onoway

I am interested in hearing what other people do regarding the barometer. We started out with it on but after discussion (they dont know how they are doing in live matches) we now leave it off. This works most of the time somewhat better imo as we sometimes have very lopsided matches and it's one thing to think your side is doing badly but hope maybe your teammates are saving the day and quite another to KNOW with 4 hands to go you are getting thoroughly pulverized. I feel now that the barometer off leads to more real results; that people continue to try their best until the end rather than being tempted to abandon ship or do strange things (which would result in director calls). I don't play in the series team matches, but then I am also the only TD for them so trying to minimize potential problems is a priority. B) This is one reason why we haven't attempted to load hands as yet.. I am not clever with computers so whatever the system used it has to be relatively quick and simple . What I would like to see - the simplest solution I can think of- would be to have a code which allowed the TD to save the hands from the first match and then send them to the other tables as the matches are set....wouldn't matter what the hands WERE as long as they were the same for all tables. This format could also be used by TP tourneys perhaps...That wouldn't deal with the issue of using preselected hands, but it WOULD deal with the issue of different teams playing different hands within one match structure, which is the main concern. Possibly it could be set up to use either preselected or randomly generated (for the first match) hands. I have no idea if this would be difficult to do or not.

When IAC was getting going I used to run a tourney once in a while. When not restricted to members, we would have the odd runner, maybe 2 or so per tourney, it wasn't really a big deal. I ran one the other day for someone who had computer issues and didn't think to restrict it to members. It was total and absolute chaos...people leaving at the drop of a hat if their pard lost connection or they didnt get a good hand or a good result or perhaps because they didnt like the color of socks the opps were wearing. I spent the entire time screaming for subs and subbing people in, probably ending up subbing at least half of the players by the time we were done. This was WAY worse than it used to be.. When tourneys are restricted to members we rarely have problems. I think ..when people feel part of a defined group they tend to have more manners than if they dont feel any association beyond the actual tourney. Also it reflects how many people move around Main..tables there are often a revolving door for players. Perhaps unfairly, I blame the web format partly for this; it is much less convenient now for people to go to the smaller clubs to play. Unless they have a specific reason to do otherwise, people tend to land in either Main or Relaxed. My impression is that deserved or not, Relaxed has the image of the place for people who don't take bridge very seriously and Main is so big it tends to make everything very transient, so some people tend not to care very much how they behave. This carries over into the tourneys. Not sure what you can do about it beyond restricting the tourneys .

I tried the Web Client again tonight and perhaps it is the unfamiliarity of the set up but I found the cards, though apparently much larger, to be sort of fuzzy..the table seemed to have a mistiness which was most disconcerting. I was intending to explore but got invited to play..is there any way to go to a table by right clicking on the name of the host as there is in the windows version? It wouldn't work for me. I had to message and ask him where he was and then explain that right clicking didn't work and then wander down the list of tables to find him...very inconvenient. Also, I really dislike the chat setup. It seemed cramped, harder to read and very distracting, all at the same time. I'm not sure how it managed that and will look at it again to see if I can figure it out. Anyway, I got through one hand but still felt disoriented with the cards, so logged off and back on with the old version with a sigh of relief. Sorry. The whole thing still seems so much less user friendly to me. I will try it again and spend a bit more time looking around as the time tonight was hardly a fair test. At the moment though, I still think you got it pretty much right in the first place, at least for the basic functions that I use/want.

Where were all the movie makers? Surely this would have been an opportunity to do some PR for bridge?

[We think we can all then use the same LIN file for each match (we have a LIN file ctreator)] I would be interested in how this is working for you...we had discussed this but wondered a bit as it would seem you would have to give the captains setting the matches the .lin file before the match. I have no doubt they are all fine upstanding citizens but the possibility of temptation to take a peek could become an issue, justified or not. It is quite interesting to see what sort of things become issues over time. One which has come up in a minor way from time to time in the IAC matches is that if a captain leaves him or herself on as a director, they are able to see the progress of the match, although our rules say barometer is off. Sometimes I have great sympathy for people who organize events where there is actually something at stake. B)

The only way I have seen this resolved is to leave the table (and sometimes BBO entirely) and return. At that point things usually work as they are supposed to. This doesn't usually happen, you were unlucky.

