Mike

Hi Ben and John, First apology, I thought this site is revitalized by one person, so the applauds shall go home to the whole trupp. Second is much less kind. BBO has successfully avoided any given rating system, thanks to Fred. Bring it back on the back door like this here will help that 73 something % will grow near 100% and you will go well under rgb level which is still at least a democratic forum! Even self rating is totally meaningless as we can see on BBO in life. Why that new forum should keep an old mistake which is good for nothing, I can not understand. I put it into the same basket as humans has no limits to fall into the same trap again and again :) Mike

Heureka! Finally the Forum has been revitalized. Thanks Uday. But that is only the framework. I hope the contents will be revitalized, too. The most important would be if the immens membership of BBO would make some noise here. Otherwise it is just like rgb most of the time, exibition of outrgrown egos and I am quite bored with the "expert" posters. By the way the qualification of poster persons by the number of something they usually post is a terribly negative factor. It will continue to discourage people to come up with real world subjects. Make quality from quantity sounds familiar .....

Seemingly this thread is going off-track again. Certain big ego individuals are trying to make bad attitude be acceptable by illogical or fals arguments as present day's lawyers do. I call a spade spade. Psyching in ad hock partnershyps is arrogant, stupid and as a minimum bad manner. Usually morons do it. Characteristic to the psychers and their defenders how they turn simple statements, like "I will leave the table of a psycher" into a deplorable act. Presuming it happens during play, which is against the rules of the site. That is a good indicator that basically psychers have bad intentions. In a game that is overregulated with alerts and self alerts, tempo regulations, etc. intentionally breaking the expected behaviour with mean intentions is unacceptable. I repeat, mentally sick people do it. There is a big difference between bluffing in poker or in any other card game where it is natural, and the so called psych in bridge. There is a big difference to trick a friendly company around a card table with loughter, or do it with complete strangers in order to upset them. There is a big difference of using psych as a legitimate tool in the game, and having destrucktive intentions. If psychers were having any integrity would mark in their profile that thay may psych. People with good intention will do that. In this case nobody could complain. But in this case the attacker could loose the surprise effect, so players with maligne attitude will not mark themselves. We have to mark them. I certainly will. MK

Hi All, I think this thread went into fine details in friendly circumstances instead of dealing with the basic questions: Permit blatant psyche with bad intentions made by mentally sick people in order to disturb or destruct the game of the three other unsuspecting players, or not? Does it belong to the rules of the site? What to do if it happens? My solution is to mark the guy, leave the table and avoid any other encounter. Is there anything else that can be done? Cheers, MK

Inherited a table host, I experienced funny things when multiple applicants want to get into the same vacancy. A series of application pop ups appear. I had little time to read the profiles, and could not choose even the first applicant when one, not having any permission already gets in. This is quite frustrating, because the seemingly refused applicants may think the host has some apprehesion against them, though it is not the case. Presently, I have no other solution then leave the host function as soon as possible in order to avoid bad feelings. Did anybody have the same problem? ;D

I almost always permit undo unconditionally. I do not regard it as favour or a refusal of it as a sin. BBO is representing freedom in every respect thank god, and thank to Fred! What a behaviour to running away if sombody exercises given rights? Forcing not to use what is a free choice? Additionally, by my overwhelming experience most of the undo requests are not simple technical miscliks at all. Just be honest once in a while. Most of them are slip of the mind rather then slip of the fingers. Notwithstanding, permitting undo is a curtesy, that unfortunately not everybody all the time applies. Frequently, the receiving side previous behaviour triggers an eventual refusal. How many gloating have we seen. How many other stings and bites do we receive. No wonder if natural human reaction results a less than christian behaviour to show the other side after a flap.

