[rigour6]

I wish to raise an issue to see if anyone else is observing a shrinking number of free tournaments.

This is not a criticism of people who are running pay tourneys - I do what I can to avoid any conflict with them because a) I think TDs earn their money (and how!) and b ) some of the funds go to keeping BBO going, which is very much a good thing.

In fact, I make a point of avoiding scheduling my tourneys in a way that will conflict with
pay tourneys.

However, I look right now and there are 7 tourneys scheduled to launch on the next 40 minutes. 6 of them are pay tourneys, the other is restrictive membership. If I try and throw a free tourney now, I'm almost guaranteed to be on top of a pay tourney. On the other hand, if I don't throw a free one in now, a BBO member who goes to the tournament room will take a quick glance (it looks worse if you don't check the times), and they'll see at a glance 11 tourneys - 10 she has to pay for and one she can't get into, and conclude that the tournament room is not for them.

[uday]

The overwhelming majority of tourney plays are still in free tourneys. Since free tourneys tend to be much bigger than pay tourneys, the ratio free Ts to pay Ts isnt as impressive.

Pay Ts also tend to schedule themselves well in advance whereas free Ts tend to be more last-minute affairs.


Don't feel like you should protect the pay tourneys. Run your free Ts when and where you like. Encourage any of your (normal) pals to email uday@ and get TD perms.

[hrothgar]

I'm looking at the list of scheduled tournaments:

As of 9:00 AM server time we have

An ACBL fee based Individual starting in 4 minutes
A BBO Italia fee based individual starting in 5 minutes
A Sky Club fee based individual starting in 22 minutes
A BBO Italia fee based individual starting in 73 minutes
A BBLLand fee based individual starting in 84

Switching to pairs events, we have

A BBO Italia pairs event in 39
An ACBL pairs in 2 hours
A Sky Club pairs in 2 hours and 20 minutes...

From what I can tell, the various Clubs offering fee based tournaments are openly competing with one another for warm bodies... I see nothing wrong with Directors who wish to run free tournaments doing so as they see fit, without regard to fee based tournaments that happened to be running at the same time. (As you note, its extremely difficult to run a free event without conflicting with SOME fee based event)

One minor adendum: From my perspective, there is a distinct difference between scheduling events without regard to fee based events and deliberate scheduling events that run opposite to fee based events. For example, if I wished, I could schedule a free tournament designed to start at precisely the same time as each and every BBO-Swaziland event. From my perspective, this would constitute open harassment and should probably be prevented...

I'd also like to comment that I think that the club offering fee based tournaments need to improve their business model... I will ALWAYS chose a free event in preference to a fee based event, all other things being equal. "Lottery" type prizes provide very little incentive for me.

[hotShot]

I think we have reached a point where it's impossible to run a tourney without getting in conflict with others.
So pick the time, mode and number of participants you like.

[Chamaco]

uday, on Apr 13 2005, 03:15 PM, said:

The overwhelming majority of tourney plays are still in free tourneys.  

Uday,
this point is only partial.

Let me make an example:
when I find myself online with my usual pard and we look for FREE tourneys that are not individual, the most frequent scenario is the following:

- PAY MP TOURNEY "xxx" starting in 15 minutes
- PAY IMPs TOURNEY "xxx" starting in 30 minutes
- FREE MP TOURNEY "xxx" starting in 20 minutes: Restricted to Country xxx
- FREE IMPs TOURNEY "xxx" starting in 40 minutes: Restricted to Club xxx
- FREE INDY tourney "xxx" starting in 10 minutes.

And, here and there, some free tourney open to all but VERY rarely.
Many times we would have to wait over an hour, and in the end, in the absence of other free tourneys you "give up" and decide to pay the fee rather than waiting: this may sound reasonable in a sense, but, some months ago, you would find a free tourney every 20 mins/ 30 mins.

The point is that the FREE , NON-INDY tourneys, without restrictions are shrinking by a lot compared to say 3 months ago.

I mean, the absolute number of free tourneys has not decreased so much, but many of them have applied restrictions, so many times you cannot play in them, and from the practical viewpoint this is equivalent to a decrease in the number of free tourneys.

I know for sure that some people who run pay tourneys are asking to people who organize free tourneys to apply restrictions.
(Because I know more than one TD of free tournamnts, they told me that).

In my opinion it's unfair to ask TDs of free tournament to apply restrictions.
Of course, if they decide restrictions on their own it's ok, they do what they want: but if they are asked to do that not to interfere with the growing number of pay-tourneys, that is very bad...

