[arrows]

I mean the online tourney played at BBO.

Is there any offical procedure of this? thanks

[hrothgar]

arrows, on Nov 23 2006, 05:43 AM, said:

I mean the online tourney played at BBO.

Is there any offical procedure of this? thanks

we can always use a good laugh :-)

[keylime]

I got to hear this.

[uday]

There are thousands of bridge clubs in the US (and a few outside the US) that offer ACBL-sanctioned club games. BBO is one such club. The ACBL in memphis (which issues the right to host ACBL games and issue ACBL masterpoints) is not involved with operations of the various clubs, but it does have an interest in maintaining the quality of the games that use its sanction.

If you wish to complain about a ruling at a club, you have two basic choices.

1. You can complain to the club management. In the case of BBO, that is acbl@bridgebase.com and Gweny will process the complaint. You can complain to the owners of the club if you don't think that the person who runs the games is good enough. The owners are Fred/Uday/Sheri. You can reach us via email by appending @bridgebase.com to any of those three names. I suggest that you send the complaint to only one of us.

2. You can complain to the ACBL in memphis that one of their sanctioned clubs (BBO, in this case) issued a bad ruling. The ACBL's contact information is at this page

http://www.acbl.org/...epartments.html

and I suggest you use the "Customer Service" link on that page


I don't know of any club that has an escalation process for rulings at in a club game. Clubs are not required to (as far as a sanction goes).


Who you should contact is a function of your motivation. If your motivation is to vent, any of the above will do. If the motivation is a desire to obtain better rulings in the future, the acbl address at bridgebase com is probably best (so we can understand the issue and discuss it with the TDs). If you motivation is to cause problems for BBO, then a sternly worded complaint to memphis is probably best.
If your motivation is to cause problems for Memphis, then probably emails to various parties in memphis and a few phone calls is best

[jikl]

Uday, I want to congratulate you on such a neutral reply. Many, in your position, would have gone into self-preservation mode, yet you have succinctly given the options and reasons for using each.

Sean

[FrancesHinden]

uday, on Nov 23 2006, 06:16 AM, said:

I don't know of any club that has an escalation process for rulings at in a club game.  Clubs are not required to (as far as a sanction goes).

I assume you are only referring to online clubs here. I can't speak for the ACBL but many f2f clubs in England have escalation processes.

[pigpenz]

arrows, on Nov 22 2006, 09:43 PM, said:

I mean the online tourney played at BBO.

Is there any offical procedure of this? thanks

gweny
acbl
acbl_04
they are all the same person i believe, she is the one in charge of the online acbl games

[arrows]

Thanks Uday and you all for the information!

I just wanna bring your attention to the following
incident, because I believe paying customers in BBO ACBL online tourney deserve
better service than what happened to my friend and me in one of ACBL MP
tourney yesterday.

In one of the hands, our opponents made a speculative scrifice and we got 1100,
a cold top.

After the tourney, THE director adjusted our score of this hand to A+. I asked the reason, the answer was: "because it skewed the result of the all tournament"

(What is that supposed to mean?)

next, I asked by making that adjustment, what rule of ACBL she's referring to. No answer.

[pbleighton]

The level of expertise among BBO ACBL TDs is significantly lower, on average, than in a ftf club game, which in turn is less than that of ftf tournaments. There are some good TDs, but some TDs' competence is lacking (though the attitudes are generally good).

My ftf game costs $9, BBO games are a buck. Complain if you like, but you get what you pay for.

I like the BBO ACBL games, but I don't take them that seriously. I've had a couple of rotten TD calls. BFD.

Peter

[inquiry]

I am going to disagree with Peter. For the most part ACBL TD's are also F2F directors. I don't think their average ability to direct and rule is any worse nor much better than the normal F2F club director.

The online directors have a lot of hassles the F2F directors don't. The anonomyous nature of the game seems to allow people to do silly stuff...and often run away right after that. It seems many online players do not take the game as seriously as the F2F players, and they are not worried about being humilated in front of their neihbors and friends.

So lets handle this ruling. What happened is arrows and his partner bid to a vul game that was making. One opponent had biditis, bid overcalled clubs and then over the vul 4M game decided to take a sacrafice, now offering up his 4 card diamond suit. When that was doubled, he ran willynilly back to 6C which was also doubled.

This hand was a comedy of errors. Arrows and his partner overbid by at least a trick, maybe two or three, so the sacrafice was a phantom. 5!D would be down only two, while 6!C was down four. But there is no evidence that either pair was not trying their best to win. Here the defenders took a gamble and it failed.

