[EricK]

TimG, on Aug 4 2004, 12:58 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 4 2004, 07:28 AM, said:

EricK, on Aug 4 2004, 07:59 AM, said:

Do they have a rigorous definition of "inherently destructive", or is it a vague term that they can use to ban whatever they want to?

Eric

Regretfully, no objective definition has been provided for "Inherently Destructive".

And, I doubt you could come up with one. I think it's like pornography: I know it when I see it.

I would approach it something like this:

Any method (and by "method" I mean a bid and the responses to it and so on) will sometimes take the pair using it above their par contract.

So for any method we can, theoretically, award it a value 0<p<1 which is the probability that the method will take the pair too high.

The higher the value of p, the more destructive the method is. So all methods could be ranked from least destructive to most destructive and a dividing line put somewhere.

No doubt this could be refined somewhat, and it may not be easy to evaluate p, but I think it captures the fact that a constructive method will tend to avoid taking the pair above their par contract (and "destructive" does seem to be used by these people as the opposite of "constructive").

Eric

[paulhar]

EricK, on Aug 4 2004, 11:16 AM, said:

Any method (and by "method" I mean a bid and the responses to it and so on) will sometimes take the pair using it above their par contract.

OK, let's come up with a list with a high 'p' value.

Opening preempts. (especially 5 of a minor )
Bergen raises.
Preemptive raises. Including the standard 1 of a Major - 4 of a major.
Sacrifices.
The Unusual Notrump.

I'm sure there are others but need I say more? I think the definition needs a little refinement.

[TimG]

paulhar, on Aug 4 2004, 11:29 AM, said:

EricK, on Aug 4 2004, 11:16 AM, said:

Any method (and by "method" I mean a bid and the responses to it and so on) will sometimes take the pair using it above their par contract.

OK, let's come up with a list with a high 'p' value.

Opening preempts. (especially 5 of a minor )
Bergen raises.
Preemptive raises. Including the standard 1 of a Major - 4 of a major.
Sacrifices.
The Unusual Notrump.

I'm sure there are others but need I say more? I think the definition needs a little refinement.

I don't think any of these methods is meant to propel the partnership past their par contract. Remember that very often the par contract is one which will be going down. Your inclusion of sacrifices suggests you overlooked this fact. If one sie can score +620 in 4♠ and the other can score -500 in 5♣X, par (for both sides) is 5♣X.

Yes, some preempts will propel the partnership past their par results, just as some purely constructive methods will.

Tim

[DrTodd13]

Again, there is the conflict between those who play for fun and those who play more seriously. Those who play for fun don't want to have to learn to defend against a bunch of new systems and conventions. I don't blame them for this. Conversely, there are those who take it more seriously and enjoy system experimentation and believe that this is a fundamental part of the game. Right now, there is conflict between the two groups because the former are successfully imposing their views on the latter or it might be fair to say that the ACBL is doing it for them to maximize their revenues. Why do we have to be at odds like this? On large on-line ventures and at bigger tournaments there is certainly enough interest to have no-holds barred events in parallel with restricted events. If such a scheme were to develop then I'm sure the ACBL would adequately describe what was legal in each event. We already have that sort of environment on BBO but what is lacking is the general ability on the part of many TDs to say what is allowed and what is disallowed. That is why I say we need some TD education. It is not an effort to force TD's to allow things they don't want to allow. It is just a way to make sure that people know what to expect when they join a tourney.

Todd

[EricK]

TimG, on Aug 4 2004, 04:40 PM, said:

paulhar, on Aug 4 2004, 11:29 AM, said:

EricK, on Aug 4 2004, 11:16 AM, said:

Any method (and by "method" I mean a bid and the responses to it and so on) will sometimes take the pair using it above their par contract.

OK, let's come up with a list with a high 'p' value.

Opening preempts. (especially 5 of a minor )
Bergen raises.
Preemptive raises. Including the standard 1 of a Major - 4 of a major.
Sacrifices.
The Unusual Notrump.

I'm sure there are others but need I say more? I think the definition needs a little refinement.

