[jw_nl]

In December I blacklisted a player. In April and May I was removed twice from tourneys of a group of TD's creating free tournaments. The player I had blacklisted turned out to be the co-TD who had removed me. After this experience I didn't participate in all tournaments of this group until 2 weeks ago, when they needed subs urgently. I joined the sublist, got subbed in immediately and after the auction and playing 9 tricks I was removed. My "friend" had struck again.

I asked the opinion of Abuse and I heard they will not interfere in such cases. Currently, BBO's stand is that they should allow free tournaments and BBO members enough freedom to let each choose which tournaments are good, which TDs are good, (or in the TD's case, choose who they wish to direct for). They step in when there is clear abusive behaviour, such as a TD adjusting scores to give his friends good boards, or a TD trying to schedule tournaments to harm other users, things like that.

Firstly the free market principle:
If there would be only a few BBO TD's it would be possible to judge how they are directing. With many TD's (many, many hundreds like now) and also by the existence of groups of TD's it's really impossible for an individual to select the good ones and avoid the bad ones. Why should every (new) player have to experience the quality of BBO TD's ? This results in more disappointments and annoyance than needed.

Secondly the free hand of the TD:
A TD can exclude a player by making him enemy or by writing the name on a customlist. If a player can't register for a tournament he will know he is blacklisted. That's OK.
In my opinion a TD should make a choice: Either exclude players at tournament creation time OR accept having blacklisted players in his tournament and not removing them if these players don't misbehave during that tournament.

For me the simple solution is (again) not to participate in all tournaments of the group. I can't select tourneys my friend isn't codirecting because names of co-TD's are not in the descriptions of the tournaments. It would be fine if the names of the host AND all co-TD's were written in a standard way in the description automatically by the software.

I asked the group if they had rules concerning this case. I'm waiting for an answer 11 days now . Their site and Tournament Rules show in the Zero Tolerance chapter Respect for opps, partner, TD, bridge and BBO. I would suggest the additions Respect from TD's for subs and Respect from TD's for the common blacklist. And if a TD refuses to commit to the common groups blacklist? Just remove him.

I have never been blacklisted by the group. I couldn't see which TD's were directing. A co-TD removes me during play. The sub had to guess the first 9 tricks and had to play the last 4. For this TD-behaviour I only have one word: RUDE ! Not only to me but also to the other 3 players.

Your opinion please.

Jan Willem Beek

[McBruce]

As a TD on BBO, unafilliated with any group of tourneys, I find several troubling items from the original post:

BLACKLIST REVENGE: I don't like the idea that Player A, after banning Player B from his tourney, might be banned from Player B's tourney as retribution. This seems wrong.

SHARING BLACKLISTS: The groups running BBO tourneys shouldn't do this. If a player's misbehavior is severe, contact abuse. If not, you have the right to exclude the player from your tournaments, but not from other people's events.

SUB IN AT TRICK 9: Any good TD should know better. Get the declarer to claim (or decide what the score will be and adjust to that score) and then make the substitution. Not fair to the sub to plunk him in at trick 9 without any indication of what to play/keep.

CAVEAT EMPTOR: The original poster would have had his post edited had he mentioned the group whose tournament contained the incident. But if BBO abuse will not take action against any of the above practices and we are not allowed to expose the perpetrators in the forums, what option do we have? I watch these forums and if there is a complaint without names that involves something I have done as TD, I own up to it and explain my side. The group involved here should do the same and explain their actions.

[epeeist]

I agree with everything the prior posts have said.

Perhaps it should go in suggestions for software, that TD can set either: (1) substitutes must meet same conditions as registrants (skill, custom list, exclusions, club member, whatever); or (2) substitutes do not need to meet same conditions? As I understand it, substitutes currently need not meet the entry requirements (club membership, skill level, whatever).

My own practice is, I do not knowingly register as a substitute for any tournament which would not have accepted me as a normal registrant (with some exceptions, e.g. if I ever become "advanced" I'd still be willing to sub in BIL tournaments), as a matter of principle (and spite... ). But if there's a custom list or exclusions, as jw_nl notes, one is not necessarily aware one is on that list, unlike other conditions that one can see in the description when choosing to join the sub list.

[inquiry]

No one should be subbed out while playing a hand. It is unfair to field to have a player have to play the last half of a hand without seeing the first half.

I suggest a report on that, surely abuse will at least point out the obviousness of this proposition.

[belladonna]

I had a few problemas with td's and imho we as TD should set example of good behavior - not t other way around.

A TD that was blacklisted by me - started his own tourney and post them 5-10 min before mine, ( he threatened me that if i will not let him play my tourney he will do this - was via interpeter since he dsnt speak english).
Another decided to direct a tourney while playing in mine (he was registered with a p and after few hands asked to leave)

He also belongs to a 'group' of td - seem the Td that was schedualed - was playing another tournement,he told me he dsnt see anything wrong with what he did.
So with all due respect to directors - maybe is time to try and make sure we all behave according to bbo rules ourselves.