Axioma: rating system is a poison for any on-line bridge site, but it would be especially harmful for BBO. Corollary: myself experienced the inherent injustice of any rating system and its harmful effect on all sites I visited since computer bridge emerged. (ftf monsterpoints are not exeptions, lol.) Interesting that the thread on the strong club sytem(s) soon run into a totally different subject going through advanced vs expert selfqualification, ending in a rating system discussion. The subject deserves open discussion. Just a few quotes from really good and knowledgable bridge people: It is not by chance that above I quoted those ideas I totally agree. What i rather found naive expectation is this: Nothing is far from truth. Just think on the chances of ad-hoc pairs against established partnerships, etc. There is only one measure which counts. The hand just played in comparison to the others. But to draw some generic conclusion from it would be a mistake. Averaging thousands of games would only be meaningful if some consistency in the pairings (partners and opponents including) could be assured. But that would be harmful to the game and especially to BBO, whose one of the main initiatives is to extend the attraction of our game and initiate as many newcomers as possible. Anything that encourages elitism and discourages integration is harmful! I have seen many sites that punish better players playing with newcomers by their rating system. They made a big disservice to bridge, but they shoot on the foot themselves, lol. I do not want to go deep to the field of game psychology. It is natural that every human who plays game want to win. Leave that win or loose to the just palyed hand. That will assure long term goals while satisfy the majority. Only those will not be satisfied who want to subdue others through a rating system (that is always unjust). Even playing field (more or less) exists only on the highest level of international competition. I am only sorry for those who replace the enjoyment of the game with collection of masterpoints, or the like. I am for tournament play, but strongly oppose the use of tourney results for any kind of generic discrimination. Motto: Bridge is a partnership game. Contrast: On-line bridge is played mostly by ad-hoc partnerships. Solution: BBO as is (no rating system)

Our modern day esperanto is English. Those who have it as mothertong are lucky. Those who have it as second language are lucky too. What I want to point out is rather then raising language barriers with separate, e.g. Polish, Spanish, Hungarian, etc. rooms, better if BBO with its simple existence and popularity helps the less fortunate to learn some (bridge) English. Or the other way around following Csdenmark's excellent example. It is not bad at all if the strive to communicate forces people to learn an other language (a well known method in language teaching). Myself, I would very wellcome a spell checker (button) where typing is permitted. By the way, a forum is usually limited in its public. Look rgb the web bridge forum. Year-in year-out the majority of postings are coming from the very same people.

I emphasised many times (maybe it is boring) that no automation can solve the indisciplined or just random behaviour of players. I played on BBO with people who modestly qualified themselves, but the game was good. And the contrary happened many times as well. Expert declarations frequently mask very weakish bridge performance, but not always. Additionally I oppose any rating system that is ruining the game on many known on-line sites. Still this (sometimes abused) self qualification is the best method. With time, watching our own marks will replace watching the skill level field. My suggestions: Notice BBO members how important is to fill in the user profile. And emphasise the BBO criteria for each skill level. It is wery well written in the rules, but large numbers of newcomers never ever took effort to read them. (Reading the small letters is not in our culture.) Separate the self qualification guestion from the means to organize even level tables or the like. Some kind of partnership desk would be required. Or place where matching partners can congregate. This part of that thread and the splitting up the main window thread are dealing with the same problem. Accomodate large number of mixed population. Good luck!

We have to be grateful to Deanrover for initiating this delicate subject. Better to discuss it openly (but I tend to forget fast his proposals). As the proverb says "Even corpse of Christ was not garded for free" (Roman soldiers were paid). We benefit from Fred's generous solution Uday pointed to. For us that means like hitting two birds with one stone. It is hard to immagine that the present situation can last forever. New servers do not not grow on trees. Unless some miracle happens, I expect some financial consequences to participate in my favorite passtime. And I think it is perfectly normal.