I don't think any of these methods is meant to propel the partnership past their par contract. Remember that very often the par contract is one which will be going down. Your inclusion of sacrifices suggests you overlooked this fact. If one sie can score +620 in 4♠ and the other can score -500 in 5♣X, par (for both sides) is 5♣X.

Yes, some preempts will propel the partnership past their par results, just as some purely constructive methods will.

Tim

This is absolutely right. Par contract is not the same as highest making contract.

But a 3 level pre-empt with a suit of KQTxxx will have a higher p value than a 3 level pre-empt with KQTxxxx. Thus 6 card 3 level pre-empts are more destructive tha 7 card pre-empts (by my definition). That is not to say that the 6 card pre-empt would fall to the "banned" side of the line.

The point of all this is to be able to rank all methods in terms of their destructiveness. Then if one method is allowed, all methods with a lower p value would also be allowed.

Eric

[paulhar]

EricK, on Aug 4 2004, 12:28 PM, said:

The point of all this is to be able to rank all methods in terms of their destructiveness. Then if one method is allowed, all methods with a lower p value would also be allowed.

Not going to happen. Which has the lower p-value, an opening 3-bid on KQxxxx or 2H showing 4+H and 4+S? I would guess the latter, Ekrens, but the first would be allowed anywhere, and the second would be banned in a lot of places, simply because it's harder to defend against.

An opening 1D bid which shows either 5 hearts or 5 spades, kind of like Multi would have a very low p-value, much lower than that crappy preempt. Are you really saying that should be allowed for just that reason?

Now, if y'all jump on board and tell me that THIS is a real convention too, I'm really going to be surprised!

[EricK]

paulhar, on Aug 4 2004, 05:39 PM, said:

EricK, on Aug 4 2004, 12:28 PM, said:

The point of all this is to be able to rank all methods in terms of their destructiveness. Then if one method is allowed, all methods with a lower p value would also be allowed.

Not going to happen. Which has the lower p-value, an opening 3-bid on KQxxxx or 2H showing 4+H and 4+S? I would guess the latter, Ekrens, but the first would be allowed anywhere, and the second would be banned in a lot of places, simply because it's harder to defend against.

An opening 1D bid which shows either 5 hearts or 5 spades, kind of like Multi would have a very low p-value, much lower than that crappy preempt. Are you really saying that should be allowed for just that reason?

Now, if y'all jump on board and tell me that THIS is a real convention too, I'm really going to be surprised!

The point is that "they" can't then say that they are banning it because it is inherently destructive.

I see no reason to ban a 1D opening showing 5 cards in a major. If it is a weak hand, then the rest of the system would be hard to construct so people wouldn't want to play it, I imagine, but a system like

1C = 15+
1D = 5 card major 10-14
1H/S = 6+ or 4 (not balanced 12-14, hence canape)
1NT balanced 12-14
2C/D 5+ unbalanced no major

seems eminently playable.

Eric

[keylime]

I could be nice and sweet and say that the ACBL is in my best interest, or that most TDs online are aware of what's going on, but then again I did wake up without my coffee this morning.

Why is it that some people feel absolutely compelled to invoke the "I don't understand, thus they are meanies" card, when something that they aren't used to happens to them? All I can say to them is: GET OFF IT ALREADY. First of all, 90 percent of the TD's on here are so grossly incompetent or unwilling to do ANYTHING in the protection of player's rights with enforcement of obligations to get it right the first time anyway. They don't know the basic Laws, they claim to have knowledge of things when the given instructions tell otherwise, and when a player has a legitimate claim for cause, more often than not, nothing is ever done to address that claim. That leaves the player who called in the first place wondering why they are even there. DO YOUR JOBS, TD - DIRECT. If you can't, then get the heck out.

Oh yeah, one last little thing of note. It's a real good thing I don't see most of the TD's in real life, because the next time someone invokes the "I'm a respected TD of BBO, and member of club X, Y, and Z...." speech, Lord help them. I don't care if you're buddy buddy with the Pope, some PM/President, or in touch with a higher power - saying that you are "person A" when you can't even play a lick of bridge and then honestly expect a fellow TD to cover your sorry attempts of aborted failed brilliance is in itself, grossly unethical.

