Organised Chaos! > IAC Matters

IAC rules

(1/3) > >>

Curls77:
Hi all lovely members :)
Looks as some of us have objections on basic rules we try keep in IAC, namely having tables open for any member to sit or watch. I'd like to think that it is accepted and welcomed by majority, but please do correct me if I am wrong. And while in here, please feel free suggest what you think we missed and you'd want, or anything else..
TY :)

kenberg:
Generally I agree with the policy, but perhaps there could be some fun things that would require permissions. For example, a team game could be set with the following rules: Everyone at one table agrees to play "Bot standard", the bidding structure that the robots use. At the other table there are four bots. And then you see how it goes. The permission part is that you can't play at the table unless you agree to bot standard. Another possibility is that everyone agrees to play Bridge World Standard. This could be educational.  For example, maybe partner opens 1NT, my Rho overcalls in a suit, I have a six card major and good values. Is Texas on? Mike Lawrence says that Texas is on if the interference is 3 !C or less (over a 3 !D overcall a 4 !D bid by me asks partner to choose a major) but BWS says Texas is on if the interference is 4 !C or less.  I don't know what the bots do, but playing in a game as described I would find out. So this combines fun and education.

This could be a reason to restrict playing to those who agree with the format. It's a bit of a special case. It wouldn't require a director but it probably needs advance planning.

jcreech:
Re Curls77: 

I dislike that some tables require permission to play or kibitz.  I like to think that IAC is a friendly environment for play and that anyone is welcome.

In reality, IAC is a nicer version of the main room, with all of its personality issues; I wish it weren't, but there is a small subset that make things unpleasant for the others.  I am pretty sure that most are innocent, that have just blown up through misunderstanding and unwillingness to empathize.  However, I know that some are fairly serious intolerances right now.  I do suggest that if there is an intolerance issue, that the persons play at different tables, and if the IAC administration will allow, request that the TD seat them at separate tables in a match.

Re kenberg:

I like elements of this suggestion and not others.  I like the idea of occasionally running team matches where everyone is playing bot standard.  I'm not sure how this can be set up, with the bot explanations, but I do like putting everyone on the same footing, and see who can make the best use of the same system to get to the right contract, work to right side a hand, and so forth.  I would prefer to have humans at the other table, though. 

Nonetheless, there are times when there is only one table available, and that table would like to play in a team format; this might be something to consider for a TD to consider - setting up a match where the bots form one table and the other table consists of the humans.

New:

1.  As a TD, I have noticed that some tables make it unpleasant for a player who does not want to play in a team match.  I feel bad that someone who was enjoying play in IAC, is suddenly feeling pressure to leave because the others at the table would prefer the match.  I think it is important that the table indicate that they would like to play in a team match in the description so these players will know what is expected.  It also makes it plain for a TD, who logs in and sees two tables, to know what is desired without having to stop and ask in advance.

2.  It might be a good idea to establish a method for determining the order of inclusion for tables into team matches.  Someone asked me how TDs select the tables when there are an odd number.  I responded that it was up to the TD, but that if I see three, I try to see what board the table is on as an indicator of length of play, but for others, it might be how the tables show up in the queue. 

kenberg:
For the bot std team match I was thinking of it as partly fun, partly educational At the human table, the players would have t learn bot standard because Jim is right, the meaning would not be seen by the bidder. Playing with the bots, the screen tells you what the bid that you are about to make means. I prefer that not to happen. But at the other table the bots bid and play so the humans could check back later. Sort of an "Are you smarter than a bot" game.

As to Jim's point 1, I agree push people need not play a tm if they would rather just play as a four person table. I often prefer that.

Curls77:
Thanks for input Ken and Jim :) Ideas are certainly interesting and worth trying. I am not sure we have many members who are familiar with either Bot Standard or BWS Systems, plenty still have profile simple as "sayc" or "sayc-std-1nt15-17-2c22+wjs-wjo-blkwd-gerber-michaels/unt-maj trf -noreverses" just for example.
Some members, but very few, know how to load pre-designed Bot Standard CC, which can help. But, I am almost sure that TD can not add bots into team game or tournament, not at any seat, let alone to fill table with bots.

Jim: You are very right to point out that some members feel like being forced into team match, which should not be happening, some just seek normal friendly game in club, for many reasons. Table host, ie player that opens table should define it as awaiting for TM or just friendly, and so help other members decide if they are able and willing to join. Naturally, that would help us TDs lots, but again.. not many members know how to put table description.
I never had problem with deciding who starts first with odd numbers of tables, because I see them forming and when they fill up. First to open, first goes.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page