[UdcaDenny]

3 years ago I lost my TD rights for naming a tour NO TURKISH REDOUBLES. Gerardo gave me a message and told me to cancel the tour and I got nervous and didnt find out how to do it before he closed it down. Then he thought I didnt listen but I tried and was not fast enough. I like Turkey and have many turkish friends, also I have an apartment in Alanya and Im not a racist. Bridge is a big part of my life and I love this game but dont like when people gamble too much. Its not poker. After that I asked in lobby several days that all turkish players shud forgive me. I mailed to both Abuse and rain but they never answered. Many players also many turkish say they miss my tours and that I was a fair TD. 3 years is a long punishment and I think a person always shud get a second chance.
I waited two weeks now without getting a reply from Abuse.
Did validate and nothing in my spam.

Denny=udcadenny

[jtfanclub]

UdcaDenny, on Feb 2 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

3 years ago I lost my TD rights for naming a tour NO TURKISH REDOUBLES.

I assume by a "Turkish Redouble" you meant an auction like

1♠ P 2♠ P
4♠ X XX

Where the XX just shows 13 cards...going for all or nothing. I don't think Turkish Redoubles are bad strategy if you're playing to win or go home in a short tourney (if you make it, you get a great score, if you don't make it, you weren't going to win the tourney anyways even if it's just doubled). Do people from Turkey consider it insulting? Can't say I've ever used the phrase online, but I have in clubs. If it's insulting, I'll stop.

I can understand coming here if you haven't gotten a response. Best of luck!

[Old York]

As a tournament host you do not have any right to decide what a player's re-double means, unless it is an obvious sabotage bid.

I have never before heard the phrase you used, and frankly, I would be offended if I saw it as the Tournament Name.

Also, bridge IS a gambling game, especially if you play rubber at $1 per point

Perhaps a 3 year ban is draconian, but there may have been many complaints.

Tony

[mtvesuvius]

Old York, on Feb 2 2009, 02:45 PM, said:

As a tournament host you do not have any right to decide what a player's re-double means, unless it is an obvious sabotage bid.

I was directing a individual tournement when I saw this auction:

(1♣) - 7♣ - (X) - P
(P) - XX - (P) - P
(P)...

I adjusted the board after declarer went for -4000, this was a problem because I wanted to leave the score for the 7♣ bidder and the opponents and adjust it for his partner. The TD software does not allow it, so I have an Ave- to the 7♣ bidder, and warned him to never do it again or he would be barred and subbed on the spot... I was wondering if there was a way to give a different score for each of the players?

Anyway... As for hat you named the tournement, I have occaisionally used the term in private, but never in public, as it can easily be offensive...

[jillybean]

You have a lot more tolerance than I do! This type of player doesnt even get a warning before being put on the ban list. I'd sub the player and adjust A=+, I dont want to penalise the sub, the innocent partner and the rest of the field.
Still people continue to do this sort of thing in free tourneys, perhaps if TD's shared ban lists there would be some incentive not to.

[inquiry]

mtvesuvius, on Feb 3 2009, 05:27 PM, said:

Old York, on Feb 2 2009, 02:45 PM, said:

As a tournament host you do not have any right to decide what a player's re-double means, unless it is an obvious sabotage bid.

I was directing a individual tournement when I saw this auction:

(1♣) - 7♣ - (X) - P
(P) - XX - (P) - P
(P)...

I adjusted the board after declarer went for -4000, this was a problem because I wanted to leave the score for the 7♣ bidder and the opponents and adjust it for his partner. The TD software does not allow it, so I have an Ave- to the 7♣ bidder, and warned him to never do it again or he would be barred and subbed on the spot... I was wondering if there was a way to give a different score for each of the players?

Anyway... As for hat you named the tournement, I have occaisionally used the term in private, but never in public, as it can easily be offensive...

submit the player name and date of the hand to abuse at bridge base dot com. The person doing this in a tournament will have trouble playing in ANY tournaments for a while. Repeat performances and it is possible they will never play in any tournaments on BBO again.

[Gerardo]

mtvesuvius, on Feb 3 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

I adjusted the board after declarer went for -4000, this was a problem because I wanted to leave the score for the 7♣ bidder and the opponents and adjust it for his partner.

I don't think this is legal, anyway. Poor bidder partner is stuck with it. Any result (and also PPs) are assigned on a pair pasis, even in an individual.

Please correct me if wrong.

[blackshoe]

Not quite.

Law 12C3 said:

in individual events the director enforces the rectifications in these Laws and the provisions requiring the award of adjusted scores equally against both members of the offending side, even though only one of them may be responsible for the irregularity. But the director shall not award a procedural penalty against the offender’s partner if of the opinion that offender’s partner is in no way to blame.

[H_KARLUK]

My goals as a TD : To give courage for Bridge addicts it's nice to follow FAIRPLAY & POLITE COMPANY & SPORTMANSHIP SPIRIT.

Sometimes I scare. I feel no need to type for a blind. Anyways my responsibilty is as a TD to keep th unity in a peaceful way.

Everything nicely fixed by system. Then I have no idea why some people still ignore. I believe reading a must. But practically I see no way to force. It all depends goodwill.

On free pairs I do not see much behavioral confliction between contestants. Unfortunately individuals a bit unusual. I forgot how many player I saw upset and bid 7Nxx with their junk cards. Also I do not want to remember how many complaints i received about abuse issues during session.

Tho I remind procedure and giving link showing "what and how to do" I am still unsure it works.

Th problem is being busy with extra and irrelevant things on a running tournament. I do not really wish to be picky but seems soon I have to create my tournaments "for members only".

