[chicken]

Hi all,

my pd (no member of the forum, so he asked me to post for him)

Scoring: IMP

---

bidding goes p-p-?


the TD has banned diabolic things like wilkosz and multi and has forbidden any psyches.so my pd calls TD to ask if a 1♣ or 3♣ bid is considered a psyche.
we play x-fer preempts so weak ♣ would be a 2NT opening.

Chat log of Bridge Base Online session for obaron starting at: Wed Jul 30 13:24:22 2008

chicken: hi all, SEF with many gadgets , udca. FD-file is up!
obaron: hallo

->obaron: Director xxxxx has been requested by obaron
->obaron: Director xxxxx is now at the table as requested by obaron
obaron: mom
->TD: may i open 1♣?
->TD: normal in our style
TD: obaron you cant tAALK LIKE THAT

TD obviously doesnt realize that it was private chat

->TD: long and weak ♣allowed?
->TD: i talk private
chicken: ?
chicken: what?
TD: you are talking at table and private is not allowed either and if you persist you will go
->TD: what am i allowed to bid?
TD: you cant ask that
->TD: weak ♣?
TD: if you dont know how to play leave
->TD: u didnt define psyches.....

my pd alerts and bids the systemic 2NT to show weak ♣

TD: ok enough goodbye
->obaron: You have been replaced, and are no longer playing in this tournament/team game
->TD: ?
->TD: i just wanted to know what is allowed and what not?
->TD: thats what a td is for .....
->TD: it was private chat?

blacklisted and no reply, i tried to talk to him later to explain what happened, but was told that my pd should start to learn bridge.
weird......

[jillybean]

chicken, on Jul 30 2008, 05:26 AM, said:

weird......

and free

[TimG]

chicken, on Jul 30 2008, 07:26 AM, said:

bidding goes p-p-p-

Is there an extra pass in there?

[chicken]

right u are, was 1p too many, white vs. red in 3rd.

[blackshoe]

Your partner should make his call and take his chances. Better yet, neither of you should play in this TD's games. "Vote with your feet" is a player's best tool for dealing with TDs like this.

Blacklisted. Pfui.

[jtfanclub]

Actually, saying 'your partner should learn to play bridge' is probably close enough to Abuse to send it.

Although I am guilty of saying "You are not protected against stupid bids" when somebody makes a WJO of 3♣ with xx xxx xx Jxxxx. Vulnerable. Against not.
The non-alerted definition is weak with clubs. It's weak. It has clubs. No adjustment.

I could probably find a way more diplomatic way to say it.

[barmar]

I'm not sure the director understood the question. Obaron's question seems like he's asking what to bid, like he would at a beginner table, not asking whether his bid would be considered a psyche or violate the convention restrictions.

[jillybean]

chicken, on Jul 30 2008, 05:26 AM, said:

the TD has banned diabolic things like wilkosz and multi  and has forbidden any psyches.so my pd calls TD to ask if a 1♣ or 3♣ bid is considered a psyche.
we play x-fer preempts so weak ♣ would be a 2NT opening.

You obviously knew the rules of the game going in, why on earth would you

a.) Want to play in this sort of game?
b.) Having decided to play the game, pull this stunt?

Your partner appears to simply want to stir things up. If youre going to break these silly rules just do it but either hope you dont get caught or accept the consequences.

[jkdood]

I like to play in the silly BBO free mini's with random partners, especially INDIVs, silly ME I guess.

Anyway, One particular TD there holds many games, and at times that I like to play.

On one hand first board of an INDIV - I doubled the opps, who were headed for down 5 -1100
For reasons I have no real clue of, my pard as defender conceded Down-2 +300 at trick 3, I think he didn't like a card I played or return I made who knows?

The opp of course agreed quickly for a great score for them, maybe 88% matchpoints.

I messaged TD that my pard just did what he did and said I don't think he is even trying or being serious about the tourney, which just started. Please help.

