JRG

I'm a Grinch - I turn all the sounds off (I find them annoying). Personally, I would prefer "softer", less intrusive, sounds (then maybe I'd turn some of them on). Deanrover's request is a different kind of animal -- she is using sounds as "an interrupt" so she knows to check something. Her suggestion makes a lot of sense.

Well it is possible to know, with varying degrees of certaintly, that someone is who he says he is. This is done using certificates. Unfortunately, it probably would not work very well for BBO and it is awkward to set up (as a user). I use a certificate for my e-mail messages (Mac OS X 10.3 supports it) and it works very well (but though following the instructions to get a certificate was not difficult, it was onerous). Also, there are varying degrees of trust (and ways to improve the "trust" level). In any case, it can actually be done.

Finally someone stated the obvious. IF you are playing bridge, regardless of whether it is a pickup game at someone's house, the bridge club, a tournament, or online, the opponent's have the right to full disclosure. Otherwise, as someone else said, it is not bridge, but some other game. I come to BBO to play bridge, not some other game. There are two things I do agree with though: 1. If you TRULY have no agreement (and don't expect partner to be able to guess -- "Hmm, we are playing 2/1, that sounds like it should be Unusual 2NT), then clearly you don't have to alert and it is quite proper to say "We have no agreement" (I don't like the "we haven't discussed", because an agreement to play, for example Jacoby 2NT, without going into the details, implies you think that each other will be on the same wavelength). 2. Yes, there is a problem with pickup partnerships -- but exactly the same thing can happen at the bridge club or even finding a partner at the partnership desk of a tournament. That is NOT an excuse for failure to alert. However, it does mean that an honest answer might be "we haven't played before and simply decided to play SAYC with no other discussion". I'm a strong believer in taking a minute or two before starting to play to discuss at least which conventions are to be played (though without a lot of detail). When playing with a regular partner, I invite the opponents to do so. I find it bizarre that some of them don't take advantage of the opportunity.

Rather than asking (all over again) what people think of Lehman, or any other ranking system, I recommend browsing the archives. There has been a great deal of discussion on this topic -- most of it strongly against ranking systems. The previous threads discussed the reasons why it is theortically interesting but realistically degrades a bridge playing site. Lots of references to the effects on OK Bridge, for example.

I believe this issue was raised previously and was answered. The reason the default chat was changed from "room" to "kibitzers" is that too much chat intended for elsewhere (private or to kibitzers) was ending go to the table. Some of the time this chat was discussing the hand in progress and was spoiling the game for the players. So, at a table: Default is to Kibitzers and you have to target your chat at the table explicitly. Seems like the right way to do it.

I went crazy trying to figure out the bidding. The orientation of the hands is wrong in the first diagram (I guess the markup should have been RIGHTDUMMY instead of LEFTDUMMY.)

Hmmm. I have only played in a few tournaments (perhaps too early in the tournament development cycle); however, I find I much prefer to play at a bridge club table. There may well be others like me. Why should our game suffer to promote tournaments? Having said that, I tend to prefer to setup a table with the foursome agreed ahead of time and to play for a reasonable length of time (one to two hours, sometimes a bit longer). I find when I ask people I've marked as friends, I sometimes get a response such as, "I'd like to but I have to ... in a few minutes" or "I'm just about to get sucked into a tournament". Seems like common courtesy. It would be nice to have the system provide some safe guards similar to the ones suggested by others. My own preference would be something like: - The system prevents a player who is registered in a tournament event from sitting at any table if there is less than x minutes before the event starts (and make x something like 10 minutes, not 2!). - When a player that is registered in a tournament event can, and does, sit, then if the tournament is closer than y minutes, the system sends a chat to table "XXX is due to play in a tournament in yy hours and zz minutes.". I would make y something like 30 or 45 minutes. If the system keeps any statistics (average time a player sits at one table, average time a table persists, percentage of players who are yanked from a table for an event versus leaving for other reasons, etc.), then it might be possible to make educated choices for x and y.

I don't normally make posts that just say, "I agree with you" or "That was well said". Instead, if I feel strongly enough, I send the poster a personal message. However, I have to make an exception. I think Michael Lucy's post was truly excellent. I wish I had Michael's memory!!! (But I don't). However I remember a number of situations that had me thinking someone (singular or pair) were cheating. I like to keep these thoughts to myself, because often, a few hands later, the same player (or pair) will do something similar and get a rotten result. Even worse, later in the same hand they would do something really silly. On the other hand, there have been situations where similar things happened (funny lead and interesting discarding by partner -- both being deceptive and potentially very costly), without any corresponding bad results. I don't want to give more details as I don't want anyone finding the hands (in My Hands DB). However, even in these situations, I could still be wrong. Maybe the players are understating their levels and were truly just making life difficult for me.

