m00036

I agree that it's unhelpful for BBO not to keep players informed, but my feeling at present is that it's more likely BBO haven't finalised the changes as yet, and their original statement said that solutions to meet players' needs will continue to be offered from August 1st. This would include free tournaments, whereas it wouldn't include the sudden revocation of all director privileges. Enough people have emailed BBO for them to know that the latter solution will be detrimental to their success and membership, especially given the rise of competitor options (some which have been introduced already and many that are still being developed). I was saying that it's more likely that a director would be suspended for disagreeing with BBO's approach on how it uses their platform (directors must be in good standing with BBO to retain privileges after all) than for BBO to lose a significant proportion of its membership in a day, and I'd like to think that both situations are incredibly remote (and obviously revoking director's privileges for forum comments sets a dangerous precedent). BBO's pricing and business structure will have to continue to evolve - virtual clubs are starting up but also stopping because the financial model offered by BBO isn't sustainable at a 60/40 (soon to be 50/50) split (one of my own virtual clubs included). Recognising that changes are coming, BBO simply provided room to potentially make changes from August (incremental, sudden or otherwise), but given that there is now just one working day left in the month, I suspect there will simply be a notification of planned incremental changes in the next few days as opposed to any immediate move. I hope for the sake of all those that have been longtime members (and indeed recent newcomers) of/to BBO, and for the bridge community at large, that I am not proved wrong this weekend. :)

Based on my experience, only Virtual Club sessions show Table History (this may also be NBO-dependent, it works for the EBU). Other sessions and teams matches do not.

It's also not helpful to complain on the forum about changes to BBO procedures and fearing the worst. BBO are a company, and are also a well regarded company on the whole by the bridge community, and nothing could be worse for them at a time like this to lose their reputation such as by making last minute changes to their director terms. You would be well within your rights to complain to your heart's content if last minute changes are made on Saturday, but ultimately there's been no official news and I think we can all be hopeful that NBOs (and this forum page) have provided enough support for BBO to continue to support their free tournaments. I outlined above why it makes no economic/business sense anyway for BBO to revoke director rights for 2 days time, so I'm very prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to BBO here and thank them for not revoking free tournament rights during these tough times. Every little helps and it will give a massive boost to all the players on BBO to know that the bridge community is being supported by the companies, players and directors alike. So please, if you're reading and contributing to this forum, make comments based on the facts and official correspondence as opposed to unfair rumours and assumptions. BBO admins do read these posts (and I hope any delays to procedural changes are because they are taking our views into account) and it's more likely that you will be prevented from running tournaments for complaining here than because of BBO making a last minute and detrimental (to themselves as well as others) change to their terms and conditions.

I very much doubt that is the case. BBO has been overwhelmed with NBO support and it's more likely that they are dealing with different NBO games and requests and haven't got around to arranging plans for BBO tournaments organised by other directors. I suspect the current situation will continue at least for another month or so (they haven't sent any official news out just yet and they risk losing a lot of their membership if they make a last minute decision to revoke director rights). They did say they would think about a subscription model so to revoke all director privileges in August and then try to bring directors back for a fee at a later date isn't a viable business or bridge model (since everyone will have left by then).

The Howell feature should work (and has in the past) with just 2 tables, but in any case you can omit the Howell option and run a normal 2-round Mitchell if you prefer.

Hi there, you seem to have published this 3 times! But it is now possible in a normal Mitchell as per this thread: https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/83389-game-setup-hacks/. That said, some commands are only made available with Virtual Club or specific TD accounts so it's always worth checking before you try to use it for the first time. Alternatively you can always extend any given round during the tournament if it doesn't seem to work for whatever reason (just make sure one table leaves a card unplayed, otherwise it will advance to the next round as normal when all the tables finish "early").

Yes it is possible for a player to reject their own claim, and it just appears as Claim Rejected in the normal way as if either opponent had rejected it. Play continues with the defenders being able to see all 4 cards as normal. One of the other common reasons (in addition to the one quoted) for rejecting your own claim is if time is short and the opponents are reluctant to accept - it may just be quicker to play it out. A director in a virtual club should have access to "Table History" which clearly indicates which player accepts and rejects any given claim so a ruling can be given as appropriate if required.