If they really want to label things "destructive", what about Suction verses strong club openings? Refer you to the Long Beach Casebook - it's in the midst.

MOSCITO fans, I'm will ya. Even have rolls of duct tape to offer you. :-)

<gives them a flyswatter and citronnella for mementos>

[jtfanclub]

TimG, on Aug 3 2004, 08:59 PM, said:

paulhar, on Aug 3 2004, 08:28 PM, said:

Frankly, I'm surprised I haven't seen it.  As I look at the ACBL MidChart, it appears that their 1D and 1H opening bids are allowable in ACBLland!  If this is true, I'm very surprised, but I think I'm reading it right.  (I'm sure I'll be corrected here if I'm wrong.)  Under 'ACBL Mid-Chart' under 'Allowed', item 4 reads:

Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except that weak openings at the two level or higher that show hands with two suits must be no less than 5-4 distribution in those two suits.

Most mid-chart methods require an approved suggested defense. With "approved" being the key word. The C&C Committee (Competition and Conventions, I think) which is responsible for approving defenses has refused to approve a defense for the MOSCITO transfer openings. Their stated reason was that it is too cimplicated to expect a pair in a two or three board ovement to have sufficient time to discuss an adequate defense.

The ACBL Board passed a resolution this summer that will brak the mid-chart up into different sections depending upon length of round against single opponents. So, the defenses might be approved for non-pairs play.

There are other parts of MOSCITO that are not mid-chart legal, like the Frelling two-bids, but those are not as essential to the system as the transfer openings and could easily be modified to pass muster.

Tim

Really? Wow. I didn't know that. I always thought Moscito was legal in Mid-Chart.

I always thought Moscito one level openings were easier to defend against than SA. You get to split the initial double into two pieces: their as a non-jump, which is "I have 12-15 and shortness in their suit", and X, which means "I have 16+, any distribution". All of the other bids are treated as if they opened regularly.

I'm very dissappointed to hear this. I do understand that randomly mixing up the 1 bids just to hassle defenses should be illegal, but that's not what's happening here.

Oh well.

[1eyedjack]

jtfanclub, on Aug 4 2004, 11:03 PM, said:

Really? Wow. I didn't know that. I always thought Moscito was legal in Mid-Chart.

There appear to be significant variants of Moscito around, particularly with respect to 2-level openings.

[paulhar]

keylime, on Aug 4 2004, 07:09 PM, said:

Why is it that some people feel absolutely compelled to invoke the "I don't understand, thus they are meanies" card, when something that they aren't used to happens to them? All I can say to them is: GET OFF IT ALREADY. First of all, 90 percent of the TD's on here are so grossly incompetent or unwilling to do ANYTHING in the protection of player's rights with enforcement of obligations to get it right the first time anyway. They don't know the basic Laws, they claim to have knowledge of things when the given instructions tell otherwise, and when a player has a legitimate claim for cause, more often than not, nothing is ever done to address that claim. That leaves the player who called in the first place wondering why they are even there. DO YOUR JOBS, TD - DIRECT. If you can't, then get the heck out.

As usual, I'm going to leave myself wide open to be flamed.

Why should BBO TD directors (who work for nothing) be different from the rest of the popluation? Can you tell me a position, from the lowest sub-minimum wage jobs to leaders of our countries, in which more than half of the people are competent?

OK, I didn't think so. It's amazing that you expect a higher standard from those willing to give up their time for free, and to put up with crap like this to boot!

The solution is simple - play in the tournaments where the directors are in the esteemed 10 percent.

We've all got bad calls - I used to get more of them when I played in ACBL tournaments where I paid what seemed like exhorbinant card fees. In most cases, I have found the TD's on BBO to be friendly, courteous, and quite willing to make what seems to be correct adjustments. Which is quite a lot considering the garbage they have to put up with while directing - see the TD forums.

