[bendare]

This is in specific regard to BBO's ACBL games.

Early this AM I was kibbing when a pair had a minus 17 imps in the first three hands. During Board 4, Player A of the pair said he had to leave, that he needed to "work" , asked director for a sub and left in the middle of the play of the hand.

At the end of Bd 4, Player B of that pair left the tourney and did not return.
I am not aware if Player B spoke with TD about leaving, but perhaps she did.
However, under the circumstances of a very bad start and partner leaving, it seems more than coincidental that Player B would have an "emergency" to have to leave the tourney just at that time.

Later in the day, this same Player B (playing with another partner) was down more than 50 imps at the end of board 10, at which point Player B left that tourney also.

Though I have not seen this happen often in ACBL games, I have seen it happen several times when a player is not happy with his/her partner OR when a pair is having a very bad game.

On the rare occasions when I have subbed in ACBL games, I can only recall once when I did not sub into the game to very, very bad previous scores. It seems often a case of bad sportsmanship rather than a real emergency.

It is my understanding that in other tourneys on BBO, the TD can blacklist players who they believe have left the game for non emergency reasons. How do (or should) BBO's ACBL TDs handle players who leave when obviously in a huff or because of very bad scores? ( I know it is hard to "prove" those reasons.) Do (or should) ACBL TDs keep and share records of those who leave and do not return during tourneys?

[inquiry]

BBO software tracks Tournment jumpers (those that leave). We understand that people leave for a lot of reasons.

1) true emergencies,
2) loss of connection
3) anger over rude partner
4) poor results
5) better offer
6) anger over "stupid" parnter,
etc

obvioulsy some of these are legit, others are not.So we let the tracking software allow some number of jumps. Go past that, and the software will ban you from ALL TOURNE?s (not just ACBL) automatcially for some legnth of time. Repeated bans can make jeopordize aability to play in all tournments (and indeed access to the entire bbo).

Warning. Leaving as dummy on the very last hand during play counts as far as the software is concened.

[Gerardo]

I think that applies only to free tourneys, and you can play a pay T even when banned, if you pay the fee.

[McBruce]

Gerardo: I think that [the BBO tracking of tourney non-finishers and the auto-suspensions that go with it] applies only to free tourneys, and you can play a pay T even when banned, if you pay the fee.

I certainly hope that's wrong.

Why on earth should a person with a reputation for leaving tourneys before they are finished be barred from free tourneys but not pay ones?

By limiting the auto-suspensions to free tourneys, the policy says, in effect: We don't care about the majority of players who play to the end whatever the result. If they have to take an A+ or two, or play against a pickup pair, or watch their rivals get an A+ at random just because the pair that left is next up for them; them's the breaks.

I can tell you that this does not happen in offline bridge, because TDs do not let it happen. If a player is upset or disgruntled and wishes to leave, I will chase them into the parking lot to get them back, and if diplomacy doesn't work I will threaten them with an ACBL suspension which WILL be upheld.

The ACBL does not take kindly to people who leave for frivolous reasons, disrupting the game for everyone. The recommended penalty for leaving a session before it is over, from the ACBL Displinary Sanction Guidlines, is 90 days probation to 30 days suspension. That's for a first offense.

Why we let it happen online, over and over and over again, is quite beyond me. When we discuss cheating allegations we have this ethic that says that online bridge is no different from offline bridge: cases must be proved conclusively and procedures must be followed. Fair enough. But why do we twist that around when it comes to misconduct: people leaving early with a bad score and no good reason for leaving? Somehow now online bridge is different suddenly and we must be lenient. Why?

I see more people asking me for permission to leave in one online tourney than I do in a year's worth of weekly games at the club. (Not to mention that for everyone who asks permission, there are one or two that don't even bother.) Usually it is just a message that the player has to leave, no reason given. Sometimes the 'reasons' are given and I wish they weren't: we have a dinner date, the baby has woken up, there's a knock at the door, an important telephone call has been returned -- for goodness sake, people, why enter a tournament (especially one of mine, which are 15 boards long!) when you know you are not likely to finish? Do these people have no consideration for others?

