[JRG]

PREAMBLE

I'm starting off with this preamble in the hope that people will stick to my topic and not get defensive or start throwing brickbats. This topic is one that I believe a number of people have tried to start a discussion on, but the threads got inundated.

It seems that whenever anyone makes a post about the "quality" of directing or the "qualifications" of directors, one of the first responses is "try directing for a while", or "it's easy for you to criticise", or something similar.

I am, and believe most BBO members are, grateful for the long, hard work of our volunteer directors. I do not believe it is an easy job and would challenge anyone who does believe so. In replying to this thread, PLEASE take that as a given.

END OF PREAMBLE

I believe there are two different perspectives on directing tournaments online, and on BBO in particular. Even though there are some distinctions between hosting a tournament event and directing in a tournament event, I'd rather ignore those unless they make a significant difference to the discussion (in this post, I include "host" as part of "director" - let us assume a host who is also a director).

VIEWPOINT 1

The director's job is to create and run a tournament event. Running it involves dealing with substituting players and deciding on score adjustments (with other things such as dealing with abusive players thrown in to make life difficult). When setting up a tournament event, the director (host) can set some relatively arbitrary "conditions of contest". The director's rulings are final (though if breaking the rules of the site, presumably the director could be reported to the BBO administration).

Directors are frequently very busy and have little time for protracted discussion. In addition, there are often language or cultural differences among the participants. As pointed out in some rather humorous posts, some of the participants (players) do not seem to understand some bridge basics (not just bidding and play, but rules of the game).

Ruling according the the "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" is a nice, but secondary consideration. Some of our volunteer directors are not totally familiar with the "Laws" but strive to be fair using some common sense criteria.

VIEWPOINT 2

What we are playing on BBO is the game of bridge which is played according to the "Laws of Contract Duplicate Bridge". A director's job is to create a tournament, including setting the "conditions of contest", and then run it. Running it means making rulings according to the "Laws".

There are some problems because the "Laws" do not take in to account some issues involved with playing bridge online (a simple example is Law 68 D - Claim or Concession of Tricks - Play Ceases). Leaving aside such issues, a director cannot change the "Laws" (or as the argument goes, we would no longer be playing bridge).

COMMENTS

The second viewpoint encompasses much of what the first includes. There are a number of "laws" applying to tournament directors. Here are some excerpts from Law 81 (for reference) - sorry for the length:

Quote

B. Restrictions and Responsibilities
1. Technical Management
The Director is responsible for the technical management of the tournament.
2.Observation of the Laws and Regulations
The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary regulations announced by the the sponsoring organization.

C. Director's Duties and Powers
The Director's duties and powers normally include the following:
...
3. Conditions of Play
to establish suitable conditions of play and to announce them to the contestants.
4. Discipline
to maintain discipline and to insure the orderly progress of the game.
5. Law
to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder.
...
7. Penalties
to assess penalties when applicable.
8. Waiver of Penalties
to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side.
9. Disputes
to adjust disputes; to refer a matter to the appropriate committee.
...

D. Delegation of Duties
The Director may delegate any of the duties listed in "C" to assistants, but he is not thereby relieved of responsibility for their correct performance.

DISCUSSION (hopefully just the beginning)

What people holding the second point of view desire is to play bridge according to the laws (and usually have fun doing so). Saying that the "Laws" don't cover online bridge is not a reason to totally disregard them. What we need are directors who are qualified (in some manner), know the "Laws" (or at least how to look them up), and apply them (versus making up rulings).

What people holding the second point of view (in my interpretation) believe is that (at least currently) that is not practical.

Is this really the case? Is it really not possilible to reconcile these two points of view? Can we not make a couple of minor adjustments to the "Laws" (and publish them of course) that address the online versus face-to-face issues (such as the oft discussed Law 68 D)? This would be in accordance (perhaps with a liberal interpretation) of Law 81 B2 (see above).