The TD came to the table and I think conversed with my pard and then ejected him. Of course the deal was over and a new hand/pard was coming but anyway I messaged TD: Thank you, will you consider an adjustment please?

NO reply. On the last deal of the mini I re-asked. No reply but I get a message that the Board was NOW ADJUSTED to MAKING (instead of down 2 300) for a ZERO% for me.

I message TD several inquries such as "why" "please explain" "hand was +1100 but became +300 because partner didn't play for real and now you change it to making? Please explain."

NO reply.

SO I reported all of the above to BBO.

NO reply. BUT this TD blacklisted me from ALL of his many mini's.

SO I ask:
How are these TDs selected, monitored, and what am I missing (besides good and fair rulings, politeness, respect, accountability from the management, and entry to games i would still like to play in????)

[jillybean]

jkdood, on Jul 30 2008, 02:22 PM, said:

NO reply. On the last deal of the mini I re-asked. No reply but I get a message that the Board was NOW ADJUSTED to MAKING (instead of down 2 300) for a ZERO% for me.

Too funny for words

[uday]

Quote

How are these TDs selected, monitored, and what am I missing (besides good and fair rulings, politeness, respect, accountability from the management, and entry to games i would still like to play in????)

They are not selected. They opt to ask for the ability to run their own tourneys. If they're members in good standing and have a decent amt. of BBO experience, they are usually granted this ability.

They are not monitored. We sometimes get complaints about TDs. We tend to revoke permissions from people who run their own tourneys and don't seem to be paying attention ( example: missing in action more than once ), are abusive to the players, who break the basic rules of the site ( example: excessively offensive or politically charged tourney titles ), who seem totally inept ( example: won't bother learning how to substitute players ), who chew off too much ( example: run a 100 table tourney with a playing TD ).

Having said that we don't monitor free TDs, we do log all public chat and some private chat ( notably the chat to/from our own guys and very occasionally that of suspected troublemakers )

You can't expect good and fair rulings routinely ( maybe some TDs don't care about rulings as much as they do about creating a relaxed environment ). You can't expect politeness and respect ( language barriers often produce the illusion of rudeness and standards for politeness vary). You can't expect accountability from the management ( although you can help us help you by reporting bad TDs to support@ via email).

Free TDs are just customers who chose to run Tourneys. They are not agents of BBO in any capacity and BBO is not accountable for the quality of the their Tourneys

What you can expect is that BBO will do the best it can to make sure TDs are reasonably polite and are present for their tourneys, that they show up to run their tourneys, and don't deliberately try to be excessively rude to the players.

If you ask me, the issue here was partly a language barrier between the OP and the TD. It is a mildly interesting Q whether a systemic 1C opening with 2 queens and a J is a psychic bid from a mainstream perspective. Maybe the TD needed to forbid destructive systems and HUMs as well, or maybe he thought that the OP was asking him what to bid with the 5 count.

So is it Bridge these guys are hosting? Opinions seem to vary.

Over time, you'll find Tds who suit you. We all do, I think. . Meanwhile, you can run your own games, or help educate TDs in how to run games that adhere more closely to the rules while remaining fun for the TDs.

uday

[matmat]

hmmm

I have several comments & questions

First, regarding the OP.
I am not sure what drives people to want to direct. I think oftentimes it is a misguided feeling of power. A large fraction of the time they have little directing experience and very little willingness to figure out what it is that the players want to do/can do/should do.

I strongly believe that directors should be more closely monitored AND possibly there ought to be a public repository of incidents (positive or negative) and abuse. I think if someone volunteers to run a tournament for everyone, their directing record should be PUBLIC.



Now a quick Q for Uday, when you log private chat, do you make the person aware that you are logging it?

[jkdood]

Thanks Uday for taking he time to prepare and post a thoughtful complete response. I may not agree with all your perspectives, but I appreciate the sincere hard work and effort and reply.