Let's think carefully about the policy before we let players with a bad rep spoil pay tourneys for innocent paying customers. If anything, I would make players pay a deposit that could be forfeited for leaving early (returning and claiming bad connection might be allowed once per tourney), misbehaving, or sabotaging by taking a bad score deliberately. Make the $1 tourneys a loss of $20 if you don't behave or leave before it ends and this problem will go away very quickly.

[barmar]

McBruce, on Nov 2 2005, 06:57 PM, said:

I see more people asking me for permission to leave in one online tourney than I do in a year's worth of weekly games at the club. (Not to mention that for everyone who asks permission, there are one or two that don't even bother.) Usually it is just a message that the player has to leave, no reason given. Sometimes the 'reasons' are given and I wish they weren't: we have a dinner date, the baby has woken up, there's a knock at the door, an important telephone call has been returned -- for goodness sake, people, why enter a tournament (especially one of mine, which are 15 boards long!) when you know you are not likely to finish? Do these people have no consideration for others?

Online bridge is generally treated more casually than f2f clubs and tournaments.

You don't have to make a special trip, you aren't sequestered away at a club or tournament site. It's also typically less expensive; most BBO pay tourneys are $1 for 10-12 boards, while most club games around here are around $5 for a 24-board session, i.e. at least twice as much.

Since people are almost always playing from home, it's much more likely that "real life" is going to intrude on them. Doorbells ring, babies start crying, etc. If people didn't want to take advantage of this ability to multi-task, online bridge wouldn't be as popular as it is in the first place. But it's a two-edged sword -- the features that make it convenient also make interruptions more likely

Few people enter tournaments when they *expect* to be interrupted. But should a parent never enter a tournament, because their baby *might* wake up? Do you really expect them to hire a baby sitter while they're sitting at the computer in the next room?

[jillybean]

Yes, significant difference between someone saying ‘oops, sorry I have to leave’ and someone who clicks off after a bad board. People playing at home are going to have interruptions, real life gets in the way.

As for people leaving pay tournaments, money talks. The zero tolerance rules seem to be relaxed somewhat when money is involved and hosts are only too willing to have those people back as long as they are getting their buck.

You wont see any complaints here from pay TD's about people quitting tournaments and leaving behind their cash.

jb

[chicken]

i like the idea of a deposit, and would appreciate if sb cld tell me if gerardos statement was true.

[uday]

The purpose of the automated tourney bans and the automated mbc bans is to improve life in the free tourneys and the mbcs, to attempt to modify the behaviour of some of our customers, and to reduce the work of free tds and abuse staff


The pay tourneys have their own agenda and motivations (and their own management, which decides what is good for them). As she said ...

Quote

You wont see any complaints here from pay TD's about people quitting tournaments and leaving behind their cash.

BBO owns one of the pay tourneys - the acbl games on bbo. I am not interested in discussing all the aspects of my acbl club business here. Feel free to email any of the clubs ( acbl@, bboitalia@, skyclub@, bboland@ ) if you are curious. the email will be forwarded to the real address of the club.

Chicken: a deposit is not practical. No one will pay it, and we can't make them, so to speak.

G's statement is not completely accurate but certainly the paying_customer status of a customer is one of the many factors in all our abuse cases. (note to world: please don't start up on me about this until after Estoril. They're paying customers because they pay the bills. Find me a business that is willing to run nightly jobs to kick out paying customers without human supervision and i'll find you a number of burger flippers for the nearest fast food joint). Some of our nonpaying customers are also vips. There are several people I could think of who have never paid a dollar yet are among our very best customers. Many of them are here in forums but many many of them are not.



McBruce: because the pay tourneys dont care as much. they keep the $. The free tourneys keep only the aggravation. Yeah, people dont bail in real life because they really can't. here it is as easy as click-click-click and a claim that your isp went down.

[McBruce]

Glad to see that it is not as simple as "bans don't count if you are paying." I suspected as much.

