[Gweny]

Next - Officeglen

Clearly you are very well educated and have a very superior knowledge of ACBL and bridge in general, and I am sure that your intent is only to improve ACBL games here on BBO.

I will tell you that there is ALWAYS ongoing education and efforts to improve our directing skills. We are blessed with two national tds and they, along with others (like Fred) provide guidance when sticky situtations arise. Are we going to post our internal communications with you or with this forum?

Absolutely not. There is no upside and considerable downside to making public what we discuss in private. You are maybe surprise by this but even BBO ACBL tds have feelings.

Do tds make every effort to get it right? Of course they do! Do you honestly believe that anyone likes to appear foolish? We are all human and in the heat of battle yes mistakes will happen. When they do we discuss them and use them as learning tool so that we might avoid that problem in the future.

Will ACBL TDs reply here? Very unlikely and if they did it will be as private person instead of rendering opinion as ACBL (on BBO.) Is there any rule or policy that prevents them from doing so? Of course not but in general it is me, Uday and or Fred that answers questions concerning ACBL on BBO. Tds render opinions in games they direct and as much as possible we try to keep it consistent so that all ACBL tds rule the same way. This way people know what to expect.

Hrothgar get it right (as he most always does) and the sooner people accept that online bridge IS different than face to face bridge the happier everyone will be. Please consider that there are people playing every day who never once experience face to face bridge yet they have grown to love this game so much that I think Fred/Uday need to start selling groceries online so BBO bridge addicts do not starve. (Hi, My name is Gweny and I am a BBO bridgealholic... giggle)

In online bridge there are things that we cannot do - for example an announcement. In online bridge if someone does an announcement in public chat it is basically unauthorized information and you can guess what happens next. If something is an announcement with current software environment on BBO we either it is treat as an alert or nothing at all. Which do you prefer?

As far as psyches are concerned... for the record it is me/ACBL who come to you and privately ask you to restrain yourself or we are maybe going to have issues, NOT one of our ACBL TD. Why you want to claim this is some "new" rule is something only you know - it is clear from other thread that when psyches are part of a partnership agreement they are illegal in ACBL games. Inquiry did research on this topic and showed that you have a propensity to psych on some occasions. A warning from me is just that - I wanted you to know that we do pay attention and do not want to have a problem. That is all. Psychs ARE part of bridge and you have no idea how mad I am when I see nonsense like tournaments where they demand someone alert td that they are going to psych or worse that places like Total Points club "outlaw" psychs. My dear departed Baronreit is probably spinning in his grave at such things.

As far as where to send comments, etc you send them to ACBL@Bridgebase.com, sending them anywhere else only delays response since abuse will then forward them to me/ACBL. Since this is on each tds profile and tds will happily tell anyone who asks where to write I do not think it is very hard to find proper outlet for your concerns/comments, etc.

Are we perfect? of course not or we are not still here on earth. We are a new club and we will continue to improve and do our best to serve the needs of our customer.

New and exciting games will come soon and hopefully you will enjoy them.

[uday]

Bendare, some of what you say makes some sense ( I'll disagree w/your sampling of t posted CCs bec. I know the system posts SAYC for every pair without a CC). I have reason to think the TDs make efforts to follow the ACBL rules. Some of them actively direct for the ACBL-in-memphis at at ACBL Nationals.


If you detect an infraction that matters to you, call the TD.
I cannot stress this enough. Call the TD and let us and the TD worry about supporting his workload. If you keep the TD busy at your table for the entire tourney, we'll find more TDs .

Most of thesgames are only 6 rounds (some are 4). that's only 6 sets of opponents (we all know it is really 7, but we'll ignore partner for now). Six TD calls won't break the bank.

I might experiment with a sterner set of rules in a game or two; perhaps with a restricted-entry game (LM only or some such); my instinct tells me these games will quickly die out for lack of interest, but lets see.

[Gweny]

Bendare

Dear lady - you have completely encapsulated one of our major concerns - educating new players. I will, however, point out that most of the time it is not that they do not want to follow rules, just that they have not learn them yet. That is where you come in and every other ACBL member that does know how to play tennis with rackets.

It is you and other experienced ACBL members who will help us foster and grow this new generation/group of ACBL members. We (ACBL on BBO) need your help and appreciate that you care enough TO call td - we WANT those calls because without them we cannot know that there is a problem and cannot educate our new ACBL players about proper procedures like alerts, claiming, agreements, etc.

