[Keeper1]

I know I really shouldn’t care about rulings in a BBO ACBL speedball, and I certainly don’t care about the masterpoints, but the repeatedfailure of BBO directors to engage with the key ruling issues is frustrating.

This hand is a case in point: 2D by North was very slow (I would guess 20-30 seconds, but certainly longer than the 10-seconds up to which a bid is not considered a Break-in-Tempo online). I pointed this out and requested a ruling. 3NT made for a very good imp score for NS.

To my mind, the question facing the TD is: Did South choose among logical alternatives a more favorable one that could have been suggested by unauthorized information. I would contend that Pass is an LA to 2NT and that 2NT is suggested by the slow 2D. As evidence, I would cite the results of a bridgewinners’ poll http://bridgewinners...m-2-4ayarhmhvj/ , as well as that this sequence was passed about half the time at the table in the tournament in question. Yes, some South’s did choose to bid 2NT in that sequence and that is their right as long as they do not have UI suggesting to them that it would be more successful (which in this case I would contend they did). When I said that 2D would ”usually” be a sign-off, the TD said “we cannot deal in usually” but did not seem to make any effort to discover the partnership’s actual agreements, if any.

Law 92 of the Rules of Contract Bridge establishes a Right to Appeal (albeit subject to constraints on “frivolous” appeals). In this case I repeatedly stated my wish to appeal and was in turn ignored several times. In this respect is there a Director-in- Charge in BBO games, a requirement to consult, or any established appeals procedures? If not, are BBO ACBL games being run in a way that is not consistent with the Laws? If so, how does ACBL tolerate this?

---

[blackshoe]

The only thing the ACBL cares about in anything that isn't NABC+ is getting their share of the money.

[bluenikki]

Does the TD have access to the actual time elapsed for the bid? Or what the player's normal tempo is?

If not, why not?

Not really relevant to your question, I agree.

[Cyberyeti]

Guessing you didn't beat this ?

But yes 2N is using UI.

[pescetom]

I agree that this is worthy of appeal.

TD does have access to think time of call in many BBO tournaments (I would imagine including this one).

If you want to cite a poll on BW it's better to reassume the current vote as well as provide the link, as non-members will not see the vote but only the question and comments.

[Keeper1]

The poll is currently running at 25 votes for Pass and one maverick for 2S.

Apart from venting, my motive for posting was really to draw it to the attention of BBO management and perhaps to educate the Director who really didn’t seem to understand the issue. I am not sure if this has any chance of being seen by them. I understand that the BBO/ACBL Directors see their main function as keeping things moving and awarding adjusted scores as necessary for incomplete boards, while keeping the cash-cow running, but it is poor to completely abdicate other responsibilities. Oh well back to the (slightly less frustrating!) robots…

[bluenikki]

Keeper1, on 2023-August-13, 16:37, said:

When I said that 2D would ”usually” be a sign-off, the TD said “we cannot deal in usually” but did not seem to make any effort to discover the partnership’s actual agreements, if any.

It is not absurd to agree that 2♦ is forward-going. But that would surely require an alert.

[pescetom]

bluenikki, on 2023-August-14, 12:43, said:

It is not absurd to agree that 2♦ is forward-going. But that would surely require an alert.

Nowadays it is almost standard to play some kind of convention here and usually 2♦ would be an artificial game force, requiring an alert in any sane RA.

[bluenikki]

pescetom, on 2023-August-14, 15:54, said:

Nowadays it is almost standard to play some kind of convention here and usually 2♦ would be an artificial game force, requiring an alert in any sane RA.

I think you have misread the auction.

[pescetom]

bluenikki, on 2023-August-14, 19:32, said:

I think you have misread the auction.

I don't think so ? 2♦ is Responder's second bid in a situation that for many of us is XYZ. But I guess it was an overbid to suggest it would be so for a majority, as for those who still play older conventions (Checkback) probably only 2♣ would be artificial.

I know quite a few people who still play natural here, but then this country is more natural and conservative than most.

[TylerE]

I have mostly given up play in the ACBL games, and the abysmal quality of the directing is absolutely why.