Tell me which cards are accepted and I'll add it to the Online Help as soon as I see the posting.

Once you have chatted privately with a director (or anyone else for that matter), that person's Id will show up in the Chat list (click on list item in Chat Dialog -- it will be there along with To Table, To Lobby, etc.).

I believe the software does the following (and this is what I am documenting in the Online Help, so if I'm wrong, someone please send me a message): When you set up a tournament, you set the "Minutes per board". The amount of time for the round is calculated based on that times the number of boards per round. If the clock runs out while a deal is in progress, then the average minuses come into play. If a board is about to be played, it can only be started if there is at least 1/2 of the allocated time per board remaining. So if you have set 8 minutes per board and less than 4 minutes remains, the board will be skipped. In this case, both pairs receive averages. I assume average applies to any boards that are skipped in their entirety. It certainly sounded to me like a good idea not to let players begin a board if there appears to be too little time remaining in the round (something similar is sometimes done in face-to-face bridge).

When you are watching a table, the Window Title Bar says something that ends with the Id of the Host ("... JRG" for example). Just add the direction the north player is sitting in parentheses. Knowing which direction one player is sitting is all that is necessary. So for example: Bridge Base Online - The Beginner/Intermediate Lounge - Table shep (North: Jimmy V) It would be unobtrusive but give that vital piece of information

I seem to have missed why the ♦ appears to be half the height of the ♣♥♠. Oh, I probably didn't say so, but I think it is GREAT that the suit symbols are there (I can even live with the funny colours).

Go with the red and black, but make the symbols more distinctive as suggested. Personally I dislike the green and orange. Next we will be wanting to colour-code the honours! (OK, so that was a little tongue in cheek.)

With my regular partner I tend to stick to "Thank you" when dummy goes down and (usually) "Good luck" when I am dummy. Occasionally I'll throw in a "Nice try" or "Well done" when I think it is deserved. On the other hand, I'm more liberal with saying "Well done" or "Well bid" when it is directed to the opponents (even if partner or I made a "mistake"). I feel this is especially important if I think the opponent(s) is new to the game or to online bridge. I'm also a little more encouraging of beginner and intermediate players that I play a few hands with. Often the implication is really, "That was better played than you have been -- you are improving, GREAT!". Unfortunately that might be condescending and it is a lot to type. When I get the chance, I will often tell someone I know is trying to learn, that they are improving (or not doing as badly as they sometimes seem to think they are). I've more or less got to the point that I ignore opponents' chat of "vwdp" or similar. I think they are pretty meaningless, much in the same way way as when someone says to me "Nice weather we are having" or "How are you?". 99% percent of people, including friends and acquaintances don't REALLY want to know how I am -- they are simply making small talk (I stink at small talk!)

I haven't made enough posts yet to offer an expert opinion; however, I dislike emoticons in all except "live chat". I have always felt that prose does not need special symbols. One simply says what one means. Hyperbole and other ways of expressing oneself are part of using one's language. That said, so you know where I stand, I would gladly give up all the "Clickable Smilies" for the four suit symbols. I can see the suit symbols in Misho's post, but I cannot reproduce them on my Mac. By the way, test using "Preview" rather than posting!!! It is still early for passing judgement, but so far I prefer the new Forum software to the old. That may be partly that the appearance seems cleaner and crisper to me -- but that is largely a personal preference.

I don't think I agree with you -- at least not completely. Yes, there are people who are plain lazy or sloppy. However, there are people with multiple computers (some with mice, some with touchpads, etc.). There are also those of us with relatively slow dial-up connections. Then there are simply those of us who, with age or otherwise, simply do not have a lot of manual dexterity. There are people with arthritis and other disabilites. Simply put, it is not equally easy for everyone to position the mouse pointer accurately and then click the button. Examples from personal experience: When I first started playing on BBO, I frequently misplayed to the first trick (I had the mouse pointer positioned over a card and just as I was clicking, the hand was resorted with trumps on the right). Yes - I learnt to wait. I played a few times using my wife's notebook computer. She doesn't like the touchpad settings changed and she has it set so that "tapping" the touchpad is the same as clicking the mouse button -- oh boy! Needless to say, I stopped using her machine (but I had tried it for a couple of sessions -- too many requests for Undo's). I've come across notebooks with various versions of Windows that CANNOT turn of this "tap = click" behaviour (yuck!). (I suspect if the owners were sufficiently technically literate, they could download newer drivers to fix this problem if they wanted to.) There is a very pleasant woman on BBO who has bad arthritis in her hands. If she EVER asks for an Undo, I ALWAYS grant it.

