TrialBid

Perhaps the most frustrating occurrence on BBO is to be doing well in a tournament, seemingly have an opponent pause for a minute or two. Suddenly you are removed from the tournament. The director says you weren't playing! It is the nature of the Internet that delays and dropped packets will occur and BBO seems to be rather clumsy at recovery. What often seems to be the case is that the client believes it is waiting for the server when, in fact, it is the server waiting. In this afternoon's example, for whatever reason, I was seeing occasional dropped packets running a ping test, but actually seeing better than usual ping times overall. I have this monitoring running virtually constantly and I could see that I was accessing the Internet successfully at the time I thought I was waiting for the opponent to play to the first trick. Are the messages serialized and prioritized? How long can the client wait without inquiring as to the state of the connection? If there were some kind of keepalive function in the client, users could be alerted to problems sooner and could try to reestablish the connection. The thing I feel sure of is that there is room for improvement in the way sessions are monitored and managed.

This is starting to feel like a mystery wrapped in an enigma. It seemingly matters not what BROWSER_TYPE is set to or whether LINUX_WINE is Y or N. Links from chat open in the wine-installed Firefox even for BROWSER_TYPE=A. And no ads in any configuration for me. Is there somewhere else that the new BBO can get configuration information, the registry perhaps? Fwiw, too, Gerardo, I can play just fine. No failing asserts, etc. Mandriva 2007 on i586, wine-0.9.25 rpm as built by Ivan Leo Puoti from sourceforge.net.

A few more notes about 4.9.9 running under wine. There is also no ad appearing to the right of the chat area while running under wine. And I see that the Chat/Tourney/Tables/Lobby buttons seem to be stacked single-file as they used to be. In Windows, when the ads appear below them, the buttons are now in two columns. Possibly related to my post back on Aug 23, I see that clicking on an ad in BBO under Windows opens an Internet Explorer browser. This is despite my default being Firefox--a fact that is elsewhere recognized in the BBO software, for example, if you hover over a link in chat it says "click to visit this site with your default browser" and does just that if you do. So there was some combination of BBO prior to 4.8.3 or so and wine prior to 0.9.20 or so where the news window worked--perhaps because IE functions weren't being invoked? Getting a blank where IE may be involved is a characteristic that appears to be in the latest version as well. If I figure anything else out, I'll post again. If anyone else has some great wisdom to share, I'm all ears!

Perhaps uday or others may want to weigh in on the fine points, but, remarkably, I find with BBO version 4.9.9 and wine 0.9.25, BBO seems to work marvelously well even when set to LINUX_WINE=N. That, of course, is where we all wanted to be for the sake of both BBO and wine. What's more, it seems to run even better under wine than under Windows. I have two machines of similar horsepower where I run BBO. It definitely seems snappier on the linux machine than on the Win2K machine. The only deficiency I've noticed so far is that the advertising banner in the upper right on the blue background is missing when running under wine.

Watching coverage of the Shenzhen Lanpu Cup pair final last night, I noticed something I'd seen before and had forgotten: when the round changes and a new pair comes to the table, the operator enters the new pair names so they appear on the screen, but the movie display of previous hands has the pairs who played the previous rounds overwritten with the new pair names. And it seems that in .lin file saved to my disk there is no pair information at all! How difficult is it to make the record reflect what we saw as we watched it? For anyone like me who goes back over results from time to time, it would be very nice. And there are portions of the BBO server system that handle recording pairs for each hand played. Do others care? Where does this idea fit in the scheme of things? With BBO 5.0 and its raft of improvements, obviously that just makes us pay more attention and see more things that could be improved! Ah, the sad life of a successful programmer!

A great feature added recently to BBO is the ability to right-click on an upcoming tournament while kibitzing or playing and to register or use the partnership-desk feature. Why not similarly permit a context menu for tournaments in progress to allow adding or removing yourself as a substitute? Two days ago a friend messaged me to register as sub because her partner went red. Had I been able to register more quickly, she and I would have played. As it was, the director "fixed" the problem, giving her a novice sub.

Yes, LINUX_WINE=Y is still set. I looked at that first because early on after the linux branch was created, the automatic updater, in rewriting the .ini file, overwrote that flag. That problem, I saw, was fixed a version or two ago. Indeed, I have continued to try (last time, I think, was with wine 0.9.16) running LINUX_WINE=N--just in case the wine developers finally get the compatibility issues resolved that caused the need for the flag in the first place.

This thread has fallen silent for a while--probably because we are mostly satisfied users now of BBO under linux. However, I have noticed what seems to be a regression introduced either in BBO 4.8.3 or in wine 0.9.17 or later--I had upgraded to both of those before I noticed it. The News screen pops up as always but on linux it is now blank. I've verified that links still load in Firefox (Windows version/installed and running under wine also). I've also noticed that the news window is blank even when it should contain text. (I'd first thought it was a problem displaying the Money Bridge graphic that is sometimes the opening screen.) Does this ring any bells for anyone? If not, I can try experimenting with older versions, try modifying the ini file browser setting, etc.