[pescetom]

TylerE, on 2023-August-15, 09:19, said:

I have mostly given up play in the ACBL games, and the abysmal quality of the directing is absolutely why.

My experience in other non-free tournaments on BBO is not so much that the Directors are ignorant of the Laws (although that can happen too) but that they will seek any excuse not to apply them if that might upset the opponents and reduce revenue. I suspect ACBL games are much the same.

[mycroft]

I've got a question: have you given up playing at the clubs for the same quality issues? Or the VACBs or equivalent online club-likes? Not a criticism - I know people like that. Now, if your club has a much higher (read: adequate) quality of directing, good for you. A fair number of the clubs I play at do too. Many many many more clubs don't - whether it's "find the only person willing to do it so we can have a 4 table game" or whether it's a club that wants the money but doesn't care about the game itself (and doesn't have enough local competitors that "the addicted" still come back anyway).

Again, "ACBL" is the BBO ACBL *club*. You want tournament-quality directing? The ACBL just ran an online tournament. I'm told attendance wasn't as expected.

People want Kojak-level directing at (30% of) club level prices. One of the ways that happens is that "tables-to-director" goes up significantly; and "director count" goes up significantly (despite the previous, and even given the "don't have to make/move boards, no revokes/insufficient bids/plays out of turn"). And there are a limited number of Kojak-level directors (frankly, there are a limited number of mycroft-level directors). And the care and attention that can go to judgement rulings therefore...go down.

I was told a number of years ago, when I asked about "directing with screens": "you're bored most of the time. But when there is a call, it's a serious/complicated/ugly one." True. And that applies to online - the "removal of the mechanical rulings" is more a part of that than the "usually very high level player/event" (although that is not minimal either). Which also doesn't help.

[pescetom]

I probably shouldn't reply here, as I am neither the author of OP nor in ACBL. But as I mainly disagree, my own answers FWIW...

mycroft, on 2023-August-15, 12:56, said:

I've got a question: have you given up playing at the clubs for the same quality issues? Or the VACBs or equivalent online club-likes? Not a criticism - I know people like that. Now, if your club has a much higher (read: adequate) quality of directing, good for you. A fair number of the clubs I play at do too. Many many many more clubs don't - whether it's "find the only person willing to do it so we can have a 4 table game" or whether it's a club that wants the money but doesn't care about the game itself (and doesn't have enough local competitors that "the addicted" still come back anyway).

Again, "ACBL" is the BBO ACBL *club*. You want tournament-quality directing? The ACBL just ran an online tournament. I'm told attendance wasn't as expected.

People want Kojak-level directing at (30% of) club level prices. One of the ways that happens is that "tables-to-director" goes up significantly; and "director count" goes up significantly (despite the previous, and even given the "don't have to make/move boards, no revokes/insufficient bids/plays out of turn"). And there are a limited number of Kojak-level directors (frankly, there are a limited number of mycroft-level directors). And the care and attention that can go to judgement rulings therefore...go down.

My own club in a different RA has three qualified directors, including myself.
No Kojak or even mycroft, but I usually can (and just as well as I have to) live with the rulings I get when playing.
I haven't given up playing at other clubs, where I often receive rulings as bad as on BBO, but not for the same despicable reasons.
A decent tournament on BBO with a robot partner costs $1.70 for 14 hands versus $3 for 18-24 hands with a human at the club, so no 30% here.

mycroft, on 2023-August-15, 12:56, said:

I was told a number of years ago, when I asked about "directing with screens": "you're bored most of the time. But when there is a call, it's a serious/complicated/ugly one." True. And that applies to online - the "removal of the mechanical rulings" is more a part of that than the "usually very high level player/event" (although that is not minimal either). Which also doesn't help.

Agree 100% about directing with screens. Much less about online, where many infractions (misleading explanations, time related UI usage as in the OP, use of other UI revealed by audio-video if the platform allows it) are objectively more evident and easy to rule than they would be F2F. Yes, it is possible to audio-video record F2F at club too, but do you? Over here privacy law makes it difficult and the RA offers no support.