Regarding online versus face-to-face, I quoted Law 81 D because, for the most part, much of the technical mechanics that a face-to-face director has to deal with are taken care of automatically by the BBO software (player movement, scoring, reporting the scores, etc.).

I, for one, enjoy playing bridge on BBO. I play mainly in the Main Bridge Club, though I may start venturing into tournaments.

In the previous discussion, I have tried to keep my personal views to myself (I may not have succeeded, but I did try). I actually side with the second point of view; however, not changing anything will probably not deter me from playing in tournament events (in the future) and abiding by the "conditions of contest".

I personally do not think, for example, it is correct to ban psychic calls, though as some local (North American) clubs limit them, I suppose there is an argument that can be made that placing limits on them is just a way of allowing a director to fulfil his responsibilities under Law 81 C4 (Discipline - see above).

I do think that dealing with "unauthorized information" and full disclosure presents major difficulties.

I would be interested in serious discussion on this subject.

[hrothgar]

One very quick comment

At one point in time, the WBF codified a set of Laws for Online Bridge
These can be accessed at

http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files...f%20Changes.pdf

[DrTodd13]

Directing on-line can have fewer headaches per player than face-to-face bridge. The most common director calls like lead-out-of-turn are avoided, etc. There remains, however, some of the thornier subjects such as MI and UI. Maybe we could get someone knowledgeable in such matters to give a presentation to BBO directors. Even a small document with the current summary of the rules pertaining to these issues and how to proceed when called as director to such an issue would be helpful.

Anybody else interested?

[1eyedjack]

John

I speak as a non-director on BBO so the value of my comments I accept diminish in context. I also take my hat off to those prepared to devote their time free of charge to running tourneys, and am capable of avoiding tourneys that I feel for whatever reason I am unlikely to enjoy.

In a general context I do take the view that EVEN THOUGH they are providing an onerous service free of charge there remains upon the director a duty of care, as you have quoted. If they are incapable of fulfilling that duty then they are not doing anyone a service simply by providing their time and effort, estensive though that effort may be. They foster resentment and lower generally the high esteem that most directors deserve.

Problems can be split into four categories that I can determine from other threads in the forums.

Administrative problems (delaying the start and extending rounds being quoted elsewhere as particularly irksome)
Legal framework problems (banning psyches, falsecards, deceptive plays etc)
Judgement call problems (pure bad adjustments or failure to adjust)
Language translation problems (no solution to this I fear)

Publishing up front and in full the conditions of contest will get around most of the legal framework problems. You just avoid the tourney if you don't like it. It is not relevant whether the TD is aware or unaware of legality or otherwise to ban a psyche under the laws. He simply exercises that power under BBO authority and if the players don't like it they don't join. There should however be a presumption that if it is legal under the laws, permitted by the software and online environment, and not expressly banned in the conditions of contest published prior to commencement then it should be permitted.

As a non-TD I SUSPECT that most other problems result from a combination of two matters: (1) Competence of the TD may be a factor but also (2) amount of pressure placed on the TD during the event may be a more influential factor.

In a face to face game it can take a considerable time for a TD to determine sufficent facts from which to make an informed ruling. Here we are complaining about rounds being extended on the one hand and requiring perfect "snap" decisions from TDs on the other. It just ain't gonna happen, folks.

[aisha759]

Very good discussion JRG, and one that should be taken very seriously....
I have hosted a few tournaments (notice i didnt use the word"direct")... Hosting is IMHO a very different concept, which anyone, given permission is allowed to do, and I am one of them... have stopped doing so, due to my lack of knowledge in rules and regulations(my choice btw). A "host" can sub and adjust scores when time runs out and that's pretty much all, very few are qualified to make important decisions, whereas a "Director" is expected to deal with a lot of complicated situations, which are beyond me
It's a must that TD's should have qualifications which also include special skills to deal with numerous personalities . They may need help, and thats where "hosts" come in handy because they can contribute with the "menial" yet very frustrating tasks.
No offense taken by your post, and I'm not going to get into the "ohhh you don't appreciate us hosts/directors, who work so hard and dedicate our time and effort, bla bla bla", because those who do run those tourneys do it voluntarily, and get pleasure out of it, otherwise you wouldn't have 700 tourneys running at the same time
Try a few of the tournaments available and see which director is the most capable at handling the complex situations you mentioned.
There was a suggestion which was to give qualified directors a special colour or a star so that participants could have a choice......
Directing is really not an easy job, especially online... so if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen (i'm a lousy cook, and i'm staying out, unless someone twists my arm