Easy, I had that loss too, lol. ;) Rain, maybe check your setup (and check lobbychat) ;D

As a general remark I would not mix gadgets of very questionalble value with treatments that are needed to plug the loopholes of a bidding system. In this legalistic society bidding debates looks like lawyers try to skin a skeleton of a cat in many repetitions, lol. Thank god, finally, at this end of the thread we are back to discuss card game basics, judgement and play. Like to see of those bidding enthusiast are capable to solve Fred's BridgeMaster 2000 level 4 and 5 tasks on their own without the help of the system. GIB is excellent too, but if you want to check (and improve) your declarer's play, just try BM 2000. I second the books mentioned so far in this thread and would add Bergen's writings on many treatments except the so called Bergen Raises that is a little tree which conceals from many the woods he created . Additionally, I would suggest to go through on Mike Lawrence 2/1 software which is quite practical on one main approach to 2/1. You have to apply your own judgement though at branches of treatments. Those who are underplaying the importance of the basics cite a famous title "bridge (is) the bidder's game". They like to point to the highest level, where excellent judgement and play is precondition. They think that their bidding makes the difference. Nothing is further from the truth. But, let's discuss the many factors that influences results in an other thread. Better if that thread intends BBO not the Bermuda Bowl, lol.

I tend to agree with the unconvenient feelings towards the "Bergen Raises" that leads sometimes ad-hoc partnerships to disaster. (Let us disregard now the lack of proper judgement which is more important than parotting certain gadgets.) Seemingly, Bergen raises are not too much appreciated by the author himself. I found exactly 7 pages that could be associated with the subject convention, among Bergen's countless, much-much more interesting writings. Wish, if those guys using or rather abusing the subject convention, once would read one of his books to get acquanted with the real wit of Marty Bergen. Using the LOW does not mean one shall shoot on the foot by scooping up the bidding space available, lol. Instead of discussing the merits or demerits of the convention, I rather pass some not so bad ideas how to defend against, waiting your comments: "For dealing with an opponent's Bergen raise, which can often make fourth to bid quite uncomfortable I have been using an "off-the-cuff" agreement: If it's the weak hand, double is cards If it's the stronger hand, double is penalty Does anyone have a more thoughtful approach? The two great weaknesses of Bergen Raises are: 1) They can never play at the two level with a nine card fit and moderate values. Especially for pairs that open in "Rule of 20" Bergen style, this risks them going down in 3M when others in the room are making 2M or going plus by defending. 2) The raise says nothing about other possibly mportant shape information in the hand and robs them of the space they need to get such information. Thus a Bergen pair will have a hard time getting to or staying out of games that are dependant on how well the hands fit in the side suits. In short, the treatment has much of its own punishment built in. However, that doesn't mean you can't do things to put more pressure on them. The modern variant of Bergen uses 1M-3M preemptive, 1H-2S or 1S-3H as a WJS, 1M-3D to show the weaker 4+ card raise (but not weak enough for 1M-4M if a 5+ card raise) and 1M-3C for a Limit Raise with 4+ cards. So, how to defend: 1) vs 1M-3M preemptive. Since they have a 9+ card fit and low to moderate values, we will have at least one 8+ card fit and may very well have more HCP than they do. Thus 1M-p-3M-X or 1M-p-3M-p-p-X should be for T/O based on very disciplined shape, value location, and vulnerability ratio concerns. If we are disciplined enough pard will know when to convert to a profitable penalty. A cuebid of the major should be the kind of hand one associates with Leaping Michaels vs Weak Twos: a (big) two suiter. 2) vs 1H-2S or 1S-3H WJS. Clearly it's safer to compete vs 1H-2S than 1S-3H. X for T/O with moderately minor suit oriented hands, 2N for definitely minor suit oriented hands, and cuebid either major asking pard to bid 3N with a stop. Vs 1S-3H X for T/O rarely with a shape hand that really doesn't want to defend unless the hand is a complete misfit, 3N has to be natural, and 3S the Western Cue (asking pard to bid 3N with a S stop). 3) vs 1M-3D (or 1M-3C (if they're playing the older variant of Bergen). Game for us is unlikely. X is T/O of the major. Cuebid is Michaels (if they have a 9+ card fit, we rate to have a 9+ card fit or two 8 card fits. We are guaranteed to have at least one 8 card fit). 4) vs 1M-3C (or 1M-3D if they're playing the older variant of Bergen). Since this shows a decent fit and Limit Raise values, competing here is tantamount to suggesting a sacrifice and/or how to defend. X should be lead directing in their artificial minor, and may suggest a sacrifice at Favorable or White All. A cuebid of the major should show a two suiter with massive shape." Sry not to be short enough!

