[GijsH]

Last night I had a very unpleasant experience in the ACBL tournament on BBO.
We play a strong, forcing and unlimited 1NT opening, in accordance to General Convention Chart of the ACBL. The tourney on BBO specifies that GCC applies. After I opened such a strong 1NT, after a few rounds of bidding the opponent called the director (without informing me). The director asked what we are playing and I explained, including mentioning the GCC. We had to stop playing during the discussion. After a while the director told us we could not play this system. When we insisted the director read the GCC properly first, an other director arrived and after more discussion now we were OK to use the system. Due to the time passed, we could not play the 2nd board of the round. All the time the opponents fuelled the fire by making rude comments about us. After all that aggravation we did not get a decent score anymore, and our evening was ruined.
The director made all kinds of unnecessary comments about how much fun the tournament was, which aggravated the situation even more for me.
An apology for the initial mistake (forbidding the system) was never given.
My point is, should the ACBL / BBO not supply properly trained directors for these tournaments, who know at least the GCC and who can deal with people in a decent way?

-posted edited to remove the ACBL TD names - in keeping with general site policy [ben]

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2004-June-24, 21:12

[keylime]

I am not surprised over this development. For the record, here's the instructions relating to this topic:

1. "A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after opening of one of a SUIT <emphasis self-added>, it is started prior to opener's rebid."

2. "FORCING 1NT OPENING BID <emphasis original> indicating a balanced or unbalanced hand and a minimum of 16 HCP."

3. "CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES WHICH GUARANTEE GAME FORCING OR BETTER VALUES. May NOT be part of a relay system."

4. "ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+), forcing opening bids, and after opening bids of 2♣ or higher." <then the caveat about weak twos being in a set range>

And of course all constructive calls by opener starting at their rebid and carrying over to both players with calls that ask for "working values."

How this one slipped through the cracks I still don't know, considering the GCC is published and out there on the web. With regards to the opponent's behavior, I'd send that chat to abuse with a snippet of your concern. It will get dealt with pretty quickly.

[guggie]

I am Dutch, and i have played my first AND last ACBL tournament. As you all know, regular conventions used all over Europe are strictly forbidden. OK, use SAYC. But never playing in the states, the normal standard of alerting is unknown to us. Bergen raises are not alerted. if you wask why not alert: " It is not necessary following so-and-so standards."
I dont know.
I dont know where to find those standards
And as I read the previous post, read it 3 times and still have not the slightest idea what it means, I do not WANT to know.

Above all, the level of play was rather low
In other words, no fun.

No ACBL for me anymore, even if they pay me 2 bucks.

[hrothgar]

As regular readers of this forum well know, I am a strong proponent of allowing independant sponsors to run tournaments using BBO facilities. Accordingly, I'm very hopeful that the ACBL, EBU, TopFlight, and a thousand other flowers will all bloom.

With this said and done, the real "value" that this capabilty provides is specialization. The ACBL can use BBO's facilities to create a highly customized playing environment that closely mimics tournament format that most North American's consider normal. ACBL tournaments should use the standard ACBL convention charts and award ACBL masterpoints.

However, the very same ACBL centric features that are likely to appeal to a North American clientel aren't going to be providing the same value to Europeans, Asians, or folks from the Antipodes. Indeed, these features may very well be viewed as an annoyance.

From my perspective, when posting about ACBL tournaments it would be useful to consider two different classes of comments:

(a) Comments about the rules and regulations that the ACBL has chosen to adopt.

(B) Comments regarding whether or not directors are applying the ACBL's own regulations in a clear and consistent manner.

[keylime]

Ditto, ditto, ditto.

[uday]

I've been playing in offline ACBL events for many years, and I couldn't say w/assurance that I know whether every something is alertable or not. I'm sure it is far worse for the non-americans, to whom some of our alert regulations probably don't make any sense at all.

Rudeness by opps is a no-no, and reporting rudeness to abuse@ is a good start.

