JRG

I, and I suspect many others, like to play set games using an invisible table. Sometimes we want to allow certain people to kibitz. At the moment, the only way I know of handling this, is to set up the table and when I know someone wants to watch (either they have phoned me, it's pre-arranged or they have asked one of the people playing at the table who is not invisible to ask me), I temporarily make the table visible while that person joins. Unfortunately, this leaves a window of opportunity for other players to join the table (requiring permission opens up another problem... an avalanche of requests that overwhelms my ability to deal with them). What would be really nice, is to have 2 or 3 (or maybe 4 to 6?) slots that can be used to enter players' names. This would be visible when setting up a table, much like the player positions are. In a similar way, the players could be invited to join to kibitz. That way the table could be set up in advance to allow certain players to watch. Presumably, clicking on the "Table" button would allow adding or removing a kibitzer, just like a player.

Using Firefox (under Linux), the chat entry area is too tall (easily seen in the screenshot as the top of the area should align with the "Chat" and "Options" buttons. This often makes it impossible to see the last comment until it scrolls up after a subsequent comment. This has been a problem for a LONG time. http://goold.org/BBO-chat-problem.png I'll check later to see if it is a problem with the Chrome browser. OK. Just checked. Chromium browser under Linux (Linux Mint) doesn't appear to have the problem.

I came to theForums for the first time in years, specifically to look for this topic (or similar). When I use the Android app on my smart phone, the ads use up valuable screen real estate (but I can live with that, like theoriginal poster). What I cannot stand is the constant, distracting flashing and animations. They are particularly irritating when displayed in vivid colors,which appears to be most of the time. Additionally, with the introduction of ads to the Android app, chat appears to be broken -- I've been unable to chat for the past few days. I usually do not usethe Android appas I much prefer the browser version of BBO, but we are on holiday and I have no other choice. Oh, workarounds (registering for paid tournaments) may be alright, but the workaround is as bad as the original problem. I personally feel a 1-year paid subscription is a far superior option. ...John

For the first time ever, I have been unable to connect and login to BBO. When I surf to http://www.bridgebase.com/client/client.php all I get is the vertical advertising bar down the left-hand side of the window — the rest is plain white. Firefox browser under Linux Mint. Both are the most up to date releases and have all fixes applied. The hardware, probably irrelevant, is an Apple MacBook Pro (and older one). Update: It worked still on Windows 7, so I tried re-booting. That solved the problem. It looks like it had something to do with a recent Firefox update (Linux supporting software) as Firefox went through its "Checking plugins..." spiel when it was launched. For whatever it is worth, just quitting and re-launching Firefox did not work; it took a reboot. PROBLEM RESOLVED

I use the app on an iPad and have now had sufficient experience using it to be able to comment more intelligently (I hope!). I prefer to use the web browser version on a large screen, but the mobile app is sometimes more convenient. Both the mobile and browser versions need an implementation of the Chatroom. As mentioned in the Chat with Fred, this was a great feature of the old Windows program. Great for chatting to partner about bridge related topics. On the iPad, there appears to be a lot of space wasted with decoration. The faux-wood stuff. etc. I'm not an UI expert, but couldn't what little screen real estate there is, be used more effectively? As suggested by at least one other: Logging out is a pain. It would be nice to have a one-click method of doing this (or a choice on a drop-down menu) It would also be nice to have a "quit this app" rather than just send it into the background (but that applies to all iPad apps :angry: ) The method of checking scores when watching a team game (including Vugraph) seems tedious. I especially dislike the present deal being off-screen (I watched some of the Vanderbilt on my computer and some on my iPad).

I agree with what you have said. These issues apply to the iOS as well as Android.

I agree with what you have said. These issues apply to the iOS as well as Android.

The iPad app does not handle multi-tasking/threading/backgrounding or whatever it is. Except on very rare occasions, the connection is lost and one needs to login again and navigate back to where one was (e.g. watching a Vugraph match, team game, etc.). Examples: Due to "inactivity", the iPad locks the screen One switches to another app (e.g. browser to look up a URL or view a site mentioned in a chat message) One goes to start another app (e.g. music player) Cheers, John

That is an iPad setting, not something the BBO app can change. It can be turned on/off, or the time-out changed, in the iPad "Settings" app (under "Auto-Lock").