I like the new features, especially the remark field. It looks like plenty for the purpose! The Log Off button still kicks out too far, but is better than waiting long for time out. For me the new version works very well. Thanks for the modifications!

I read this thread started with John's revised ideas with quite an interest. Almost all other problems like booting reappeared as well. In essence the liberty provided to us on one side has its drawback on the other side. So, we are trying to immagine some kind of voting scheme that would curb the petit tyranns. If that would be feasible, maybe a solution for many thing is just that. For example to accept in opponent position an incoming partner, why the host decides who will be my new pd. Anyway, without going into details, I would like to warn anybody who want to make important changes on the present very very successfull form and rule complex. Paysite or free, the main point is the freedom BBO empowers all of us. Additionally, it provides more enjoyment of the game than any other site I ever tried. In our good situation, we want to improve it further on because all of us experienced unwanted phenomena. After looking all opinions above, I think the only idea that fits to the present site with the known intended changes is to empower the table instead of the host for many sensitive functions. It could solve all problems discussed, including the social or duplicate character of that table, permit or not long system and gadget discussions, boot an expert impersonator, etc. And again, the system is complex enough and successfull enough that further changes needs to be very carefully planned for having a positive outcome. P.S. I am sorry for those who seriously took the scoring, though I always watch it when playing. I do not look on it as a measure of our partneship's wit or lack of it. Anyway, there is no absolute measure except high level competition. So, let's keep it simple, and regard it as a curiosity. How many funny result can come out from the same deal ;).

I am sorry Fred but I do not feel the same way. As one who tried out this thing and became quite frustrated, can honestly say that this totalpoint format is bad in its intention as well as in its presentation. I carefully went through the rules and followed them by the letter. What I saw in the organizer's attitude is that the audience is the responsible for the total mess that those very organizers made. There are basic problems in the conception and attitude. If they so well prepared and done this for other sites, where are they. Why not attracted the on-line audience so far there. Why BBO success needed for that? If they so experienced why should I wait together with my pd for more than 35 minutes after the so called start and finally leave because the so much experienced TDs were totally disregarding the registration. I took part many starting initiatives and know what patience needed to overcome early sicknesses. But here we got a bragging initiative with so called very experienced staff. They annonced early that they are volunteers, so they are out and above of any criticisme! If something is wrong, it is the public! The basic idea that: this form will attract the less experienced bridge players because it replaces skill and acquired knowledge with pure luck, does not appeal at all to me. It looks that what was really a failure in other sites is trying to establish itself in BBO, make it like an e-brige. The tournament which I refer to was terribly similar to the early tournaments in e-bridge, lol. On top of that I experienced software problems after trying out unsuccessfully that format and had to reinstall BBO. (Thanks Gererdo for the help in localizing the problem) After this unhappy experience I will avoid those totalpoint events as far as it is possible. Additionally I do not feel gratitude for that total point initiatives that looks to me rather paraziting on BBO than adding something to it. I found many other disappointed people who together with me never ever experienced such a bad thing on this site. So, I felt obliged to pass their opinion as well. I am truly sorry Fred that I could not be more positive this time.