I still do not want to believe myself. If th reason is "chat" button..Omg. Without that small window th game would not be social anymore. It's really easy to keep the silence removing that option under any software. It's a thing like a "dynamite". I bet r.i.p Mr Alfred Nobel did not invent it for destroy purposes. But it's a fact that later on turned out to supply damages.

Trying to belittle others, negative traits, only relaxing when in top dog. Sarcasm, arrogance. Not my cup of tea. I am sorry for such players who they feel better.

Hey, this game is still nice. I assure no need such toys. Just honestly try to test your skills. It's indeed fine.

[Gerardo]

Thanks Ed.

[UdcaDenny]

I didnt post here to get a discussion about funny redoubles. The reason I did this is that I never got a warning from abuse or a second chance. They never answered my mails 3 years ago and same now, been waiting 2 weeks. Even if this Forum is not the right place I do this because I feel ignored and harsh judged.

udcadenny

[jillybean]

Sounds to me there could have been more going on that just the title of your tournament. If you arent getting a response to your emails, posting in this forum
gives you a method of venting but likely wont help your cause.
I know first hand how things can be misconstrued on the internet and it is often equally difficult to sort things out online.
Frustrating and unfair? possibly but this isnt going to help.

[sceptic]

Quote

I have asked for forgiveness and wanting to know how long time my punishement will last but I never get any answers

Maybe this is the issue (I have a great deal of respect for BBO and would not critisie them for thier decision), But, I actually can see this guys point, we all hate being ignored (if this is the case, if it is not the case, then I am not sure what OP is trying to achieve)

[matmat]

sceptic, on Feb 8 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

Quote

I have asked for forgiveness and wanting to know how long time my punishement will last but I never get any answers

Maybe this is the issue (I have a great deal of respect for BBO and would not critisie them for thier decision), But, I actually can see this guys point, we all hate being ignored (if this is the case, if it is not the case, then I am not sure what OP is trying to achieve)

Or maybe the OP needs to grow up and learn to take "No" as an answer.

You don't know what the situation is, Wayne (I don't either), but maybe they've already answered him early on and now don't want to deal with the hounding so ignore him? who knows.

as far as I am concerned, if you have some sort of a privilege and overstep certain boundaries, you forfeit your right to that privilege and it is well within the granting agent's rights to permanently deny it to you. Grovelling and complaining should not have an impact on this decision.

[qwery_hi]

matmat, on Feb 8 2009, 01:40 PM, said:

sceptic, on Feb 8 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

Quote

I have asked for forgiveness and wanting to know how long time my punishement will last but I never get any answers

Maybe this is the issue (I have a great deal of respect for BBO and would not critisie them for thier decision), But, I actually can see this guys point, we all hate being ignored (if this is the case, if it is not the case, then I am not sure what OP is trying to achieve)

Or maybe the OP needs to grow up and learn to take "No" as an answer.

You don't know what the situation is, Wayne (I don't either), but maybe they've already answered him early on and now don't want to deal with the hounding so ignore him? who knows.

as far as I am concerned, if you have some sort of a privilege and overstep certain boundaries, you forfeit your right to that privilege and it is well within the granting agent's rights to permanently deny it to you. Grovelling and complaining should not have an impact on this decision.

Agree 100%. BBO has no obligation to explain itself either if it feels it has no need to. There are no chains binding members to BBO.

[1eyedjack]

qwery_hi, on Feb 8 2009, 09:51 PM, said:

Agree 100%. BBO has no obligation to explain itself either if it feels it has no need to. There are no chains binding members to BBO.

Whether BBO has an obligation to respond, and whether it is sensible, courteous or even in its best interests to respond, do not necessarily coincide.

I don't think that anyone would dispute that BBO has no obligation to respond.

Nevertheless, courtesy ranks highly in the priorities of the proprieties and ethics of the game, both at the table and away from it, as does the concept of fairness. It would not hurt BBO set a good example in these areas.

We have of course only heard one side of the story, but if the facts are fairly presented by OP then in my opinion BBO has fallen short of those standards. That is of course a big "if". Indeed, courtesy aside, I doubt that BBO relishes getting bombarded by emails from the OP, nor having its linen washed in this thread, both of which could have been avoided by simply responding to the simple requests for information that had been put to it by OP while the matter was still entirely private. So in my opinion it fails the "best interests" and "sensible" tests as well the "courtesy" test (again subject to that "IF").

As to the question of "fairness", again subject to the facts has presented being full and frank, in my opinion a lifetime ban (if it is a lifetime ban) is not a "fair" punishment for the reported crime, despite, as I said before, that BBO is technically within its rights to impose it. That is of course purely a personal opinion.

[helene_t]

I know Denny as a nice guy and it makes me sad to read this thread.

[G_R__E_G]

Quote

Nevertheless, courtesy ranks highly in the priorities of the proprieties and ethics of the game, both at the table and away from it, as does the concept of fairness. It would not hurt BBO set a good example in these areas.

I have dealt with many companies over the years and NONE set a better example of these things than BBO.

[qwery_hi]

G_R__E_G, on Feb 9 2009, 11:00 AM, said:

Quote

Nevertheless, courtesy ranks highly in the priorities of the proprieties and ethics of the game, both at the table and away from it, as does the concept of fairness. It would not hurt BBO set a good example in these areas.

I have dealt with many companies over the years and NONE set a better example of these things than BBO.

Yes, Kudos to Fred and the BBO team

[1eyedjack]

Indeed, in general I agree. I guess everyone should be allowed to fall from grace on the odd occasion. Saying that BBO generally sets a good example is one thing. Saying that this case is an example of setting a good example is another.