[Gerben42]

Well, what kind of flowcharts would you like to see? As it is, problems with revokes, lead out of turn, etc. do not apply here.

Things that come up most are:

* Adjustments because some table did not finish in time
* Complaints about incorrect information
* Hesitations?

A flow chart will help get the easy decisions right, at least.

[uday]

Posting a generic warning ("Laws not fully enforced") doesnt seem to be as useful as posting more specific warnings ("No weak-nt, no psyches")

There isnt enough room in the Tourney description for more than a few fragments.

[Gerardo]

Helene: there are lots of "no psyches" and/or "no adjustments" tourneys. Those don't follow the Laws.

Roland: Don't be so fast on assuring competence. Open Pairs, Zonal tourney (South America), semifinals, national #1 (not my country, so don't know for sure) TD I understand (was #3 at that tourney, behind Kojak and SA Head TD). Opp lays down cards, claim all, no explanation, I had trump Ace in hand, then opp picked up the cards. He came, made us play it from that point, gave them all but one (there was timing issues, we could have another trick). Sadly, I was too green by then, and didn't pursue the issue further.

[DrTodd13]

uday, on Apr 13 2005, 05:29 AM, said:

Posting a generic warning ("Laws not fully enforced") doesnt seem to be as useful as posting more specific warnings ("No weak-nt, no psyches")

There isnt enough room in the Tourney description for more than a few fragments.

No weak NTs and no psyches are not the same thing. Banning weak NTs is a power granted to sponsoring organizations by the laws of bridge. Banning psyches is not a power granted by the laws of bridge.

[guggie]

I still dont get the point of Dr Todd. If you want to run a t on BBO with strict ruling, careful weighing of appeals, of alert failures, adjusts, you need 1 internationally qualified TD for 10 pairs, These TD's still would spend the main part of their highly qualified time with subbing en prodding slow tables on. Where do you find these TD's? How can you pay their value? Such a tournament (with appeal committee) would cost 10-20-50$?

If Dr Todd just assumes that every tournament unless otherwise stated has no qualified TD and thus (in his view) inferior quality, he can skip al these tournaments and go to the qualified ones.

[cherdano]

Ok, let me post one more time. I have maybe played a hundred free tournaments on BBO or so, maybe more. If you don't count director calls due to connection problems, or suspected slow play (for neither the TD seems to need any bridge law knowledge), I have had at most 3 TD calls. On the other hand, I have often had to wait for 15 min or so for the next free tourney, or sometimes couldn't play in one at all because there was no free tourney around.

So I prefer to live with a possibly bad ruling on at most 3 hands out of hundreds of tournaments, rather than discouraging new or existing TDs with posts containing huge capital letters from running more free tourneys.

Btw, the pedant may note that we are not playing according to bridge laws on BBO anyway, due to the way claims are implemented.

Arend

P.S.: I guess speaking polish or Italian in addition to English would be a much more important qualification as BBO TD than bridge law knowledge.

[Walddk]

Gerardo, on Apr 13 2005, 12:14 PM, said:

Helene: there are lots of "no psyches" and/or "no adjustments" tourneys. Those don't follow the Laws.

Roland: Don't be so fast on assuring competence. Open Pairs, Zonal tourney (South America), semifinals, national #1 (not my country, so don't know for sure) TD I understand (was #3 at that tourney, behind Kojak and SA Head TD). Opp lays down cards, claim all, no explanation, I had trump Ace in hand, then opp picked up the cards. He came, made us play it from that point, gave them all but one (there was timing issues, we could have another trick). Sadly, I was too green by then, and didn't pursue the issue further.

I am sorry to hear that the TD in question seemed to be incompetent. When a claim - with or without explanation - has been made, the hand is over and play can not continue.

Your TD allowed play to continue I notice, and that is a serious mistake. Having said that, I must add that certified directors at major championships are usually highly qualified to do what they are supposed to do:

Establish facts and make a ruling according to the laws of bridge. If they were not capable TDs, they would not be there!

Roland

[Walddk]

DrTodd13, on Apr 13 2005, 12:22 PM, said:

No weak NTs and no psyches are not the same thing.  Banning weak NTs is a power granted to sponsoring organizations by the laws of bridge.  Banning psyches is not a power granted by the laws of bridge.