This thread proves only one thing. There is a problem somewhere, and as you can be sure, Fred is trying to address it. But what the problem is exactly? I am not so sure now. Large part of that thread is getting to be a number game. How many are affected at the table by this or that thing which did not match expectations. Most of the time these are very selfish expectations masked behind the so called interest of the majority. My opinion that BBO's general rules are very well established creating a site with freedom to all participants. The popularity groth of BBO just proves that the basic rules found excellent fit. I would rather avoid the table of those who brag on that they overrule the site's basics. Nothwithholding the above I had never agreed the present booting feature that is open to (tyrannic) abuse. Abuse that is hiding sometimes behind tricky ideology. As I red the comments almost all of us suffered already on both side of that problem, was unjustly booted or left table to avoid booting others. Part of the problem is the right of the opps. Especially when one leaves, the staying opponent has no say who is getting to be his/her next partner. Present solution is leaving the table. I expect the future development of the software will solve most of the difficulties. What will probably stick with us originates from the nature of the game and its participants. Finally, a little humor will certainly help.

I have seen many good ideas above. All want to protect those who does not care even reading the sub minimum. Because of bad habit or else, who knows? Forcing these people to make a concius choice is one side of the would be solution. The other side is accepting them on the basis of some info on the applicant. Both needs software development and we are discussing something that will put burden to Fred and Co. Still, it is needed that players fill in some questioner on themselves, that many does not do at all. Look the many empty name field! Further on, the opps have zero influence who will be their next partner, even if the host can accept or reject anybody on a well systemized basis in the future. The only thing an opp. can do is leaving the table. My opinion is that the left alone sitting opponent shall have some means to accept or reject incoming partner! This is not an easy thing. Waiting till opps are ready (while weaker opposition is not against the interest of the average host pair) slows the play. (Sometimes, the same unpatient guys discuss their system intricacies long and longer during a hand, and they are not in a hurry at all.) Again, wishing or advising something that works in random human behaviour environment is a fine balance between goodwill and reality check. What are your opinions?

Hosts frequently boot. More table, more boot. More people even more boot. Why? In most of the cases booting could be reportable against the host as abuse of power. But it would be boring and absolutely useless. Why? If there is a feature that can be abused, it will be abused. Lot's of people have shallow mentality or a bad day. Some even bragging openly on booting in this forum. Many open table for having this right to remove anybody who dears to have own opinion. Simply, it is human though not the nicest part of human nature. Solution is simple if we can mark these hosts. Hopefully a version will come where we can make our own marks. And avoid the table of these petit tyranns.

First I want to say a big thank you to all the volunteers who (like policeman) meet the dark side of this brite site. I suggest to follow a pragmatic approach (and do not spoil the front page of BBO with behavioural notices). One have to accept the dark side of freedom added to a possibility of hiding behind nonames. Since the known history, there were always such people like herostrates who burnt down the temple of Artemis, one of the beautiest wonder of the ancient world (for the sake if I can not do good let'd do bad). Internet has its own criminals, idiots, psyhiatric cases, or simply people in a very bad mode. Collision of different cultures can cause unwanted frictions. Additionally the tolerance of individuals are very different, depends on the person's mode, too. The solution is quite simple. Do nothing spectacular to avoid the unavoidable. Be pragmatic and accept the fact where lot's of people congregate there are always unwanted elements, as well frictions, valid or invalid problems, misunderstood jokes, etc. I hope, our brave yellows will continue cleaning up the mess. And we have to highly appreciate those efforts. The behaviour of the majority anchors the look of the site. And it is very good! Troublemakers can find themselves isolated as soon as solidarity of the others will show up (not always yet) and leave them alone.