As far as size of tournaments our tds are not alone in large games. There is always at least one back-up td on hand to help. We did this so that we CAN better serve you.

Please remember we ARE a relatively new club (our 2nd birthday is 7 June) and as we grow we will improve our methods of integrating/educating new players. One of our first steps in this direction is when we start offering 299er games. At present these games are small but in many ways that is an advantage because td can better moniter behaviors and make sure that players are following the rules as well as helping them learn mechanics such as posting convention cards, etc.

As to how we distinguish between deliberate naughty and unknowing beginner/intermediate that is a function of being a td and knowing our players - which we do. As you point out we have very large audience but still we can recognize new players and those who are unfamilar with BBO interface. But again, we cannot do anything about something we are not aware of - the ONLY way to solve some problem is for you to let us know - we WANT you to call us so we can improve everyones playing experience.

And yes please DO check skill level of people you play - remember when you start playing? Can you remember a time when you did not know terms and conventions and how someone taugh you these things? We KNOW that many of the people who play in ACBL games earn their first ACBL masterpoints here in BBO and because of that we warn first, make note in profile, and if they repeat that mistake they will get penalty. However in some cases we are constrain by certain problems - mainly that often to penalize your opp we are forced to cap your board to at best 60% (average +) So in some cases penalizing your opp will result in more damage to you than to them. In cases like this we often forgo penalty because it will damage you.

Please do know that we appreciate your help and welcome your comments and suggestions. You are welcome to write to us anytime at ACBL@bridgebase.com with any suggestions/comments.

[hrothgar]

uday, on Feb 6 2006, 10:21 AM, said:

Bendare, some of what you say makes some sense ( I'll disagree w/your sampling of t posted CCs bec. I know the system posts SAYC for every pair without a CC). 

...

I might experiment with a sterner set of rules in a game or two; perhaps with a restricted-entry game (LM only or some such); my instinct tells me these  games will quickly die out for lack of interest, but lets see.

Hi Uday,

I'd like to make a suggestion: Much as I value the FD convention cards, I think that its a mistake to set these cards as a "default" for pairs who don't post their own convention card. In an ideal world, new players/partnerships would make use of the information provided by the FD card to guide their bidding, ensuring that theory matched practice. In reality, I suspect that the player who MOST need the information that FD provides are the ones least likely to use the technology.

Equally significant, the FD technology is complex. Unfortunately, introducing complex new systems to a broad user base is a pain in the butt. This is not to say that its impossible, but you need to be very careful how you proceed. I work that imposing a convention card on novice pairs may create more problems then it solves. If people suspect that that the FD convention cards are providing inaccurate information they're simply going to tune out all that "noise".

I very much prefer an affirmative system in one member of the partnership posts a convention card and the second needs to confirm that they are playing it. "Raising the bar" for loading the CC's should help (somewhat) to ensure that the information provided is accurate.

For what its worth, I think that it would be a good idea to conduct a some serious experiments with more serious/formal/structured tournaments. I think that there is a portion of the membership base that would value online tournaments where the rule sets and behaviour conform to the expectations generated by the face-to-face game. Furthermore, I think that the ACBL club is in the best position to run this experiment (they ACBL brand SHOULD mean something more than just selling masterpoints. Ideally, players competing in an ACBL tournament should be able to expect a consistent playing environment). As I've noted in the past, I have a lot of trouble understanding what "value" many of the fee based tournaments provide to justify their fee strucutres. In many cases, these "bridge games" feel more akin to a lottery (or less chartiably, a number's racket). I think that its a mistake to go down this path. If the cash prizes are awared based on skill, you create incentives to cheat. If cash prizes are awarded based on luck, you're running an illegal lottery.

I think that BBO has a strong vested interest in ensuring that the fees that individual clubs charge are clearly linked to bridge related services. Such services could be the skill of a particular TD (either technical or social). Alternatively, clubs could offer hand records along with analysis of the bidding/play/par contracts. (You can even award master points if you want). However, I think that its critical to maintain the fiction that the card fees compensate for services specifically related to bridge.

In retrospect, using the word "experiment" might be a mistake. Potentially it would be more valuable to think of these highly structured tournaments as a loss leader... I think that these tournaments would take some time to get established and start rolling. However, in an ideal world I think that the ACBL franchise should be plotting how they might be the dominant form of competition within the ACBL club.

