[Rain]

I would like to hear your opinion on this. I think playing and directing at the same time sets up a potential conflict of interest, among other problems, so my vote will be for "No, never".

[JSilver]

I think there are really two types of people who call themselves TDs. There are those who really function as directors. Then there are those who could more appropriately be called tournament sponsors. They do the administrative work necessary to get a tourney going under certain conditions, so they can then enjoy the pleasure of playing in it.

Given BBO's free-market approach to tourneys, I'd say that players who are happy playing in a tourney with no functioning director should be free to do so, as long as they know that's what they're getting into. After all, this is little different than playing in the main club, where there is no director to call. But there is a fixed number of deals, a fixed group of players, and a competitive result.

[khaki]

JSilver, on Jun 14 2005, 12:42 PM, said:

I think there are really two types of people who call themselves TDs. There are those who really function as directors. Then there are those who could more appropriately be called tournament sponsors. They do the administrative work necessary to get a tourney going under certain conditions, so they can then enjoy the pleasure of playing in it.

Given BBO's free-market approach to tourneys, I'd say that players who are happy playing in a tourney with no functioning director should be free to do so, as long as they know that's what they're getting into. After all, this is little different than playing in the main club, where there is no director to call. But there is a fixed number of deals, a fixed group of players, and a competitive result.

Hi,

In the sense of what you said, the only difference between directors and ordinary players is the rights to create a tourney? If so, BBO should set the "Create Tournament" as a common function to each BBO member.

In my opinion, BBO directors should be in two categories: professional directors (who direct those paid tourneys) and social directors. The differences between these two can be knowledge-wise or more, but they should do their best to run their tourneys smoothly and minimize problems. It's hardly to see the playing TDs really enjoy their game, even though some of them set strict rules like NO Adjustments, No TD Calls, Report probems to BBO Abuse (LOL this definitely makes BBO Abuse busy. Is it one of reasons Rain votes for "NO"? )...... They shouldn't set a tourney for their own amusement unless they can surely handle or do think it is fun to be disturbed while playing. There are lots of similar tourneys to be chosen to join, why bother to play-&-be-distracted?

A free market needs to be kept in order. I agree with you that one should endure what he chooses. However, there are many unexpected things could happen during the tourney. For example, in an indy I've been kicked out by a playing TD just becos one of opponents didn't satisfy my alert by his own standard (he wanted me to describe my whole hand LOL) and complained me by "call director" (so that I couldn't know I was accused). The playing TD was not able to come to the table and those popouts annoyed him, so he subbed me out, problem solved, game moved on... but I was badly mistreated. Would anyone be happy with this situation??

If BBO remains the current TD policy, I would suggest it could be better the playing TD tourney has a co-director, or directors create tourneys for each other

[luke warm]

i'd vote no, never, for the same reasons khaki stated...

[ehhh]

For me knowing they are playing provides the option to not sign up...hence the best of two worlds for me and for the 'social' director!

[jillybean]

TD’s should be free to run tournaments as they see fit, within certain limits:
The players have access to the tournament conditions.
They are run within the rules of BBO and they don’t cause BBO any problems.

[helene_t]

Why constrain tournaments? Those who dislike playing TDs can just avoid them. There's allready a thread about the declining number of free tournaments.

Playing TDs sometimes make horrible rulings because they don't have time to do there job. So what? We're not talking about sexual abuse or financial fraud or anything. Come on, this is a card game.

[sceptic]

Quote

Come on, this is a card game

haha I think not everyone will agree with that statement, for some it seems a matter of life or death

[Brandal]

Rain, on Jun 14 2005, 12:12 PM, said:

I would like to hear your opinion on this. I think playing and directing at the same time sets up a potential conflict of interest, among other problems, so my vote will be for "No, never".

What's the harm,if clearly stated playing TD?

What's the upside of not having those tournaments?

They're usually "spur of the moment" creations,and gives
a little more competitive feeling than main bridge club?

Just keep the mousepointer away from the register button
those few minutes it takes to fill up the tourney if you hate
them

[hotShot]

Dear Rain,

90% of what a BBO tourney host does, is call the create tourney dialog and later sub players that got lost.
Most of those players lost, leave the tourney because they don't like their pickup partner (or because they have a bad connection).

This can easyly be done by a playing TD most of the time.


A playing TD should:

1) keep the number of tables small
2) give players at least 8 min/board
3) announce that he is a playing TD
4) keep an exclusion list with known tourney hoppers and troublemakers
5) allow players chat to tourney so that he can be contacted
6) keep an eye on what's going on
7) should announce (and do it of cause) that adjustments will be done after the last board is finished
8) find playing CO-TD's (at least one), this way one of them will be dummy and available

The true problem is that players don't read the tourney description (or simply ignore it).