My evaluation of losers (I think this is attributable to Shep) is: Qxx = 2-1/2 losers Q10x (or QJx) = 2 losers So I'd evaluate the hand as an 8-loser hand, not 9.

While agreeing that it is non-standard (and hence should probably not be done), I like it. It would mean the members who chose login Ids with non-alphabetical first characters would not be indexable -- fine punishment for silly games. John

Good questions Joe. I'll monitor this thread and try and ensure that information not in the Online Help gets added there (the help about tournaments is about to undergo a major revision and, I hope, expansion). John

Currently I'm running VirtualPC under Mac OS X. I take screen snapshots by snapshotting the entire PC window. For this set, though, I might ask my wife if I can use her Windows PC and use the <Alt>+<Print Scrn> mechanism (puts it on the clip board and then I paste it into Microsoft Paint (ugh - but it works). There are several reasons I want to run my own tournaments: - I want to go through all the setup that a person running a tournament does (the only way to document everything about this aspect). This especially involves how files on the PC can be used to limit tournament participation. - I don't want to keep getting "grabbed" for director calls and losing my context just as I'm trying to take a snapshot or jot down a note. - But I do want to get called (when I'm ready) so I can document that aspect as well. - I want to make some (probably fictitious) score adjustments. Those are the main reasons for keeping it small and having a group of people who can happily play away at the bridge table while I try to accomplish what I need to do. I'd like to go back through some of the postings about tournaments and see if I can get answers to the problems (or descriptions) into the Help. This probably means making several passes (probably about a week apart for the tournaments).

Ah, now I understand you suggestion better. Your example made it much clearer. Glad I responded. If I interpret you correctly, you would start things off the same way as is currently done when setting up a team match, but you would be able to leave one or more seats empty. Then the Team Game would be displayed in a similar manner to a table in a club (but with both "rooms" displayed), where you can click on a seat to request the team game host to let you sit.

I would like to run a tournament, or a small number of them. The reason is to facilitate documenting the BBO Tournament facility. I've been acutely aware that the Online Help is weak in this area and needs expanding a lot. However, I have not been comfortable hosting my own tournaments when the only reason for the tournaments is for me to take screen snapshots, experiment, etc. However, with the improved ability to restrict entrants to a tournament, I'd like to try this. This means having a tournament where the players are willing just to play bridge and not bother the director (except when the director asks a player to!!!) -- more or less play bridge as if one were in the Main Bridge Club (but more frequent changes of opponents?). So, if I could get a list of members that would be willing to participate, I would be very grateful. I will be back home (in Costa Rica) after January 8th (2004) and would like to set the tournament(s) up soon after that. If I get enough people, I'll post more information in this thread. I need enough volunteers so that only a percentage need to show up for a specific tournament. I'll probably restrict the size of the tournament to 3 or 4 tables and 1/2 to 1 hour in duration (purely for convenience). If you are willing, please send me an e-mail with the subject line, "BBO Help". Mail it to john_goold@racsa.co.cr. Indicate your preferred time of day (I REALLY want to do this, so I'll be flexible about my time). Oh, have a happy holiday season! John

Thanks Claus. Some of your suggestions are really suggestions for the BBO software, not the Online Help. Nevertheless, interesting ideas. There is not a link to the World Clock, but the other two links are in the Help. I've thought of having a Links section before, but have had reservations (about this and other ideas). I will certainly see if I can make the links more prominent and thus quick and easy to locate. I'll definitely add the World Clock link, I think it is a very useful one for people using BBO. My reservations about adding various things to the Online Help are because I want to keep the Online Help focused specifically on using the BBO client -- I don't want to try and teach people how to play bridge, provide general bridge information, etc. Having said that, I am open to suggestions and if enough people really want something in the Help, I shall give it careful consideration.

John, I've asked for the thread, "Suggestions for Online Help" in the "Suggestions for the Software" forum to be made a sticky topic. That doesn't seem to be about to happen. What about setting up a separate forum called "BBO Online Help". Not surprisingly, I volunteer to be the moderator. I would suggest: "The Online Help Facility: Make suggestions for improvement, ask questions, provide feedback, point out errors, ..." as the description. John