The bug hasn't yet been corrected but the Windows version (as far as I'm aware at least) hasn't been updated for some time so it's possible the wide-ranging changes to the TD software a few weeks back inadvertently affected the functionality of the Windows version. The advice from BBO, at least for TDs, is to switch over to the newest browser version as this offers the largest range of features for TDs.

Ah of course you're quite right. It's interesting how the interfaces can be so different! If the platforms could be combined in some way then it would produce a very polished product, suitable at least for causal games if not competitive.

Exactly, similarly most of my free tournaments are at random times and I'm only prepared to wait 5 minutes or so before wanting to start the tournament. In that amount of time, I can comfortably get to 60, 70 or 80 players, even with 70% TCR set (for example). I had the opportunity to see a new software package with integrated audio and webcams at a normal bridge table (in all other respects it was similar to BBO but with its own interface), so BBO will not be the only competitor in this market anymore (indeed it already competes with Funbridge which lacks user interaction but benefits from a better interface); It would be more sensible to build on its unique features (i.e. its currently loyal members) as opposed to giving people reasons for looking elsewhere.

Playing directors cannot move to another table and can, like all normal players, only see results at other tables once they have finished the hand (and even then only if the barometer option is selected). Therefore there is no possibility of UI unless a director call specifically refers to a bid or card (very rare!!).

Interesting... it seems that volunteers that run free tournaments will now need to pay to volunteer. Normally the process works the other way round :) I understand why BBO are doing it but it also seems like such a waste of a fantastic resource that they have built up. I ran a free league over a month last year which attracted a range of different players, none of whom I had ever seen before or seen afterwards, and they all logged on to join this random game just because they liked the format of tournament and the attentive style of directing. I ran the league because I loved the fact I was helping people, but there is no way that I would be willing to pay to volunteer, especially since BBO have now started paying people to direct their own tournaments! Paid directors also tend to have less invested in the competition so the standard of directing is lower (better from a laws perspective but worse from an amicable perspective). BBO would be better off reaching out to current directors of free tournaments and invite them to host BBO-branded events; The reduction in director fees can then help keep as many tournaments free for the end user. The pandemic is not going to stick around; BBO have a lot to lose if they change their fee structure and demand goes back to what it was before.

Since it has been requested for well over a decade (!), I suspect directors having access to travellers isn't coming anytime soon :) But would be possible for the Tournament Status tab to be upgraded so that the director can see which tables are still on board 1, for example, and which have moved onto board 2 or 3 in each 3-board round? Especially in sessions with a lot of tables and longer rounds (e.g. 5x5 swiss pairs, for example), being able to focus on slow tables as a director and adjusting results as required to keep the tournament running smoothly would be very helpful. Thanks in advance for your help (and of course thanks for all you have already done to upgrade the TD options, especially for Virtual Clubs).

Clubs can get in touch with their national bridge organisation to create a "Virtual Club". This is currently the only way of adding a new director to BBO and a fee will be charged by BBO for each tournament that is held, reflecting the increase in server costs that they have taken on due to the increased demand. These sessions also support your national bridge organisation as you would during normal times. With the exception of specific groups, such as improvers or juniors, I think BBO has taken the right approach on this to ensure that it is sustainable as an organisation and to support as many clubs as possible; This is of course possible only if clubs are prepared to support BBO's expansion, which has added to BBO's costs. As it is, the freedom of existing directors to create free tournaments is set to be limited over the summer and wouldn't suit the needs of a big group (as they are now restricted in size), though it is very likely that BBO will reverse the changes once the pandemic is over and demand returns to normal. If you consider this to be a transfer of your costs from a physical venue to an online venue, then BBO has provided a very realistic and fair option for all clubs, and BBO is certainly investing in both the free and paid parts of their site to support players, as opposed to taking the increase entirely as profit.

I also noticed that BBO are "recruiting" for paid BBO directors. If free tournaments are being scrapped in favour of being able to offer a small fee to BBO directors then I think everyone would be worse off - no matter what I could be paid for directing a 30 minute session, it will never be worth the 95% fall in turnout and positive messages that I receive. Online masterpoints also have no value, especially now that everyone has a masterpoint rank by virtue of playing in Virtual Clubs (without any interest in the BBO Points scheme), so BBO tournaments will continue to receive far lower demand than sessions organised by national bodies.