One last note, I still see some value in tournaments that feature some kind of monetary bond to be refunded if they coimplete the full tournament. (Admittedly, I'm lucky enough to have a good internet connection and fairly reliable power). From my perspective, one of the most significant differences between the face-to-face game and online play is the length of the events. From my perspective, "short" events cause a lot of the problems. Specifically, short events encourage high variance strategies and discourage investing much time in detailed partnership agreements. I recognize that 8-12 board tournaments evolved in reaction to high disconnect rates for long events. Even so, I see a lot of value to running traditional events featuring 24 or 27 boards with "balanced" movements. Posting a monetary bond that will be refunded upon completion of the tournament would seem like a logical way to achieve this end...

[pigpenz]

now after reading all the this convention card thingy......where people dont even want to use the basic ones ....how in the world are we going to get people to use use the ones that is being introduced with the full disclosure work convention card


and Gweny thank your for xxx out my real name in the email headers

[uday]

Quote

I think that its a mistake to set these cards as a "default" for pairs who don't post their own convention card.

I don't disagree. I am unsure of the wisdom of what we do with the old cards (ie, set default to sayc ) and I'm waiting to see what happens w/FD before changing anything.

Currently, there are no FD defaults in any tourneys .

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Feb 6 2006, 07:39 AM, said:

I think that BBO has a strong vested interest in ensuring that the fees that individual clubs charge are clearly linked to bridge related services.  Such services could be the skill of a particular TD (either technical or social).

BBO's ACBL club does a remarkable job under trying circumstances. The fact is that most of the people playing in the ACBL games are not ACBL members and many don't know the general rules of formal bridge, much less ACBL mandated rules.

The large turnout for these tourneys however, benefit all ACBL members who play in them. It allows more sections, so more chances to win ACBL Masterpoints, the large turnout also means more ACBL masterpoints for placing in the overall.

Against these advantages, you have the slight annoyance of people not knowing or if knowing, not following the rules. The ACBL club hires not only professional TD's, but well reconginzed one. This is good for the ACBL tourneys in general and the BBO overall.

Top notch directors, very inexpensive (and easy from home) way to win ACBL Masterpoints, and large tournament turnouts: the ACBL tournaments on BBO are a tremendous value for the money. One just has to understand the nature of online bridge.

Quote

As I've noted in the past, I have a lot of trouble understanding what "value" many of the fee based tournaments provide to justify their fee strucutres.  In many cases, these "bridge games" feel more akin to a lottery (or less chartiably, a number's racket).  I think that its a mistake to go down this path.  If the cash prizes are awared based on skill, you create incentives to cheat.  If cash prizes are awarded based on luck, you're running an illegal lottery.

It is hard (darn hard) for other pay tournaments not only to compete against the ACBL tournaments on BBO, but as you correctly point out, to compete against the many "free tournaments" offerred daily. I myself enjoy "Bella's Balls", "the madman returns", "Deer Park" and "friends of Misho" tournaments, all free. The other pay directors have approached this problem with a one-solution fits all. This includes cash prizes which mandates blocking kibitzers. They also typically have webpages (some excellent pages btw). But you overlook the hard work these directors do to be here at scheduled times, so you can find their game, and to track winners, post results to the web, etc. There is value in that (although some free directors do the same, they offer far fewer events per day).

Quote

Alternatively, clubs could offer hand records along with analysis of the bidding/play/par contracts.

I think you you check out the plans for the HomeBase Club richard (see Opening Day Announcement ) you will see that the BBO is looking for ways to add value to pay tournaments (one way is by allowing HomeBase to exist) that include what you suggest here (full hand record, not only including analyis of bidding/play and makeable contracts, but also including opening lead at each table, all on a single html document). And more, such as option to receive email version of traveler customized with the bidding, alerts, play, and overall results at your table, and different levels of BridgeBrowser online access to hands played in the tournament sponsored by Homebase, or nearly all hands played on the BBO. But note, HomeBase Club will not offer ACBL Masterpoints, which is clearly the number one incentive for playing in fee-based tourneys.

