Removal of permissions

[Surya58]

Some unscrupulous people in India have made money by charging tournament fees.

Instead of punishing those individuals, BBO has removed permission to hold pair events and even team matches for almost all Indian players.

I am residing in the United States for the past twenty one years. I have nothing to do with these events. My permissions were revoked simply because I have an Indian name.

I emailed BBO my Name, Address, profession etc. My IP address can be checked anytime by BBO. I am not masquerading as someone from the US.

In a situation where corporations are coming forward to do their bit, BBO seems to be punishing innocent people.

[blackshoe]

How long ago did you email bbo? Have you received a response?

[diana_eva]

Some unscrupulous people in India have made money by charging tournament fees.

Instead of punishing those individuals, BBO has removed permission to hold pair events and even team matches for almost all Indian players.

I am residing in the United States for the past twenty one years. I have nothing to do with these events. My permissions were revoked simply because I have an Indian name.

I emailed BBO my Name, Address, profession etc. My IP address can be checked anytime by BBO. I am not masquerading as someone from the US.

In a situation where corporations are coming forward to do their bit, BBO seems to be punishing innocent people.

 

Sorry about this, Surya. We restored your team match permissions. The primary reason for this move was that these events with cash awards can fall under online gambling according to many of our service providers.

 

It's also not nice that people charge offline without BBO's express permission, but the main reason we took such harsh measures is that such events can get us in trouble with the appstores, the banks and in many other ways.

[hrothgar]

Sorry about this, Surya. We restored your team match permissions. The primary reason for this move was that these events with cash awards can fall under online gambling according to many of our service providers.

 

It's also not nice that people charge offline without BBO's express permission, but the main reason we took such harsh measures is that such events can get us in trouble with the appstores, the banks and in many other ways.

 

I'd like more information about this...

 

Did BBO actually make a decision to remove a group of player's ability to host team events and tournaments based on their ethnicity?

[Chas_P]

I'd like more information about this...

 

Did BBO actually make a decision to remove a group of player's ability to host team events and tournaments based on their ethnicity?

the main reason we took such harsh measures is that such events can get us in trouble with the appstores, the banks and in many other ways.

Doesn't sound like an "ethnic" decision to me. But I guess we all have our own way of looking at the world.

[smerriman]

Doesn't sound like an "ethnic" decision to me. But I guess we all have our own way of looking at the world.

What does it sound like to you then? Noting that 'it' is the decision to remove the OPs permissions despite not running any such events, not the decision to ban such events.

[Surya58]

A few individuals (I made some inquiries and can provide the URL of their website. It is still up) helped to run the HCL tournament. I am sure some of you may have heard of HCL. This gained them a degree of legitimacy. They parlayed that into cash by holding their own tournaments with relatively large entry fees and some cash prizes, pocketing the difference. BBO has rightly stripped them of all privileges. But in doing so have stripped almost all Indian directors of directorial privileges and normal players of the ability to hold team matches. To my mind such sweeping measures are uncalled for and unjust.

Coming to me, I am a resident of the US for the past twenty one years and a professor of finance for the past eleven years. My physical as well as my IP address if BBO cares to verify is from the US. I am in no way connected to any of this. I fail to see how BBO has included me in this drastic culling. The only connection is my Indian name. I do not want to call it anything. But some of you have given the action a label.

I thank you all for expressing an interest in the issue

[diana_eva]

I'd like more information about this...

 

Did BBO actually make a decision to remove a group of player's ability to host team events and tournaments based on their ethnicity?

 

We identified a series of events advertising large cash prizes (one of them was the HCL Online) targeted at players located in certain countries (the largest of them is India). The format was: each team creates its own match and reports the results. There were hundreds of teams.

 

 

In a first phase we only warned and stripped rights from the organizers but this had no effect, as the matches were not created by them.

 

 

[hrothgar]

We identified a series of events advertising large cash prizes (one of them was the HCL Online) targeted at players located in certain countries (the largest of them is India). The format was: each team creates its own match and reports the results. There were hundreds of teams.

 

 

In a first phase we only warned and stripped rights from the organizers but this had no effect, as the matches were not created by them.