However, it sounds from your message that you might be one of these people that ask for an adjustment on every other board (I have known some like that in ACBL; they are usually the loudest complainers about unfair directors), where I could see that some TD's would be put off by the extra work created by just one player. If that is in fact true, the 90% you talk about is going to be darn glad to see you boycott their tourneys.

However, even given that, I haven't experienced what you're saying. In one tournament, the director must have been fed up with me - I called three times for an adjustment because I was headed for a near top and the opponents (different ones each time) slowed down. In each case, after careful study, the TD awarded me the score I thought I deserved.

In another tournament, which involved the winners gaining entry into other events, I was concerned that my pickup partner didn't enjoy the results of his win because of a disconnect on the very last board. I emailed her concerning this (when I realized it) almost TWO WEEKS later, and almost instantly, she sent me the log where she chatted with my partner offering him his winner's membership. Personally, I think that's exceptional service, far more than I expected from a group reputed to be "90% incompetent".

And all this for free! If you feel dissatisfied with BBO TD's, then at least feel good that you got what you paid for.

By the way, if only the directors that were competent in your eyes directed on BBO, you'd have a lot less tourneys to play in. And due to the overwhelming demand to play in their tourneys, you might not even get in unless you signed up days in advance.

[Brandal]

"First of all, 90 percent of the TD's on here are so grossly incompetent or unwilling to do ANYTHING in the protection of player's rights with enforcement of obligations to get it right the first time anyway. They don't know the basic Laws, they claim to have knowledge of things when the given instructions tell otherwise, and when a player has a legitimate claim for cause, more often than not, nothing is ever done to address that claim. That leaves the player who called in the first place wondering why they are even there. DO YOUR JOBS, TD - DIRECT. If you can't, then get the heck out."-------

Being a "rookie-TD" on BBO,having about 10 tourneys under my belt in the 3 weeks I've been offering my time to others as a "TD".
Not being a certified TD or having alot of theoretical education in directing I am pretty sure I qualify in the 90% cathegory.

I haven't come across any problem I couldn't solve yet,most likely because 99% of the players fall under the cathegory "we're glad someone wants to arrange tourneys for us so do your best and we're happy".

You're probably a brilliant player,I'm not
You could probably be a brilliant TD as well,I'm not

Having read your post I am seriously thinking about giving up "directing" and hosting tourneys,it was worth it up to now,but I don't handle hostility well,nor being offended by someone who doesn't even know me.

[paulhar]

Brandal, on Aug 6 2004, 07:02 AM, said:

You're probably a brilliant player,I'm not
You could probably be a brilliant TD as well,I'm not

Not so sure about that, Brandal. He might have the Laws down better but it sounds like you have it all over him in the diplomacy department - I'll bet that most players will appreciate this trait more. Don't be so quick to give up!

[Frosty]

I agree with Paul, Brandal, in terms of value - the donation of your time as a TD is worth much more than is suggested in this thread. Do not measure the value of your contribution by what you see here - these posters are very SMALL minority of the BBO community. They are not interested in being part of the solution - they prefer to polish their credentials by being part of the problem. Yes, there are a few who will point out which books TD's can read to improve their skills, but no - those folks won't be offering their services to give someone else a chance to play while the so-called incompetent TD's are off digesting the booklists du jour. Nor will they offer to train TD's in the skills that they find so sorely lacking. They prefer to criticize.

Personally, I cannot help but be underwhelmed by the "expertise" of posters who are so condescending. Their lack of character overshadows any bridge knowledge and/or skill level they may possess. Apparently, the first time they held a deck of cards, a complete understanding of all past, current and future facets of the game came to them in a blinding flash. They haven't had to learn the game like we common folk.

I pray that it will never happen LOL - but if I ever get to be as "GOOD" as these posters - somebody shoot me!!!!


Frosty

[hrothgar]

Frosty, on Aug 7 2004, 04:24 AM, said:

I agree with Paul, Brandal, in terms of value - the donation of your time as a TD is worth much more than is suggested in this thread. Do not measure the value of your contribution by what you see here - these posters are very SMALL minority of the BBO community. They are not interested in being part of the solution - they prefer to polish their credentials by being part of the problem. Yes, there are a few who will point out which books TD's can read to improve their skills, but no - those folks won't be offering their services to give someone else a chance to play while the so-called incompetent TD's are off digesting the booklists du jour. Nor will they offer to train TD's in the skills that they find so sorely lacking. They prefer to criticize.

