[DrTodd13]

Thanks hrothgar for the info on those flowcharts. We should definitely make those available via BBO so directors can make good rulings.

I've said this before and I'll say it again for all those TDs out there.

IF YOU HOST A TOURNAMENT, IT IS ASSUMED IT IS RUN UNDER THE WORLDWIDE LAWS OF BRIDGE!!!!!!!


If you as a TD want to remain totally oblivious of the rules of bridge and ignore these flowcharts then YOU MUST state in your tournament description that the laws of bridge do not apply and that you will make whatever judgement you like based on whatever criteria strikes your fancy at the moment.

I have no problem if you tell people you plan to be a rules dictator but my problem is when people join expecting to get bridge and instead they get willful ignorance of the laws.

I think some gentle nudging from Fred could be useful here. Perhaps a periodic mailing to all TDs reminding them of their responsibilities and the latest features that make living up to those responsibilities easier. Even better, add a window that pops up whenever you host a tournament that asks you to what degree you know the laws and plan on enforcing them. Make it so that tournament hosts cannot avoid this question and display the answer to the question in the tournament listing. Then, we'll still need a mechanism to correct people when they believe they know the laws but they really don't but that is another matter. At least this would allow people to have a better idea of what they are getting.

[cherdano]

DrTodd, I disagree. The tournaments don't come with an announcement that they enforce WBF laws etc. And in fact your big letters show that you know what to expect.

I think for what you are looking for, you should pay the $1 to participate in an ACBL tourney or similar.

Still, I think providing those flow charts would be useful.

Why am I participating so much in this thread? Because I am siding with the volunteers, from which some people are expecting things these volunteers never promised.

Arend

[DrTodd13]

Cherdano,

If you sit down to play bridge at someone's home, a regular table on BBO, or a tournament, what are the rules? If you go to a regular table on BBO and the opponents start talking about what cards are in their hand, do you get upset? If your answer is "yes," then ask yourself "why?" This table didn't advertise that they follow the WBF laws so why should they be held to the WBF bridge rule that no communication about the hand should be made outside the context of the auction? The simple fact is that we must all assume that some set of rules are in place absent a statement to the contrary. The only set of laws that we have are The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. You cannot arbitrarily assume that a certain subset of these laws are in force but the rest are not because 1) no one knows which laws you think are necessary and which ones aren't and 2) people will disagree with you about which are necessary. When I join a tournament, I assume that all the laws of duplicate bridge are in effect and I assume that the director will enforce those laws. Everyone else should be making the same assumption. Cherdano...to believe as you do opens up bridge to a world of chaos. No one would know what rules were in effect. Even if we made the default belief to be "WBF rules are NOT in effect" and made people explicitly say when they were in effect then we're still in bad shape because then every table that doesn't say that is effectively playing without any rules. You can't have a game without rules and you can't expect people to magically agree on which parts of the rules of bridge are going to be used and which ones aren't.

[DrTodd13]

And one more thing, this whole "burden" thing is ridiculous! How much of an effort is it for an uneducated TD to say "Laws of Duplicate Bridge not in effect for this tournament"?

Todd

[guggie]

1. The dutch bridgesite is running tournaments with certified TD's. They have one tournament in three weeks, on average.
2. Even if I was a certified TD, it is very difficult to do some good ruling whilst running the tournament, you have to check te bidding, the different ways to paly out a hand, review previous hands of the players to see how good or bad they play to estimate the way they should play the hand and so on and so on. meanwhile you have to sub a few, hush some flamed up ego's, notice the time.
3. Rulings differ around the world. The ACBL rules are very strict and unfair in my european eyes, and their rules about conventions and psyches - well lets say i do not like them;-) OK i do not play in ACBL tourneys, no big deal. But i cannot and will not rule my tournaments according to their rules.

[luke warm]

all todd is saying is, put that in your conditions of contest, or in your tourney description.. it isn't hard at all... just type "no rules of recognized bodies, such as the acbl or wbf, will be observed during this tourney except for those i choose to observe at times of my choosing"

[Echognome]

I personally don't like the idea that someone has to post a "scarlet letter" warning whenever they make a tournament. I certainly do understand the problem of having TD's that do not know the laws, but need I remind everyone that this can happen down at the local club too?

The tournaments are plentiful, so people have choices as to which tournaments they want to participate in. If I personally entered a tournament that I paid for, then I would expect that the laws be upheld to the fullest. If not, I would not play in a tournament for that TD again. If I was playing in a free tournament and thought the TD was horrible, again I wouldn't play in one of that person's tournaments. I have the option of setting that person as enemy and identifying them to myself and if I desire my friends.

However, why should I care if other people want to play some game that is not exactly bridge, if they enjoy it? If they are not enjoying it, why are so many LOL directors still around? I don't think I've heard any more complaints on this forum about directors than I have about some of the rulings at my local club. We cannot compare online bridge with even club level bridge, because at the club you expect that the TD's at least learned (at one point) the laws of bridge.