The directors ruling seems groundless to me... if EW were not trying and in fact were jerking around, I would give yourside averge + and remove EW. EW were in fact not removed. As far as sckewing the results, this was matchpoints. It is not like some one handed you a gift of 24 imps that would determine the outcome. You got one 100% board. There were plenty of ohter examples of bad bridge (but not intentionally so) that gave out 100% to people in this tournament and the director didn't step in to prevent sckewing the results. I suggest the director is use to having to deal with random 7NTxx opening bids and this is how he/she deals with them. I support this later case rather or not I can quote the actual verse of the law for it. But on this hand, someone trying a save at matchpoints? he should get whatever the result is, as should you.

[pbleighton]

"I am going to disagree with Peter. For the most part ACBL TD's are also F2F directors. I don't think their average ability to direct and rule is any worse nor much better than the normal F2F club director."

You may be right, Ben, you've played a lot more bridge than I have, but the BBO TDs I have experienced average ability to direct is definitely less than that of the ftf club directors I have experienced (only 4, and they have all been decent and experienced). Maybe I have been lucky in my ftf experience, or unlucky in my BBO experience.

You are certainly right about the extra hassles the BBO TDs have to deal with, and my post was not meant as a slam against them, just as an observation. I think a number of the BBO TDs are relatively new to directing, and will improve.

Peter

[inquiry]

Well the bbo has a lot of tournement directors who have no clue how to direct... but the BBO's ACBL directors are ACBL Certified at a minimum, and at least have taken a test on how to direct. Some of the free tournament directors really have no clue at all.

[barmar]

I've taken the ACBL club director course and gotten certified. IIRC, it was an open-book test, so anyone who isn't clueless can pass it. It doesn't really tell how well you'll do under the pressure of running a live tournament. Also, many of the questions on the test are about things that aren't an issue in online bridge: setting up movements, matchpointing by hand, resolving common irregularities like bid/lead out of turn and insufficient bids, fouled boards, etc.

There's really no substitute for experience, IMHO. ACBL BBO tourneys are larger than most f2f club games -- they're more like sectional tournaments in size. And I believe ACBL has a more advanced certification requirement for tournament directors than club directors. Are any of the BBO TDs tournament directors, or are they just club directors?

[uday]

Our TDs are just club directors. Then again, I fear that our games are just club games, and that our customers are just club customers

I know the games feel like sectionals/regionals, and someday we'll convince the ACBL that they ought to be treated as something other than club games, but club games is what they are at the moment.

It is unreasonable to expect that every ruling by every td will please every involved party.

This dreary scenario is all too common. TD makes a ruling. One of the players doesnt like it. He "takes it to the public" in the forums. The discussion then drifts towards the "ACBL sucks" or "BBO TDs suck".

I have only one bit of advice to offer: if a ruling that you consider "wrong" will ruin your entire day, try the more lighthearted free tourneys. You'll save a buck and you'll live longer.

As to this particular hand: This was not a "speculative sacrifice", it was more like our old friend "7Nxx". This was why the TD adjusted the board.

u

[pigpenz]

ACBL TD's usually are certified TD's
i dont agree with the ruling can happen at real bridge table. The nature of 12 board matches tend to cause shooting if you are trying to win the event or be in the top 10 in a large event. If you want to just plaly real bridge and be plus then you have to take alot of results with a grain of salt.

I have had numerous bad rulings by ACBL TD's both on BBO and live....that is why there are committees. But are committes needed for online games? Most likely not unless we get into the real of sanctioned tournaments which pay for overall placing not section placing.

ACBL has made a step forward into this happening with no kibbing in their tourneys. The next step may be an online sectional or regional on BBO, which would be the ultilmate for online bridge....then a committe might make some sense.

[jillybean]

Quote

As to this particular hand: This was not a "speculative sacrifice", it was more like our old friend "7Nxx". This was why the TD adjusted the board.

Without seeing the board I do not have the complete information but I think using this rationale to adjust a board is flawed – once you start making adjustments to completed boards based a judgement call from the TD you have created an unfair advantage.

This then becomes a game where people win or lose depending on the TD’s interpretation of an auction and who shouts the loudest when an unusual result has occurred. If the TD is going to adjust a board for this reason then why not review all boards and adjusted accordingly.

Law12 allows the TD to use his/her discretionary powers and award an adjusted score but only when there has been a violation of the laws, normal play of the board is impossible or an incorrect penalty has been given.

If you take the attitude that this isn’t real bridge and only ‘online bridge’ and expect silly adjustments, nothing will improve. I would really like to see the laws of bridge being followed.


jb

[Walddk]

pigpenz, on Nov 24 2006, 05:51 PM, said:

But are committes needed for online games?

I raised that topic long time ago, and I still think there should be. However, the response was negative by most posters.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...0committee&st=0

Roland

[glen]

uday, on Nov 24 2006, 03:39 PM, said:

This dreary scenario is all too common. TD makes a ruling. One of the players doesnt like it. He "takes it to the public" in the forums. The discussion then drifts towards the "ACBL sucks" or "BBO TDs suck".

