[luke warm]

sceptic, on Aug 14 2005, 09:23 AM, said:

why then do so many still enter tourneys with a playing TD (this is my pet hate), why do they enter so many tourneys with (alegedly) bad TD's

1- because they don't know any better
2- because there are tourneys available with bad tds

Quote

may be the answer is they just want to play some stable games with their p, or it is a good place to meet future friends and partners.

can't the same be done in an environment where the rules aren't only known but adhered to? love or hate the acbl, at least when their td rules on something it's based on some sort of understanding of duplicate bridge laws

Quote

Stop belittling a TD for trying to run a tourney how he wants, if you don't like it . don't play in his tourneys, avoid the TD's you think are bad.

no dice, wayne... either the quality of directors will improve or the complaints will continue (and probably grow)... the only way that isn't true is if uday/fred/sheri step in and ban all posts relating to the subject

jilly kat said:

If a person wants help it is readily available, there are MANY people willing and able to help. I don’t see a large number of TD’s asking for training, nor a large number of people complaining about TD’s - they are a minority.

I am opposed to unnecessary organizations and ‘rating systems’ - to me they appear to be just another way for people with over inflated ego’s to compete with others over inflated ego’s.

your first paragraph is kinda what this is about... one can create team matches, private and public clubs, etc., if one is of the opinion that duplicate bridge rules aren't all that important in duplicate bridge events... but in a tourney (and *especially* in a free tourney because so many enter them for economic considerations), i see nothing wrong with insisting that tds in these tourneys receive training, whether they ask for it or not... let's turn the minority you speak of into a majority

i'm opposed to anything that's unnecessary... there seems to be more than enough anecdotal and other evidence that td training is necessary, imo

[jillybean]

luke warm, on Aug 14 2005, 10:31 AM, said:

i'm opposed to anything that's unnecessary... there seems to be more than enough anecdotal and other evidence that td training is necessary, imo

There is a handful of very vocal posts complaining about the quality of TD's - I can only assume the 100's of others playing in free tournaments either don't care, avoid the TD's who make "bad" rulings or haven't had any problems.


(this is a merry go round - I've got to get off it!)

I have missed the other evidence.

Complaining about bad TD's here is useless and perhaps harmful, those TD's that continue to make bad rulings are not going to read this. To improve the situation new capable TD's, & wanna-be TD's are needed.
Continuing to run TD's down is not likely to attract them.

[guggie]

[QUOTE]
6) Communicate with people not speaking your language.

There is nothing you can do about this except restrict your tournaments to those who speak languages that you or your co-TDs do.


About the problem with the non-english bridgers. A lot of them come from countries with limited financial resources. Should I close my free tournaments to them? If you play ONE payed tournament a day, it sums up to 365$ a year. Quite a large sum.
I want to do something back for BBO for all the free Vuegraphs I enjoy so much. I like to give people the opportunity to participate in tournaments.
The problems arising from language barriers are huge, but limiting your tournament to english speakers is the easy way out, leaving a lot of BBO players out in the cold.

[jillybean]

candybar, on Aug 14 2005, 07:24 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Aug 14 2005, 08:38 AM, said:

5) Make decisions under strict time constraints (Minutes)

6) Communicate with people not speaking your language.

7) Have knowledge of multiple different bidding systems.

8) Find suitable subs for people who have fallen off their chair or walked out of the building all together.

These things are not particularly relevant to the discussion of TDs who know the Laws, but more to the TDing process. I addressed a couple of them in the TD Wish List, such as delayed results and a tournament management window to help speed things up.

However, to address your points,

jillybean2, on Aug 14 2005, 08:38 AM, said:

5) Make decisions under strict time constraints (Minutes)

Thorough knowledge of the Laws will help with this.

jillybean2, on Aug 14 2005, 08:38AM, said:

6) Communicate with people not speaking your language.

There is nothing you can do about this except restrict your tournaments to those who speak languages that you or your co-TDs do.

jillybean2, on Aug 14 2005, 08:38, said:

7) Have knowledge of multiple different bidding systems.

General familiarity with the main bidding systems and conventions is helpful, but not critical. A knowledgeable TD can apply the Laws without having to know the details of a system.

jillybean2, on Aug 14 2005, 08:38, said:

8) Find suitable subs for people who have fallen off their chair or walked out of the building all together.

This is a function of the software and at the moment is quite useable, not much of a problem in my experience.