[sceptic]

I have a pet peeve, why is it all $1, I am sure that if you sell it cheap you will get more takers, ACBL masterpoints would increase with more players in larger tourneys, less cost more players.

I do not hink any TD in a pay tourney works for their money, running a 10 table or less tourney is a bit like watching paint dry, I think they want to make money and I applaud that principle, but at least cut the cost and earn your money.

Free market rules, lets see the price fixing sorted out, I want the momopolies commision brought in

[uday]

I complely understand why OPEN tourneys are dwindling.

1)
Only a masochist would welcome all. At a minimum, imo, a TD should maintain a blacklist. And probably a shared blacklist, at that.

Example, from yesterday.

Player1 and Player2 need a free TD ruling. Ruling goes in favour of Player1. Player2 offers an unpleasantly graphic and violent sexual suggestion before logging off.

Who needs this?


2)
(Cough) It is possible that some Free TDs dont like what they perceive as harassment in forums or elsewhere when they make a bad ruling. See sister threads.

[sceptic]

I would argue against restricting free tourneys, but in reality one reason I run less free tourneys (not that I ever run a huge amount of them in the first place) is all the messages I get to open it up to more people, I cant cope on my own with a large tourney as some people do not read the terms I set out, I am inclined to run ones with restrictions to friends only (seems the only way to cope with it).

Another reason I do not run free tourneys is the opinions in here of poor directors, well I am not looking to be a proffesional director, I just want to run a tourney for a bit of fun, some people talk in here like bridge is a matter of personal honour, I think it is just a game (a very enjoyable one at that) and one I would like to play well one day, I like the bidding, the playand defense and the social aspect, some of the rules and stuff I could do with out as I think some of the expert arguments are made by people that are armchair lawyers and politicians.

bridge should be fun first and foremost. free tourneys are fun. lets have some more of them

[hrothgar]

sceptic, on Apr 13 2005, 06:28 PM, said:

I have a pet peeve, why is it all $1, I am sure that if you sell it cheap you will get more takers, ACBL masterpoints would increase with more players in larger tourneys, less cost more players.

I do not hink any TD in a pay tourney works for their money, running a 10 table or less tourney is a bit like watching paint dry, I think they want to make money and I applaud that principle, but at least cut the cost and earn your money.

Free market rules, lets see the price fixing sorted out, I want the momopolies commision brought in

What monopoly?

Fred and Uday have been more than reasonable with respect to granting tournament director status.

I'm sure that Fred and Uday have a set of criteria that they use to "vet" potential commercial partners. "Commercial" tournaments have the potential to generate much more significnat complaints from users that free tournaments. According, it makes sense to be careful who you partner with... With this said and done, I haven't heard any grumbling regarding applications that were bounced...

As I understand things, there are 5 different groups currently authorized to run free tournaments. I suspect that this limit has more to do with applications than deliberate efforts to maintain a monopoly....

[uday]

Quote

For example, if I wished, I could schedule a free tournament designed to start at precisely the same time as each and every BBO-Swaziland event. From my perspective, this would constitute open harassment and should probably be prevented...

We would block this if it was reported to us.

Quote

In my opinion it's unfair to ask TDs of free tournament to apply restrictions.

We explicitly prohibit this practice. Some pay TDs need more reminding of this rule than others.

If any payTD tries to get a freeTD to reduce/restrict/blah (well, I suppose he could offer the freeTD 5 BBO$ to restrict, and that would be fine w/me) please email uday@ and we'll make sure the payTD is reminded of our rules.

Quote

I have a pet peeve, why is it all $1

We don't enforce a minimum card fee (but BBO takes a minimum "chop" from each incoming card fee).

BBO chooses to run its own ACBL club games at $1 per tourney. We don't care what the other organizations charge.

[Chamaco]

Quote

At a minimum, imo, a TD should maintain a blacklist.  And probably a shared blacklist, at that.

Sure, this is obvious also for me.
However, when players like me (and I believe not to be on any blacklist) has a problem finding tourneys, that means something is changing, and it's hapening quickly.

I am not saying that a 1$ fee is too much, but only that the some people who run pay tourneys are playing "a bit dirty" to avoid other enthusiasts running free tourneys.

I know some bridge enthusiast who wanted to run some free pairs tourney is his club and organize a small team league and was "strongly suggested" by other organizers to make it pay, not to spoil their pay tourneys...

So, to summarize: if we end up paying 1$ per tourney it's not the end of the world, but the way it's happening i do not like the least bit...

Of course, I know you and Fred are only providing the medium to play, and are not related to these facts, not complaining for that....

