[shoeless]

It seems to me in the BBO system that exists presently - the adage "fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me" might be helpful for people to consider when they chose a tourney to play in. I think BBO Police would be foolhardy at best and destructive at worse. Clearly improving the situation is desirable and my recommendation is a pro-active rather than re-active one. Begin a 'voluntary' (not mandatory) director's certification program and allow certified directors to be easily recognized on-line. That would serve to put a useful tool in the player's hands. In time, I suspect the quality of directing will increase and the number of these regrettable incidents will decrease.

[JSilver]

Getting back to the original question, I think North's bidding was emminently reasonable. Give South something like ♠KQxx and ♣Axx with the same holdings in the red suits, and you'd like to be in 7♠. Why rush into 4♥? That contract will still be there after you hear partner's response.

Booting a player from a tournament (or for that matter, calling the director) because you disagree with his bidding decisions is absurdly irresponsible. If bids should be chosen automatically, we may as well have the software do it for us.

[Dragan]

JSilver, on Mar 18 2005, 04:51 PM, said:

Booting a player from a tournament (or for that matter, calling the director) because you disagree with his bidding decisions is absurdly irresponsible.

Quoted text is Bingo!

Solution:
1. Do not play tourney's directing by this director
2. Mark opps as enemies

[jillybean]

" . why would i, for example, direct a tourney when i know from the start that i'm not qualified to do so?"

Jimmy...

I’m one of these totally unqualified TD’s. One of the reasons I started running tournaments is that I saw how badly some were being run, people being booted for making the wrong bid, people failing to alert and the player asking for the explanation being booted, players abusing partners and opps, deliberate hold up of play. (and also I dont play at clubs so can't TD real life, this allows me to have a dabble)

When I started I knew very very little about acbl, wbf rules, I still know very little but I’m learning.

The complaints you see posted here aren’t about the intricacies of the acbl rulebook they are about fundamental table and people management – politeness,table talk, people being booted for making the ‘wrong’ bids etc. These arent difficult problems which need a highly qualified TD to resolve.

I agree, TD’s have no excuse for being rude to people and must be reported to abuse, other than that TD’s should be free to run their tournaments how they see fit. If a TD has a policy of ‘no bad bids, no texas transfers, no 2♣ openings..’, state that in the tournament rules and let the bbo population decide if they want to play under those rules.

DelfinoD, on Feb 16 2005, 12:45 PM, said:

Or even better - a TD should have someone, who he could ask about a problem that involves dealing with law.

When I run into a “rules” problem that I can’t answer I ask another TD, a yellow, a star, an “expert” everyone is willing to help if they can. (thanks)

So, unforgivable actions from the TD here, don’t play in that person’s tournament again.

jillybean

[luke warm]

kat, i have absolutely no doubt that you're one of the good ones (regardless of your experience/expertise)... the ones who chap me are those who take totally ridiculous actions as if they actually have a clue... and then they really don't give a damn, after all people can always choose not to play... not a good enough remedy, imo

[jillybean]

I hope you are right!
You do have a point, shame more don’t read forum, lots of useful information and help to be had here.

jillybean

[JSilver]

I know this is an old topic, but today in the USBC, Zia held ♠Kxxx ♥AKT9xx, ♦xx, ♣x, opposite Rosenberg's strong 1nt. Zia bid 2♣, then 3♥ over partner's 2♦, then corrected 3NT to 4♥. No one summoned the director, and Zia was permitted to finish the match.

Some of the vugraph commentators suggested that it could be right to ignore the spade suit. Others offered the opinion that a slam in spades was posssible and should be explored.