[Dwingo]

jw_nl, on Jul 21 2005, 02:42 AM, said:

For me the simple solution is (again) not to participate in all tournaments of the group. I can't select tourneys my friend isn't codirecting because names of co-TD's are not in the descriptions of the tournaments. It would be fine if the names of the host AND all co-TD's were written in a standard way in the description automatically by the software.

Agree, it would be great if participants know who the Main TD and co-TD's are, before the start and anytime during the tourney.

Hopefully Fred & Uday could incorporate this in the future versions of BBO.

Godwin

[guggie]

Furthermore, the loss of jw_nl as TD is great, as he created free, well directed tournaments on a daily basis. The BBO community is the great loser.

[mink]

If a player is removed without having done anything wrong in the current tourney, this should be enough reason for abuse to act. I do not think that a special rule is required for this - it is obvious to me that a player who has entered my tourney is allowed to finish it as long as he behaves and does not lose connection. In the last tourney I directed (I was not the host) there was a player whom I had blacklisted some time ago. All I did was watching him at times when I was not needed elsewhere, and I finally subbed him and his partner only because both lost connection.

I even do not think that the whole issue of tourney director qualification is something that can be handled by the free market, because as a player in 9 of 10 tourneys the director is not needed at my tables, and when a director happens to acts, even a bad director usually succeeds in subbing non-responsive player (really easy since right-click was implemented) - so most time I cannot judge if he does a good job or not. This way, it takes a long time until a bad tourney director is identified by a significant amount of players. But even then he can continue, just with a few tables less than he would have if he was a good director, or maybe even with the same number of tables if the tourney is scheduled at a time when many like to play and therefore the tourney is full anyway.

Karl

[scoob]

i think i've said this before, but i'll say it again:

someone needs to start a 'union' of bbo TDs who are either actual accredited TDs or have been trained by the same

members of said 'union' could advertise in their tourneys that they are a [union name] approved tournament etc etc.

i, for one, would give preference to these tourneys over others, as i'm sure many others would. those who don't care whether a TD actually knows the Laws or not can play anywhere they wish.

i feel that over time these union approved tournaments & directors would become the majority and the preference amongst the bbo community.

fred has made it pretty clear that he has no interest in undertaking something like this on his own, per bbo's policy - understandably - but that doesn't mean the community cannot take it upon itself.

[pigpenz]

scoob, on Jul 21 2005, 05:00 PM, said:

i think i've said this before, but i'll say it again:

someone needs to start a 'union' of bbo TDs who are either actual accredited TDs or have been trained by the same

my two cents for whats its worth anyone who directs a game should be qualified at a director....not it used to be you used to have to past a test to become certified..but now event the acbl doesnt even have certified directors for club games.

As we can see from alot of posts on the forums, most people really dont understand the laws of bridge, at least the certified directors have read the book at least once

So now it gets down to why one wants to run a game?
I have run games poorly for wanting to see the statistical point of view when games even out,say for the number of boards it takes for a non 80% game to win

But most of the times when directing, I find that most of the time is taken for
1. sitouts
2. people quitting in round
3. late plays where time runs out
this last one is about the only one where i have to actually look at the hands and decide where the contract is headed.

I think probablly in a pay game the players are more vested in staying in the complete game so one is morel likely to actually have to make a ruling once in a while...wouldnt that be great!

I have tried toget the ACBL to let me run an experimental 26 board game, but I havent ever heard back from them, almost 2 weeks. I think incases like that where people are willing to spend the time for a whole game( cause of time) the TD would be more diligent and the players would also know the other players cause it would most likely be the same players. So director and players would begin to feel each other out as to what is normal.

[coyot]

Perhaps it would be worth organizing within BBO.

I know it would be a pain, but a real-life TD could theoretically prepare a set of test-cases, which the wannabe-TDs would have to solve within a short-time period (to disallow research, cheating and cooperation).

Any person who would pass this test would be given "BBO-qualified TD" label or such.

I guess the test should handle a few typical cases of wrong claims, unexplained bidding, using UI (hesitations) etc.

I think that deciding claims is about the hardest part. When you play on BBO and refuse a claim, the declarer then sees your cards and may change his plan to make the contract - and (way back) it happened that the TD refused to adjust - even though the "correct" play was different from the "percentage" play.

Those BBO-qualified TDs could possibly be under a stricter scrutiny.

I'm thinking about the possibility that BBO would automatically log all chat between TD and his tournament (and possibly his actions). This way, buth abusive players and abusive TDs could be caught and dumped

[Gerardo]

<BBO hat off>
An 'union' could be harmful without a published, objective way to qualify TDs.

Scheduling tourneys should be kept far, far, far away of the business of said 'union'.

Like the TD qualifying program, though
<BBO hat on>

Claimer side, when claim is refused, don't see the cards. Non claimer side does.
Anyway, that's why you should fill the statement field when claiming (if you don't do it, and there is an alternative losing line (see the rules, could be careless but not irrational, sadly it depends on (TD appreciation of) player level, so it is subjetive), TD may(should) rule for the non claimer side).