[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2020-July-20, 20:32, said:

Is that in the sky blue book?

No it's not, and it's not true. Good job I saw your reply Ed as I wouldn't have seen Paul's comment. It may be a misunderstanding of this, which is in our Lockdown League regulations:

" There is no TD assigned for these privately-arranged matches, and clicking on the TD button will simply send a message to the team captain who set up the match."

[edit] having now seen in Gerardo's post that he actually quoted this himself, I wonder how he could possibly have also said that "The person who sets up the table is the designated director as far as the EBU is concerned".

This post has been edited by gordontd: 2020-July-21, 05:58

[pescetom]

KingCovert, on 2020-July-20, 15:29, said:

It seems strange to me that BBO culture takes precedence over the laws when a ruling body makes an actual ruling (which it makes based on the laws).

I've probably beaten all horses into extinction at this point on this topic, but, it is a somewhat interesting topic. Sorry!

The reason is probably that the BBO solution is a horse (fast, obedient and emits acceptable excrement) whereas the laws solution is a camel (slow, obnoxious and clearly designed by a committee)

[lamford]

For clarification, if one sets up a table for a match on BBO, including EBU events such as the Lockdown League, then, as happened on Monday last week.

A player clicked on "call director" because declarer had (fatally) played the king of clubs under his own ace, either a misclick or loss of concentration, nobody knows. I was at the other table, and had finished, and had set up the match:

The player received a pop-up asking for the reason for the "Call Director". He entered that there was a requested undo for a misclick. I was called to the table by the software and when I arrived it showed "Director lamford has arrived at the table". So whether or not the person who set up the table is the official director, and whatever the EBU might or might not say, the software certainly treats it as being the case. The player (of the other side) asked if he was allowed to undo, and I stated that I did not think I should be offering an opinion, as it must be inherently wrong for the director to be one of the players of either side, but I did paste the part of the Lockdown League rules which stated that no undos in the play are permitted in this league. The players agreed to continue and the match ended amicably, and my furtive mind wandered and an incident at a North London club occurred, as reported here.

In my opinion, gerardo's Utopian thoughts are unsustainable, and online bridge will often have no director, unless it is a major event. The software should allow the hands to be completed without a director, and any adjusted score should be requested after the match. That is the only way it seems to work. For more serious events, a TD is useful, particularly when one person accuses another of self-kibitzing ...

[Vampyr]

EBU directors will be online a lot of the time, and I think they will be happy to help if need be. Otherwise, a disputed claim will have to be ruled on when the game is finished. There is no possibility of having a dedicated TD stand by all day every day.

Edit: missed lamford’s post above.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2020-July-21, 06:29, said:

The reason is probably that the BBO solution is a horse (fast, obedient and emits acceptable excrement) whereas the laws solution is a camel (slow, obnoxious and clearly designed by a committee)

LOL I disagree with this; my upvote was a mistake.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2020-July-23, 10:34, said:

EBU directors will be online a lot of the time, and I think they will be happy to help if need be.

My experience is that they are usually directing tournaments and are reluctant to get diverted.

Postscript: The new EBU Online regulations have the following clause:
"Playing online the players will have little option but to accept whatever the platform allows and complete the play of the board."

So, calling the TD during a match is not generally a viable option, and any ruling should be obtained after the match. Rights should not be jeopardised by so doing, clearly.