Occasional errors ( not limited to bad rulings) are impossible to avoid, on any continent. We err, we learn, we move on. The BBO ACBL TDs are ACBL certified.

The software notifies all players at the table when the TD actually arrives, informing each player that the TD has arrived, and who called her. It is not clear to me that the opps, or partner, should be informed of a director call when it happens.


Here is the ACBL General Convention Chart.
ACBL GCC

Here is the ACBL Yellow card

SAYC

Their blurb on active ethics
Active Ethics


Now, where is that document on when / what to alert...?

ui

[keylime]

The alert procedure right? Thought that was under the tournaments section....

ACBL Alert Procedures

and the Alert Chart...

ACBL Alert Charts

[Trpltrbl]

I agree that playing in an ACBL tournament for ACBL points are worth nothing for non ACBL members. And even playing for WBF points is really not doing anything.
Maybe play for a bottle of wine or something.

Mike

[jdulmage]

Why would you play in an ACBL tournament without an ACBL membership in the first place? That's just silly.

In terms of your director problem. A lot of directors make decisions based on how they interupt the information you gave them, how they communicate, etc. There was obviously some miscommunication involved. It happens.

Now in terms of the Dutch player. There are plenty of websites out there including acbl.org that gives players information on guidelines and rules. Before bashing the ACBL and saying you won't play in one of their tournaments anymore, consider educating yourself on the GCC and giving it another try.

[Frosty]

I've sent these suggestions to Uday, Fred and Gweny (who coordinates the ACBL events), but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to post it here as well.

1) I think it would be appropriate for each ACBL tournament description to list the
Director(s) who will be running the event. This is consistent with all the other
tournaments and offers a player the opportunity to choose NOT to play in an
event if they object in some way to the Director.

2) Since these are sanctioned events - proprietary information about the player,
including name/address/etc. which would not otherwise be available is
accessible via your ACBL #. Accordingly, the Director's actual name should be
listed on the TD's profile along with the TD's nick. In a sanctioned ACBL event,
players are entitled to know who the directors are - this should be no
exception. Again, it applies to the option of the player to choose not to
participate in an event if they object in some way to the Director - particularly
one they know in ftf. It also allows the player to fully address complaints
involving the Director should they arise.

I haven't received any feedback on these suggestions, but am hopeful that I won't be put in the awkward situation of having to withdraw from a sanctioned event after it has begun. This would be a discourtesy to my partner, table-mates, and the TD(s). It will also appear as though I am a player who intentionally leaves tournaments after they've begun, when in fact I would have opted not to register if I'd known who was officiating.

Frosty

[gamingrams]

As an acbl member who lives in a fairly remote region, I am delighted with the opportunity to play in sanctioned events as often as I choose.

I agree with many of the above posts, and suggest that non North American players who do not have acbl membership and are not familiar with alerting and announcing procedures refrain from playing in these events if they are not comfortable with the format. There are always plenty of tournaments available -- both specialized (clubs and countries) and general -- to meet the needs of everyone.

Thanks, Frosty, for your comments to BB regarding the TD's identities. I am sure that they will implement your suggestions as they have many others to make all tournaments easier and more fun for everyone.

Leslie

[Rain]

Just wondering what policies are in place to prevent people from playing under someone else's acbl number...


r

[McBruce]

Taking this topic in a new tangential direction....

Is it not true that the ACBL GCC has two main purposes?

1. To define what conventions and partnership agreements can and cannot be played in general ACBL events.
2. To set out a procedure for alerting/announcing that maximizes opponents' ability to get needed information while minimizing unauthorized information through public disclosure of agreements.

Isn't this the dual purpose of the GCC? It serves to maximize the limited full disclosure in the most common type of duplicate game, where you play only two or three boards against each pair. In such an environment, one cannot provide full disclosure, like an extended team match where the more unusual conventions can be provided to the opponents in advance and defences can be set. Nobody would play if they were going to receive three pages of notes on each of 8-13 opponents each session.

