Host

[Vampyr]

Apparently ACBL do not allow participants to start a team match, because of the security risk. Many of us do not have this luxury, so there is a strong case for disallowing (could be optional) the person who set up the match to chat privately to anyone.

[paulg]

Who does start the team match? Is the ACBL providing people to start them? Are they paying people (directors) to do this?

 

Team matches are free to run for everyone who has been on BBO for a little while. If you need a third party to start the event then this costs. You have complained in the past that the EBU does not provide resources to do this for the 100+ teams in its leagues, so how can the ACBL do it?

 

It is also a policy decision, not something supported by the software. You can adopt the same policy for your events.

 

BBO provides a platform for people to use. The vast majority of team matches are free, short, friendly, randomly organised affairs. If NBOs and others want to adopt the BBO platform for their events and charge entry fees, then perhaps they could use this to pay people to run the matches.

 

It is reasonable to ask for a non-private chat option for the host. It is unreasonable to claim that this feature is provided for others and not to you.

 

It is unreasonable for you to blame BBO for the decision taken by your NBO to select it for your leagues that must have a large number of people playing who you do not trust.

[pilowsky]

I don't understand this at all. I don't have any Director privileges, yet even I have successfully run team matches.

[Vampyr]

I don't understand this at all. I don't have any Director privileges, yet even I have successfully run team matches.

Yes, the trouble is the insecurity. There is no reason at all for the person who set up the team matches to privately chat with partner or teammates; yet the ability and cannot be disabled.

[barmar]

Apparently ACBL do not allow participants to start a team match, because of the security risk. Many of us do not have this luxury, so there is a strong case for disallowing (could be optional) the person who set up the match to chat privately to anyone.

Almost anyone can start a team match. You need to be a member for at least 2 weeks and have at least 100 logins. Users with TD privileges are allowed to start multiple matches at once.

 

A random user starting a team match is not likely to hire an independent TD, so the host will also be the TD for the match. That's why they're allowed to chat privately with the players, they may need to resolve issues without the other players seeing the discussion. Similar to the way a f2f TD may ask a player to step away from the table so they can ask them questions.

[Vampyr]

Almost anyone can start a team match. You need to be a member for at least 2 weeks and have at least 100 logins. Users with TD privileges are allowed to start multiple matches at once.

 

A random user starting a team match is not likely to hire an independent TD, so the host will also be the TD for the match. That's why they're allowed to chat privately with the players, they may need to resolve issues without the other players seeing the discussion. Similar to the way a f2f TD may ask a player to step away from the table so they can ask them questions.

 

The trouble with this is that it is not appropriate for a member of one of the teams to serve as tournament director. Any issues arising must be sorted out afterwards. Maybe some people don’t care, so make it optional. Many people are playing “real” events online, so security is important now.

 

How hard would it be to disable this private chat (and make all players aware that this has been done).

[paulg]

How hard would it be to disable this private chat (and make all players aware that this has been done).

Next to impossible for those hosts using the original Windows or Flash clients as no development has been done on these platforms for years. And you may need the EBU on your side to raise the priority of such a feature on the main client.

 

How hard would be it be to get a third party to run the match where you have security concerns?

 

 

[Vampyr]

Next to impossible for those hosts using the original Windows or Flash clients as no development has been done on these platforms for years. And you may need the EBU on your side to raise the priority of such a feature on the main client.

 

How hard would be it be to get a third party to run the match where you have security concerns?

 

Like who?

[barmar]

The trouble with this is that it is not appropriate for a member of one of the teams to serve as tournament director.

Then who should do it?

 

We're talking about casual games that are being set up by a bunch of users for fun, not organized tournaments. For instance, every Friday night we have a group of friends who play on BBO and have a Zoom call. If we have 8 people, we'll usually play a team game. One of us (me) is the host, we don't generally have a ninth to be a non-playing TD.

 

That said, I can't recall anyone ever making a director call during one of these games. Nor have I ever had a need to chat privately with anyone (and since I'm a yellow, I can chat privately regardless of being a host).