 

Was Surya creating team games for this event?

If not, how was his account included in this ban?

[barmar]

Was Surya creating team games for this event?

If not, how was his account included in this ban?

We don't want to go into details about this. We identified a general class of players and automatically banned all of them. But we made a typo in the query, so it included a number of players who shouldn't have been included.

[Vampyr]

We identified a series of events advertising large cash prizes (one of them was the HCL Online) targeted at players located in certain countries (the largest of them is India). The format was: each team creates its own match and reports the results. There were hundreds of teams.

 

 

In a first phase we only warned and stripped rights from the organizers but this had no effect, as the matches were not created by them.

 

What was the problem with events offering large cash prizes? The possibility of cheating?

[jandrew]

What was the problem with events offering large cash prizes? The possibility of cheating?

 

I suggest that this question has already been answered :

 

The primary reason for this move was that these events with cash awards can fall under online gambling according to many of our service providers.

 

It's also not nice that people charge offline without BBO's express permission, but the main reason we took such harsh measures is that such events can get us in trouble with the appstores, the banks and in many other ways.

 

I thought that it was well known that many countries and app stores consider bridge to be a gambling game and against their laws or their terms of trade. Anyway, why would anybody think that BBO willingly provides a free online base for commercial activities?

[Vampyr]

I suggest that this question has already been answered :

 

 

 

I thought that it was well known that many countries and app stores consider bridge to be a gambling game and against their laws or their terms of trade. Anyway, why would anybody think that BBO willingly provides a free online base for commercial activities?

 

If there is an entry fee and a prize I do not see how anyone could consider it gambling.

[Gerardo]

We don't want to go into details about this. We identified a general class of players and automatically banned all of them. But we made a typo in the query, so it included a number of players who shouldn't have been included.

 

More so, ertnicity has nothing to do with it.

 

We don't even have that information.

[Gerardo]

If there is an entry fee and a prize I do not see how anyone could consider it gambling.

 

Many related questions, starting with: is bridge a game of skill, or a game of luck?

 

But there are many people, and more relevant to this argument, regulatory frameworks who do think this way.

[mycroft]

And this question has been around for a long time. From his obituary in the Globe and Mail:

 

In one unusual case, Mr. Murray acted as an expert witness, rather than a lawyer, when the defence called upon him to share his deep knowledge of the game. In 1966, the Toronto police raided the North York Bridge and Social Club expecting to find an illegal poker game. Instead, the inhabitants were playing bridge. The owner was charged with running a game of chance.

 

Mr. Murray testified that bridge was a game of skill, not chance. The lower court ruled, however, that bridge was a game of chance because the cards were dealt randomly. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld the verdict.

 

After the judgment, Mr. Murray quipped: “If I played bridge like those judges I would agree it was a game of chance.”

 

Never mind stories about Calcuttas (which I would argue is in fact gambling, at least with the auction pool) being shut down because they don't have a permit. Of course, the permit costs at least $10k, and the prize pool was expected to be about $3k...

 

Also, never mind the freaking ACBL itself. Ever wonder *why* tournaments and clubs award Monsterpoints, not cash? It was the only way an Organization dedicated to "the Devil's Tickets" would have been allowed to be created in 1930. To this day, "General CoC - All ACBL Events" (warning, PDF link) states:

 

Betting at Tournaments - Wagering on the results of an ACBL-sanctioned event is specifically prohibited. Any member found guilty of any form of such betting in a game or tournament is liable to severe disciplinary action.

 

Yes, that means that if I hear of anyone even "playing dimes", or "lowest score buys the drinks", when I'm on the clock, I have to shut it down. Thankfully, the people who do this know the situation I'm in, and *don't* talk to me about it (when I'm on the clock).

 

It may sound petty to you, or to me for that matter, but when the cost of getting it wrong is being hauled into court under rules designed for the Krays and the Gottis, "pave it all over, and apologize for the people caught in the splash later" is a Very Sensible Action.

[pescetom]

I thought vampyr was being ironic for once B-)

"Welcome to William Hill where you can watch the Grand National live for a small entry fee. A prize if you predict the winner".