This response was to a post asking what TD need to know, nothing specific about knowing the laws.

5. Yes knowing the rules will help, still a problem of time constraint exists. Something which I would assume is not the same issue in a real life tournament.

6. See Guggies post

7.I am not talking about detailed knowledge, how does a TD deal with alert issues with no knowledge of a system? Very difficult.

8. The key here is SUITABLE, any bunny , (oops I mean any BODY) can sub a player with another random player.

[Brandal]

inquiry, on Aug 5 2005, 06:30 AM, said:

The policy is to let just about anyone who ask to be a director of free tourneyments get approval. The idea is to have plenty of directors so members can find a free event if they want. Unfortunately, occassionally people unsuited to be directors ask and are approved. When people have done things like this in the past, they have had their ability to run tourneys removed. Some have even been banned from the BBO gaming site. Reporting to abuse is clearly the right thing to do.

Would be interesting to know how many bad rulings
are reported to abuse per 20 000 boards played in tourneys.

A conservative guess:
There are 2 new tourneys started every hour,
averaging 40 tables and playing 10 boards.

So 800 accumulated every hour,making it 19200 boards
in 24 hours.

Shouldn't abuse and this forum be flooded beyond belief
if the bad rulings are as bad a problem as it seems to
some here?

For the record I think the number is higher than 20 000 boards
played per 24 hours if counting pay tourneys.

Would be interesting to know.....

[coyot]

jillybean2, on Aug 14 2005, 08:38 AM, said:

coyot, on Aug 14 2005, 02:44 AM, said:

Add anything I left out... And ask yourself - is it so hard it would scare out anyone good from the 90%? (I really don't mind the systematically bad TDs to leave...)

5) Make decisions under strict time constraints (Minutes)

6) Communicate with people not speaking your language.

7) Have knowledge of multiple different bidding systems.

8) Find suitable subs for people who have fallen off their chair or walked out of the building all together.

5) The time pressure is the biggest cause of problems: When a TD does not KNOW how to handle a problem, he will simply follow the least-resistance rule, often equaling to running away If the TD knows how to handle a problem, he can either do it immediately or gather necessary evidence and tell the players (just as real life TD does) that he will have a look at it later. After the tourney he will look at the movie, compare that with evidence and testimony from players and make a decision. It might not be 100% perfect, but will usually be much better than a quick guess at the table under time pressure.

(Note that here it would be VERY welcome to allow a TD to "delay" the computation of results when he knows he is going to do some adjusting...)

6) This is the problem of entrants. My tourney description ALWAYS says that the TD speaks English and Czech. Next time, I will update the description to emphasize that inability to communicate with the TD will cause all problematic cases and adjusts decided against the side that does not talk. (I.e. if you can't explain why you want an adjust, you won't get it. If opps want an adjust and you cannot clarify your actions, they will get the adjust.)

7) Not necessary, although helpful. Full disclosure applies to explanations of your bids and your system to TD as well as to opps. You might rely on the fact that the TD does not know your system and try to trick him, but if he happens to know the system, he will smoke your ass to hell.

8) Any two-fingered trained animal can do this - you only need a right click and a left click (and the little bit of knowledge about where to click ) But nevertheless, a good idea that this got number 8, because anyone who thinks that this is the only responsibility of a TD will perhaps realize that there are some more, although not necessarily seven

[guggie]

about nr 8
BEFORE the right click option I used to look at the partner of the future sub, than on the sublist, and tried to make as good a match as possible. It took some trouble but could be very rewarding

I succumbed to the ease of the right click, I admit, and now I let Fortune decide. Nevertheless it would be handy if we could do some matching again in an easy way.

Besides: ALL TD activities would be a lot easier if not the pop-up TD calls killed every activity like adjusting and talking to players. You are in the midst of a heavy discussion about non alerts, you typed 2 lines, and - flop - a TD calls destroyes your lines. You start a reply to the TD caller to wait a moment, - flop - comes the next TD call from the player who wants a reply. Started reply gone too, now.
Uday would make me SO happy if he changed the destroying quality of the pop up TD call.

[candybar]

Check out the thread in Tournament Directing section called "TD Wish List". Most of these things are on it, and if not, add them. I think eventually Fred and Uday will do something to improve the TD Software, so now is the time to make your wishes known.