Aisha

[mr1303]

When I direct I have my (possibly slightly out of date, but still relevant) copy of the rules sitting next to my computer.

I've only needed to refer to them twice, though, and I've directed a fair few tournaments in my time. Most of the adjustments I've given are clear decisions, as anything that isn't clear cut I tend to leave as is, as there are a number of external factors that I can't get enough information for.

[the hog]

Hi John,

You have presented a rational and intelligent basis for ongoing discussion. Like you I believe quite strongly in viewpoint number two.

There are major differences between online and ftf bridge as we all know, and as online bridge is still in its infancy many of these differences have, as yet, not been reconciled with the laws. No doubt as online becomes more popular the laws will be amended to reflect the differences.

I, for one, am amazed at the number of tournaments on bbo and certainly respect the time and effort that tds put in to what must be a relatively thankless task. Frankly, I don't know why they do it; I certainly have no desire to do so.

Having said this, I think there are a number of issues here which could make online bridge far more enjoyable to both participants and to tds.

Swpo suggested that budding tds need to do some sort of introductory course, formal or informal. I think this is a great idea. It should encompass familiarity with the software, but also familiarity with handling common situations, eg UI, hesitations, claims, failure to alert etc. Now I have no idea how such an induction programme can be set up. Perhaps the bbo td group might like to come up with something and then put a suggestion to Fred and Uday.

Another area which I believe should be covered in such an induction, is people skills. What I mean by this is the ability to handle complaints by participants which stem from a lack of familiarity with the regulations or a general feeling that anyone who does anything to take you out of your comfort zone is in some way acting unfairly. eg "TD he psyched, I want an adjustment". Richard Willey has suggested that the players on bbo need some form of "education". Well, I would not put it like that as a lot of players only play here for fun, and "education" could be perceived to have a hint of arrogance about it. (I know Richard does not mean it in that way, but it is the perception I am worried about here.) Again, I have no idea how tds can handle complaints of this nature, and again I would suggest that the bbo tds perhaps come up with some stategies which could be universally employed.

I personally have no problems with tds putting restrictions on their tournaments. This might seem at odds with some of my previous posts, but in fact it is not so. If a td wants to "ban psyches" or run an sayc tournament only, fine. I will avoid playing in such a tournament as will a number of other regular contributors to this forum; but so what? (Personally I feel that these events are not "bridge", but again, so what?) However I do feel very strongly that these conditions need to be carefully and obviously spelled out to me before I register for an event. I strongly object to registering and THEN having a td say, "such and such is not permitted." Actually I do read the conditions.

I have no idea whether any of the above is feasible. The internet has always encouraged individuality and indeed there are some who go to great lengths to fight against any measure to stifle creative expression. Perhaps playing on line is just a further manifestation of these ideals.

Ron

[keylime]

A well balanced assessment I must admit.

I feel that bringing an uniform standard to BBO in terms of the Laws would greatly aid matters. I am curious to see what will happen when masterpoints are started to be awarded on how things are handled then.

[hallway]

Copied from another thread I posted this to :

Maybe this would help: We can't change what was but we can change what is to be

If every aspiring TD (ATD) had to apply first to a Director General (DG) and have the DG authorise their application.

The Director General would need to be someone totally conversant with the Tournament software as well as being a player of merit and a qualified Director.