I must agree with Dr. Todd, but I am quite comfortable about it if it is clearly stated on the table note:

Weak NT and psyches are not allowed

Fair enough. Then I can decide if I want to take part or not. What I am opposed to, however, is that almost all TDs "forget" to state:

I am not qualified to make rulings according to the laws of bridge

Should one not assume that TDs will follow the laws if it's not distinctly explained that they will not? I can live with poor rulings if I know where the TD comes from before I sign up, but I think it's unfair that I also must accept horrible decisions if I, rightly in my opinion, expect the TD to know what he/she is doing.

Roland

[uday]

Quote

I am not qualified to make rulings according to the laws of bridge

This is a value judgement that is not relevant to many of our online tourneys.

I'll assume this is a joke, because surely no one expects a human TD to put something like this into a T-description.

Why not request that all players put "I can barely follow suit" into their profiles? Or tattoo "I'm not as good looking in the morning" on their foreheads?

My point is that most of our TDs are not TDs in any official sense outside of BBO, nor would they be allowed to be TDs w/o passing some sort of test. However ( and see sister thread on fewer-free-tourneys) the burden should not rest solely on the shoulders of those TDs who are trying to have fun while allowing others to have fun in a more structured environment than the main-bridge-club.

Where is the online test that a TD could take to train himself? Where are the laws, reduced, simplified and altered for an online environment? Where is the body that will take responsibility for standardizing the online bridge environment? Since no one is standing up, the TDs will do as they please, as far as we (all of us) let them.

Surely we can come up with something more constructive for the TDs to do than to post something as negative as "I am not qualified..." I can assure you that if I made this a requirement, there would be only a handful of free Ts. Maybe not even that.

Shoud we certify TDs? Sure. But who is "we" ? BBO has no standing in this area. Maybe we could certify that a TD understands the mechanics of running a game.

Maybe the laws of bridge need tweaking to have more meaning in an anonymous online environment.

[rigour6]

Uday's last sentence gets to the crux of it imho. I have my dog-eared copy of the Laws same as everyone, but on-line tourneys are a different beast. For one thing, there's a time constraint you don't have in other situations.

My observation is that most TD judgements consist of either:

A) My opponent's bid was not properly alerted or.
B) Our opps played slow to avoid a bad result.

My understanding of what I have to do is this: For A:

1) Should the bid have been alerted? Now this is a different question than face to face as well because a) you self-alert b) your p is completely unaware you have alerted c) there's amuch higher chance that people are playing wildly different systems in the same tourney and d) there's a pretty good chance that you and your opps don't even speak the same language.

Assuming the question to 1 is yes, my understanding of the next question is:

2) Is there damage to the opponents? Again this is a different question, especially in cases where time has elapsed.

Assuming that question is answered yes, then we move on to
3) whether this damage is best redressed by an adjustment of the result or a +/-.

Now to me, both questions 2) and 3) require some knowledge of how to play bridge.
This is why it is entirely possible (and in my case almost certain) for the TD to get them wrong.


For B there's no hope at all, the movie is occasionally helpful but generally I can't tell
who played slow and whether the delay was due to a conn problem. And I'm not aware of any provision in BBO that lets me assess a "slow play" penalty.


I guess my point is that The Laws only get you so far, they aren't designed for online play, and as smart as them Laws is, I bets I can be stupider.

[jillybean]

DrTodd13, on Apr 12 2005, 11:41 AM, said:

If you as a TD want to remain totally oblivious of the rules of bridge and ignore these flowcharts then YOU MUST state in your tournament description that the laws of bridge do not apply and that you will make whatever judgement you like based on whatever criteria strikes your fancy at the moment.

Does anyone read the rules?

I bet only a fraction of players actually read the tournament rules. TD's would have half the problems they do now if people did read the rules! I think players just signup for what ever tournaments are available, if they have a bad experience perhaps they dont play in thats TD's tournament again. Most do not seem to expect a flawless director as a few here do. (I always offer a full refund if there is a complaint. ) A lot of the people who have problems with calls and rulings are in fact helpful and gracious - sad that its the other ones who make all the noise, stand out and do nothing to help.