[DrTodd13]

From my own experience, I would say that most free tourney directors who ban psyches in practice define a psyche as an "unorthodox bid" rather than a "bid which deviates from the pairs agreements." On the few rare occasions I have played in a "no psyche" tourney probably most of those times I played forcing pass. The tourney description says nothing about which systems are allowed or disallowed. Some people seem to think that if they say nothing at all that GCC is the default convention card...true for an ACBL tourney but not true when you are in effect your own sponsoring organization. On one rare occasion, I think a director actually said "fair enough" when we said that he said nothing about disallowed systems. The majority of the time though, we have been kicked. If I cared very much and reported this to abuse perhaps they could set the one director straight but that is a rough road to every directory up to speed that way.

How about this idea? When you host a tourney, there is a button on the screen in the user's own language that says "Disallow systems/agreements." When you click on this button you get a few checkboxes to disallow common categories from HUM, brown sticker, red sticker, encrypted carding, etc. Plus, you get a text box to disallow other stuff not covered by the checkboxes. If you don't click on this button you get a final warning via a message box when you create the tourney that all systems are allowed since you chose not to disallow any.

There's a continuum of director requirements from essentially nothing to mandatory training and periodic testing. The latter would be an organizational nightmare for BBO but I think there are a few things the software could fairly easily do that would raise awareness and not require any ongoing human time from BBO management.

[blackshoe]

I became a director because I enjoy solving puzzles - and when players screw up, how to rule is often a puzzle. "Power" has never entered into it for me.

I post on this forum, in particular, and about rulings in general because I think I have useful things to say about how the rules of the game should work. Many responders here have told me that no one cares about the rules, but if that were true, we wouldn't see any posts like the one that started this thread. As for director training, that would be a valuable thing, IMO, but I can understand BBO not wanting to take it on. That kind of leaves it up to individual initiative. Even if one or more individuals did start a "TD school" that would still impose no obligation on them to police their graduates. So I think we're gonna have to live with the status quo- the players' best — and only — option is to vote with their feet.

[matmat]

blackshoe, on Jul 30 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

I became a director because I enjoy solving puzzles - and when players screw up, how to rule is often a puzzle. "Power" has never entered into it for me.

i never said it did for every director... but for the ones i've encountered online it has certainly been the case.

[blackshoe]

matmat, on Jul 30 2008, 08:43 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 30 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

I became a director because I enjoy solving puzzles - and when players screw up, how to rule is often a puzzle. "Power" has never entered into it for me.

i never said it did for every director... but for the ones i've encountered online it has certainly been the case.

All of them?

[matmat]

blackshoe, on Jul 30 2008, 11:09 PM, said:

All of them?

sure... why not?

[blackshoe]

No particular reason. Except that I don't believe it. I think you're exaggerating.

Either that, or you haven't encountered very many TD's online - and I daresay there are some for whom the "power" attraction doesn't apply any more than it applies to me.

[rigour6]

My thoughts:

1. Given how that went, I think the TD who banned your guy did him a favour. Let's be honest, you aren't going to want to stumble into one of his tourneys again by accident. He's helping you make sure that doesn't happen.

2. I don't know about y'all, but anytime I see the "No Psyches" as part of the rules, I think very loooong and hard about whether I want to enter such a tourney. And not because I like to psyche a lot. But because, imnhso, it speaks to a whole mindset, which i will now strawman misdescribe as "I am not interested or concerned with the actual rules of bridge. I am running this tourney according to what I think the rules should be." Well, OK, so we've now established what we're dealing with. Now I understand that some TDs ban them because they don't want to go through the hassle of dealing with people's complaints about psychics etc. I get that. However (and I admit this is personal feeling), my own approach is that since psychics are in fact allowed under the rules, they are part of the game, and I do my players no favours by allowing them some sort of protection against part of the game they don't like. With all due respect, people who don't like psychics need to suck it up, and people who want them banned need to grow up. Just one opinion.