Well here's another piece of criticism...

Drop the damn martyr complex.

"Oh, we do SO much for the community, only out of the goodness of our hearts.
How dare anyone critique anything that we do. We mean well.
And we're SO overworked
Love us. Worship us."

It gotten old. It gotten really, really old.

I think that you really might want to consider how the position of "tournament director" is likely to evolve over time. Most of the "mechanical" functions are slowly, but steadily being automated. Players can already automatically replace their partners with subsitiutes. My guess is that it would be relatively easy to design a system that automatically created an individual tournament every 45 minutes.

Turn to a moment to Brandal's post:

>Being a "rookie-TD" on BBO,having about 10 tourneys under my belt
>in the 3 weeks I've been offering my time to others as a "TD".
>Not being a certified TD or having alot of theoretical education in
>directing I am pretty sure I qualify in the 90% cathegory.

>I haven't come across any problem I couldn't solve yet,most likely
>because 99% of the players fall under the cathegory "we're glad someone
>wants to arrange tourneys for us so do your best and we're happy".

Simply put, the need for this type of unskilled labor is going to steadily decrease over time. What will continue to be important is individual's who are capable of dealing with social conflict of one kind or another including:

Cheating accusations
Cases involving unauthorized information
Arguments regarding convention regulations
Disagreements over psyches

Like it or not, players have a right to expect that regulators are consitently applying a known set of rules. In the absence of any other notice, I think that they have the right to assume that a game of "Bridge" will be based on the rules of "Bridge".

[epeeist]

I'm not a director, just a player. I'm also, I think, still a "novice poster".

However, I am for some reason reminded of an expression "put up or shut up"...

By which I mean, I've never directed, so while I may disagree with certain TD rulings, my criticism is muted because I have never had to deal with being in that situation. If I'd been a TD online, and had found it really easy to make every ruling perfectly correctly in 20-30 seconds in accordance with the Laws of Bridge (I'm not saying I would, I'm saying if) then I would feel far freer to criticize other directors for their mistakes...

If there are, say, a dozen players who really, really, dislike the directing on BBO, then those dozen could form a club, each direct a tournament once a week according to their standards, and then everyone would have 12 tournaments (11, for those dozen since each would direct once) a week to play in with perfect directing. Other TDs who played in it would really learn something, and players would flock to this paragon of perfection and gladly pay whatever tournament fee was charged...

BBO tournaments state who the director is. Most are free, some charge. Enter only those tournaments with directors of whom you approve, and conditions of which you approve.

That said, I actually agree with the posters about HUM (assuming they are correct about the definition of HUM), that it was unfair to penalize them when they weren't using a HUM. I also agree it's worth bringing up here to help avoid the mistake of defining what a HUM is. I found the discussion of what is and isn't a HUM very interesting. But that's it, get over it already. It's not like you lost a National Championship because of a faulty ruling. You had an incorrect ruling made against you in a game of online bridge you were playing for free. You'll forgive me if I don't get all misty-eyed at the travesty of a mockery of injustice...

However, as the discussion in this thread shows, determining what is and isn't a HUM can be complicated, and for a TD on the spot to make a mistake given the limited time available within which to think and/or look up the relevant Laws in the various texts he or she has handy is certainly understandable.

[Brandal]

hrothgar, on Aug 7 2004, 06:50 AM, said:

Frosty, on Aug 7 2004, 04:24 AM, said:

I agree with Paul, Brandal, in terms of value - the donation of your time as a TD is worth much more than is suggested in this thread.  Do not measure the value of your contribution by what you see here - these posters are very SMALL minority of the BBO community.  They are not interested in being part of the solution - they prefer to polish their credentials by being part of the problem.  Yes, there are a few who will point out which books TD's can read to improve their skills, but no - those folks won't be offering their services to give someone else a chance to play while the so-called incompetent TD's are off digesting the booklists du jour.  Nor will they offer to train TD's in the skills that they find so sorely lacking.  They prefer to criticize.