Recurrent problem. When people congregate in masses one can not expect disciplined behaviour from each individual. The system shall be such as providing enjoyable environment for the majority and reducing negative experiments as much as possible. From the above point of view BBO is far the best in my experience, thank to Fred and all his aides. Nevertheless, the popularity groth of BBO needs to be addressed sooner then one can expect. I just ask the system designers not to count on any self classification scheme when so many different interest collide. Look those who classify themselfs as "expert" in the present standard profile scheme. Except those who are given the yellow star, almost no exception, these experts are on a weakish intermediate level, if they have any. I suspect some secondary purpose behind these unjust selfappointments. In that category almost nobody uses the standard BBO criteria. The category "world class" is used as a joke by many! All of this for underlining the human factor while making system for public use. Look those who request expert or adv+++ opponents or partners, but they are close to being a beginner. Look other web sites empty rooms that are not named with the highest denomination. Look what disturbances leaves behind an undisciplined driver overtaking a queue that was quite disciplined till that point. What I want to point out is the extreme difficulty to make a system better while the participants may have random attitude. By and large I suggest not to change anything basic on BBO until the next two main version experiences. Many of the present problems are addressed already in the planned modifications. Plus an old adage: Do not fix, which is not broken. BBO is as good as it gets, make it Zone like will not help. If screen size is or will be the problem, let's make from necessity BBO1, BBO2, BBO3, etc. congruent windows or rooms showing only free spaces in each. In spite of the fact that the same thing may cause sometimes hard time to everybody, the freedom of choice and the lack of any rating system are major contributors to BBO success. To subdivide BBO to levelled rooms or create rated tables are not good ideas! Just to repeat, I expect most of the difficulties we found so far will be eliminated by the planned modifications. I suspect, two versions from now we will forget this discussion.

By my experience, the vast majority of players do not read even the particular optional description of the table they jump in. Seemingly, they do not care what system the partner or opponents play, what level of player is welcome, etc. So, what we the minority are discussing here is a problem of the few, lol. ;D

A few remarks: 1) All the problems mentioned above are real :-[. 2) All these problems cause unwanted annoyance :'(. 3) All these problems could be avoided if we were not so lazy to organize our own game ;). 4) We rather expect automatic babysitting, instead of using the present system's existing excellent organizing resources including this forum. But we are the maximalist and spoiled public ;D. 5) The service we got free!!!! are already much better than most of the on-line world can provide :). 6) Though the ratio of improvement is incredible, I hope these whishes will be satisfied, especially the automatic labeling possibility (just count how many expert self declarations are valid). 7) All these problems root in the incredible success of BBO and caused by the undisciplined public. In these circumstances the average individual player has not enough time, energy, astuteness to go around. So, I hope Fred will make a mental note and put most of these wishes to the same priority level as tournaments. 8 ) Evidently, tournaments feature will be a great feat for BBO. But not to solve these wishes parallel or earlier, will accentuate the problem in tournaments. 9) We put all the problems to Fred's shoulder that originally is our own partner finding necessity, appropriate table finding necessity, appropriate ambiance finding necessity. These problems atrophy ACBL face to face clubs and at the same time propel on-line bridge. I think we do not need continuous and immense police force! What I would like to see are a few more tools like pop up personal remarks (instead of a black sea). And extending the practical use of existing organizing features like clubs would be an additional asset (to me they presently look pretty exclusive or temporary). 10) Behind BBO success is the immense work the developers invested into it. Additionally, the game here is the closest in play and in spirit to the one that the great Harold Vanderbild invented. "It is bridge baby" not a bunch of burocratic rules, poisoning rating systems and monster points. So, no surprise, BBO is surpassing all expectations! :)

I like, and appriciate very high of your MOSCITO activity Rihard, but permit me a simple question. Do you think really, anybody can learn MOSCITO, play it or defence against it from a cc during an on-line game ? lol. :) I think cc enthusiasts are missing the boat here in respect to BBO. On-line game is not a top level face to face tournament with screens, majestic world class participants, high stakes, and months of preparation against would be opponents. For the thousands of ordinary on-line players like me BBO provides more than enough path to improve. The cc topic here feels out of place. If you have so much energy, organizing a MOSCITO club or a Polish Club club would be really beneficial.

I agree with the guy who was upset with the unnecessary and misleading behaviour of the alert enthusiasts. This is a fast on-line game, not ego boosting comportment to show how sophisticated we are. The information exchange shall be short, fast and relevant. Alerting short hand bid with long cards is a clear cut falsification for many, even if it is hiding behind certain club level rules. To avoid misunderstanding, please, notify people on your namecard that you are an alert enthusiast.