[spwdo]

RayUK, on Jun 3 2004, 06:43 PM, said:

spwdo - you certainly are not blacklisted for "Anything Goes" and both the TDs have better things to do anyway than chase people to other tourneys.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to set the record straight.

hi

he he.

Isnt your tourney♥, cant/wont use names here. Was/is somebody else.

Regards


Marc

[Gerardo]

Well, I'm glad I asked you to be blacklisted, wouldn't play in your tourneys.

Think I prefer tourneys with TDs, which you are NOT. You are PLAYERS.

You do absolutely NOTHING a TD should do, except having a (misleading) name. Name ANY action proper of a TD you do, please.

Put a "PLAYING TDs" in description. That means: "people listed as director in this tourney are useless in that function, so don't count on this tourney to have a TD"

[inquiry]

Open letter to BBO Community

Re: RayUK and BBA-lamb's, Anything goes tourneys.

For all practical purposes these are tournment director-less events, despite having two "directors". This is clearly stated in the condition of contest. There are no score adjustments, no penalties for failure to alert, no help if your partner gets disconnected.

It would be better if, as Gerardo said, the tournment stated that there was no director. In fact, maybe instead of "anything goes", it should be called "DIRECTORLESS TOURNEMENT - NO ADJUSTMENTS" as a name. Everytime I one of these things are held, and I am online I get messages from irrate participants, telling me that either the director will not correct some injustice done to them (no alert, mis-claim, intentional slow play) or will not sub their partner for them. And yes, that they themselves got blacklisted for not subbing out their favorite partner when he/she got disconnected.

The first time this happened, I had a small run in with Baa-lamb, I will not go into the details, but I was as much at fault as baa was. Now, I have no sympathy for anyone stuck in their event without realize how "odd" it is compared to other tournments. Because they clearly state their conditions. I would wonder why anyone would want to play in such an event, but that is just me (no TD is probalby ok, but announcing failure to alert not a probllem seems to violate the rules of bridge, and teh general alert rules on BBO).

So let us all take a lesson from this situation, and read the condition of contest from now on.

Ben

[1eyedjack]

inquiry, on Jun 3 2004, 09:05 AM, said:

announcing failure to alert not a probllem seems to violate the rules of bridge, and teh general alert rules on BBO

I don't think that this is strictly correct.

I have searched through the entire laws of duplicate, both US and UK versions, for instances of the character string "alert". The word crops up regularly but in no instance do the laws stipulate a requirement to alert. They do stipulate a require to explain on enquiry, but not to alert itself.

There is a clue in Law 21B1, which requires that

Quote

failure to alert promptly to a conventional call or special understanding, where such alert is required by the sponsoring organization, is deemed misinformation

There is an implication in this wording that in the absence of a requirement by the sponsoring organisation, there is no requirement. As far as I can tell the entire body of legislation requiring alerts is delegated to the sponsoring organisation by Laws 80E and 80F. I can see nothing in a proscription of alerts that is in contradiction of the Laws (Law 80F) and so a proscription is legal per se.

The question then arises, whether the tournament host has the authority within the terms and conditions of a particular tourney to override the alerting regulations set out in the general site rules in BBO. I have not bothered to research this but I would expect the TD/host to have that authority. I would certainly wish them to have that authority, although I personally would avoid a tourney that contained this particular proscription.

[1eyedjack]

baa-lamb, on Jun 3 2004, 05:43 AM, said:

RayUK and I DO blacken the names of players who refuse to call for their own subs. This is not bullXXXX . We DO NOT black players that fail to get a sub of course. We check there are subs available, and often a player will tell us, when they have been instructed to choose a sub, that they WILL NOT call
a sub - they are waiting for their partner to return. This is not
acceptable

I sympathise with this view. The only problem then is distinguishing between those who do send out invitations to subs, which are then ignored, from those who do not invite. Is the TD/Host made aware of this distinction by the software?

I am also concerned that the "blacklisting" might migrate across tourneys, to one where the particular cause of the blacking might not be an issue in the other tourney. TDs may assist with a variety of tourneys with a variety of particular tourney regs, but take their blacklists with them.

It would be a sad day if I find myself considering playing in a tourney, finding the conditions (which I have read) not entirely to my liking but broadly acceptable, do my best to abide by them then only to find myself blacklisted from a wider variety of tourneys. If I am confident that the blacklisting will be narrowly constrained then I might take the risk. Otherwise I would probably not take the risk of playing at all.

[inquiry]

1eyedjack, on Jun 3 2004, 12:40 PM, said:

inquiry, on Jun 3 2004, 09:05 AM, said:

announcing failure to alert not a probllem seems to violate the rules of bridge, and teh general alert rules on BBO

I don't think that this is strictly correct.