There are tournaments ranging from ACBL to "playing TD, no adjustment, get your own sub", all seem to have a following. You can pick the ones you want to play in, leave the rest.

jillybean2

[hotShot]

The main problems are:

A) Misdescription: no Alert, Hand not matching, language communication problems, ......
B ) rude behaviour ( too often )
C) UI given by table talk or intentional delayed action
D) Unfinished boards / Slow play
E) intentionally leaving player / disconnected player
F) Is a board unplayable for a sub. => Adjustment

A-C are covered by the bridge laws,
D slow play is handled by the laws, but the board is played to an end. A later board is skipped. In f2f bridge a TD can find out who is playing slow.
Online it is hardly possible.
D-F I've almost never seen, a player leaving a f2f tourney. There are not sub's in f2f tourneys.

If a TD is busy at a table in f2f tourney, he does not call for the round to change, so he has all the time he needs to deal with the problem.
Online, when you start to question the player, they might be gone because the round change happend.

Since i turned of lobby chat, i no longer get "sub needed" messsages. I'm not the only one who turned the noise off, so getting subs is getting harder.

[luke warm]

guggie, on Apr 13 2005, 12:03 PM, said:

I still dont get the point of Dr Todd. If you want to run a t on BBO with strict ruling, careful weighing of appeals, of alert failures, adjusts, you need 1 internationally qualified TD for 10 pairs, These TD's still would spend the main part of their highly qualified time with subbing en prodding slow tables on. Where do you find these TD's? How can you pay their value? Such a tournament (with appeal committee) would cost 10-20-50$?

If Dr Todd just assumes that every tournament unless otherwise stated has no qualified TD and thus (in his view) inferior quality, he can skip al these tournaments and go to the qualified ones.

i don't think that's the thrust of todd's argument, gullie... it isn't *only* that so many rulings are just flat wrong, the big issue for me is that so few tds actually *care*... you shouldn't have to pay a td to care whether or not they know what they're doing

how can a person not want to improve at whatever endeavor they attempt? it seems 2nd nature to me...

i see nothing wrong with or hard about posting "recognized bridge laws may or may not be followed in this tourney"

[rigour6]

I see 5 things wrong with actually posting something that says hey we don't follow offical bridge rules here:

1) It's an invitation to chaos on the part of the players, saying well I don't need to follow rules.

2) It undercuts the authority of the TD, such as it is. More abuse along the lines of "you aren't even a real TD, don't follow the rules!"

3) Nobody reads the rules anyway, so people are still going to be surprised and mad when the rules aren't followed.

4) Surely we should make some effort to move close to the rules, even if they're observed in the breach.

5) OK, I have posted that I am not following official rules. Just what the heck am I following? Are deuces wild? More questions and confusion.

6) What have we gained? If people don't realize we don't follow official rules all the time, it won't take them long to find out. It's like posting "sometimes in life, crap happens".



Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

[luke warm]

Quote

1)  It's an invitation to chaos on the part of the players, saying well I don't need to follow rules.

according to some of the things i've read from some tds, all this would do is be an admission of what they already do (and some even seem proud of it)

Quote

2) It undercuts the authority of the TD, such as it is.

you mean the authority to say "it's my tourney, i'll run it anyway i want... "

Quote

3)  Nobody reads the rules anyway, so people are still going to be surprised and mad when the rules aren't followed.

how would they know?

Quote

4)  Surely we should make some effort to move close to the rules, even if they're observed in the breach.

i agree... i haven't seen many tds who actually want to improve though, have you? most seem deathly afraid of criticism

Quote

5)  OK, I have posted that I am not following official rules.  Just what the heck am I following?  Are deuces wild?  More questions and confusion.

excellent question... why not ask some of them 'what the heck' they're following?

Quote

6)  What have we gained?  If people don't realize we don't follow official rules all the time, it won't take them long to find out.  It's like posting "sometimes in life, crap happens".

so what? it's true isn't it? what you gain is an honest view of how many people will actually play in a tourney where the td admits what some have said on the forums - that not only do they *not* follow recognized rules but they also don't care what anyone thinks about it

Quote

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

huh?

[inquiry]

luke warm, on Apr 13 2005, 08:33 PM, said:

Quote

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

huh?

Python Dude, python...Python sound clip

[luke warm]

ahh yes thanks

[Brandal]

hrothgar, on Apr 12 2005, 07:00 AM, said:

With this said and done... The role of tournament director is, by definition, a public one. More importantly, an individual who claims the role of TD director deliberately establishes themselves as an authority figure.

I find it surprising that individuls believe that they should be able to claim this function while simultaneously maintaining the expection that that should be shielded from any public criticism regarding performance.