You have made a judgment that you have enough cycles available to handle 15 entries each half hour. You have also reacted to the great demand by greatly limiting access. Those of us who relish the competition and who have no other option see each empty slot as an opportunity lost. To ignore that is not very user-focused, imo.

When the Honor list (Overall leaders) screen was added it was an improvement but the immediate feedback of the winning scores was lost. Why not: 1- add the scores (percent, or +IMPs) to the Honor list? I believe that if Total Points (at least in MBTs) the score is displayed. This is only a big deal when there are many sections and you must page through all of them to find out the scores you beat (or needed to beat). 2- show on the Honor list the total count of Pairs or Players? 3- use the initial number of Pairs when reporting the results of a Survivor tournament? This change also should be made to the Movie sheet recorded for the player. Especially if there are drastic cuts (I've seen repeated 40 percent cuts in a few games) players who survive to the end deserve the recognition of their place with respect to the initial conditions. 4- show the places of eliminated players when the final standings are posted?

Yes, we know how to do that ... what I thought Varange meant was visual feedback as kibitzers come and go. I believe it would be nice to know whether there is any reason to hover my mouse cursor there before I take the trouble to do it. A mundane possibility: just a counter, maybe blank when 0. A cute possibility: a pair of eyes there to show that kibitzer(s) are present. A more elaborate possibility: enter and exit sound effects for, selectively, Friends/Neutrals/Stars/Enemies.

I'm not at all sure what Uday is and isn't aware of. Perhaps it's the dog days of summer, but in the forum threads where MBTs come up, I don't see much participation by the BBO crew. Inasmuch as there is a systemic intervention in the last minute or so to allow anyone to register (up to the preset limit), I'd like to think that at the same time, players offline could be purged. That seems to be a function invoked by many directors manually prior to the start, so it wouldn't be a big deal. There is, however, another reason for not filling the quota: players who are in a tournament already see the message about not having their complete team together at game time. Then, also, fewer player than the limit participate in the MBT.

I believe mail is only delivered when you sign in. I strongly agree that delivering it ASAP would be much better.

There seems to me to be a degree of distractedness at BBO in terms of understanding how MBTs can be best exploited. The very concept of using the GIB robots for cheatproof money bridge was a huge breakthrough. Fred's commitment to keep a free, quality online bridge site was always threatened by the possibility that not enough money-making angles could be found to keep the enterprise viable. My impression is that money bridge has removed any doubt that BBO will now thrive in the long term. What I don't see yet is the recognition that the GIB formats can help support BBO beyond the take on money events. Especially I cite Uday's post where he says he wants to keep Free MBTs free. But, because they use many computer resources, he must throttle people's use of them significantly. Some possibilities: - If you are a GIB "subscriber" (paying $1/week or $3/month), you are permitted more access to free MBTs. - MBT "Club" events with a very low entry fee, $0.25 perhaps (and payable with BBO$ instead of, or in addition to MB$), but with leader boards by total points, by number of wins, etc., for each day, week, month, all-time. I believe that's also what barmar was getting at. - MBT-style K/Os like Total Points Club tournaments, perhaps with a single entry fee that pays your way until you are eliminated.

Oh, slings and arrows of outrageous fortune! Would you suppose that, given how tightly controlled the entries to MBTs must be, that you'd at least count them correctly? No! If I enter and then withdraw before game time I'm locked out for another day! How stupid can that be!

Uday, your assertion that anyone can register in the final two minutes can't be entirely correct. When the clock went under two minutes, there were only 14 registrants, and I was repeatedly refused entry with the same misleading error message. My concern in and around the "free" MBTs is that it is my only MB option currently unless I am traveling. I'm really bothered that suddenly I can play only once a day and can't even get a precise explanantion of what is going on.

The new message is: "Registration failed. Free MB tourney limit exceeded. Try again in a few hours." I appreciate the intent of this. The free MBTs are popular and take up BBO resources that might be producing revenue instead. However, it seems to me that I am now bearing the brunt of others' enthusiasm. I played ONCE today. I've played maybe a few dozen MBTs since they were introduced. Yet I'm locked out for an unspecified number of hours. The difficulty has been the people who chain together play after play for hours on end by registering for the next tournament when the clock counts down to 5 in the current one. Have you considered this: have an entry fee for the "free" MBTs. Don't award money but, like arcade games, keep track of most wins (or points, perhaps 5 for 1st, 3 for 2nd, 2 for 3rd, 1 for 4th) today, this week, this month, all-time, etc. Alternatively, or possibly in combination, GIB subscribers could play free MBTs for free, but others would have to "rent" GIB per MBT event. Whether rent would be free for them on the first of the month in the MBTs would be negotiable!

Although it doesn't happen with trememdous frequency, it is a bad experience all around when a TD is a no-show for his own tournament. If (almost always when) a disconnect/noshow player is present, those at his table are in a sort of jail with no help available. Then it's a matter of finding another TD or a Yellow to intervene. They're in the middle of something else and the easiest way out is to just cancel the event. It lets some players out of jail, but those who were unaware of the problem are left to grumble about the world-beating results that were washed away without any warning. Something along the lines of the Call Director function with options to choose as to why the tournament is being canceled--including the possibility of entering a custom message? Thus some information can be broadcast to the tournament as it closes.