[sfi]

That said, I can't recall anyone ever making a director call during one of these games.

We have the occasional director call when someone has claimed the wrong number of tricks and the other side accepts it. If the host is at the other table, we will wait until they have played the board to request it be fixed. I haven't seen the need for a director call any other time in games similar to the ones you describe.

[Vampyr]

Then who should do it?

 

There isn’t anyone. This is why private chat needs to be disabled.

 

We're talking about casual games that are being set up by a bunch of users for fun, not organized tournaments.

 

But organised tournaments are being played now.

 

That said, I can't recall anyone ever making a director call during one of these games. Nor have I ever had a need to chat privately with anyone (and since I'm a yellow, I can chat privately regardless of being a host).

 

Rulings can be dealt with afterwards by agreement of both captains. If there is a disagreement, the captains should agree on an arbiter. It is unfair, after all, for a member of one team to gather facts and make a ruling,

 

Also, in the era of self-kibitzing, it has, unsurprisingly, proven to be much easier to cheat when it doesn’t require collusion, which this doesn’t. So the arguments that you can be on the phone, on Zoom etc are specious. Similarly, collusion will also be easier when it doesn’t require pre-arrangement or any advance decision to cheat. But we should trust people? Recent events have shown this not to be wise.

[smerriman]

There isn’t anyone. This is why private chat needs to be disabled.

So what you really mean is nothing to do with private chat; you want to run team matches *without a director*. If so, that makes a lot more sense than the way you were wording it. I agree there doesn't seem to be a need for a director.

[Vampyr]

So what you really mean is nothing to do with private chat; you want to run team matches *without a director*. If so, that makes a lot more sense than the way you were wording it. I agree there doesn't seem to be a need for a director.

 

No, there doesn’t seem to be a need. And if the need should come up, we can ask a referee afterwards by email or telephone.

 

“Without a director” and “without one of the players able to have 2-way private chat with anyone” seem to me to be one and the same. But if you perceive that there is a difference, perhaps you could explain it to me?

[barmar]

The basic issue is that currently we only have one kind of team match, but it's being used for different purposes, and they have different needs.

 

A suggestion to make this capability a per-match option would be reasonable.

[Vampyr]

The basic issue is that currently we only have one kind of team match, but it's being used for different purposes, and they have different needs.

 

A suggestion to make this capability a per-match option would be reasonable.

 

Yes, if only someone had suggested that about a dozen times... oh, wait....

[mycroft]

Of course, because one person's ideas are always perfect, and clearly more important than the needs of several NBOs, capacity, or any of the other suggestions.

 

There is a spate of comments, here and elsewhere, about weird things that exist that could allow for cheating. And, I will admit, have. In a couple of very visible cases, have spectacularly and embarrassingly. But for the world to have to change to get rid of things that are useful for thousands of players and a source of cheating for two or three, just because the commenter assumes they're good enough that people would use them against her, seems overblown to me. Especially when the attitude is "well, it's alright for hoi polloi, but now that we have real bridge being played..."

 

If you suspect that the loophole was actually used, report it to the organizer. Report it to abuse@. It's not completely clear (to my reading), but in the three high profile cases on Another Site, this is exactly what happened, and the process did its thing.

 

Oddly enough, it's easy to cheat - at the table or online. It isn't done very often. When it is, people's suspicions get raised, in some cases for years. But online, there is complete history. Suspicions become highly likely very quickly. The thing is, it's easy to cheat - but it's very hard to cheat in a "natural" way.

 

I agree with you that this is something BBO might want to look at as an option, as they move (finally!) to easier to manage team events. But it's a very useful tool, and the opportunity for misuse is not a reason to remove it completely for what it was actually designed for.

[Vampyr]

I agree with you that this is something BBO might want to look at as an option, as they move (finally!) to easier to manage team events. But it's a very useful tool, and the opportunity for misuse is not a reason to remove it completely for what it was actually designed for.

 

Could you explain to me why it is useful, and what it was designed for?