If you agree with that, consider the following:

Every time someone asks for a bid to be explained in an ACBL (or other NCBO) offline game, there is a potential for unauthorized information. I'm just learning Precision, and I know full well I have faced situations where I received UI from my partner's explanation.

In online bridge, there is NEVER a reason for this to happen. We alert and explain our own bids in private to the opponents. Partner sees nothing. The GCC is still useful for setting the boundaries of which types of conventions can be used and which cannot. But, except for differences in language and literacy, online bridge completely eliminates the need for any type of complicated system of alerts and explanations (such as the GCC). All that is needed is some simple definition of which bids are self-alertable:

All CONVENTIONAL bids (those which convey more information than a beginner would assume only from the level and denomination) and UNUSUAL calls (calls which are natural but which show very different types of hands from those which a beginner would assume) must be alerted. Any call which might be assumed by a beginner to show a much different strength and/or shape than the partnership agreement specifics should be alerted and explained in the alert text area as soon as possible.

By beginner I mean someone who has learned to play by going through Fred's LTPB program; who bids what he has and knows virtually nothing about conventional calls. If you like you can add something about notrump ranges, but nobody has yet been able to explain to me why this is such a brilliant idea yet (don't people bother to read convention cards anymore?).

So argue all you want about the limitations of the GCC. I myself don't think any director should say "that convention is not allowed" and hold up play to do so. It seems to me a better approach would be to say "This may not be GCC-legal but I will have to look it up. Please play the deal and I will adjust the score if it appears to me that it is not GCC-legal."

Once again (noting from the original thread that the opponents in this case, as happens far, far too often, "made rude comments" about the pair that was using what they thought was an illegal convention) I plead with BBO to work on an implementation of Laws 90 and 91, at least for sanctioned tournaments. Law 90 gives the Director the power to assess procedural penalties for those who refuse to make some effort to conform to normal procedures, even when the opponents are not damaged. Law 91 allows the TD to suspend (TDs can do this) or assess disciplinary points to a contestant for a serious violation of behavior (this part we cannot). It would be as simple as sending a message to the TD once the tournament ends:

Assess procedural penalties to anyone? Yes [ ] No [ x ] [OK]

The TD could change this to yes and deduct points from a pair's, a team's, or (in an indy) an individual's score. No need to publicize these penalties in any way (except by adding the results from myhands and comparing them to the adjusted results posted). Without this rule, BBO has no effective way of promoting the ACBL's Zero Tolerance for Unacceptable Behavior policy, which is a basic requirement to become a recognized one, two, or three star club in the ACBL.

But my main point here is that we have absolutely no need of anything as complicated as the ACBL Alerting system online. We have virtually effortless Full Disclosure, and once people understand this (and if it costs them a small penalty they will make an effort), it will be better than the current confusion over what needs to be alerted, what needs to be announced, and the apparent unlimited, unregulated and risk-free pot-shots one can recieve from the opponents when, right or wrong, they think you are playing an illegal convention and are more concerned with getting their good score without playing bridge than actually trying to get a good score by earning it.

[guggie]

Question: Why would a non-ACBL Dutc player play ACBL tournaments?

Answer: Because she thought she might have a good game.

[hrothgar]

McBruce wrote

>Is it not true that the ACBL GCC has two main purposes?

>1. To define what conventions and partnership agreements can and cannot be
> played in general ACBL events.

>2. To set out a procedure for alerting/announcing that maximizes opponents'
> ability to get needed information while minimizing unauthorized information
> through public disclosure of agreements.

No, this is not true.

The Alert structure that is supposed to be used in ACBL sanctioned events is governed by the ACBL's Alert Chart. This chart is posted at http://www.acbl.org/...alertChart.html

The Alert Chart is separate and distinct from the GCC and needs to be understood this way.

[Gweny]

Hi Friends,

Just 1 comment on TDs...