Well here's another piece of criticism...

Drop the damn martyr complex.

"Oh, we do SO much for the community, only out of the goodness of our hearts.
How dare anyone critique anything that we do. We mean well.
And we're SO overworked
Love us. Worship us."

It gotten old. It gotten really, really old.

I think that you really might want to consider how the position of "tournament director" is likely to evolve over time. Most of the "mechanical" functions are slowly, but steadily being automated. Players can already automatically replace their partners with subsitiutes. My guess is that it would be relatively easy to design a system that automatically created an individual tournament every 45 minutes.

Turn to a moment to Brandal's post:

>Being a "rookie-TD" on BBO,having about 10 tourneys under my belt
>in the 3 weeks I've been offering my time to others as a "TD".
>Not being a certified TD or having alot of theoretical education in
>directing I am pretty sure I qualify in the 90% cathegory.

>I haven't come across any problem I couldn't solve yet,most likely
>because 99% of the players fall under the cathegory "we're glad someone
>wants to arrange tourneys for us so do your best and we're happy".

Simply put, the need for this type of unskilled labor is going to steadily decrease over time. What will continue to be important is individual's who are capable of dealing with social conflict of one kind or another including:

Cheating accusations
Cases involving unauthorized information
Arguments regarding convention regulations
Disagreements over psyches

Like it or not, players have a right to expect that regulators are consitently applying a known set of rules. In the absence of any other notice, I think that they have the right to assume that a game of "Bridge" will be based on the rules of "Bridge".

I'm sure this is all good stuff,thank goodness I don't have to agree with you.

But you're absolutely right,in "your" future bridgeworld there is no place for me.

[luke warm]

there's a reason i've never even attempted to direct a tourney... i'm not a TD... i've never been one, and i don't really want to be one... i think i know the rules, but that's not all it takes

sure, it's nice that people donate their time, even those who have no real skill at the job... however, this is the very reason i *don't* donate my time... i feel i'd be doing a disservice to the players... why pretend to be something i'm not? hell, pretending to be a bridge player is hard enough, i'd surely be found out if i pretended to also be a TD

[Free]

epeeist, on Aug 7 2004, 07:29 PM, said:

~snip~
However, as the discussion in this thread shows, determining what is and isn't a HUM can be complicated, and for a TD on the spot to make a mistake given the limited time available within which to think and/or look up the relevant Laws in the various texts he or she has handy is certainly understandable.

What a load of ...! First of all, determining weither a system is a HUM or not is only 5 simple yes/no questions. Second, a TD isn't supposed to look up the rules, he's supposed to KNOW THE RULES - come on! Third, this silly argument of "no time enough" is also old news. If they make a mistake, it's because they didn't have time. I'm sick of this. I can understand there's not much time, but that's no reason at all to make unfounded decisions which you know might as well be wrong as right

Afterwards when someone complains about the decision-in-a-hurry, TD's always have the same old arguments: "no time" and "hey, we put our free time in it, so give us some credit" (meaning "we can do whatever we want). They just have their arguments ready, and they are never punished, and probably not even warned about their mistakes after a complaint to abuse!

[inquiry]

Free, on Aug 8 2004, 11:04 AM, said:

They just have their arguments ready, and they are never punished, and probably not even warned about their mistakes after a complaint to abuse!

An interesting comment.

Are you suggesting tournment directors should be punished for making mistakes? Are you suggesting that players should report horrible ruling to abuse@you know where and then abuse take some action against directors?

Do you remember when tournments first started and it was still rare to see one? Do realize that the vast majority of players play in tournments without any problems with the director?

I will admit there are TD's who I will not play in their events, but this in not because I think i will get bad rulings... it is because I don't believe in their conditions of contest... i don't play if kibitizers are blocked, i don't play if psyches are blocked, for example.

I'm not sure BBO should get involved in monitoring TD's, other than if one seems to lose all sense of sanity.