cicus

You won by 6 minutes. :-)

1. Nem értem, mitől egyértelmű a párosítás. Például az első helyezetthez képest minden csapat hátul áll. 2. Az EB nem okozhatott halasztást, ugyanis sem a Csabi, sem a Noforsz csapat egyetlen tagja sem játszott rajta (István az utolsó mérkőzés eredményét hiányolta).

What if as soon as they are ungagged their colour changes and they are displayed at the top of the kibitzer list? That doesn't really work either. Since if a commentator is ungagged for one session of a broadcast, (s)he is never gagged after that session. Thus, if kibbitzing a later sessing, (s)he would still be looking like a commentator on top of the list. Of course you could gag commentators after each session, but that would be more work for operators or Roland, who'se got a more than tight enough schedule and enough other things to take care of than gagging commentators. You are right, Harald. However, I think I have a solution for this problem as well. Commentators could have an option at their disposal, similar to 'be right back': they could make themselves seem as if they were only kibitzers. E.g. they could right click on their name and click on a line like this: 'no commenting'. This line would only be visible when their status were 'ungagged'.

What if as soon as they are ungagged their colour changes and they are displayed at the top of the kibitzer list?

Kedves István! Hadd válaszoljak neked én. Részlet a versenykiírásból: "9. forduló: június 11-17 Döntő, bronzmeccs: tetszőleges időpontban 32 leosztás" Mint látható, a 10. fordulóra nincs kitűzve időpont. Nem is csoda, hiszen ezt a fordulót a játékosok szavazták meg (Érdekes, nem? Ráadásul a szavazás eredményét kötelező érvényűnek tekintették; látszik, hogy minden szabálytól el lehet térni - ősi MBSZ-szokás). Nos, a 10. forduló már igencsak belenyúlik a nyárba; minthogy előre nem lehetett betervezni, néhányan eredeti tervüknek megfelelően elutaztak nyaralni. Lehet őket hibáztatni? Egyébként amikor e sorokat írom, éppen folyik az utolsó meccs. A döntő pedig "tetszőleges időpontban" lesz. Ha szabad jósolnom, sohasem kerül rá sor. Már csak azért sem, mert a kiírás nem intézkedik arról, hogy ki fogja játszani a döntőt! Vagy talán nyilvánvaló, hogy az első kettő? Hiszen az marhaság: dán rendszerre nem lehet bízni a döntő résztvevőinek meghatározását. Vagy lesz elődöntő is? Nem hiszem; azt említené a kiírás. Mint láthatod, a szabályok érvényesek, csak éppen nincsenek. Üdvözöl: Gábor

I recommend for future BBO updates to include an 'abuse' button somewhere, which makes it easy to contact that department. Also, a short description of what to do could be displayed at that place. I have seen such instructions somewhere, only I can't remember where. Last time I reported abuse I was instructed to send a screen photo. I think this is not enough, the date and time should also be given so that they can check that the players on the screen were actually playing at that table at that time. This would exclude edited pictures.

Rudeness is never justified, and I must say the operators have nerves of steel if they did not leave in the middle of action if this was the prize for their efforts. Unfortunately, the society of bridge players is a random selection of people, with the same ratio of uncivilized persons as in the outside world. I think the best way to get rid of them is to ignore them. The other day I played a man who 'shouted' at me in anger 'You expert? Get out of my way!!' I didn't, it was he who left the table. In the case of operators, there is also the solution that only yellows and commentators could talk to them. Gábor

Amiről még nem esett szó: "DE szankcionálni fogjuk a nyerészkedő szándékú óvásokat is. A konkrétumokat nélkülőző gyanúsítgatások pedig a klubból való kizárással járnak." A verseny etikai szabályaiból idéztem. Te jössz, Robi!

There is a difference here from 'normal' wrong claims: here everybody knows that the claim refers only to the remaining tricks. Declarer claims in this sense and the opponents accept in this sense. Only the timing of the claim is wrong.

I have the suspicion that most players are not aware of this, and when they are banned they don't know why (unless they got a message about that). Same for bailing: still a lot of people leave in the middle of a hand. I don't think many read the site rules, not to mention that a lot of players do not even speak english.

This has happened several times. Someone claims all the remaining tricks in the middle of a trick and the opponents accept. However, the incomplete trick is also included in the claim even if it was taken by the opponents. This way even the trump ace may not win a trick. Can a little check be built in the sofware to avoid this or shall we pay more attention to claims? It would help as well if claims could only be made when a trick is complete.

Thanks, I knew this method but I thought it was easier to copy one sequence than to delete about 30 one by one.

I am experimenting with new ideas in the bidding system with my partner, so I decided to create a new FD file in which only one bidding sequence, 1♣-1NT would be included. I opened our system file, went to 1♣-1NT, and clicked on 'Copy'. Now I started a new empty CC file and went from 1♣ to 1NT, then clicked 'Paste'. I thought I was done but FD quit with an error message. Am I doing something wrong?