During Covid I directed a lot of club tournaments on BBO (200 per year) and had no compunction about changing scores whenever necessary (and sometimes it was necessary only because I was not allowed to penalize). I can't remember the last time a Director in a for money BBO tournament changed a score for any reason other than erroneous or inconclusive system assignment when late at end of round.

[TylerE]

mycroft, on 2023-August-15, 12:56, said:

I've got a question: have you given up playing at the clubs for the same quality issues? Or the VACBs or equivalent online club-likes?

I stopped playing in the (extremely weak) local game a decade ago, both due to mediocre management and them killing the last game that wasn't at some ungodly hour in the AM...on a weekday.

[mycroft]

pescetom, on 2023-August-15, 16:00, said:

My own club in a different RA has three qualified directors, including myself.

I'd say that you (and I!) are blessed, then. Many, many do not. And the one or two directors they do have are qualified, sure. Have they looked at the law book since the exam? (Well, technically yes, but you know what I mean)

I'm not suggesting the BBO ACBL club directors are that level (I know a few who definitely aren't). But I have my share of 'can you read?' rulings from those events myself, too.

Quote

No Kojak or even mycroft, but I usually can (and just as well as I have to) live with the rulings I get when playing.

You've been getting experience very quickly these past few years, don't sell yourself too short.

Quote

I haven't given up playing at other clubs, where I often receive rulings as bad as on BBO, but not for the same despicable reasons.

Yep, me too. It's kind of an Occupational Hazard for directors who take that job seriously.

Quote

A decent tournament on BBO with a robot partner costs $1.70 for 14 hands versus $3 for 18-24 hands with a human at the club, so no 30% here.

That same game costs CAD10 (USD7.50 at today's exchange) anywhere in Calgary, and USD 5-6 (depending on event, and exchange) in my club in México (let's not talk about That Other Club, shall we? They absolutely deliver the Best Club Experience I have ever seen. I mean, Over the Top. They 100% charge for it, too).

Quote

Agree 100% about directing with screens. Much less about online, where many infractions (misleading explanations, time related UI usage as in the OP, use of other UI revealed by audio-video if the platform allows it) are objectively more evident and easy to rule than they would be F2F. Yes, it is possible to audio-video record F2F at club too, but do you? Over here privacy law makes it difficult and the RA offers no support.

Agree about evidence, but the basic tenet (the rulings you do get are contentious judgement rulings, not the "keep the game going" ones) applies. Easier judgement, sure; easier to prove UI/MI; still have to have the time/skill to do the polling/analysis for the other two legs of Law 16/result given by Law 12.

Quote

During Covid I directed a lot of club tournaments on BBO (200 per year) and had no compunction about changing scores whenever necessary (and sometimes it was necessary only because I was not allowed to penalize). I can't remember the last time a Director in a for money BBO tournament changed a score for any reason other than erroneous or inconclusive system assignment when late at end of round.

I am not saying that the BBO club doesn't have its faults. I can enumerate a number more (some that don't apply to "normal" clubs), in my opinion. For a number of reasons (not least that I like [names redacted, but they know who they are] and I would like to continue to have polite conversations with them when next we meet :-) I *won't* enumerate them, especially here, but I'm sure they're not unknown to [those people] or to the majority of forum posters either.

I am saying that while it's right to lean on any club to improve their level of directing, it's not worse than a lot of real life clubs (effectively, most that do not have a paid directing staff or owner/director who is operating the game for the money. Note, there are *real problems* with some of the latter, too - witness my "first club I directed at", where the rulings were clearly primarily concerned with "who won't come back if I rule against them", and only secondarily with the FLB). And I'm not sure I understand why the shock in that, especially given Capitalism (Pay the Least, and Charge the Most, for a service Good Enough that the punters come back).

[barmar]

BBO doesn't have a formal appeal process AFAIK. But you can write to acbl@bridgebase.com if you have a complaint about the directing of an ACBL tourney.

If we rule in your favor the best we can do is refund your entry fee. We don't have any way to change the results after the correction period (20 minutes after the game ends), so we can't rescore the tourney and change the Masterpoint awards.