The aspiring TD applies to the DG who arranges a time to meet in the Tournament Room. The DG enables a by default Tournament (time 2 days out - out of harms way ! ) puts the ATD in as Director and tells he/r to modify it to set it up as they would have it for real.

It would only take a minute for the DG to cast an eye over the result and know instantly whether this ATD has done their homework (read the Help files, joined the BBO_TD Club, has a Conditions of Contest uploaded ) .

If not - bye come back in a month

If they have then off to a Chat Room - now the DG can put them through some simple set pieces - the sort of things that will happen in practically every tournament. (the BBO_Td Club Admins no doubt have a list of minimum requirements)

If they come up to scratch - the DG sends in their ID and we have a new TD

If not - bye come back in a month

It seems to me that a lot of the controversy comes down to one simple factor - players don't read the descriptions and TD's (with a few exceptions) don't load Conditions of Contest.

If EVERY TD loaded a Conditions of Contest then the players would find themselves without a leg to stand on when it came to not liking the way a tournament is run. They can always vote with their mouse and not enter that TD's tourneys again ! or learn to READ the Conditions of Contest before they register.

And it should be a given that a TD has to adhere strictly to the Conditions of Contest governing that Tournament

btw TD's I checked this out before starting to type - most had no rules to read AND !! - 5 tournaments that told me in their tournament description to read the rules did NOT have any rules to read !!

[Maaa]

Maureen,
When someone states/asks players to read CoC pre registering, s/he for sure loaded them , BUT... every change of the server lets them dissapear. You will register that the majority of these mentioned tournaments is added several days earlier to the shedule, so the CoC have lots of time to dissapear, without TDrs knowledge. Hosts not allways online and sometimes maybe simply forget to check if their rules still there.

Greets, Marta

[mr1303]

On the issue of psyching, whilst the rules do state that you are allowed to psyche providing........ it is not only in online bridge where restrictions are in force. In one club that I play at from time to time, on Tuesdays and Thursdays, psyches are strictly forbidden. And for their definitions, opening a weak 2 in 3rd on a 5 card suit is considered a psyche.

[the hog]

So psyches are forbidden on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Are NT openings forbidden on Mondays and Wednesdays and 1S openings on Fridays? I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

[pbleighton]

"....And for their definitions, opening a weak 2 in 3rd on a 5 card suit is considered a psyche..."

Wow, I didn't think I psyched!

Cool!

Peter

[hrothgar]

Hallway wrote:

>If every aspiring TD (ATD) had to apply first to a Director General (DG) and have the
>DG authorize their application...The Director General would need to be someone
>totally conversant with the Tournament software as well as being a player of merit
>and a qualified Director.

The following comments might seem strange given earlier postings regarding finding qualified tournament directors:

I am strongly opposed to establishing a Director General or any centralized authority with the power to approve tournament directors. As I noted on earlier threads,

1. Centralized systems do not scale
2. Centralized solutions rarely solve the problems that they were created to fix
3. Centralized systems have a nasty habit of turning into self perpetuating bureaucracies; primarily concerned with preserving power and perqs.

I think that its important that we recognize the precise problem that we need to address. From my perspective, the core problem is one of information. Players need a mechanism by which they can identify directors who

(1) share similar "philosophies" regarding psyches, conventions, etc.
(2) Meet some standard of quality.

Allowing directors to affiliate themselves with clubs is an excellent way to deal with issue one. Clubs, be they the ACBL or Topflight typically adopt a uniform playing environment for their members. Providing mechanisms by which Directors can post rules in advance of tournaments is also very useful.

The best way to address issue 2 is to provide infrastructure by which Directors can establish a "reputation" for running good tournaments. At the moment, directors develop reputations through standard social channels. Example: I thought that Walddk ran a good tournament, so I recommended this director to my friends in passing conversation. Formal rating schemes simply accelerate this natural process. Furthermore, formal mechanisms to rate directors ensure that this process happens in an open and above-board manner. I strongly prefer players rating directors in a public form rather than resorting to back channel slander and innuendo.