When an opponent bids 2♦ then asks for undo and changes the bid to 2♥ it may have been because of a misclick. Mice can do that. However, if he changes it to e.g. double, it is clear that he only changed his mind. The problem is that I have already accepted the undo when I learn that the misclick was a lie. I suggest an automatic procedure. If the opponent asks for an undo which is accepted, the software should deny the replacement of the bid if it is not next to the bid replaced. E.g. you could change 2♦ to 2♣ or 2♥ or 1♦ or 3♦, because these bids are neighbouring the initial one. Also, pass could be changed to double (or vice versa) but not to any other bid (it can't be a misclick because it needs two clicks instead of one). Maybe the software could even tell the culprit that his undo was rejected automatically. A little pedagogical explanation may also be attached, e.g. 'this is no place for cheaters'. :D

Or we could use a smiley for a player with notes.

Sometimes I feel indicated to edit player notes for certain opponents. For example, this morning I played a guy who bid notrumps on almost every hand, regardless of distribution. I wrote in the notes: "bids notrump on every hand". However, as these notes grow in number, I won't be able to remember all opponents for whom I have notes. What I suggest here is that an automatic colour designation should be given to the profile of each player whose notes field is not empty. Just like for friends, enemies and hosts. And, the colour for friends or enemies should have precedence over the colour of "I have notes for this player". Gabor Szots (cicus)

We already have that: stars or no stars I don't know upon what awarding stars is based but I know all players with a star in my country and there are big differences in their pllaying skills. So for me star-no star is not a very good distinction. I think a star should be world class.

It strikes me as extremely unjust to award average minus for the side to play when it may have been the opponents that were slow. That was the case for me in a recent tournament. One of the opponents was so slow that his partner asked him to play faster. Still, trick 13 arrived, I was on play, I played my last card, and at this momment the board was cancelled and I got average minus. We called the TD and asked for correction which he agreed to do. However, I still have the suggestion that when there is only one card to play, that is, at trick 13, the deal should be completed automatically and the result scored accordingly. Gábor Szots (cicus on BBO)

The way of using the FD convention cards for explanation of bids is practically identical with the way you answer alerts. With the conventional method, you alert and write your explanation in the provided field. With FD, you alert and the provided field is filled in automatically for you. The only difference is that the use of FD is faster, the explanations are more detailed and accurate. This should be the preferred method. I don't see why I am encouraged to create a comprehensive FD CC (I assure you, ours is extremely thorough, we've received a lot of admiration for it from various opponents. I've put a lot of work in it.) if I am still required to explain "verbally". Gabor

The other day I played in a tournament using a Full Disclosure convention card. We had a sequence of which all bids were artificial. We alerted them all but the opponents seemed not to know how to learn the meanings of the bids because I was asked to give an explanation over and over again. I told them to put their mouse over the bid but one of the opponents did not seem to understand. After my second bid there was a 5-minute (!) pause by LHO and when I asked him to bid he told me he was calling the director. He did not tell me why but I suspect it was because of my "denial" to provide explanation (I myself could see my own explanationns all the time). Nothing happened but finally he passed and there were further 2 or 3 rounds of bidding. However, time ran out and there was no time for even the opening lead. It came as a surprise that the TD awarded -3 IMPs for us. This was actually a gain of 3 IMPs because we missed a laydown slam. That was long enough. I see two problems here: (1) Many players don't know how to use the new FD feature. This causes a lot of headache for me, having to explain the meanings of bids or teaching the opponents how to use the FD feature. I hate this because I have spent several *days* completing our FD card and it causes more trouble than advantage. (2) It seem average minus is automatically awarded for the side on bid or play, no matter who is guilty. Gabor Szots

I would like to include in FD our defences vs. big clubs, various NT openings and natural bids. However, I can create e.g. only one 1c entry, so I have to omit either natural or strong clubs. Or is there a way to circumvent this?

Till now, explanations given when alerting could be seen in the hand records. Not so with the new Full Disclosure CC the explanations of which are not inclluded in the hand records, only the alert can be seen. I would like to have these explanations included lest I have to write the explanation into the alert even if FD CC is in use.

My view, exactly. If I find anything ridiculous with the whole thing it is the explanation that the hand is worth 8 HCP because it contains a singleton (not to mention that 5 points for a singleton is an evaluation which has been overlooked by all leading theorists so far).

I have set BBO to display friends and fellow countrymen when I log in. However, foreign friends are not displayed which I find a bit inconvenient.

What broke it? I suspect there is something wrong with 4.6.4 installer if fonts get corrupted on several independent computers after upgrading. However, I have only FD explanations and symbols corrupted, the BBO software seems OK.