[Walddk]

Brandal, on Aug 15 2005, 12:10 PM, said:

Shouldn't abuse and this forum be flooded beyond belief
if the bad rulings are as bad a problem as it seems to
some here?

They should, absolutely! Do you know what the problem is? Most players don't know if they get a bad ruling or not, so they just comply with anything the TD may say and do.

Too many TDs get away with this. They may even think that they have made a correct ruling (according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge). If that is the case, how can those individuals become better TDs?

Ignorance is no crime, but it's silly not to at least try to improve. The TDs in question know perfectly well if they are familiar with the laws or not.

Another reason why you don't get more complaints is the simplest of them all: Most players can't be bothered even if the ruling is somewhat dubious (to be diplomatic). They just get on with things.

Others don't compromise.

Roland

[candybar]

I am one of the ones who doesn't like to compromise, and I do know the rules.

Yesterday I posted about the director who insisted on explaining the alerted 2S bid for the opponent who refused to explain, and booted me from the tournament when I objected.

I sent the incident to Abuse as suggested, and here is the answer I got:

"I will remind [name removed] about proper bridge rules, and note this incident. I believe TD [name removed] was trying to be helpful, in case [name removed] was unable to communicate due to language problem, and see no reason to fault him for this. "

Correctness aside, I really don't think Abuse is the best person to saddle with complaints about bad director rulings. Bad behavior, even of TDs, yes, but maybe we should have some other person willing to look at ruling problems and help educate the TDs who make poor ones.

[helene_t]

candybar, on Aug 15 2005, 11:00 PM, said:

Correctness aside, I really don't think Abuse is the best person to saddle with complaints about bad director rulings.  Bad behavior, even of TDs, yes, but maybe we should have some other person willing to look at ruling problems and help educate the TDs who make poor ones.

Indeed, Abuse is not an appeal committee. We have had the discussion about appeal committees elsewhere and at present they do not exist.

As for the actual case: it sounds as if the TD was trying to be helpful. It is possible that the TD was unaware of the fact that he's not supposed to explain a player's calls, but more likely that he was just looking for a quick, practical solution. After all, your opponent had been asked several times to provide an explanation and refused to do so.

[edited] Be nice to TDs, even to clueless TDs, and certainly to TDs who occasionally make minor mistakes in stressing situations.

This post has been edited by helene_t: 2005-August-16, 05:56

[candybar]

helene_t, on Aug 16 2005, 02:06 AM, said:

...It is possible that the TD was unaware of the fact that he's not supposed to explain a player's calls, but more likely that he was just looking for a quick, practical solution. After all, your opponent had been asked several times to provide an explanation and refused to do so.

Helene, I agree with you in every respect except one: The TD was not unaware that he shouldn't explain, because I very clearly (and fairly nicely) told him so and why. The opponent EXPLICITLY refused to explain his bid -- he is the one that the TD should have booted from the tournament.

[Brandal]

candybar, on Aug 16 2005, 07:53 AM, said:

Helene, I agree with you in every respect except one: The TD was not unaware that he shouldn't explain, because I very clearly (and fairly nicely) told him so and why. The opponent EXPLICITLY refused to explain his bid -- he is the one that the TD should have booted from the tournament.

I'm sure most bridgeplayers and TDs know that
it's not the TDs business to explain bids/agreements.

Next thing you'd know is the opps explain your bids

Joke aside,I think issues like these could be solved
without booting a player and without hammering a
lawbook on anyone's head.

[candybar]

Sigh, another one for the telling.....

The setting: A tourney that prohibits Polish Club and Psyches completely.

Hand 1: K10542, K5, K4, Q1072 -- bidding goes P P 1C with this hand by a Polish player whose profile said Polish Club. When asked, he claimed they were playing SAYC but he felt like bidding 1C in the 3rd seat. TD came, asked what system they are playing several times, and they never answered. "I'm watching them", the TD told me privately and left the table.

Hand 2: A107, 82, J5, J109832 -- same player, bidding goes 1C 1S 2H P P(!), no alerts. TD comes back, says "It's not a psyche, it's a light opening."

Is it any wonder that players are confused and frustrated at the TDs?

Earlier today, I was at a tournament with a playing TD who had NOT posted that s/he was playing. There was almost a revolt by the end of the tournament, with at least 5 people making derogatory public comments to the tournament about the incompetence of the TD, and the TD was booting people right and left, apparently for expressing their discontent.