I'll note in passing that I am strongly in favor of developing centralized resources that Directors can use to learn more about directing, regulations, and the like. This has always struck me as a worthwhile goal...

[csdenmark]

mr1303, on May 19 2004, 12:59 PM, said:

On the issue of psyching, whilst the rules do state that you are allowed to psyche providing........ it is not only in online bridge where restrictions are in force. In one club that I play at from time to time, on Tuesdays and Thursdays, psyches are strictly forbidden. And for their definitions, opening a weak 2 in 3rd on a 5 card suit is considered a psyche.

By this your club have just excluded a visit by Eric Rodwell/Jeff Meckstroth(Meckwell) or Bob Hamman/Paul Soloway(Hamway).

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

I think you will need to take into consideration that those who direct/host tourney´s have some aspirations of their own too. They enjoy doing so - it is no altruistic venture.

[mr1303]

Quote

So psyches are forbidden on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Are NT openings forbidden on Mondays and Wednesdays and 1S openings on Fridays? I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

The point I am trying (probably badly) is that criticising those directors for disallowing psyches in their tournaments, isn't reasonable, regarding viewpoint 2. As far as I am aware the directors on these nights are fully qualified, and are aware that this decision is not in accordance with the rules of bridge. Indeed on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays you can bid whatever you like whenever you like, give or take.

Given this scenario, I feel that any director should be able to stipulate any regulations he/she feels are warranted for his/her tournament. This isn't exclusive to online bridge

I still don't think I explained my point there.

[Trpltrbl]

keylime, on May 18 2004, 08:05 PM, said:

A well balanced assessment I must admit.

I feel that bringing an uniform standard to BBO in terms of the Laws would greatly aid matters. I am curious to see what will happen when masterpoints are started to be awarded on how things are handled then.

Only ACBL or WBF directors will be allowed.
Leaving not many directors, but at least they know how to handle situations since they have 'official" experience.
All directors a out there put a lot of time and effort in tournaments, but with the way things are going right now, fairly soon they won't be needed anymore.
only thing they do now, is adjusting scores and handle ( well, at least try ) any turmoil at tables. And for that you need experience in, both, cardinsight and the Law, which most lack.

Mike

[hrothgar]

Trpltrbl, on May 19 2004, 05:54 PM, said:

keylime, on May 18 2004, 08:05 PM, said:

A well balanced assessment I must admit.

I feel that bringing an uniform standard to BBO in terms of the Laws would greatly aid matters. I am curious to see what will happen when masterpoints are started to be awarded on how things are handled then.

Only ACBL or WBF directors will be allowed.
Leaving not many directors, but at least they know how to handle situations since they have 'official" experience.
All directors a out there put a lot of time and effort in tournaments, but with the way things are going right now, fairly soon they won't be needed anymore.
only thing they do now, is adjusting scores and handle ( well, at least try ) any turmoil at tables. And for that you need experience in, both, cardinsight and the Law, which most lack.

Mike

Lets be perfectly clear:

I very much hope that the ACBL and the WBF chose to provide tournaments at Bridge Base Online. I believe that these organizations will provide a value service to a sub-set of the membership. With this said and done, I doubt that I would ever pay to participate in in ACBL event:

1. The ACBL's set of regualtions is far too restrictive for me
2. I'm smart enough to understand that masterpoints are a scam

Regardless of whether or not the ACBL/EBU/WBF chose to make use of BBO infrastructure, I fully expect to see a vital and continuing role for private clubs and tournaments.

[uday]

We're going to be offering ACBL-authorized tourneys in the next week or two. We're finally firming up schedules, prices, etc.

I agree w/Hrothgar that the non-acbl tourneys/clubs will barely notice, regardless of how popular the ACBL events turn out to be.

[Gweny]

JRG, very nice intro and stating of positions.

I agree not all tds hold view 2. And some of us do need further education on rules group 2 people hold so dear.

