Tournament Propriety

[DrTodd13]

Open Letter to the Administrators of BBO and Tournaments

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[move]STOP THE INSANITY![/move]

Some of the trial tournaments I've attended have been great

experiences but at least a couple have left me angry and

frustrated. The issue at the heart of my frustration is the

principle of full disclosure. Many times in tournaments I

encounter people from different countries that don't speak

English and that do not have a convention card filled out.

They don't even know that I'm asking about their carding and

even if they try to best to describe their carding in English it

is often incomprehensible. Even worse, there is sporadic

use of the ALERT system. On numerous occasions, an

auction doesn't make sense and you inquire as to what the

sequence means only to find out that neither opponent has

been alerting and that all of their bids have been alertable.

By this point, you've already missed the opportunity to make

a lead directing double, etc. The most frustrating part though

is calling director and not getting relief. I realize that the

official rules of bridge state that penalties not be assessed

unless harm has occurred but the number of incidents is

too large and the number of directors too small to determine

harm. I'd like to suggest the following changes to tournaments

and improvements to BBO in general.

 

1. Pairs must file a convention card at the time of tournament

registration in order to be registered.

2. This convention card must be completely filled out and

accurately reflect their methods. (There are at least two standard

cards people could include.)

3. Very clear ALERTing rules be listed in the conditions of contest,

at registration time and at the beginning of the tournament.

4. Pairs failing to follow these rules in a flagrant way (e.g.,

not alerting forcing pass, wilkosz, multi) even once MUST be

penalized even if no harm occurred to the opponents.

5. Pairs that fail to alert and cause damage to opponents must

result in a score adjustment. The benefit of doubt goes to the

non-offending side.

6. Pairs that habitually fail to alert in less flagrant ways MUST be

penalized.

7. If continued warnings are disregarded, then tournement

participation should be disallowed.

 

Things to help this process of BBO.

--------------------------------------------

8. The space to type alerts is too tiny!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why restrict to

like a dozen characters. Make it unlimited and make the window

bigger as necessary.

9. If you really want to help people, make the alerting process

somewhat automated. For example, store the alert description

as part of the convention card. If first seat a person opens 1C,

look up 1C on the CC and see if there is an alert explanation

associated with it and if so open a window and ask the user to

confirm that this alert should be issued. This process should work

for all opening bids (assuming they aren't preceeded by a forcing

pass).

10. Devise a system for describing hand types that is language

neutral. The first step could be for people to type in text using

this hand description language. A subsequent step could be to

pop up a window that allows restrictions to be placed on the

# of points, # of cards in each suit, etc. Using this latter approach

one could provide internationalization by converting these

restrictions to text in the viewers language.

 

Todd

[csdenmark]

I agree completely to Todd

 

I have stated those complaints myself in more threads. Language and convention cards causing troubles not only in tournaments but in main club as well.

 

Bridge is more than playing cards well!

 

Yours Claus - csdenmark :)

[hrothgar]

Todd has brought up an extremely complex topic.

 

One the one hand, I agree completely Todd’s his goal. I believe that both tournaments and play would be improved if players were using a standardized alert structure and made better effort to provide their opponents with complete convention cards.

 

At the same time, I believe that the “cure” that he is suggesting is worse than the disease. Todd’s solution is to impose a strict set of centrally administrated rules with draconian punishments if these are broken. My own experiences suggest that these types of systems are unworkable in the long run. A properly functioning community relies on a shared consensus about the social norms. Having a paternalistic authority to impose structure from above rarely works. These systems almost always degenerate into an adversarial relationship between the “government” and the people. I would very much prefer that BBO adopt a policy of “benign neglect” in this area. I don’t think that the coding team should get actively involved in the rules and regulations for tournaments.

 

From my perspective, one of the nicest features of BBO is that ANYONE can run a tournament. Potentially, the best solution to this entire “problem” is to allow a variety of groups to self organize and sponsor their own tournaments using their own administrative structures. ACBL players can and should run ACBL standard tournaments using a convention chart and alert structure that they find appropriate. However, this should not prevent a group of Poles from running their own tournament using more familiar regulations and language. As Mao once said “Let one thousand flowers bloom”. Over time, some form of vaguely Darwinian process should cause clustering, however, I would hesitate to wager a guess regarding the number of different clubs that will emerge.

 

The one last point that I would like to make is that it is far more important to lead by example than dictate. The new BBO client has added some very nice features. In particular, the ability to click on a URL in the chat window and refocus a browser is a very welcome addition. If you are unhappy with the existing BBO convention card utility, you always have the option to implement your own in HTML.

[paulg]

Although I completely agree with the principle of full disclosure -- in fact I'm in favour of over disclosure -- I think it's important to recognise that different cultures have evolved around the world for alerting and that online bridge is bringing together groups who would not previously have met except at international levels.

 

Like hrothgar I do feel it is practical nor sensible for draconian measures - education is really the key, and some of the tournament directors are particularly good in announcing this at the start of their events.

 

Then there is familiarity with the methods. For me, like many, the Polish methods were relatively new but it's only taken a couple of tournaments to work out what normally happens. Most Poles that I have played alert without a problem, and the others have never worried about questions.

 

I would also note that the SAYC players fail to alert many bids that are alertable in the UK - negative doubles, weak 2-openers, transfer bids, inverted minor raises, cuebids, unusual 2NT, etc. The difference is that I am familiar with their methods, but a Pole may reasonably have the same complaints about SAYC or 2/1 as others do over WJ2000.

 

In conclusion, I feel that providing full disclosure myself is the best way to educate people in what I expect from them.

[the hog]

I would also note that the SAYC players fail to alert many bids that are alertable in the UK - negative doubles, weak 2-openers, transfer bids, inverted minor raises, cuebids, unusual 2NT, etc. The difference is that I am familiar with their methods, but a Pole may reasonably have the same complaints about SAYC or 2/1 as others do over WJ2000.