Usually it will work if ONLY the teacher allows the undo; if a player agrees then there is a very good chance that subsequent bidding or play will be unavailable as far as the teacher is concerned (everything seems to freeze for the teacher at that point in time) and sometimes for the players as well. ( bidding boxes not appearing and so forth). This has been a problem for quite a long time now.

If you are going to show tourneys in the media and expect the game to draw more people into it as a result I suggest it would need to both 1) have a super commentary as to what is going on and 2) be some sort of speedball. A game where nobody apparently does anything for minutes at a time does not lend itself to being a spectator sport for the uninitiated.

"The flaw in this pyramid is that its foundation is the people around the average age of an ACBL member. However for the future of bridge try developing what the pyramid of bridge players under the age of 40 looks like (perhaps pyramid is too big in this context). If one consider the range of gaming options for the under 40 (farmville, counterstrike, uncharted, etc.) the ones that stick to the bridge are the few that love complexity, not the ones that want packaged pastimes." Well, I think you are judging only from a limited viewpoint. My neices and nephew(all under 40) all play and they play with their kids (all under the age of 16) as well as friends and afaik none of them have the least interest in searching out more complex forms of the game. They have challenging jobs and play for relaxation and social interaction. Their standard of play would likely compare to the lower advanced/upper intermediate level on BBO.(the kids not yet but they're coming along) They don't belong to acbl nor care about formal competitions. BUT...it's people like them who will imo opinion be keeping the game alive rather than people who decide to quit bridge because they can't use a favorite toy.

"You end up with a population of bridge players who like to pretend that they are smart but who feel threatened if they are ever expected to think and/or work... " So what if a lot of them do? What difference does it make? Should nobody play basketball unless they are willing to work at reaching NBA standards no matter how unrealistic that might be?

In my experience, the multitudinous systems and conventions feed into those who wish to remain big frogs in a small puddle and do have a restricting effect on new players. I agree with Helene_t that most newbies retreat into Iamgoingtopretend youdidntevenbidbecauseIdontunderstandwhatanyofitmeansorwhatIamsupposedtodoaboutit mode. That doesn't solve the problem though. I'm not trying to suggest that everyone who enjoys tinkering with or playing complex systems wants to be a big frog in a little puddle; far from it! But imo these players (the good ones) are operating on a different level than most people who enjoy the game. Most people can admire top basketball players without it affecting the fun they have in a pickup game behind the house, which may be pretty bad basketball, or might actually be very good, but for sure won't have the complexity of plays and so forth of the pro game. In the past, it seems that rubber bridge has been regarded by many duplicate players as the equivilent of the pickup game, and as such has been held in a degree of disdain. But....I think that the love of the game might well often start there. Perhaps there needs to be some sort of reconciliation between the two faces of the game with rubber bridge possibly being severely restricted in terms of conventions at least at the beginner level, and duplicate bridge being more of a freeforall. I have read that the reason bridge became so popular was that Goren marketted a version of it which took away the feeling of inadequacy that most people felt about learning the game. In fact, there was actual prestige in learning how to play the game as it was regarded as a game for smart people. When someone could get the basics of it 10 minutes, enough to play a game even, it made them feel good about themselves. In this way it was like chess..it's very easy to get the basic rules and start to play. You may not play well, but at least it gets you playing. I dont see that happening now. Even in BIL, which is as supportive and nurturing a place as you can get, I have met people who are afraid to play with other people for months. People dont like to feel stupid or overwhelmed and certainly are unlikely to pursue an activity for pleasure for very long which makes them feel inadequate. If however, they can take a version of it and become competent enough quickly at least to play a game, then some at least will want to get into the more complex and challenging versions. You don't have to be a mechanic to enjoy driving a car or to get where you want to go (usually). You just need to know a few basic things about what the vehicle needs and how to handle it. If you want to be a Grand Prix driver, or to drive a 16 wheeler, you will need to know rather a lot more. It would be silly to assume that everyone looking for their first driver's licence seriously aspires eventually to be a Grand Prix driver. It would be equally silly to regard with scorn anyone (who drove only an automatic transmission car) who didn't know how to handle the double geared system of a 16 wheeler truck. The reason I suggested rubber bridge is that it seems to me that duplicate is too much competition for most total newbies. Also, it should be relatively easy to have some sort of ranking in rubber bridge as to what conventions are allowed at which version, ending up with any and all perhaps. People understand versions of things ranking from simplest to most complex. Duplicate bridge is appears to be already too institutionalized to be able to do that. The main problem many people used to have..finding 3 other people..has been taken care of by the internet. Now just need to bring them to the table in a way which makes them think that they can do this and have fun. .