That being said, I think Hrothgar brings a different point to the table. Offering a guide or aid to directors if they desire help would be a nice option for them. I don't believe forcing it upon them is right though. I don't imagine I could tell my local TD, "Go back and get the rules book and then we'll talk." I don't think it would get me very far.

[DrTodd13]

Why do you want to have to suffer through a tournament with a director who doesn't know the rules when they can just say upfront that they don't know them. I don't care if hundreds of such tournaments are hosted a day or if people love them. All I want is an easy way to avoid them without having to have previously suffered through an incident with a director who doesn't know the rules. If people like such tournaments, it wouldn't be a "scarlet letter" but would be an attraction.

At the local club, the director may make mistakes but at least they try to follow the rules and I can at least appeal the decision.

[helene_t]

I would be very surprised if somebody voluntarily anounced that the laws of duplicate bridge do not apply in his/her tournament. I would expect that all TDs do their best and that they will be willing to learn if told by someone they respect as an authority that they made a mistake. Also, I think if someone was forced to announce that he/she is an incompetent TD, he would stop directing. And in the hypothetic event that such a thing was announced, I would start wondering (OK, I'm paranoid, I know) if such a statement would atract players who think they can benefit from bad ruling, or that some players would call the TD even when they knew they were not dammaged.

Once I was dammaged by an illegal ruling from a BBO TD. I posted the case on this forum and everybody agreed with me. So I asked the TD to read the thread. The TD did so and appologized and promised to take measures to prevent it from happening again. Case closed. There was no need to disclose the name of the TD.

Maybe it would not be unreasonable to state in the tournament description that the TD is not certified. But I suppose most TDs are not, so those who are certified could say so. Then again, certified TDs make horrible mistakes, too.

[Walddk]

helene_t, on Apr 13 2005, 03:48 AM, said:

Then again, certified TDs make horrible mistakes, too.

I don't agree. Cetified TDs may make poor bridge related judgements, because they are not expert players, but they do not make horrible mistakes as far as the laws are concerned.

At major championships or other big tournaments the TDs rulings are almost always upheld by the appeals committee. The TD knows exactly which laws to refer to for his/her ruling, and he/she, in bridge related matters, would often have conferred with expert players for their judgement before a ruling is made.

Very few TDs are top players, but less is fine, as long as they remember to ask more competent players if judgement is relevant for the ruling.

Roland

[Gerben42]

Well, what kind of flowcharts would you like to see? As it is, problems with revokes, lead out of turn, etc. do not apply here.

Things that come up most are:

* Adjustments because some table did not finish in time
* Complaints about incorrect information
* Hesitations?

A flow chart will help get the easy decisions right, at least.

[uday]

Posting a generic warning ("Laws not fully enforced") doesnt seem to be as useful as posting more specific warnings ("No weak-nt, no psyches")

There isnt enough room in the Tourney description for more than a few fragments.

[Gerardo]

Helene: there are lots of "no psyches" and/or "no adjustments" tourneys. Those don't follow the Laws.

Roland: Don't be so fast on assuring competence. Open Pairs, Zonal tourney (South America), semifinals, national #1 (not my country, so don't know for sure) TD I understand (was #3 at that tourney, behind Kojak and SA Head TD). Opp lays down cards, claim all, no explanation, I had trump Ace in hand, then opp picked up the cards. He came, made us play it from that point, gave them all but one (there was timing issues, we could have another trick). Sadly, I was too green by then, and didn't pursue the issue further.

[DrTodd13]

uday, on Apr 13 2005, 05:29 AM, said:

Posting a generic warning ("Laws not fully enforced") doesnt seem to be as useful as posting more specific warnings ("No weak-nt, no psyches")

There isnt enough room in the Tourney description for more than a few fragments.

No weak NTs and no psyches are not the same thing. Banning weak NTs is a power granted to sponsoring organizations by the laws of bridge. Banning psyches is not a power granted by the laws of bridge.

[guggie]

I still dont get the point of Dr Todd. If you want to run a t on BBO with strict ruling, careful weighing of appeals, of alert failures, adjusts, you need 1 internationally qualified TD for 10 pairs, These TD's still would spend the main part of their highly qualified time with subbing en prodding slow tables on. Where do you find these TD's? How can you pay their value? Such a tournament (with appeal committee) would cost 10-20-50$?

If Dr Todd just assumes that every tournament unless otherwise stated has no qualified TD and thus (in his view) inferior quality, he can skip al these tournaments and go to the qualified ones.

[cherdano]

Ok, let me post one more time. I have maybe played a hundred free tournaments on BBO or so, maybe more. If you don't count director calls due to connection problems, or suspected slow play (for neither the TD seems to need any bridge law knowledge), I have had at most 3 TD calls. On the other hand, I have often had to wait for 15 min or so for the next free tourney, or sometimes couldn't play in one at all because there was no free tourney around.