There are a couple of issues with the nomenclature and use of the Profile. One's Profile has a section called "Other". It allows one to say something about oneself (this is, after all, in a "Profile"). Very soon after BBO launched and started to gain in popularity, people started using this area to list conventions/systems they played. As the number of BBO members sky-rocketed, this was completely understandable for people who were happy playing with random/unknown partners. This usage now appears to be the norm. However, it is unsatisfactory: There really does need to be an area for members to make a few comments about themselves (e.g. "I dislike slow play" or "I do not like playing bridge with anonymous people"). Similarly, there is a real need to be able to indicate which bidding system/conventions a member uses. Surely a dedicated area for that purpose makes a lot of sense. As well, many people have said the "Other" area is rather restrictive when listing conventions, etc. (i.e. too few characters can be typed in). I would suggest making it a bit larger, but not much. It's purpose would be to provide a general idea of what a person plays, not a detailed description (use a Convention Card for that purpose).

I missed this thread (I thought it was to do with a BBO feature, not general comments on the Mobile app) and created a new thread by mistake. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/57961-wish-list-ipad-app/

In portrait mode, it would be nice to be able to change the chat pane (right sidebar) to show Who is Online, My Scores, much the way the web version allows different things to display in the sidebar. Because chat is so important, it would require a fast and easy way to toggle back to chat. Be able to login as "invisible" as in other BBO. I know the Anonymous logins are there, but they are not the same. Actually, I personally have no desire to play against an anonymous player. More of the BBO Options: Toggle showing when friends logon, chat options. Options that a person would normally set once and forget about should be set through the iPad (iOS) "Settings", though not using this option if the code base is shared between iOS and Android is understandable. General (i.e. all BBO): By the way, I would love a way to block chat messages that do not come from a person at the table (player or kibitzer). I dislike getting random invitations to play in games with people I do not know. General (i.e. all BBO): When one sets up a table with "reserved" seats and the player in one of those seats leaves, that seat should NOT be available for anyone to click on. It should still show up as reserved (obviously with an option for the host to turn off the reserve). It is incredibly annoying to be winding up a set game and be finishing a conversation with 1 or 2 of the players and have a barrage of requests to sit. General (i.e. all BBO): Make it so that if a person clicks on a seat, he is shown the table description and needs to click a "Confirm" button BEFORE the request is processed. This should be bypassed for a person clicking on a seat reserved for him. There could also be an option for the table host to turn this behaviour on/off. There may be other exceptions as well (e.g. when a player is automatically moved in a tournament). NOTE: This is different from, but similar to, the above.

There were discussions of the problem in the past. I think the more experienced BBO members are generally aware of it. I learnt about it quickly as I have a slow dial-up connection and there is sometimes a delay after the auction is over before the trump suit is moved to the left. I consciously wait for that to happen before I lead.

I just thought of a great way to chew up CPU cycles! It would be nice to be able to filter who is allowed to sit at a table one hosts. For example, allow anyone who is marked as a Friend or for whom a seat is Reserved (which would be my favourite combination). People not allowed to sit would receive a message such as "Table settings don't allow you to play". The filtering could be more general than my example -- perhaps similar to the View filters for a club: Filter on language, country, level, champion.

I just tried it without any problem. I assume you have the Vul set in the editor window.

I would be happy if my profile had a check box that said "NEVER chat to Lobby". I find it incredibly annoying when my attempt to chat privately goes to the lobby -- and I expect the people receiving "Lobby Chat" are equally annoyed (well, maybe not quite as annoyed).

A new release of the Online Help has now been activated. You may want to try browsing it. Invoke the Help system from anywhere in BBO. Select "Contents" and then "Topics". Browse down to the "Full Disclosure" section and check out what is available. If you have questions or suggestions for improvement to the Help (in this case the portion dealing with Full Dislosure), send an e-mail message to support@bridgebase.com.

The question is how much you play on BBO with your regular partner. I would suggest that if you play quite a lot, it is worthwhile learning "Full Disclosure" (as suggested by others). There is now some Online Help that you might find useful (I am biased, so I cannot comment on how good it is). Full Disclosure (FD) allows you to spend time (it can be "Off line") and enter your bidding system to whatever level of detail you have it defined. Of course, this means that if you have 100 pages of notes, you must expect to enter roughly a 100 pages worth of input into Full Disclosure. Again, the question is how much you play online. Your comment suggested that you like to play online, but are serious tournament players -- you are worried about the affect on your game of playing online. So I suspect it would be worth your while to learn and use Full Disclosure. If you do, it will not be your fault if the opponents make errors because of not heeding what your bids mean.