seems as though this has come up before but I couldn't find it..any suggestions for a method of creating interesting hands for tourneys or teams? (which doesn't involve a lot of computer adeptness!) I think that the enjoyment of teams is sometimes marred by the cards all running one way all night or the hands being all pretty straighforward with everyone plodding into the same obvious contract with nothing challenging about the bidding or play. So.. The question is how to create moderately challenging hands which could be uploaded. This seems like it would be a very long and complicated process.Would this necessarilly be true? Does anyone know of a program which could tackle this (besides BridgeBrowser which I cannot find these days). Any help would be appreciated.

It seems to me to be trying to launder the past to suit the present political correctness. Didn't these people die "For God and Country?". Perhaps now people are much more aware of all the shades of meaning and ramifications, so in future we can have such things as statues glorifying war. Yippee. Surely nobody reasonable would suggest that at the time it was meant as anything other than a mark of respect for the fallen. I understand that priceless and ancient statues of Buddha were destroyed by the Taliban, much to the dismay and censure of nearly everyone else, it seemed. This cross is certainly not a priceless artifact, but artifact it is, and of its time. Destroying such things because they don't fit the present temper will only serve to further divide people into "us" and "them". It's highly unlikely any of those buried there would understand this argument at all. It would be nice if people could show respect for the spirit in which it was erected, whether or not they agree with it. I get really tired of the efforts of the "correctness" police to tidy up the past (and present!) to make everything as bland and inoffensive as possible. Seems to me the way to have people learn tolerance is to have a chaotic shambles. A wild or even semi wild garden is much often more interesting (and healthy!) than a sprayed and manicured lawn, even if less convenient to walk on.

This is fascinating. I have only got through the first part so far but it is a very intriguing view of events. I had never heard of this man before either..interesting in light of the influence he is credited with having on the shaping of US (and western) culture in the 20 century, It all raises some rather alarming questions. Thanks for posting this.

Presumably she has a lifestyle she is happy with and can in this way maintain. I'm not sure why you seem to think she should go out to work to make money ... so that sometime in the future she can stay home and not have to work? :P

I agree wholeheartedly but there are lots of problems trying to do it. At the moment any one player who absentmindedly refuses the invitation or has gone to make a cup of coffee or forgotton he logged on invisible or logged off for whatever reason or is kibbing/sitting at a teaching table can mess up the setting of a match. I don't see any way around that. And, the more players involved the more likely you will find at least one who does something like this. . Then the chances of someone else refusing the re-sent invitation are greater as they don't understand why they are getting another invitation when they think they are already on their way to a match.. . Setting multiple matches with the same hands would likely work really well with people who are very familiar with the setup and are patient!! It takes a while to enter all the information when you are setting multiple tables. . In IAC teams, we get around some of the time issues by having the captains set the matches and naming bbo_iac as TD instead of themselves to run the matches. That way the matches all start at approximately the same time. I dont know how you could load hands into such matches though.

Not sure about the tracking of slow players BUT it would be really nice to have some way to have nonactive players who are sitting at a table somehow flagged. I tried to use the "take me to a game" feature and 3 tables in a row one player was apparently not there. So you sit for a while in case they come back, and they don't. Other people are coming and going...which happens too much in main ANYWAY..it's sorta discouraging, esp if you have only a limited time to play. It's a great feature when it works...today at least for me, it wasn't much help. Maybe if someone is inactive for a while but still sitting at a table they could turn purple or something so people would know right away they aren't really there. Then when they came back and actually bid or played the normal colour would be restored...sort of an early warning system like the "BBO thinks you are away" is only a bit quicker to kick in and for the benefit of other players.

http://www.ted.com/talks/tierney_thys_swim...nt_sunfish.html Perhaps one of the most entertaining of a wonderful collection from the TED talks

There presently is a club for ACOL players. Perhaps you could start one for Precision players if there isn't one already and that is your thing? One of the charms of BBO is that it doesn't make it so easy to stick in your own niche, but through its structure encourages interaction across many groups. I have stumbled into meeting people I am now privileged to call friend I likely never would have met otherwise. Imo it would be a shame if this were to change.