[the hog]

Before whingeing you would do better to find out what Polish Club actually is. You would then realise that the pairs you are playing are clearly beginners.

Hand 1 is a 1S opening in Polish C, (or a pass if you are a bit more conservative). The 1C opening here is a dead giveaway that you are playing a beginner.

Hand 2 - here you may have a legitimate complaint, as this is not an opening bid, light or otherwise. However as tournaments that prohibit psyches are not bridge tournaments anyway but rather some other game it may be an opening bid in that game. Perhaps you should ask the TD what game was being played.

[Brandal]

Walddk, on Aug 15 2005, 02:45 PM, said:

Brandal, on Aug 15 2005, 12:10 PM, said:

Shouldn't abuse and this forum be flooded beyond belief
if the bad rulings are as bad a problem as it seems to
some here?

They should, absolutely! Do you know what the problem is? Most players don't know if they get a bad ruling or not, so they just comply with anything the TD may say and do.

Too many TDs get away with this. They may even think that they have made a correct ruling (according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge). If that is the case, how can those individuals become better TDs?

Ignorance is no crime, but it's silly not to at least try to improve. The TDs in question know perfectly well if they are familiar with the laws or not.

Another reason why you don't get more complaints is the simplest of them all: Most players can't be bothered even if the ruling is somewhat dubious (to be diplomatic). They just get on with things.

Others don't compromise.

Roland

I agree with everything you say Roland,but....

Online it is not so easy to educate,improve,unless
a big effort is made.

What I suggest as a first step is to remove TD privelege
for those who make horrendous decisions,like playing TD
adjusting scores for himself,booting players he doesn't
like and so on.

I think we all can live with the occasional dubious
ruling,but I also agree it's silly to not try improving
TD skills.

Knowing the Law isn't the same as knowing how to
apply the Law,enforce the Law.

[DrTodd13]

candybar, on Aug 15 2005, 01:00 PM, said:

I am one of the ones who doesn't like to compromise, and I do know the rules.

Yesterday I posted about the director who insisted on explaining the alerted 2S bid for the opponent who refused to explain, and booted me from the tournament when I objected.

I sent the incident to Abuse as suggested, and here is the answer I got:

"I will remind [name removed] about proper bridge rules, and note this incident. I believe TD [name removed] was trying to be helpful, in case [name removed] was unable to communicate due to language problem, and see no reason to fault him for this. "

Correctness aside, I really don't think Abuse is the best person to saddle with complaints about bad director rulings. Bad behavior, even of TDs, yes, but maybe we should have some other person willing to look at ruling problems and help educate the TDs who make poor ones.

I'll keep repeating it until it gets done. (Same thing happened to me a couple weeks back. I clicked on a bid and opp hit escape. I clicked on bid again, and opp hit escape again. This went on for about 30 iterations.) I personally think that to stop this behavior and (largely) eliminate the language barrier, we need to pop up a box where someone can describe length/shortness in each suit, a range of points, bal/unbal/unknown, and maybe a couple other things. When someone clicks on your bid then this box pops up and you should not be able to get rid of it by hitting escape. The only way to get rid of it would be to complete each section. Only then would an "OK" button appear that you could click. BBO enforces most of the rules of bridge and I think it should enforce this one as well. In real life, you can't just sit there and refuse to explain your bids. Refusing to explain should be something that the BBO software prohibits.

[pigpenz]

Full Disclosre as simple as that, its part of the game.

Funniets one I has was one opp doubles my partners raise of my minor suit to the four level with this response on the query.

" I dont have to tell you what my double means!"

Ok i thought so we played 4♣x +1

[jillybean]

DrTodd13, on Aug 19 2005, 09:13 AM, said:

I'll keep repeating it until it gets done. (Same thing happened to me a couple weeks back. I clicked on a bid and opp hit escape. I clicked on bid again, and opp hit escape again. This went on for about 30 iterations.)

May I suggest, click on a bid once perhaps twice, if you get no response call the TD.


jb

[inquiry]

pigpenz, on Aug 19 2005, 12:22 PM, said:

" I dont have to tell you what my double means!"

Do us a favor, just drop any yellow a note the name of people who respond like this.

We assuem they don't understand how wrong this is, even if they happened to be playing in an internet coffeehouse at the time. We will gently explain the rules to them, and tell them that they need to read the rules of this site. If they then continue to violate our site rules (this is a violation) we will more forceable explain why it is wrong.