What playing TD's should not do is:
1) make players contact abuse@.... for minor tourney trouble
2) ignore requests of players
3) sub players for calling TD
4) adjust results in favor of them, without very good reason


And let me point that out:
If i join a pay tourney, i expect some extra value. A non playing TD (who knows the bridge laws) might be one.

[Gerardo]

No, never, UNLESS there is another person acting as working (NON playing) TD

[inquiry]

The problem with playing directors, at least from the view of YELLOW host, is that problems are VERY FREQUENTLY not handled well by someone who is also playing. This is a problem for yellows, because when a player gets treated poorly by a playing TD (see khaki's post above), who do they contact? Yellow host. I get FAR more complaints about playing TD's than I do about non-playing ones.

Let me give you a case in point. Just the other day, one player thought his opponents were cheating. What does he do? He calls the director to come to his table. Well, director can't come, he is playing. So director ask him, in public chat, to explain the problem, and then the director and the player discuss a hand being played and the allegation that player xxx was cheating. I happened to be kibitizig that tourney and when I realized what was happening I put a stop to it, but this is just one type of problem. Playing directors are VERY quick to throw someone out just to be left alone.

As a yellow, I wish we never allowed playing directors, and it is no coincidence that Rain and Gerardo who expressed this same view are yellows with a lot more responsibility for badly behaving direcotrs than I, and they expressed strongly this view. However, having said that, I feel that playing directors are ok IF... 1-they clearly state in the title fo their tourney and in its descrpiton that the tourney has only a playing director, 2 - users who agree to play in these do so with the understandng that all director rulings and actions are final, with no appeal, and 3 - yellows are never contacted because a playing director made some kind of crappy decision that affected them. I NEVER knowlingly play in a tourneyment with a playing director.

For what it is worth, the concept of a playing director having a non-playing co-director is, well, simply a tourney with a non-playing director. So that is not the issue.

[Brandal]

inquiry, on Jun 15 2005, 07:43 AM, said:

1-they clearly state in the title fo their tourney and in its descrpiton that the tourney has only a playing director, 2 - users who agree to play in these do so with the understandng that all director rulings and actions are final, with no appeal, and 3 - yellows are never contacted because a playing director made some kind of crappy decision that affected them.

I completely agree with you here,basically it must be
understood and accepted by all involved that a tourney
with playing TD is.....well....some "advanced form" of the
MBC room....

I understand the yellow issue here,if people take all these issues
to you then it's no good.

[mr1303]

Some of us England Juniors occasionally organise small tournaments to play in amongst themselves, mostly because we can have more people playing in one of these than a teams game. Here the director is solely a host; if there are any arguments then we have a fight about it on MSN, and whoever shouts loudest about it wins.

I don't see how this causes any difficulties for yellows or anyone else. And the director(s) are playing.

[rona_]

Quote

The true problem is that players don't read the tourney description (or simply ignore it).

Hotshot is right. People go into these tourneys without reading tournament conditions and when there are delays, and complaints, TDs usually tell the players to email abuse.

Not long ago a tournament was posted called SLOWBALL. Conditions of tournament were listed, starting with, " I would prefer that no one signed up for this tournament but if you do, you will play 4 boards in one hour and players who intentionally disconnect or leave will be banned from playing tournaments for a week." Something to that effect, anyway. Within 5 minutes of the tournament being posted there were 117 registrations! I don't think the participants found it funny but I did

[jillybean]

rona_, on Jun 17 2005, 03:22 PM, said:

  .....when there are delays, and complaints, TDs usually tell the players  to email abuse.

Really?

[rona_]

Apologies , delays shouldn't have been in that sentence. I have had the experience though of being at a table where one of the opponents became abusive towards my partner, by unleashing a string of vulgarities just out of the blue, and the TD sent messages to tournament saying email abuse. A non playing TD can sub immediately. Sometimes there are no yellows online to report abuse to and at other times the available yellows are playing tournament, and sometimes, even they tell the members to email abuse. So Yes I would vote against playing TDs.

[guggie]

I am a non-playing TD. So I can and do come at a table when someone is really abusive (which is in my experience not frequently).
The problem is you CANNOT read the previous conversation. Neither can the players with copy paste repeat it for you. So you have to take someone's word for it. That can be enough to sub someone out, make him an enemy, put him on yr private blacklist.