[paulg]

Could you explain to me why it is useful, and what it was designed for?

Over my time the main use has been because someone wants to leave the match because they feel that their opponent is cheating or behaviour is unacceptable to them. Naturally they've not wanted to tell everyone.

 

A lot of BBO was designed by Fred to provide functionality needed for the time and it has worked fine for a long time. I suspect that the key decision was to give the match host control of the tables and players. In particular, the ability to remove obnoxious players by giving them private warnings before booting them. When BBO started, bad behaviour was far more of a concern than cheating.

[Vampyr]

Over my time the main use has been because someone wants to leave the match because they feel that their opponent is cheating or behaviour is unacceptable to them. Naturally they've not wanted to tell everyone.

 

A lot of BBO was designed by Fred to provide functionality needed for the time and it has worked fine for a long time. I suspect that the key decision was to give the match host control of the tables and players. In particular, the ability to remove obnoxious players by giving them private warnings before booting them. When BBO started, bad behaviour was far more of a concern than cheating.

 

This is something I never would have guessed. In the matches I play in, no one would let their teammates down by leaving the match; therefore any bad behaviour or suspected cheating is dealt with after the match.

[paulg]

This is something I never would have guessed. In the matches I play in, no one would let their teammates down by leaving the match; therefore any bad behaviour or suspected cheating is dealt with after the match.

I'm always saying that the BBO users who joined, or starting playing a lot, since Lockdown are a different breed to the typical BBO user before that.

 

I would guess that the majority of team matches before March would involve a large number of random partnerships and teams. It was common for people to advertise in the Lobby looking for singles and pairs to make up a team match. As BBO became more popular, lobby chat became overloaded which is why there is now a setting 'Notify me when a team match needs players'.

[Vampyr]

I'm always saying that the BBO users who joined, or starting playing a lot, since Lockdown are a different breed to the typical BBO user before that.

 

I would guess that the majority of team matches before March would involve a large number of random partnerships and teams. It was common for people to advertise in the Lobby looking for singles and pairs to make up a team match. As BBO became more popular, lobby chat became overloaded which is why there is now a setting 'Notify me when a team match needs players'.

 

I do play un-organised team matches, but with friends (everybody has time on their hands!). After lockdown, I would be pleased if the online leagues I play in continue, but the likelihood is low, as matches will be much harder to organise.

 

Do people advertise looking for a team? That would be very useful.

[paulg]

Do people advertise looking for a team? That would be very useful.

Unfortunately I think you'd be disappointed as the mechanisms are crude and for those seeking immediate gratification.

 

Almost anyone can start a team match with empty places and this generates a notification that people are looking for people to play a team match. These days the host often gets overwhelmed with the number of people willing to play and 'real' teams of four struggle to get their combined request in.

 

Alternatively you can advertise in Lobby chat, but this is not viewed by default so it rarely goes to the people that you'd want in this case. Lobby chat is also overwhelmed by table hosts looking for people to fill their tables. It was possible to use lobby chat when BBO had fewer users who all saw it, but it is less popular these days.

 

There is no mechanism for finding opponents for a team match, say, tomorrow at 7pm. Even then you'd have to be happy to have some random experiences if you match random opponents who you don't know.

 

Of course there have been online leagues on BBO in the past. My favourite, and most successful, has been the InterCity League. It is now run by Paolo (username turbin) and has matches on Wednesday evenings in the fall and spring. The next edition starts in September. In my opinion the key to any online league is to run on a specific day and time. Ladders and events which allow teams to negotiate the timetable eventually fail.

[Gerardo]

The Canadian Bridge Federation has been running an Annual Online Tournament (league, a week per round + KO for the top 4) for 5 years pre-COVID.

Worked quite well.

 

[gordontd]

The Canadian Bridge Federation has been running an Annual Online Tournament (league, a week per round + KO for the top 4) for 5 years pre-COVID.

Worked quite well.

The EBU has been running an annual Online Knockout Teams for a similar time period. Not a huge event but growing and enjoyed by those who play in it.