[blackshoe]

helene_t, on May 29 2008, 04:53 PM, said:

Sorry, "slapping" was a mild exaggeration. It was not the TD btw, just opps.

Heh. Two choices: ignore them, or call the TD and ask him to direct opps not to attempt to teach at the table. Unless the opps are real jerks, I tend to the former view.

[zasanya]

Old York, on May 29 2008, 10:24 AM, said:

hi

It is becoming increasingly obvious that this thread has been deliberately hijacked.
None of these comments have anything to do with the original post

Perhaps it is time for admin to close this thread. As this thread was opened with a libelous mis-quote, perhaps it should be stopped immediately.

My sympathies Tony Duke of York.
I have very high respect for non-playing TDs of free tournaments whose only motive seems to be to make a large number of people happy.If they devise rules which in their opinion make a maximum number of people happy then they should be allowed to do so.One cannot satisfy everybody anyway.So go on with your rules Tony .Good Luck.

[jillybean]

I agree, well done Tony for running free games and keeping a lot of people happy, thats no small task!
As others have said, as long as it is clear you are using your own rules and not following the laws of DCB players can chose to play and have no grounds for complaint.

Of course you can list all the rules you like in the tournament description or tournament rules but the chances are the players wont read it anyway.

[blackshoe]

Old York, on May 29 2008, 10:24 AM, said:

hi

It is becoming increasingly obvious that this thread has been deliberately hijacked.
None of these comments have anything to do with the original post

Perhaps it is time for admin to close this thread. As this thread was opened with a libelous mis-quote, perhaps it should be stopped immediately.

Thread drift is a fact of internet life. That it has happened here does not mean the thread was "deliberately hijacked".

The OP may have mis-represented the regulation in question, but that does not, IMO, make his comment libelous. Of course, IANAL, so I could be wrong about that.

If you had a complaint about the original post, and think it should not have been allowed, why didn't you complain about it earlier? (Note that complaining about a post in the thread is generally useless - if you have a complaint, you should PM the appropriate administrator).

NB: as others have said, if folks are (mostly) enjoying the tournaments you run, you're doing well. Kudos for that.

[inquiry]

The original poster talked about a tournament whose director issued a RULE about no redoubles (unless.. yada yada yada) and a few other things (report to abuse)......

No directors name was mentioned. We allow such post. If the OP had mentioned any director by specific name, that name would have been removed, and the OP warned but the post remained.

Post like this one almost always drift... how much can one say about this other than...

1) the laws of bridge do not allow such a rule
2) bbo, however, gives TD's wide lattitude to run their events how they see fit as long as they are polite and post established "rules"
3) the director in this case published his rules... threatening to report to abuse can be viewed as a warning or impolite... that is in the eyes of the beholder.

We have had similar threads, a common one is the "no psyche tournaments" (another special rule). Eventually in those threads, the discussion drifts to "well, even if you outlaw psyches, who determines rather a stretched bid is a psyche?"

These threads are useful, as it reminds old members, and informs new members that the TD's run their events according to their own preference, and if you don't like the rules of one TD, you can wait a few minutes and join another tournament with a different TD who runs his even more to your liking. Many, many people enjoy the no psyching tournaments... I happen to not. I only play in one tournament that has such a rule....

[1eyedjack]

The allegedly libellous comment was not by the OP but was buried at the bottom of page 2 (15th post of page 2, 31st post of the thread). Tony expressed his objection in the 15th post of page 3 (46th post of the thread) and received a full apology 2 posts later. It was clearly a case of mistaken identity and no-one reading this post should draw the conclusion that "our" Tony made the offending adjustment.

[Old York]

My appologies to all concerned, the word "libelous" was uncalled for

Sorry >reaches for Prozac<

Tony (Duke of York)


Added June 3rd

Devotees of matchpoint re-doubles may like to follow this link :-

http://cid-a2215bf240b1bba1.skydrive.live....20Re-double.lin