TrialBid

Sounds like an excellent idea. BBO developers, while you are at it, please find a way to give us the experience we have not had since the DOS version went away: for a period of time after the tournament ended, it was possible for everyone who participated to chat the tournament just ended. That provided a tournament afterglow that, especially if we did well, we could share some of our experiences. It has felt like a significant loss ever since that feature disappeared.

This thread reminds me of a very real problem tha BBO still to the best of my knowledge does not support in the software and it has nothing to do with relative merits of players or their motives. Suppose a pair is having a blockbuster set and encounter UI exchanged that really cannot allow play to continue and the director rules A+ for the nonoffending side. Here is the problem: if that side is having a 72 percent game then receiving A+ will *lower* their. ACBL tournament directors do not automatically adjust A+ to their 72 percent average but they understand the concept and will make the adjustment if asked to. BBO has many directors who do not have that level of experience nor do that many players actually know to ask for that adjustment when it would help them. Thus I think it would be a great service to fairness to build that into BBO's score processing.

This was a TERRIFIC suggestion and it is still a problem. Bit us today when we were trying to swap out a pair.

The hand in question How often has this sort of thing occurred? Any thoughts on what is going on?

I saw the topic and first thought it might be an issue that I keep running into. Because the list of tournaments is constantly jumping about, more than once I have played the wrong tournament because I said join and the payment prompt does not identify the tournament as it does for all other tournaments. Perhaps that idea needs to get its own thread. IDK.

It's the arbitrary 5-tricks-to-go cutoff that really can produce a really unhappy outcome now and again. It seems to me that a few heuristics could improve the situation a lot. 1. If the contract is already made (or defeated) with the tricks taken already (plus certain trump tricks in a trump contract) that is a good place to start. For the side going plus, that score or A+ should be used with the reciprocal score (or A-) for the other side. 2. If a good claim preceded timing out, the Robots should accept it, no matter how many tricks remain. There are times, however, when I think BBO prefers to leave unpleasantness in games we don't pay for.

Well... I offer this email reply to me from Jacki in 2014: Does that not count as a client reporting a bug? Methinks it just fell through the cracks.

This is a policy I have long been aware of. However, there is "hole"--in ACBL at least--as of the last time I checked. Until the ACBL director manually marks the sub as permanent it doesn't matter how many boards the sub plays. I once came in during board 1 and when the player returned in the last round, I was shut out and the original player was given the points. Has this been fixed yet??

For the first time, I was rejected for a tournament for having too low a completion rate. It says my percentage is 83. There is something bogus going on here. I basically never quit tournaments but I do substitute often in ACBL and am frequently dismissed when the original player returns. It's also possible that BBO doesn't keep an accurate history going back a considerable time but only look at the time period that Bridgebase keeps current tournament records. That would be a serious problem when I have (as is true currently) been online very irregularly and have logged very little history. At any rate, I say BBO is doing it in a way that blocks people who should not be blocked. I'd like to know why and I'd like to see it fixed.

I did. No change.

Playing Bridge Bingo, I had my LH Robot stick with 9 minutes to go. It never bid and time finally ran out. The notion of booting a robot that is a required part of the game is novel but not very useful I'm afraid.

That's discouraging to hear that the free demonstration application is more robust and reliable than what we may be paying for.

It may be coincidence but shortly after I began using the Flash beta client, disconnects have become rampant and in all versions. In the Flash clients my connection always shows as excellent. A steady ping to bridgebase.com shows a packet loss rate of about 0.1 percent--right through disconnects, too. Other online gaming sites seem completely unaffected. Bridge Base Online may not be having a generic problem, but neither is there any detectable problem on my end. What's next? Updated information: the "Just Play Bridge" option for Bridge Base is solid for hours at a time. Occasionally I'll see a connection trouble announcement, but it is resolved in seconds without disruption.

Well, that's a rather narrow view of mischief. If the data stream is clear text, it makes it comparatively easier to build an assistant that can keep track of and display all the cards played and fill in exact cards unseen when the suits and hand are counted out. Surely it's clear how that would be an advantage in playing speed games for BB$, for example. BTW, something has changed between my original post and today. Now I do see news or scores come up in the frame window without having to "Open in new window" while using MS Edge. Anyone have a clue why it's different now?

The Flash app is loaded via http. Can you state for sure that Flash itself is also communicating by http? Actually I would hope not because that would make mischief at the user's end easier via intercepting unencoded hand information.