ALL and I do mean ALL
ACBL TD is certified and VERIFIED with ACBL they are certified

Main reason what TD is not post is due to size restrainst in Description

[mpefritz]

I think the request was that the name of the TD be given. There are certain ftf tournaments which I have avoided, because I knew the directors didn't enforce CC rules or didn't take the time to look into mis-alerts, etc... Yes, I did report these problems to higher-ups and it got nowhere.

(For those who care -- it involves allowing non-English speaking pairs to show up without a filled out CC. I have since learned the system in question so I can get by most of the time, but the directors response was "You really expect me to get all the .... players to fill out a convention card? " !?! This was in a low-level Grand National Teams event of all things)

My solution -- avoid tournaments when they are directing.

Just because someone is certified by the ACBL does not mean that each director rules in the same way. It is not unreasonable to ask the name of the director.

HOWEVER, if ACBLXX is always ACBLXX and no other director name for BBO ACBL tournaments, then maybe the real names don't matter. Players can mark the directors they do not prefer and avoid their ACBL tournaments. That would require the ACBL directors be listed in the tournament rules/profile.

fritz

[Frosty]

Gweny -

There actually is plenty of room to post the TD's identity on the Tournament Description since much of the information currently listed there is redundant (it is already available on the information shown on the left side of the description box). Specifically it is not necessary to state that the tourney is 12 Boards, IMP, Pairs, swiss or clocked as all this information appears on the other side of the description screen when the BBO member views it. You could easily abbreviate the term "General Convention Card" to GCC - a known acronym. In addition, "CC required" is shorter than "you MUST post CC". In all I count more than 50 characters that could be made available for listing the TD's identity by eliminating redundant information and shortening other information, and without losing any information.

My point is reinforced by what mpefritz has posted as well. People are people - being certified does not mean you will make good decisions. BBO gives players the option to choose who's tournaments to attend in all other cases - it would seem MORE and not less important to do so for the ACBL games.

Frosty

[xx1943]

McBruce, on Jun 30 2004, 01:56 AM, said:

Law 90 gives the Director the power to assess procedural penalties for those who refuse to make some effort to conform to normal procedures, even when the opponents are not damaged.  Law 91 allows the TD to suspend (TDs can do this) or assess disciplinary points to a contestant for a serious violation of behavior (this part we cannot).  It would be as simple as sending a message to the TD once the tournament ends:

Assess procedural penalties to anyone?  Yes [  ]  No [ x ]  [OK]

The TD could change this to yes and deduct points from a pair's, a team's, or (in an indy) an individual's score.  No need to publicize these penalties in any way (except by adding the results from myhands and comparing them to the adjusted results posted).  Without this rule, BBO has no effective way of promoting the ACBL's Zero Tolerance for Unacceptable Behavior policy, which is a basic requirement to become a recognized one, two, or three star club in the ACBL.

Hi

this is exact the procedure I missed, when I had to decide this one.


Adjustement question VIII


Thanks for this idea, Mc Bruce.


Sincerly

Al

[Gweny]

Well let me clarify further.
We are VERY lucky in our ACBL TDs... It is deeeeeeeeeeeeep strong stable of tds - our senior tds (08,09,10,and 11) all direct for many many years now. We keep chat open during tournaments for in effect we get consensus opinions for interesting rulings by drawing on this wealth of experience.

On tournament description.... I drives me little bit crazy to see wild combinations of letters with no way to know what they mean. So to me "description" means describe this tournament. I DO ask for more room so I can include things like "Sorry no multi 2d or Wilcosz 2D and I just do not think Sorry no M2d/W2D is going to get our message across.

Our little corner of BBO is full of people from around world - many who no idea what is GCC. If we need to pick betwween listing who is directing and what is or is not allow in some contest then "what" will alway "win" over "who."

This is in no way any attempt to "hide" id of td from anyone. It is usually relatively easy to tell who is directing by lobby ads prior to start of tournament. Yes this is not ideal but each acbl td DO give you they BBO id when not wearing ACBL_xx id.