This dreary scenario is all too common but you did not present it completely. It is:

TD makes a ruling.
One of the players doesnt like it.
Player attempts discussion with TD (TD does not reply, or gives dismissive reply - see " I asked by making that adjustment, what rule of ACBL she's referring to. No answer.")
Player, frustrated and having a bad experience in the paid tourney, sees no clearly "contact us" method to follow-up on this privately (for example check tourney announcements - there is no notice on how to follow up).
With no knowledge of how to proceed otherwise 'he "takes it to the public" in the forums'.
Other frustrated players have the discussion which then 'drifts towards the "ACBL sucks" or "BBO TDs suck".'

In short there is a communication issue.

One guideline is to compare these cases to f2f, to see things from the customer point-of-view. Although the online to f2f comparison is not perfect, it does help to understand the frustration that arises from these occurrences.

Here in f2f land we might have:

TD is watching players.
TD observes a partnership go for -1100.
TD walks up and tells the table that this will "skewed the result of the all tournament", and that the -1100 partnership is getting A- instead of their bottom, other partnership is getting A+ instead of top.
A+ partnership asks for reason for this ruling.
TD walks away without comment.

How can one think customers are not going to be frustrated with this? Yes, this dreary scenario is all too common, and the customer service approach is not to tell the paying customers to go away, as in switch to "more lighthearted free tourneys".

[keylime]

Uday,

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you here. I think for the most part the directors are attempting to do the best they can, and I am understanding of their efforts.

However, what concerns me, is that the directors are almost using carte blanche in determining the results of the field when they can not accurately determine what the proper score should be, and this has been ongoing for a significant period of time. They have taken the spirit of Law 12C and turned it on its head and that should not happen - they have allowed the average plus/average minus not because they can't adjudicate the score but because they can't bring themselves to understand that bad bridge should NOT be rewarded when the hand is caught in the cookie jar.

I've received personally no less than 4 rulings that were not only bad, but not founded in Law or in the regulations. One of them was so bad that it soured my view of ACBL events for a long time now - a -1700/-2000 at IMP pairs that was as clear as the day is long changed to A+/A- because the director felt it would hurt the field if we were to receive the IMPs we were owed because our opponents, who professed to be expert, entered into a G/F auction and got hammered. Instead of leaving the score the way it was, it was changed under the guidelines of fairness - but was it really fair to us who profited from their clearly poor bid selection?

Without any visible appeal mechanism, without encouraging some of our directors to continue their education (which I feel is substantial), and the inability to address certain issues, I have been admittedly hesitant to play and support the games, for I feel that it helps both BBO, and the people that you serve. I simply want the best product for our members. I can tho state with absolute confidence that some, not all, but a few, ACBL TD's have forgotten that people is what makes this game work, and that we as people are bound to make some really silly errors at this game from time to time.

To be as fair as possible, we do have directors that are former/current national rated TD's. That is a credit to BBO, and I feel gives the games some sense of legitimacy. I simply want the most even playing field realistically possible; the banning of kib'ers was a positive and sorely needed step in the right direction. Now I just want our hard-working directors to shake from themselves the view of uneveness. I am with Roland; a committee of well-known respected players that would help with issues like this, would be a constructive tool - there obviously would be guidelines that would need hashing out (I think having the threat of the deposit being retained and/or possible exclusion for a period of time would stop most frivolous attempts to get a doubleshot). I would happily volunteer to be part of such committee; anything to make it better for our paying members.

[uday]

I might take some of these complaints more seriously if either of two things happened.

An occasional newcomer was found making these outcries. I find that (say) 3-5 people are the source of (say) 99-101% of this sort of complaint.

or

I felt that it was reasonable that every ruling by every TD in every game on every day in every month in every year would need to meet with the approval of every customer who might or might not actually play in these games.

Another way to look at it is: "Stuff happens". Follow procedures listed above to let us know. Some of those procedures result in change. Some don't.

If I thought someone was supplying constructive criticism (as opposed to the usual i-hate-acbl criticism) I'd say contact us (as listed in an earlier post).

But you have to accept that the odd ruling goes awry. Here, there and everywhere. It is not useful to get worked up about it. It is even less useful for people who don't play in ACBL games to get worked up about it.

In this case, imo, a player was bidding destructively, and the table "result" should not have been allowed to stand. Might I be wrong? Certainly.

Every tourney table has a 'Director!' button. Pressing this button will summon the TD. Sending the TD a private chat runs the risk of that chat being lost in the flood of other chat from people who are chatting away.

Quote

directors are almost using carte blanche in determining the results of the field

An AC would be a nice thing to have but to be useful, wouldnt it need to be avail to the players in near realtime? or do we mean an AC to discuss the hands/rulings after the fact, to benefit future rulings ?