Well, there undoubtedly was a difference in the level of bridge understanding between the pairs, but that's life. I appreciate the feedback. Thanks.

Seems as though a company which is still largely under the radar might be encouraged to think of putting in a garage as a demo model and at the very least paying for it itself for the privilege of showcasing its technology. There might be something about revisiting the arrangement after a couple of years....

first of all; I am TDing by "default". Nobody else wants to do them so that's the choice the players have. I don't pretend to know all I should know; this is not a matter of any sort of pride, but I don't have the time to pursue TDing qualification with the focus it deserves. The vast majority of the time, nothing comes up which I cannot deal with as the players are largely cooperative and friendly as well as competitive. However: Last night in the last hand a bid came up which was not alerted and when the opps requested information, the response was "no agreement". The player in question had been conscientious in alerting throughout the match, and so was his pard. However, the bid thoroughly discombobulated the opps. Nobody called for me; I happened to be kibbing at the table. In the long run it made no difference to the outcome of the match; they were winning before the hand with a comfortable enough margin and this was the very last hand of the match. The bidding went:(imps scoring, the pair bidding ♦ vul, opps not Pass 1♦ X Pass 1♠ Pass 2♠ 3♠ (the bid which raised the question) X XX (alerted as having a ♠ stop) Pass 5♦ X Pass Pass Pass The hand which bid 3♠ was ♠8 ♥KJ8 ♦AT963 ♣K874 I spoke to someone ( not involved and wasn't there) after the match about this and his reaction was: " that is a bs response; he would not have made the bid if he didn't think his pard would have some sort of assumption about his hand as a result of the bid". That makes sense to me, even though his pard thought for some time before he bid, so it seemed as though it certainly wasn't any sort of clear agreement. My question is; If the bewildered opps had asked for me what should I have done, if anything? or should I have interfered anyway, since I was there? My understanding is that if there is no agreement then the opps are not entitled to more info than the pard has, and everyone is on their own to figure out what the bid means in context. Is this correct? I gave the bidder the benefit of the doubt since up to that point he had been explaining his bids without having to be prompted. The problem really comes down to leaving one pair with an unhappy feeling of being duped with some fast footwork by their opps and this is not what we want for the matches, if it can be dealt with in a way that leaves everyone feeling fairly dealt with. Sometimes life just isn't fair, of course, just want to know if this is one of those times.

This was filmed in 2006. It would be interesting to know where these projects are now in the general scheme of things. http://www.ted.com/talks/alan_russell_on_r...our_bodies.html

When I first came to BBO I got nailed a couple of times by supposed "experts" claiming with lots of cards left to play and they were trying to avoid losing a setting trick the easy way .;) So now I insist of figuring it out or, if a lot of cards left and I don't readilly see it, I ask them to play it out. Virtually nobody ever explains their line. Even now, I don't claim until it is really obvious as esp when playing with the lower level players, it is often faster to play it out than to claim, even if you do explain. I have on occassion rejected my OWN claim and played it out as it was taking so long for the opps to see that with only aces and all the remaining trump in my hand or dummy they were not going to take a trick. It isn't intending to be insulting to anyone; just the way it is down here in intermediateland. Playing with really good players , it's different as they often know what is what at least as soon as I do so claiming asap works. Still, if an opp asks me to claim, I tell him he is welcome to concede the rest of the tricks, and if he doesn't I recheck my plan :P

What about the strictly self interest motivation irrespective of religion or any sort of social motivation? Laws such as those regarding seatbelts and marijuana use dim before some of the others which were/are designed to ramp up personal power. Surely pure selfinterest motivation is the most dangerous in the long run as there is nothing fogging up the focus. A very clever psychopath could create more havoc than a religious or a secular group as he is comfortable manipulating both groups to further his own goals, being emotionally attached to neither. Lots of historical examples. People such as Charles Taylor and Idi Amin come to mind, to disconnect from purely north American concerns. Extreme examples perhaps, in that there wasn't a lot of subtlety involved, (if in a group you're the only one with a loaded machine gun you are prepared to use, you don't really have to discuss anything unless you feel like it) but these sorts of people pop up regularly.