[uday]

Anyone in good standing can become a free TD by emailing uday@

I rarely refuse: and when I do it is because

- the applicant has only logged in a handful of times
- the applicant has been a bad citizen in the recent past
- the applicant has way too many disposable aliases


We're far more careful about allowing an organization to launch pay tournaments.

We are currently not accepting applications for "open" organizations (ie, orgs aimed at all players). We think that there arent quite enough customers to support another. We already have BBOLAND and SKY CLUB competing with each other, along with ACBL/ITALIA.


We are much more likely to accept applications for restricted organizations. For instance, BIL, BBO PL, and the like. These are groups that target specific subsets of the customer base. BBO Turkey will be launching one of these days. Even so, I move slowly on new-org creation.

[uday]

Quote

I know some bridge enthusiast who wanted to run some free pairs tourney is his club and organize a small team league and was "strongly suggested" by other organizers to make it pay, not to spoil their pay tourneys...

I can't act on vague complaints like this (except with equally vague reminders to the pay TDs) but I can and will take more direct action if you offer real information ( by email pls)




Is it time to readdress the automated free tourneys ? I paused work on this many months ago.

[sceptic]

hrothgar, you have no need to defend Fred and Uday, I am not critisising them for one minute, nor would I dream of, BUT, I do think that the tourney providers do lack imagination at marketing them at the same price as ACBL, I would like to see a price war break out, this would encourage them to offer more for less and that would be good for the comsumer.

monopolys commision was a bit tongue in cheek, but may be if I said there was a pricing cartel going on between them, I would not be far wrong. (just my own humble opinion). I would like to see an organisation that would offer more for less come into play

[hrothgar]

uday, on Apr 13 2005, 06:59 PM, said:

Is it time to readdress the automated free tourneys ? I paused work on this many months ago.

I'm not sure whether an automated pairs tournament should really be a priority. I'd be very much worried about issues with subs and the like... I also think that the underlying customer requirement can be better met with more specialized offerings.

1. A permanent floating Individual.

No winners... No losers... Just board after board of bridge with and against completely random opponents. As I noted earlier, I'd ideally like a system based on a barometer scoring. However, the real goal is to provide players will an extremely easy way to just play some bridge.

2. Improved mechanisms that players can use to find partners and/or opponents for more serious play.

[rigour6]

Wow. OK, here are my comments:

1) First of all, I'm glad to hear it's not just me. Others are seeing it too. It's not just a matter of pays being pre-scheduled, it's that lately at any given time there aren't frees going.

2) I run free tourneys only, and I am regularly asked to limit enrollment. Which I do. Because as I said, I have no beef with the pay tourneys. I don't consider that request unreasonable, it's no fun to have a pre-scheduled tourney and then I show up and cut the legs off it.

3) One thing I have wrestled with is asking uday for permission to charge for my tourneys. Then charging a dime a tourney.
Why would I do this?
a) because I agree with the idea that a little money should flow back to BBO for what they do
b) because a dime is nothing
c) because it would let me then enter some of these pay tourneys by simply hosting a tourney
I would honestly appreciate peoples thoughts on this. It is something I have wrestled with. One reason I haven't asked for this from uday next is that I anticipate that if I were to start running dime tourneys, the whole pay tourney house of cards (no pun intended) is going to come crashing down and I am going to have a lot of people who run pay tourneys - people I like and respect - really mad at me. And I don't want to hurt BBO under any circumstances. And I do feel that at a $1 a tourney, it's certainly very good entertainment to play bridge. After all, I play $6 to play in my local face to face bridge club, and they won't let me play in my underwear like I can on BBO.

4) When I see tourneys offering prizes, I am torn between thinking well if this increases people's enjoyment of the game then great and thinking gee this goes against the spirit (admittedly as I perceive it) of BBO. In my own case, if I ran a dime tourney, I think I'd be tempted to give a prize to the low guys for sticking in rather than leaving and forcing me to sub them.

5) I don't think pay tourneys are squeezing out frees, but I do agree that one reason that free tourneys are diminishing is because (and I don't know how many toruneys I've TD now, maybe uday has this in his database) it is really an occasion to meet people who a) don't read your posted rules b) don't always know the actual rules of bridge and c) feel that their being in your tourney entitles them to be rude to you. This I addressed in a message some time ago. I really try and remember now to thank the TDs for the great job. I know it's not necessarily physically demanding, but round about the time the same table send the 3rd TD call in 20 seconds, interrupting the sub you're trying to make, well that's psychically demanding, let's put it that way.