I apologize if this seems like a silly question: Did you remember to use the "File" menu "Save" command before quitting BidEdit? We tend to get used to software that constantly saves every change as we go along, but that is not necessarily the best way to work. BidEdit requires one to "Save" one's changes.

You like drooling?

Works like a charm. I suspect it would not work quite as well with an old Mac. You need a Mac with a PowerPC G3 or G4 chip (or later). The PowerPC processer can actually run the Pentium instruction set, which is why Virtual PC works so well. I'm using Windows 2000 Pro on my "virtual PC". I have a PowerBook G4 with 1GB memory (lots of memory is a good thing on any computer!). Oh, my version of VirtualPC is 6.1.1 Feel free to ask me questions if you want (john_goold@racsa.co.cr).

As Ron pointed out, 1NT is not a psyche, it is a "deviation" (from your systemic agreements). To be a psyche, it needs to be "A deliberate and gross mistatement of honour strength or suit length." -- this is from the "Definitions" section of the Laws. However, if you "shade" your 1NT overcalls frequently enough that your partner may have come to expect that, then it is a no-no. I suspect here that they assumed (since you pulled 1NT Dbl) that you had an out-and-out psyche -- they were wrong!

In my experience, the director when called immediately, says "Go ahead and play the hand, call me back if there's a problem." Of course if 7H goes down, there's no problem, so the defenders get their double shot anyway. The law on unauthorized information states explicitly (Law 16A2), "When Illegal Alternative is Chosen: When a player has substantial reason to believe* that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." So, the director is supposed to have play continue. If he is a non-playing director and doesn't have other calls to attend to, he may very well stand back and watch the rest of the deal. There should be no double shot. Having said that, I'm sure that (as in all walks of life) not all directors have the same degree of competency. I hope to be competent, but only time will tell. I certainly have the opportunity as I'm lucky enough to have the Chief Tournament Director for the zone as a mentor (and he isn't wishy-washy in his critique).

I just wrote my "Local Director" certification examination and am waiting for the results. It was "open book", so I had the chance to browse the Laws while answering questions. The discussion on psyches is interesting because one of the questions was: My answer was "False". I based this on Law 40A (which has been quoted frequently in the threads about psyches - "A player may make any call...") and Law 80F which basically says that the sponsoring organization may publish supplementary regulations but "...not in conflict with, these laws". However I added a commentary because I was searching for some vague justification that clubs might be using to get away with restricting psychic bids. What I came up with is that Law 90A (Director's Authority) allows assessing "...penalties for any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants,...". I suppose a director could attempt to rationalize limiting psyches - "I don't forbid psyches, I just penalize each psyche a full board because it disrupts the game" or some such thing. If anyone is interested, I'll let you know how I was marked on this (I believe I'll get the written test back, or at least get to see it).

I am not certain this is always the case. In this example, I happen to agree, that the result should be 6NTx down one for both. However, there can be examples where one side created an offense, and the other side used such bad bridge judgement, the offending side can not be allowed to profit from their action but the non-offending side are not excused from their blunder. Ben Yes, I've heard of this being done (I'm sure cases in The Bridge World, or ACBL Bulletin); however, I've been unable to find anywhere in the Laws the justification for doing so. In general: In a way it sounds fair ("bad bridge deserves bad results"); however, if the non-offenders had managed to survive the deal up to the time of the irregularity, then it is the irregularity that put the non-offenders in a position to mess up -- and the irregularity should not have occurred. So why should the non-offenders be punished because there was an irregularity? Now a different kettle of fish is when the non-offenders wait until the deal is over before calling the director. Again it is something I haven't been able to find in the Laws, but I know there are examples that have been discussed in The Bridge World. Appeals Committees have made their rulings so as to prevent a pair from having a "Double Shot". That is, if the "non-offending" side knows an irregularity has occurred and does not call the director at that point, then they will be under suspicion of taking a double shot -- if the result they achieve at the table is good, they might not have called the Director; but since the result was bad, they did call.