3. I agree that the phrasing your partner used may have caused some confusion to a harried director. You have to remember that while he is chatting with you, the tournament is grinding on, he has do all the subs, other tables are calling to complain etc etc. If he misunderstands the question at the very beginning, he might say "oh brother, I haven't got time for this." And given variance in language abilities, that can happen very easily. I had a tournament the other day where a person lost conn and I subbed them and back on they came and wanted to be subbed into the game again. I try to accommodate these if I can, one problem: he was waiting in the room he wanted to sub into, kibbing - so he can see all 4 hands. So I have to wait and sub him in with no options left in his play, or (what I usually do) I ask him to go to the lobby and then I sub him in when the next board starts. I ask him to go to the lobby. I speak three languages, he speaks at least two - you guessed it, non in common. He thinks I'm insisting he leave the tournament, as if I'm mad at him. I'm private chatting with his partner in the hope she can explain it to him. Meanwhile, 3 other tables are sending me decreasingly polite messages about what's happening at their tables, and I'm doing subs (don't need to leave this table to do that). Eventually it all got done, but it was painful. Then I have to send a message to the sub thanking him for playing two boards and hoping he'll sub again (people who get disconnected and then want back in typically don't give any thought to the sub).

4. Power. Hmmm, in my own case, I started TDing because to my observation (see my past threads ad nauseum) the fact that you can play on this site for free is one of the defining advantages of this site, and I wish to support that aspect of the culture here. I began TDing as a way of "giving back" to BBO for what it gives me. My TDing varies depending on my workload, there's times I go two weeks in a row, maybe three tourneys a day each weekday. Then maybe three months goes by and I don't TD once (I'm probably not online at BBO during that time either).
Once I began TDing I also saw a benefit for my classes, which is to run a series of hands, then sift through them afterwards and see if there is a particular hand which is a good teacher, or where you can see the difference between good bidding/play and bad bidding/play or occasionally inspired bidding/play.
The Power Trip, to the extent is exists for me, consists of having a bunch of people I do something for free for crap all over me, complain, then fail to thank me when it's all done. I typically run tourneys of 16 to 32 tables (it's what I've found requires enough of my attention without in most cases getting to be backed up for one person). That's 64 to 128 people. I average less than one thank you per tourney, and I don't think I'm unusual. (Don't get me wrong, I don't actually care if I'm thanked, but I do note these things.) So into this context, if some twit starts giving me grief, do I enjoy booting and banning them. Your GD right I do, it feels good the same way pulling out a splinter (not the bridge kind) does, the same way if some stranger phoned you up and started insulting you, you'd hang up. Banning rude people is imnsho the duty of anyone who wants the site to be polite. And I use a pretty simple standard, which is whether I'd accept what you are saying if I was directing you in a ftf game, which typically makes the calls very very easy to make. The difference is, without the anonymity of the internet, I believe the vast majority of people I ban would never even think about saying to my face the sort of things they've written to me. When was the last time you heard someone called a c--t at the bridge table? I mean, really.

5. Here's my modified suggestion for "TD rating". The tourney ends, a little box pops up.

"You've just completed a BBO tourney. How was your experience?"
( ) Outstanding
( ) Above Average
( ) Average
( ) Below Average

( ) Prefer not to Say.

The question is not aimed at the TD directly, but at the "experience". You could make it more pointed if you wish.

You run this for a couple of weeks, you'll probably have a good idea of who your "5 Star" TDs are and who your "1 Star" TDs are. The only thing is, people will score based on their mood, how they did in the tourney, whether the opps were rude, if the TD (rightly or wrongly) ruled in the favour, how many subs were needed (only very indirectly related to the TD skill), etc. But you will get an idea, anyway.

Now if you want to take that to the next level, you start posting TD star levels (like buyer or seller ratings on Ebay), and now there's an incentive for TDs to be their best. One thing I've learned in business: you achieve what you measure. If you start measuring how good a job the TDs do, that in and of itself will improve performance - even if you do (almost) nothing else. What you don't measure, you tell people is unimportant. So they treat it like you've told them to.