Well it obviously depends on what changes are being proposed from August 1st. I don't mind limits on the number of free tournaments as such, but free tournaments (coupled with the amount of volunteer work that us TDs put in) are what bring players to BBO in the first place. I know lots of players that compete in free tournaments to get "warmed up" and then play in paid tournaments afterwards. This is what really sets BBO apart as an online bridge platform. So if the changes from August 1st are a further restriction (e.g. to 7 tourneys per week) then I think that's manageable, but anything more may just detract people from playing online. I also spoke to some of my players yesterday who said that free tournaments are great because of the small number of boards and high turnout; No paid tournament will ever be able to offer that (express tournaments get 4 tables of signups over 2 hours and allow robots which no-one really likes playing against, whereas free tourneys can get 100 interested people within a 5 minute window). BBO has every right to make changes to its free setup in order to make a profit, but I would genuinely be concerned from their perspective that a cut on free tournaments will just see loyal players (who have just begun to start paying for Virtual Clubs etc.) leave to other platforms. BBO need to be encouraging Virtual Clubs to stick around with occasional online sessions once the pandemic is over, and not try to lose its loyal players who have benefited from this feature for over 15 years (probably longer, I'm no expert on BBO's history!!).

Thanks for your response (via the memo on the BBO website).

A technical issue of some kind has caused BBO to take down all of its hand records. My understanding is that they are looking into the cause and will try to reupload these as soon as possible. I would ask though that, in future, the last 24 hours of hands at least are retained as they are... at least for EBU Virtual Clubs, lots of directors get up at around 9 in the morning to extract the results from BBO, which is not possible if they are taken down! An update on this problem would be much appreciated. These are of course BB$ tournaments from which BBO take a share, and are run under the expectation of having access to hand records, so hopefully the results will be restored soon.

The case here was just an EBU Virtual Club session with no stratification, but it looks like the players involved only had one repeated pair a few games in a row (which is not uncommon) and did particularly badly against them :)

So three of us are alternating to direct our club events, but all of us are listed as directors for each event. In today's session, I was directing and sent out messages to the tournament as normal. Most players received it once but these other 2 "player directors" received the message twice. This didn't seem to happen before the TD settings were upgraded but that may just be a coincidence. Does anyone know why this might have happened?

It was raised by a few players at our Virtual Club sessions that the pairing for each event didn't feel random in that they played many of the same players each week despite there being only 9 rounds and 38 pairs. The turnout has been pretty similar each week with similar pairs, so is there an algorithm going on here or is it random and this is just one of those unlikely events?

We all know how frustrating it can be to think you've done the right thing, only to find that you get a bad percentage on a bad split or poor luck. This is clearly a part of bridge that can't be controlled, and in the "long run" those who play their cards right will do better. However, I was wondering whether each daylong board could also be played by a robot (like in "Challenge a Robot"), giving you an indication (and only an indication!) of what % you should have got if you did everything right. You can then compare your score to what was "achievable" and see how/whether you should have improved. I'd be interested to know what others think about this - clearly BBO robots are far from perfect although they are definitely a good guide. I thought this was particularly pertinent to daylongs though since everyone plays different boards, so it would be nice to get a more "personalised" comparison (it is for this reason that the EBU, for example, require people to play at least 70% of boards, but that's sadly not feasible in an online environment).

As a TD, I will always try and adjust the scores for any incomplete boards so as to not disadvantage players who may, for example, be just one card away from making their contract. At the moment, I have to click on Tournament Status, make a list of the unfinished tables and find a player from each and manually write it down on paper. I find it bizarre that TDs can't see the travellers for each board whereas the players themselves can, which would make it so much easier to find "Ave" tables and correct accordingly. Is there a reason why TDs cannot view the "Other Tables" tab?

Just ran a tourney to test it out (so answering this in case anyone else is interested) - Turns out neither player will show but will be credited to the original player unless they made no bid before the sub was made, in which case the sub will get credit / lose out as a result.

A quick one from me - I'm planning to start a league for July and want to ensure that substitutes get a fair score for the boards they actually play. The question is - On hand records, is the name listed the name of the player who started the board (who later withdrew), the player who finished the board (i.e. when all tricks are played) or the player at the time the next board is started? Thanks in advance.