So I prefer to live with a possibly bad ruling on at most 3 hands out of hundreds of tournaments, rather than discouraging new or existing TDs with posts containing huge capital letters from running more free tourneys.

Btw, the pedant may note that we are not playing according to bridge laws on BBO anyway, due to the way claims are implemented.

Arend

P.S.: I guess speaking polish or Italian in addition to English would be a much more important qualification as BBO TD than bridge law knowledge.

[Walddk]

Gerardo, on Apr 13 2005, 12:14 PM, said:

Helene: there are lots of "no psyches" and/or "no adjustments" tourneys. Those don't follow the Laws.

Roland: Don't be so fast on assuring competence. Open Pairs, Zonal tourney (South America), semifinals, national #1 (not my country, so don't know for sure) TD I understand (was #3 at that tourney, behind Kojak and SA Head TD). Opp lays down cards, claim all, no explanation, I had trump Ace in hand, then opp picked up the cards. He came, made us play it from that point, gave them all but one (there was timing issues, we could have another trick). Sadly, I was too green by then, and didn't pursue the issue further.

I am sorry to hear that the TD in question seemed to be incompetent. When a claim - with or without explanation - has been made, the hand is over and play can not continue.

Your TD allowed play to continue I notice, and that is a serious mistake. Having said that, I must add that certified directors at major championships are usually highly qualified to do what they are supposed to do:

Establish facts and make a ruling according to the laws of bridge. If they were not capable TDs, they would not be there!

Roland

[Walddk]

DrTodd13, on Apr 13 2005, 12:22 PM, said:

No weak NTs and no psyches are not the same thing.  Banning weak NTs is a power granted to sponsoring organizations by the laws of bridge.  Banning psyches is not a power granted by the laws of bridge.

I must agree with Dr. Todd, but I am quite comfortable about it if it is clearly stated on the table note:

Weak NT and psyches are not allowed

Fair enough. Then I can decide if I want to take part or not. What I am opposed to, however, is that almost all TDs "forget" to state:

I am not qualified to make rulings according to the laws of bridge

Should one not assume that TDs will follow the laws if it's not distinctly explained that they will not? I can live with poor rulings if I know where the TD comes from before I sign up, but I think it's unfair that I also must accept horrible decisions if I, rightly in my opinion, expect the TD to know what he/she is doing.

Roland

[uday]

Quote

I am not qualified to make rulings according to the laws of bridge

This is a value judgement that is not relevant to many of our online tourneys.

I'll assume this is a joke, because surely no one expects a human TD to put something like this into a T-description.

Why not request that all players put "I can barely follow suit" into their profiles? Or tattoo "I'm not as good looking in the morning" on their foreheads?

My point is that most of our TDs are not TDs in any official sense outside of BBO, nor would they be allowed to be TDs w/o passing some sort of test. However ( and see sister thread on fewer-free-tourneys) the burden should not rest solely on the shoulders of those TDs who are trying to have fun while allowing others to have fun in a more structured environment than the main-bridge-club.

Where is the online test that a TD could take to train himself? Where are the laws, reduced, simplified and altered for an online environment? Where is the body that will take responsibility for standardizing the online bridge environment? Since no one is standing up, the TDs will do as they please, as far as we (all of us) let them.

Surely we can come up with something more constructive for the TDs to do than to post something as negative as "I am not qualified..." I can assure you that if I made this a requirement, there would be only a handful of free Ts. Maybe not even that.

Shoud we certify TDs? Sure. But who is "we" ? BBO has no standing in this area. Maybe we could certify that a TD understands the mechanics of running a game.

Maybe the laws of bridge need tweaking to have more meaning in an anonymous online environment.

[rigour6]

Uday's last sentence gets to the crux of it imho. I have my dog-eared copy of the Laws same as everyone, but on-line tourneys are a different beast. For one thing, there's a time constraint you don't have in other situations.

My observation is that most TD judgements consist of either:

A) My opponent's bid was not properly alerted or.
B) Our opps played slow to avoid a bad result.

My understanding of what I have to do is this: For A:

1) Should the bid have been alerted? Now this is a different question than face to face as well because a) you self-alert b) your p is completely unaware you have alerted c) there's amuch higher chance that people are playing wildly different systems in the same tourney and d) there's a pretty good chance that you and your opps don't even speak the same language.

Assuming the question to 1 is yes, my understanding of the next question is:

2) Is there damage to the opponents? Again this is a different question, especially in cases where time has elapsed.

Assuming that question is answered yes, then we move on to
3) whether this damage is best redressed by an adjustment of the result or a +/-.

Now to me, both questions 2) and 3) require some knowledge of how to play bridge.
This is why it is entirely possible (and in my case almost certain) for the TD to get them wrong.


For B there's no hope at all, the movie is occasionally helpful but generally I can't tell
who played slow and whether the delay was due to a conn problem. And I'm not aware of any provision in BBO that lets me assess a "slow play" penalty.


I guess my point is that The Laws only get you so far, they aren't designed for online play, and as smart as them Laws is, I bets I can be stupider.