I have searched through the entire laws of duplicate, both US and UK versions, for instances of the character string "alert". The word crops up regularly but in no instance do the laws stipulate a requirement to alert. They do stipulate a require to explain on enquiry, but not to alert itself.

Please note I said the rules of bridge, not the laws of bridge. The rules of bridge are clear, no hidden agreements between partnerships are allowed, your opponents are expected to know your methods (carding, conventions, other agreements). Thus, failing to make sure your opponents have an equal opportunity to understand your partners methods (bids and plays), as far as I am concerned is a failure of bridge rules, not to mention poor sportsmanship.

As for the BBO, the alert rule which is very vague is clear. If you think your opponents will not or might not understand your bid you should alert. The wording is something like, "when in doubt, alert".

Ben

[1eyedjack]

inquiry, on Jun 3 2004, 01:10 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Jun 3 2004, 12:40 PM, said:

inquiry, on Jun 3 2004, 09:05 AM, said:

announcing failure to alert not a probllem seems to violate the rules of bridge, and teh general alert rules on BBO

I don't think that this is strictly correct.

I have searched through the entire laws of duplicate, both US and UK versions, for instances of the character string "alert". The word crops up regularly but in no instance do the laws stipulate a requirement to alert. They do stipulate a require to explain on enquiry, but not to alert itself.

Please note I said the rules of bridge, not the laws of bridge. The rules of bridge are clear, no hidden agreements between partnerships are allowed, your opponents are expected to know your methods (carding, conventions, other agreements). Thus, failing to make sure your opponents have an equal opportunity to understand your partners methods (bids and plays), as far as I am concerned is a failure of bridge rules, not to mention poor sportsmanship.

As for the BBO, the alert rule which is very vague is clear. If you think your opponents will not or might not understand your bid you should alert. The wording is something like, "when in doubt, alert".

Ben

There are two separate issues here.

1) Rules of Bridge

If the rules of bridge are clear it is only because they have been codified in writing. The rules are made up of the combination of the laws and of secondary legislation set out by the sponsoring organisation under powers delegated to it under the Laws.

Laws 40B and 75A prohibit the concealment of methods. Law 20F requires an explanation to be provided on enquiry. Laws 80E and 80F delegate to the sponsoring organisation the authority to prescribe such additional regulations as it sees fit that are consistent with the primary laws.

It has until now been something of a theoretical point because never before have I encountered a duplicate competition that permits artificial conventions without a requirement to alert (that requirement being expressly set out by the sponsoring organisation under powers delegated to it by the primary laws). I would never play in such an event and I do not encourage such events. Nevertheless the rules do not prohibit them. Nor are rules necessary, in my view, where market forces are sufficient.

There is a difference between "concealing your methods" and "not thrusting your methods into your opponents' faces". Law 20F prevents concealment. Alerts do the thrusting. Convention cards are something of a halfway house - a sort of passive thrust. Alerts and CCs are regulated by the sponsoring organisation.

I stand by my original contention that, however abhorrent, it is not illegal for the sponsoring organisation to dispense with alerts.

2) BBO alerting policy

I am well aware of the BBO general alerting policy in the site rules. However clear they are is not the point. The only question of relevance is whether the host of a tournament has the authority within the conditions of contest of a specific tourney to override those rules with others (which may be equally clear). It certainly makes sense to grant the host that authority. This does not mean that he has to act on it. Presumably when the ACBL tourneys start up they will be overridden by the ACBL alert procedures.

[RayUK]

Sticking my two pennyworth in again....

The reasons why we have TDs at face to face events is to sort out problems that occur at a table.

In the main the majority of these problems are leads out of turn, revokes, bids out of turn etc etc. None of these things can happen with online bridge as the software will not allow it.

This then leaves very few problems that need sorting - the main one being claims for adjustments because of failure to alert causing perceived damage to either declarer or defender.

I can confirm that it is perfectly legal to regulate out of a tourney the need to alert (although of course anyone can still ask for an explanation of a bid! - the Principle of full disclosure according to Laws of Dup Bridge 1997 can be observed while playing in a non alerting environment)

Playing TDs are the rule rather than the exception in the UK and since most of the reasons for calling the director have now gone out of the window I do not see any problem with having playing TDs online.

The rules of "Anything Goes" are clear - adjustments will only be made in exceptional circumstances and the software allows you to do this anyway without visiting a table. Adjustments are not made for not completing a hand - this is a timed event and participants are advised to call the TD if there are problems with opponents/partners not responding or playing very slowly.

Once again this is easily sorted out and there is still no reason to visit a table.

[jtfanclub]

Well, I signed up as a sub, waited 10 minutes, and started typing an email. When I got done, I went back and looked...I found out that I'd been asked to be a substitute, been made a substitute, and been kicked out of the tourney, all without me being there! I didn't even know that was possible.

Along with tone/pop in front for subbing, can we also have that for open partnership requests at the tournament, please?