I agree with you when it comes to pay-tourneys and
other tourneys where TD seems to create a high level
environment on rulings etc.

I think it's a huge "market" for "Fun tournaments".

How many free tournaments a day would we have if TD's
had to undergo training,and accept to be judged mainly by
those who feel they were treated unfair?

Why can't each player control where he wants to play based
on his/hers experience with a certain TD?

What good can possibly come from creating hostility between
players and TD's?

We "all" know that bridgeplayers who claim to be right,are not
an easy crowd.......and very difficult when they "have" to

[rigour6]

I agree, let's be honest about that. A fair number of players (present company excluded of course) combine the ability to ignore rules which would hurt them in a given situation with the arrogance of divine infallibility.

I've had quite long and nasty arguments with players on rulings that to be honest were absolutely clear-cut against them. And when I say "clear-cut" I place that in the context of me being a moron.

Being a TD isn't exactly fun. Not for me anyway. I try to host 2 or 3 tourneys a day because that's my way of supporting a site and a game I believe in.

To me, playing in a tourney is one of the more enjoyable ways to play for fun, because it allows me some meaurement of how I do. Obviously not a great measurement, let's be honest a 4 board tourney is in large part an exercise in seeing who is lucky, but then again so is a 16 board tourney it just lowers that factor a bit. That's why I do it and that's why I host, so others can enjoy.

This is not an excuse for bad direction. I do feel I make an honest effort to try and follow the rules, but my ingrained idiocy struggles hard against that will. (If you think my direction is bad you should see my declarer play.)

Anyway, I have said before and will say again I support any effort which encourages TDs to improve in a no-fail environment but I very much don't want to discourage TDs in any way. I'll be very honest, as a TD I have had a substantial number of unpleasant interactiosn with players. Only my commitment to the site and the game has kept me going - I certainly wouldn't still be TDing regularly if I went by how much fun it is. Which I don't say in an oh woe is me voice, I don't expect flowers and bows.

I don't know but I suspect there's a substantial group of TDs who sign up keen, run a few tourneys, and get the enthusiasm beaten out of them by rudeness. They then revert to either TDing only tourneys they play in, not TDing, and maybe not even playing at all. Not everyone is a thickskinned old fart like me.

Again, not excusing bad direction but I am saying TDs are doing us a favour, not the other way around.

[jw_nl]

Rigour, I couldn't describe my feelings about directing on BBO better than you did above. I had a number of bad experiences in a short time and had even to switch off enemychat in order to get rid off the offences and questions of some nasty players who weren't happy with my decisions. I have stopped directing for a month or so and recently resumed directing.
In one case it was a starplayer who wasn't happy with my ruling. No TD is infallible and I might have been wrong in this case. I just did my best to make the right ruling.

In the Netherlands we have a few levels for directing. The Dutch Bridge Federation has 3 trainings-courses for TD-ing. The first step is Club-TD-A. This TD can handle the simple problems during clubmeetings. The second step is Club-TD-B. Most problems can be solved by this type of TD, almost all adjustments included. The third step is the Federal TD. This TD can handle the federal competitions. Another step in the TD-world is International TD.

Demanding that every BBO-TD has the highest level isn't realistic. A lot a BBO-TD's don't even know the colour of the lawbook. And is that a problem? No, not at all. The main problem is that a player doesn't know the level of the TD who is directing a tournament. If he knows in advance that the skillevel of the TD is lower than he would like, he may choose for not playing in that tournament.
So it would be nice to have an indication of the level of the TD's. For example : let's have a scale from 1 (knows nothing) to 9 (international TD) Above I mentioned the levels in the Netherlands. Federal TD could get level 8. Club-TD-B could be level 6. Club-TD-A could be level 4. Levels 2 to 3 for the players who have read about the laws. Higher levels are possible for not certified players who proved to have good knowledge.

Suppose all BBO-TD's choose the level they think they have. In this way I would be a BBO-TD-level 5. The first self-declared BBO-TD-level-5 but it is an advantage if my TD level is set automatically in the tournamentdescription. I will not have any longer players in my tourneys who have (too) high expectations. Of course I will do my best and if players don't agree with my rulings, I would prefer the existence of a BBO-General Appeal Committee. Players and TD's could ask the committee to review my ruling.
After a number of bad rulings the committee might decide to lower my TD-level. I wouldn't have any problem with such a system.

Jan Willem