2. Mark opps as enemies

[jillybean]

" . why would i, for example, direct a tourney when i know from the start that i'm not qualified to do so?"

 

Jimmy...

 

I’m one of these totally unqualified TD’s. One of the reasons I started running tournaments is that I saw how badly some were being run, people being booted for making the wrong bid, people failing to alert and the player asking for the explanation being booted, players abusing partners and opps, deliberate hold up of play. (and also I dont play at clubs so can't TD real life, this allows me to have a dabble)

 

When I started I knew very very little about acbl, wbf rules, I still know very little but I’m learning.

 

The complaints you see posted here aren’t about the intricacies of the acbl rulebook they are about fundamental table and people management – politeness,table talk, people being booted for making the ‘wrong’ bids etc. These arent difficult problems which need a highly qualified TD to resolve.

 

I agree, TD’s have no excuse for being rude to people and must be reported to abuse, other than that TD’s should be free to run their tournaments how they see fit. If a TD has a policy of ‘no bad bids, no texas transfers, no 2♣ openings..’, state that in the tournament rules and let the bbo population decide if they want to play under those rules.

 

 

Or even better - a TD should have someone, who he could ask about a problem that involves dealing with law.

 

When I run into a “rules” problem that I can’t answer I ask another TD, a yellow, a star, an “expert” :P everyone is willing to help if they can. (thanks)

 

So, unforgivable actions from the TD here, don’t play in that person’s tournament again.

 

jillybean