So variety will exist. Those looking for ACBL Masterpoints, have a great option to play in the many ACBL events a day on the BBO. Those wanting a chance to compete for cash have a lot of pay events to compete in, and those wanting the kind of things you mentioned above might want to seek out the HomeBase. No doubt additional value-added tournament ideas will arise in the future. Some are already in the works. :-)

[bendare]

uday, on Feb 6 2006, 02:21 AM, said:

"Bendare, some of what you say makes some sense ( I'll disagree w/your sampling of t posted CCs bec. I know the system posts SAYC for every pair without a CC). I have reason to think the TDs make efforts to follow the ACBL rules. Some of them actively direct for the ACBL-in-memphis at at ACBL Nationals. "

Uday---

Apologies if I did not make myself clear. Yes, the default SAYC was posted for those who did not post their own, but the players were not actually playing that CC. (Auctions at my table clarified that, or I was familiar enough with some of the opps that I knew they were not playing simply the default cc posted for them.)

As a habit from FTF, I almost always look at opps cc prior to start of auction of first hand of a round. For me, opps convention card is a wealth of disclosure and often all the disclosure I might need-- IF that CC can be trusted to accurately represent what players are playing. That is why I focused on the proper posting of CCs.

I personally have no complaints with the TDs nor do I question their credentials.


Problems cannot be solved unless they are first identified, and I was simply offering my two cents worth (well, it turned out to be a long winded two cents worth!!) to hopefully help in getting to a CORE problem.

I appreciate that you will consider some way to create an ACBL game for those of us who want to play an ACBL online game in which players know what is expected of them and are "serious" in their personal effort to comply with the "rules". Perhaps this could be incorporated in ACBL's plans (Jan. Bulletin, page 9) to "Develop a pilot progam to test the viability or a sectional and/or regional tournament online." I cannot imagine there is any viability unless the participants are reasonably educated in and respectful of ACBL rules, so maybe they can do some experimenting with BBO ACBL games in their pilot program.



Thank you--

Bendare

[uday]

Who would you encourage to enter this kind of restricted game? And who would you block from entering ?

How does this sound?

- Restricted to: ACBL members with more than XX points (say, 500) ? That feels like enough experience to understand the rules. Or would you allow any ACBL member in?

- Restricted to GCC/SAYC? or open to anything with adequate disclosure?

- Longer games (18? 24?) with 3 bds per round. Still clocked.

- Eventually, limited in size (per TD)

I will discuss the sectional/regional issue w/the ACBL ( it is more along the lines of beg for the sanction, as it has been for over a year ) in case they are feeling charitable. I understand their reluctance in this area.


Maybe what we're looking for is a serious game w/full disclosure (the philosphy, not the BBO add-on). Perhaps this can only be done one language at a time. Maybe we should be trying to get a "serious" game going and not worry about limiting it to ACBL?

[han]

Maybe we should be trying to get a "serious" game going and not worry about limiting it to ACBL?

Difficult in practice, but a great idea in my opinion.

[pigpenz]

bendare, on Feb 6 2006, 04:15 PM, said:

I appreciate that you will consider some way to create an ACBL game for those of us who want to play an ACBL online game in which players know what is expected of them and are "serious" in their personal effort to comply with the "rules". Perhaps this could be incorporated in ACBL's plans (Jan. Bulletin, page 9) to "Develop a pilot progam to test the viability or a sectional and/or regional tournament online." I cannot imagine there is any viability unless the participants are reasonably educated in and respectful of ACBL rules, so maybe they can do some experimenting with BBO ACBL games in their pilot program.

There is no reason that they should not be able to have a sectional online. It would be nice to see an event that is seeded properly and run in the format as a live tournament. There is only one way to find out and that is to try it. $5-6 for playing in a 26 board sectional one or two session event is reasonable and I feel it would bring some publicity for BBO if it could be pulled off. If it were advertised in the Bullettin they could get a pretty good crowd which would be both good financially and publicity wise.

[hrothgar]

uday, on Feb 7 2006, 01:35 AM, said:

Who would you encourage to enter this kind of restricted game? And who would you block from entering ?

From my perspective, the necessary "qualities" to participate in a formal club are primarily mental. I'd let anyone with the right attitude enter.

The critical aspect are

1. Establishing a well defined set of behavioural norms
2. Publicizing these appropriately
3. Enforcing them

I think that there is actually some value doing this within the contex of an established sponsoring organization like the ACBL. These organization already have well defined standards for convention charts, appeals proceedures, etc. I'd be thrilled if this could this could be done outside the ACBL, but I'm a firm believer in following the path of least resistance...

For what its worth, if I were the ACBL and considering sanction sectional/regional tournaments at an online site like BBO, one of my biggest concerns would be the ability to support "real" movements. I think that the ones who have right now are inapropriate for real events....