But if someone is really abusive and you think he should be banned from BBO, you need the conversation as it took place.
That is the reason that I ask the players to send a mail to abuse.

The just unpolite & disagreeable players - alas very frequent -, like "very bad play p" get a scold-, a ♣ and a venomous remark in vernacular Dutch on their profile for my private amusement;-)

My pet hate among the just unpolite & disagreeable players are the question marks bombers: "?????". I ask them in dulcet tones if their keyboard is stuck.

[Rain]

I can see a good argument by mr1313, but to argue that we shouldn't bother with the free market, caveat emptor-as long as COC states "playing td" sounds like a shoddy argument to me.

1) if the desire is not to interfere with free market, everyone can be given ability to create tournaments/direct? (khaki's point)

2) users just don't read COC carefully. Fault lies on all sides imo. How big should the wordings be? Right now they are not too big or obvious at all. Just a small "playing td" is easily not noticed by many people. Example 2: TDs who state "playing td, I will not handle calls". So is this person a TD at all? Why is he allowed to direct if he won't handle calls?

3) Can the playing TD with a vested interest in the game rule accurately if he is forced to make rulings detrimental to him? The stakes are small in free tournaments (and pay tournaments should never have these) but nevertheless still present.

4) Carrying the free-market argument a step further. What if there are users who would pay to play in pay tournaments of xxxx playing TD? Maybe directed by Mike Lawrence or something. Can you allow this too?

5) What if the TD changes the COC in the middle of the tournament?

6) What if the TD creates the tournament and doesn't put playing TD, then plays using another ID leaving tournament without a real TD?

I think the yellows receive lots of complaints resulting from playing TDs inability to judge accurately, or even be present to rule. Ben and Rona present rather comical, yet sadly not infrequent examples. There is an easy solution for the rare group who don't need TD rulings or help, like mr1313 and pals---since you don't need much help, have a friend/yellow with TD rights create tourney, or try team games or join a larger tournament or just have 1 person not play or try to bypass the system by creating a tournament with 1 dummy, then subbing + replacing. It is far more difficult to find a solution for the many who are inconvenienced by the playing TD, unless we just put a halt to that practice.

-------------------------
Jilly: Like all groups, BBO TDs are a varied sort. I think there are different degrees of capability, experience, and willingness to take responsibility among the TDs.

There are many reasons to email abuse@. Guggie's point is very true--no way to see what transpired before a TD joins a table, so its hard to rule fairly, and asking users to email abuse could then be sensible.

But there are a number of cases where my colleagues and I are asked to help with problems like ruling, maybe subbing, complaints about non alerts during the tournament, things like that. I think I speak for everyone when I say we're here willingly to help out. But when its a TD matter, like non-alerting/misalerting, and the user then emails us 12 hours later at the behast of the TD, what good can come out of that? We can't go back and enter tournament and adjust score. So a TD who asks his players to "email abuse" for this is being irresponsible. (New TDs given some room to learn and grow of course)

Anyways I think you're a great TD. lol =)

[hotShot]

Instead of discussing, if TD's may play in their own tourneys,
let's develope ideas what can be done to support them.


1) The create tournament should have a "td is playing" checkbox.
The software could than show a symbol like the lock or the $ with the tourney name. The tourney description could than include: "No enmies/PLAYING TD".
The number of participants may than not be larger than xx tables.

2) Instead of the "Call TD button" there is a "chat to playing TD" button. The playing TD should be able to answer it in private or answer to the calling table. This way it is possible to talk to the TD even if he forgot to allow "chat to tourney".

3) If you right click on a chat message now you can copy it. The dialog should be extended with "report rude behaviour to TD". The last e.g. 10 chat messages of the user are than copied ad quoted to the TD. Perhaps the user should agree to submission first, to prevent communication that is too private to be transmitted. This would help non playing TD's as well.

4) Reduce the inactivity timeout. It now takes about 2 minutes, before the system/player notices he has lost connection. During tourneys this should be reduced. So players could sub a missing player themselves.

5) At 8 minutes/board each player has about 2 minutes (120 sec.) to make all his bids and play all of his cards. This is less than 10 seconds per move. If a player needs longer than that he should get delay points for every 5 seconds needed. If a board is unfinished, the side with more delay points will get Ave- the other side Ave+. Delaypoints can be erased, if the board was finished on time. (We need a clever idea, how to handle waiting for explanation here) Disconnects could lead to delay points as well.



PS: Uday has been working on automatic tourneys. From the yellows point of view, they might be even worse than playing TD's.