 

In conclusion, I feel that providing full disclosure myself is the best way to educate people in what I expect from them.

 

Agree with this, but it will never happen. Lets not forget that we are not playing for sheep stations here but are playing for fun.

[mishovnbg]

I am romantic dreamer and believe that Utopia can exist it the future. Somebody said that democracy is not good form of governance, but people not invent better yet ::). Do you know normal country without police, court, jail ... No? What to do, human nature, law of evolution... :-. You cant prevent some of people from crime and only real way that exist is fear form punishment. Not good way of course, because crime still exist, but only way. Education can help only to people willing to be educated :-.

Law and punishment are need in BBO too, how in any human community. I dont think is right somebody to enjoy cheating me, or may be it is right and i must start to cheating others? Law of jungle = law of BBO?!

I hope Fred will publish general CLEAR RULES and CLEAR PENALTIES as soon as possible. I read existing rules of course, by the way i think very few of BBO members read them ???

Misho

[Cave_Draco]

A simple first step would be to have a field on the table that named both pair's systems! For a tournament, set at the beginning and "carried" with each pair?

 

Regular P & I normally pre-alert "Benj Acol, 12-14NT"; on one occasion, in a timed tournament, this was greeted by "Get on with it!" :)

 

Even in the lounge, it can be a guess what system opps are playing.

Whenever I have played Polish Club players, they pre-alert. However, I don't seem to play against PC often enough to learn the system... Naughty Dragon, ;D.

IMO, the "default" system should be BridgeBase Basic... If you aren't playing BB Basic, a pre-alert is needed! Then, if opps know the system, they can ask for only unsystematic bids to be alerted.

 

P.S. Glad that the adjective is Draconic, I would hate to be considered Draconian, except... http://www.kalessin.eclipse.co.uk/images/blue17.jpg ;D

[JRG]

I guess I agree with Cave_Draco, whenever my regular partner and I are starting a session against opponents we haven't played several other sessions against, I always alert, "2/1 and UDCA". That isn't much of a pre-alert as we have various conventions we play, including "modified Smith Echo" and coded 10s and 9s on defense, but I figure it gives a general indication.

 

Also, my regular partner and I are scrupulous about alerting bids. If anything, we over-alert. We play the game to enjoy it and the opponents are entitled to know what our bidding and defense signals mean.

[DrTodd13]

If someone wants to run a tournament where full disclosure isn't mandatory then by

all means they should be able to do so. I won't be playing in that tournament mind

you because random bid meanings and carding is not a game I enjoy. However,

without a statement to this effect, we have to assume that play is governed by the

existing rules of bridge. At a minimum, there has to be some way for people to

describe what their bids mean in a language neutral way that everyone can understand.

We all hate complex alert systems that are out of control but we need to know what is

alertable and what isn't. I love how changes are so frequently incorporated into BBO

and that's why I'm trying to make helpful suggestions within this process to help solve

this problem.

 

One other thing I thought of, there needs to be a way for declarer to click on a defender's card during the play to ask for the meaning of that card. Just like you can click on a bid to ask for the meaning of that bid.

 

I don't think what I was suggesting I'd call draconian. Maybe it is and I'm out of touch.

What other recourse is there for people who consistently fail to obey the rules of full

disclosure?

[McBruce]

The short area for describing bids is not too short to type "see chat msg." More people should become familiar with the "chat to opponents" feature. I myself would like to see the "=" "<" and ">" keys as hot keys to direct chat following to both opps, LHO or RHO as they are on OKBridge. But even without this the buttons with the arrows are right there. Use them! Ask the opps what system they play. Ask what a card means. Tell them what they need to know if there isn't enough room. I had my best result in a tourney simply by making sure to greet the opps with "hi, gl, we play 2/1." This usually prompts the opps to tell you what they play. At the end of a 1N-2C-2D-2N-3N auction, hit the <-> button and tell the opponents that "partner may not have a four-cd major" if that's how you play it.

 

As for the language issue, there is a way to type suit symbols in BBO (I presume that it is possible in non-English to do so as well) and numbers are the same in all languages. What more is needed to describe bids? I once advised people to respond to queries as follows:

 

1. Put your hand down and think about partner's call and consider questions 2-5.

2. Is partner's call NATURAL or ARTIFICIAL? (For doubles and redoubles, penalty or something else?)

3. Is partner's call FORCING (invitational? sign-off? transfer? relay?)

4. Does the call INFER or DENY certain holdings?

5. Do you have a clear agreement about this call?

6. Tell them the answers to #2-5.

 

I would much rather see a muti-lingual dialog box pop up along these lines, with check boxes to check, than Todd's suggestion of # of pts, # of cards in each suit.

 

Yes, there are people who don't alert when they should. But how long do we want to wait for Directors to determine who gets what in adjustments? It's seldom an easy call, despite what the aggreived parties think. It takes considerable time to fill out a BBO convention card completely--having a mandatory completely filled out CC would turn off many people. I would prefer to see more systems than BBO-Basic and BBO-Advanced available though. More CCs would be posted by casual tournament players if they could agree on one of about a dozen cards in each popular system. "Pard, how about 2/1ver8 (Flannery, Bergen)?" "Sure, but lets play 0314" "OK."

 

I agree that full disclosure would be ideal. But it is a pipe dream in the context of online tournaments where there are dozens of different systems and dozens of different languages. There are ways around these problems that are not being used a lot. There may be ways to make full disclosure easier in a multi-lingual environment. The long term solution, though, is education, not penalties when no damage has occurred. People who get penalties they don't understand will not return. And despite the complaints here, I would guess that the majority of people would prefer just to play.

 

--McBruce