[uday]

Quote

ones who have right now are inapropriate for real event

What do we need besides seeding the field?

[hrothgar]

uday, on Feb 7 2006, 02:17 AM, said:

Quote

ones who have right now are inapropriate for real event

What do we need besides seeding the field?

If you're running events which award significant amount of Masterpoints or, alternatively pigmented points you need to ensure that the events are a true measure of skill rather than some kind of crap shoot. The majority of BBO tournaments are very badly flawed... they feature too far too many pairs competing across a very small number of boards. (I readily admit that this is a critique of the conditions of contest rather than the movement per see).

With this said and done, even if TD directors do a good job setting the length of the tournament relative to number of pairs competing, you still require some kind of balanced movement. Right now, the best that we can do is to run a Barometer event. However, even Baromters are flawed compared to a well designed Howell or Mitchell. For example, in theory, a Barometer permits a pair to win an event without ever competing against the pairs that place 2nd and 3rd...

In real life, the primary argument against running a Howell is the embarassing frequency with which the players (or the director) foul the movement. However, the electronic playing environment permits organizers to mask highly complex movements from the players.

[pigpenz]

uday, on Feb 6 2006, 06:17 PM, said:

Quote

ones who have right now are inapropriate for real event

What do we need besides seeding the field?

some form of seeding
some form of security(eg exlcuding pairs having same ips)
then go for it

[Elianna]

pigpenz, on Feb 6 2006, 05:37 PM, said:

some form of security(eg exlcuding pairs having same ips)

this would be singularly unfair to couples. Sure, we have more of a chance of cheating, since we could sit next to each other, but people can accomplish the same thing with phones or IMs.

Why should couples be banned from playing together in tournaments when they haven't done anything wrong?

[han]

I agree with Elianna, given how easy it is to cheat it makes no sense to prohibit these pairs.

[DrTodd13]

You could add a certification process and only those certified would be allowed to compete in certain tournaments. Let every tournament establish their own certification quiz and before you can compete in a tourney by that person, you have to take the quiz and score a certain percentage. I don't even care if they can sit there with the rules while they are taking the quiz, at least this is a way to verify that they've read the rules and are therefore more likely to follow them.

To comment on something somebody else said, yes f2f bridge is not the same as online bridge. We need slightly different rules for the different environments. Alerting rules should not be more relaxed online, only different. You can self-alert and both opps can see your explanations. This greatly reduces potential MI problems and is better than screen play where different explanations may be given on different sides of the screen. We have the capability to do better than f2f bridge and I'm not sure that we are.

[bendare]

Hey folks, let's not put the cart before the horse. The Jan. ACBL Bulletin quote was on ACBL's 2006 "To do list" to DEVELOP a PILOT PROGRAM for the VIABILITY to hold online sectionals and or regionals. This is ACBL's plans and BBO has no say or at this time any involvement. Even the VIABILITY of online sectional or regionals is yet to be determined by ACBL. IF and when ACBL sectionals or regionals are held online, ACBL will decide on which site or sites they will be conducted.

Mine was just a passing thought that POSSIBLY ACBL might consider including a more "serious" BBO ACBL game in its PILOT PROGRAM (dry runs) in determining the viability of online sectionals and regionals---sorry if that was misunderstood as even being in negotiation.

For now, THANKS to Uday for being receptive to the cry of some of us for "more serious" BBO ACBL club games. He has asked for player suggestions and I am sure he will give consideration to all reasonable suggestions and input. This seems to be an offer on the table for creating such a game IF BBO deems there is enough player interest.

Lets not get off course here with discussions of online sectionals or regionals and let this "seems to be offer" pass us by. Interested parties--make yourselves known. Ultimately, the success of any such game is dependent on PLAYER participation, cooperation and commitment.

I am excited! Let's put our money where our mouth is and do what is needed to make this happen.

[pigpenz]

Hannie, on Feb 6 2006, 07:50 PM, said:

I agree with Elianna, given how easy it is to cheat it makes no sense to prohibit these pairs.

not really the pairs, i understand the problem with pairs playing in the samehousehold but when the same ip shows up as a kibber now thats not nice

Pairs would be pretty easy to police, you can run their hands through bridgebrowser or look at their previous results. The long term results for them speak for themselves bridgebroswer is a good tool for this.