I am happy you do post this rules for I am very annoy and disgust with people who DO know this rules who continue to argue with TD some times for 20-30 min in hopes td is change mind or ruling.

Clearly this to is violation of this group 2 rules.

As for conditions of contest I do not post one since we only hold 1 restriction in Fun Fishys - alert non natural bids. Yet even this one little SHORT rule is frequently violate - often by this same group 2 people who is very aware of rules of game and therefore really do know better.

As for every tournament requiring same rules I think to much restrictions and tds say fine you do it. We is not all here for same type of game who interest someone of high level.

Nor is all tournaments design (yes design - preplan, premeditate to address certain group of users) to attract group 2 devotees.

Consider Total Points club tournaments. Many of you scoff when mention is made of this games and you maybe point fingers and laugh as you comment this is not "real" bridge. But you fail to see it is nursery where "young" (no reference to age here) players is in protect environment and "rules" is very reduce set. Goal of Total Points is to START people on they journey and people do get addict to tournaments in more social environment than tournaments in other area.

Fishy is next step after Total Points. It is BY DESIGN open friendly tournament where "young" players can get exposure to "real" bridge/duplicate, enjoy good competition, and get to see broad spectrum of conventions from 30+ nations who grace our lovely BBO.

Is it in strict adherence to ACBL or with group 2 users?
No it is not.

For example we allow 1 grace warning for classic naughties like talking dummy, or failure to alert. But we DO keep notes in each players profile and DO share this information with each other. It is stricter now than in past since we want our players to realize what is expect in ACBL tournaments. We offer Fun Fishy for FUN and to help educate our "young" players.

Do this mean only "young" players play in Fishys? of course not. Any good fishing spot include minnows and sharks :-)

What is disheartening is common phenomenon of "old"(again not some reference to physical age) "experts" beating up "young" players. Instead of fostering our "young" ones like role models such as Cascade, and Baronreit, this people seem to delight in pushing director button since opps "refuse" to relate infomation like carding. I like remind you some people absolutely no idea what is carding. And instead of asking in some other form like "what discards do you use" these experts DEMAND director force compliance. Sham on all who do this.

It is also very annoying when this same "old" "experts" do same with people who do not speak fluent english. When you look at profile of opp and it is clear this person do not speak good english then why oh why do you expect this person to give you articulate detail bid explainations? I wish some people understand it is all some can do to type in memorize english phrases when ask for explaination of some bid.

We all seem to publically denouce bigotry for race or religion - I like propose we also include bigotry against non english speakers and people not fluent in language of bridge.

I direct tournaments for I enjoy providing fun entertaining events for my friends here in BBO. Yes my education is continuing - (thanks to all who mentor me and answer my sometimes silly questions) If I am face with some ruling where I am not sure then I call on one of my many mentors to advise me, for this is only way I will learn and do better next time. Do this entitle some player to argue some decision for long periods of time - it most certainly do not. Please see Rule 81.

To those who make my life difficult by constant arguement of even trivial rulings I suggest you look to other tournaments. I will not suggest you try it [directing] for I doubt you is mentally suit for it. Director is many things but no. 1 requirement is ability to not get personally involve and understand 99% of rude or mean things is not direct personally at TD but is rather reflection of personality of rude individual coming out.

I am FIRM believer in training, and training and more training. We develop TD101 as means to introduce people to BBO TD interface, and we develop mentor group who is willing to foster growth of new TDs but none of this is require to gain approval to direct - at this time. We start BBO Tds Coalition in hopes of strengthening budding BBO TD community - it is working and if any of you serious group 2 types like come and give us presentation on rules then I am happy to set up meeting. Continueing education is necessary for growth and majority of TDs is interest in honing skills so we may providing better and better tournaments for our players.

Thank you very much for excellent thread JRG. And thanks in advance for any clinics any Group 2 types might decide to provide to BBO TDs.

Thanks for listening