Thank you for the clarification. As a user I saw a similar presentation and called it Full Disclosure without knowing the behind-the-scenes part.

I'm inclined to think barmar has it right, and that the action GIB expected me to take was to bid 2♣ over the Redbl--in other words, it "believed" it was making a forcing call. Perhaps that suggests a simpler idea that could be added to Full Disclosure--as normally expected to be construed, the bid it is making is: 1- Forcing (and to what denomination and level, if implied) 2- Nonforcing-invitational 3- Nonforcing-signoff and, additionally, for Dbls and Redbls 4- Penalty-oriented 5- Takeout 6- Action or card-showing 7- Rescue It does make bridge sense to me that GIB, expecting a 2♣ bid from me, would then bid 2♠ as a rescue and might even steal the hand. Barmar's other general idea, however, that penalty Redbls aren't made at low levels, I think comes out of a world that is playing too much Matchpoints. At total points, when an opponent has Dbl'd unluckily, there is just too much money to be made when there are 28HCP or so and no great fit. To have to settle for +480 instead of 1100 doesn't make sense to me.

I'm sorry if it seemed I was criticizing GIB--unless you are defending the explanantion vis-a-vis the bidding. If I'm criticizing anything it is the apparent disconnect between the explanantion and the hand. Specifically: what is it about the explanation that suggests that when GIB redoubles 1NT that I should not pass with most normal hands? If this was truly an anomalous bid and the explanation really suggested that most times the final contract should be 1NTxx, that is one thing. And it's one I can live with. On the other hand, if that was the explanation I received and my hand had run, then as an opponent I would have called for the director. There's the principle that says if both sides take abnormal actions on the same hand that vary in the same direction, there is a presumption of an undisclosed partnership agreement. Fred, I know it's familiar to you. I'll add for other readers the common example: You state that your 1NT opening is 15-17 and you open what you think is an "attractive" 13. When the hand is over you see that responding hand had 10HCP and passed quickly--making 1NT. Director! Please rest assured that I'm fully supportive of your MBTs and MB games. The issue is one of disclosure. Surely GIB must be held to the same standards as human players in giving information that describes how it bids! It's possible that this is monumentally difficult. Possibly, though, the answer lies in the automated nature of the whole system. The most exact answer to "what does Rdbl mean?" would be (hypothetically) that in 119 instances where the auction had started this way, GIB had between 3 and 11 points with an average of 6.4. 1NT was makable on 68 percent of the hands and the average number of tricks available was 7.6. That would be "Full Disclosure."

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=s1098xxhxxdkxxcxxx]133|100|Scoring: Rubber[/hv] GIB N held this. I opened 1NT and GIB W Dbl'd. GIB N Redbl'd, a bid oddly described as "long suit 5-11 HCP, 12-" The only thing that seemed clear enough was with 5 points minimum it was penalty oriented. With the hand you see 1NTxx was not a success. I'm only glad I hadn't put up real money to see and rely on this kind of bizarre and misleading explanation. How quickly can we expect to get basic sequences more reliably described? A system called Full Disclosure is sadly misnamed if that's the kind of thing we must be prepared to cope with.

A rare point at which I agree with the ACBL is the requirement to have both players' full names on the convention cards. Similarly, I believe, if you play on BBO we have some right to know who you are--although it may be that this requirement should be (and sometimes in a way, already, is: i. e., "No Privates") enforced by tournament organizers and not by BBO itself. In any case, I think it's sensible to have a searchable directory with names and IDs, at least. It also makes sense that from that list, hovering should reveal the profile--whether the user is online or not. Many have their email. A few pros, wanting to drum up business, also give their phone numbers. We already choose how much we are comfortable disclosing. Whether we are online or not shouldn't matter.

If you right click on the name you posted to there is a "copy chat message option" you can use to get your message back. After that you can past it with Ctrl-V wherever you like. Yes, the copy chat message is the right answer _if_ you succeed in sending the message. What I've had happen _way, way_ too often is different and that's where I hoped this was going when I first read it: You type your detailed defense of your latest blunder :D to your partner and send it. Oops. The round changed just before you hit click. You get "Private chat is not allowed" and the message is lost forever. There are actually four contexts where this problem arises with some frequency: 1- Using tournament chat, then finding it is disabled. 2- Sending to someone online who started a tournament since you last checked. 3- Trying to chat to a director only to find it is a _playing_ director. 4- And as already described, chatting partner (or an opp) just after the round changed. If a message cannot be delivered, how about keeping the chat window open, with mail option instead? Then, you can mail it, or copy and paste to keep it for later action.

I'm all for more options. By all means, allow for appending or prepending timestamps (client handles this locally) when requested. To keep the clutter down but still have the information available, keep the timestamps hidden (in the client) but show the time sent in the context menu (right-click on chat sender).