Not sure I agree that nobody would pay a deposit. If -- maybe only for occasional special games -- you tacked on a deposit of one or two times the entry fee ($20 was maybe a bit harsh) it would be a gesture to the people who play from start to finish that we want to crack down on those who don't. The TD could always decide to refund the deposit to those for whom there was no evidence that the exit was unsportsmanlike. I usually find that quitters leave a clear trail of -800s, -950s, -790s and the like, in their last few boards. People who leave with normal looking results often message me later to apologize for losing connection.

ACBL club rules usually allow clubs to run four club championships a year for extra masterpoints for each session they run. If this is allowed for online clubs, maybe that would be a good way to introduce the policy.

We talked a lot about the fairness of movements when BBO first introduced tournaments. How different, really, is taking steps to ensure that each entry contains the same players at the beginning and end? It increases the luck factor when 10% of the pairs are replaced before the tournament is over, especially when there is strong evidence that many of these people are just leaving because they are losing. The connection factor of the Net means we can't ever completely solve the problem, but we should at least try to minimize it--especially when honest people are paying to play.

[matmat]

Perhaps this is a little off-topic, however I feel that having a running score for each pair might be contributing to the problem. In your standard club game you don't know (you may have a vague idea) how you are doing overall until after the last or second to last round. Perhaps on-line tourneys should withhold score information also?

[bearmum]

matmat, on Nov 25 2005, 06:05 PM, said:

Perhaps this is a little off-topic, however I feel that having a running score for each pair might be contributing to the problem. In your standard club game you don't know (you may have a vague idea) how you are doing overall until after the last or second to last round. Perhaps on-line tourneys should withhold score information also?

That sounds like a GREAT idea to me

[Gerardo]

That's an option for TDs (IIRC, the default is to withhold the scores)

[Gerben42]

Quote

Early this AM I was kibbing when a pair had a minus 17 imps in the first three hands. During Board 4, Player A of the pair said he had to leave, that he needed to "work" , asked director for a sub and left in the middle of the play of the hand.

At the end of Bd 4, Player B of that pair left the tourney and did not return.

I sympathize with player B who had planned to play a tournament with player A and not with a substitute. It's still not right, but can understand it.

[jikl]

When I direct I never show the scores until the end. I require far less subs this way. I also try to not run Swiss Pairs as people now know how they are doing. It is amazing how many "computer problems" people have when they are in the bottom 2-3 tables. Surprisingly, those in the top 2-3 tables seemingly never have a "computer problem".

Call me cynical, but I think I know what these "computer problems" are.

Additionally, you get far less dropouts in Individuals than in Pairs, especially if you run 1 board rounds.

Sean

[rigour6]

What about if we were to make the "hidden" rate of disconnection visible to everyone?

I believe that's what Pogo does. You can see how many games a player started and how many they won and lost. You get something like this:

Player: Mister Bailsalot
Games: 843
Wins: 142
Losses: 206

Hmmmm, one thinks, looking at these stats, here's a guy that doesn't finish half the games he starts? Maybe I better look elsewhere for a partner or a 4th...



BBO shows that number rating in one corner. How about a colour rating based on disconnects? Whatever you monitor and display usually will improve as a result.

[matmat]

jikl, on Nov 26 2005, 06:50 PM, said:

I also try to not run Swiss Pairs as people now know how they are doing. It is amazing how many "computer problems" people have when they are in the bottom 2-3 tables.

Is there a way to run a "scrambled" swiss? i.e. each round the tables are assigned a 'secret' rank so that you retain the functionality of a swiss, but the standings remain a secret from the players? seems like something that should be trivial for the software to implement..

[uday]

Nothing is trivial when a typo can take down the service, but it would be easy enough to code this. I don't think it is desirable, tho. Isnt the rising and sinking part of the fun ?

[Rain]

jikl, on Nov 26 2005, 05:50 PM, said:

When I direct I never show the scores until the end. I require far less subs this way. I also try to not run Swiss Pairs as people now know how they are doing. It is amazing how many "computer problems" people have when they are in the bottom 2-3 tables. Surprisingly, those in the top 2-3 tables seemingly never have a "computer problem".

Call me cynical, but I think I know what these "computer problems" are.

Additionally, you get far less dropouts in Individuals than in Pairs, especially if you run 1 board rounds.

Sean

Agree.