6) I was interested in the perception that there's a shortage of pairs tourneys. I know for myself I start a tourney based on what I see a shortage of, either the Fast 8/slow 7 if an Indy is needed (and indies are a LOT less hassle) or now The Eliminator if a pairs event is needed. Do other people also feel there should be more pairs tourneys?


Anyway, I close by saying THANK YOU -
- to Fred for his work here
- to uday, who has always been just 110% in dealing with me, I can't speak to Fred because I never met him but uday has been the face of BBO to me and it's been absolutely fantastic
- to anyone who TDs whether free or paid
- to anyone who replies to my posting here. I value your input on these things very highly indeed.

[rigour6]

Gosh, I am going on and on here.

2 more points - (I can't count to 13 - ask anyone who's played as my partner - so I forget what number I'm on)

7?) I think one reason why TDs charge is that when people pay for something, even a token amount, theya re less likely to behave poorly or leave. I have no doubt that pay tourneys run more smoothly - in part because you've filtered out a portion of the "underclass".

8) I TOTALLY agree re: a blacklist, it scares me how many people I've had to ban from my tourneys, and I honestly think we would benefit from a shared list as well. In my case I track everyone who leaves, and if they leave unannounced more than twice, they're banned (I give them 2 chances in case it's just a connection problem).

9) I also very much agree with uday that they don't discourage people from being a TD. The proof of that is I are one. Any club that would admit me as a member obviously has standards so minimal as to be non-existant. But look at the result of that: some people are not all happy that we TDs aren't professional. I do think it would be good if people could honestly give a feedback at the end of a tourney on the TD himself. Now, my experience is that a tourney where ther aren't conn problems people think I'm the greatest TD ever, and one where there are problems they think I'm a bum, but still over time we might get some sense of it.
As it is, I do hope that when people see my name as TD over time they get a sense of what the can expect, which is technically incompetent but occasionally amusing direction.


Turns out that's 3 more points, so I can't even count to 2 either.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

[jdulmage]

Well, you could always go down to your local club, pay a few bucks, support your local clubs and play real bridge instead of relying on online play for the rest of your life.

Online play is about the most boring bridge there is and is nearly no fun, I go on to ACBL tourneys online when I have nothing better to do and haven't picked up many points in that week and even then, it's normally with my regular partner whom play together in many club and tournament games. So I'm there for pure honing reasons.

So who cares if they are fee based or not; maybe that will direct people to go to their local clubs, pay them instead. Or if you don't like the fact that 9 out of every 10 tournaments are paid, become a director, start voltuneering your own time and see how that ends up.

BBO needs the cash and I appreciate their support; you don't.

[rigour6]

Assuming that message is posted at me, I'd ask you to read my postings in their entirety. Since if you're posting at me, what you say makes no sense. I'm not saying this as a criticism, I just want to understand your point. I AM a TD, I DO support BBO, and I made the point several times that I have no beef with the pay tourneys at all, I think people who host them earn their money, and that it's good value for entertainment. I also DO support my local club and pay and play there every week.

So your point is lost on me.

[epeeist]

jdulmage, on Apr 13 2005, 07:21 PM, said:

Well, you could always go down to your local club, pay a few bucks, support your local clubs and play real bridge instead of relying on online play for the rest of your life.

Online play is about the most boring bridge there is and is nearly no fun, I go on to ACBL tourneys online when I have nothing better to do and haven't picked up many points in that week and even then, it's normally with my regular partner whom play together in many club and tournament games.  So I'm there for pure honing reasons.

So who cares if they are fee based or not; maybe that will direct people to go to their local clubs, pay them instead.  Or if you don't like the fact that 9 out of every 10 tournaments are paid, become a director, start voltuneering your own time and see how that ends up.

BBO needs the cash and I appreciate their support; you don't.

For you to prefer face-to-face bridge, fine, that's your opinion. Some other people enjoy playing bridge online. I can decide at a moment's notice to play bridge, can play for a short or long time, can play late at night if suffering from insomnia, can take a break while working at home, whatever. I know some people playing on BBO who for e.g. medical or other issues, don't find going to their local club all that feasible. Others may be in remote locations or even simply not like their local bridge club(s).

I tend to prefer to play in pay tournaments on BBO, in part to support the site, but sometimes I feel like playing in a free tournament. Indeed, given the discussion in this thread I obtained TD permission and ran my first tournament a short time past. Unfortunately, there were no adjustment requests so I was unable to argue implied partnership understandings or Law 75C or anything of the sort...