Permission Required?

[bearmum]

Since the new software there are SO many "locked" tables it's ALMOST impossible to get permission to sit :blink:

 

I have asked this before - PLEASE PLEASE is it possible to ONLY allow the table owner to restrict permission to HIS/HER own partner??? I find it SO frustrating not to be able to ask somebody if I can play with them (and find another person AFTER me is allowed to sit :) ----- OR alternately have a table owner decide for ME who MY partner can or cannot be :angry:

[uday]

The new software has not altered the number of locked tables.

 

Old software: locked tables were drawn in dark blue

new software: locked tables are drawn with a locked icon

[Br_Roberto]

Yes Uday, the software didn't change, only its appearance. However, the real question persists huh? :P

 

Personally, I don't agree there should be such option, to allow hosts to decide who is well skilled to play at his/her table. I have played with great NOVICE players as well as EXPERTS who don't have a clue. So, I never join a table with that option checked and of course I never check it at my own table.

 

I usually start a table and advertise for advanced players. But..... I want advanced players, not players who are able to type that word on their skill levels... :P

 

Again, I take the opportunity to cumpliment you Uday and BBO team, for that great job and the efforts you surely do everyday, to turn it better.

 

Regards,

 

Roberto

[helium]

Hiya:) Have to say i disagree, i like it like this, and there are plemty of open tables so i can see any problem . why should all be open?

[bearmum]

Hiya:) Have to say i disagree, i like it like this, and there are plemty of open tables so i can see any problem . why should all be open?

The point I was TRYING to make is I really don't mind if the owner of a table reserves the right initially to choose his partner (and opps if he likes) BUT when one opp leaves the owner has the right to choose his OPPS partner for him!! Many a time I have tried to join a table -- get a refusal and then find 10 sec later somebody else sitting there--- and sometimes that person can have NO information on their profile :P

[helium]

:angry: ok sry got it wrong then.

[bglover]

I always require permission to sit at my table.

 

I rarely let anyone sit in as my partner a complete stranger. As to opps, I look closely at their profile to see what they play (not necessarily the meaningless self-selected skill level). When an opponent leaves, I try to find the remaining opponent a new partner with a sinilar profile so that they will be comfortable playing the same (or similar) system.

 

I will usually ask if they have a partner on-line they prefer 1st before I do this but matching up systems (no point having a precision-only player paired with an SAYC only player) is what I try to do at my locked tables.

[csdenmark]

I have said it before - the real problem is heritage of table settings overruling your own preferences.

 

As there are many restricted ones software will cause still more of that to come - automatically.

 

Uday - please stop all heritage of settings by other hosts. When I kibitz a table - that host's table settings I have enheritaged as default next time I open a table myself.

 

I really think many restrictions are due to such and not made after a consideration by table host.

[joker_gib]

As they are a lot of experts who are novice and some novice who are experts, the reason to lock a table is less important I think !

 

Personnaly, even if my table is locked, you're all welcome :angry:

[Rain]

BBO grants table owners more responsibilities and more rights, just like any other online bridge club I've seen. Some of these responsibilities include removing players with bad connections in a timely manner and advertising for players when needed. The extra rights granted them are tied to these chores--they have the right to choose who plays/kibs at their table in order to achieve a pleasant environment for most other players at that table.

 

Bearmum:

PLEASE PLEASE is it possible to ONLY allow the table owner to restrict permission to HIS/HER own partner??? I find it SO frustrating not to be able to ask somebody if I can play with them 

 

 

As host is tasked with some chores (I've listed some examples above), he should likewise be granted some extra authority. Table owners may ask opponent for a preferred type of partner, or the opponent can volunteer the information. Some hosts also state clearly the sort of players welcome at their table in table description.

 

If you are already sitting at a table and have ocassion to seek a new partner, I suggest telling host nicely the sort of partner you expect. If host is not nice enough to oblige to a polite request, why are you bothering to play there? If you wish to join a table, but feel inhibited and wish to clarify if you are welcome there, try kibitzing first. Join table as kib, ask nicely, "May I?" or something like that.

 

(and find another person AFTER me is allowed to sit  ----- OR alternately have a table owner decide for ME who MY partner can or cannot be

 

Sometimes the host may know who requested a seat first, sometimes requests pop up almost simultaneously. Host is not required to accept requests in chronological order, however. On host deciding who gets to join table, I've mentioned already the logic behind that special host privilege. A conscientious host, however, will probably seek/heed the opponents' preference for partner.

 

Uday has already mentioned there are not more constrained tables than before. Constrains are just presented in a more visible format now, so it looks like there are more "locked" tables. If you find it difficult getting accepted at a restricted table, you can always try starting your own table. :rolleyes:

 

 

Rain

[Rain]

csdenmark :

 

 

I have said it before - the real problem is heritage of table settings overruling your own preferences.

 

As there are many restricted ones software will cause still more of that to come - automatically.

 

Uday - please stop all heritage of settings by other hosts. When I kibitz a table - that host's table settings I have enheritaged as default next time I open a table myself.

 

I really think many restrictions are due to such and not made after a consideration by table host.

 

 

 

I really don't see that using a mouseclick to bring up table settings and editing it to suit your own preference is that difficult. Its a matter of clicks (Isn't technology wonderful? )

 

Newcomers to bbo may be unfamiliar with editing these settings, and they are probably the only ones affected. However, still can't see that this default setting is causing that much problems.

 

The only improvement I can see here is for your own preferred default settings to be stored so that each time you start a table default goes to what you love best. That doesn't sound like value added stuff to me though, unless fred/uday can code this with great ease and store these preferences at little cost. If not, clicking is easy.

 

 

rain

[csdenmark]

I really don't see that using a mouseclick to bring up table settings and editing it to suit your own preference is that difficult.  Its a matter of clicks (Isn't technology wonderful? )

 

Newcomers to bbo may be unfamiliar with editing these settings, and they are probably the only ones affected.  However, still can't see that this default setting is causing that much problems. 

 

The only improvement I can see here is for your own preferred default settings to be stored so that each time you start a table default goes to what you love best.  That doesn't sound like value added stuff to me though, unless fred/uday can code this with great ease and store these preferences at little cost.  If not, clicking is easy.

 

 

rain

No really problem for me Rain - I know how it works and it is not that difficult to set up table.

 

I think it is right there has been more restricted tables - and it is not only they are now more visibile. The snowball effect is the reason and therefore still more restricted tables to come - even many has no really intension of that. To me it mostly looks like an old programming bug which I think ought to be corrected.

[inquiry]

I think it is right there has been more restricted tables - and it is not only they are now more visibile. The snowball effect is the reason and therefore still more restricted tables to come - even many has no really intension of that. To me it mostly looks like an old programming bug which I think ought to be corrected.

Hi Claus,

 

Far from a bug, the request permission is a logical extension to the gaming site. Steve (bglover) said he ALWAYS turns this feature on, I on the other hand (almost) never reequire permission. The only exception is when I am going to establish a training table or my partner and I are going to play a set match and I only know one of the opponents knickname. And I have never, ever banned a kibitizer from my table.

 

As a downside to my open table philosophy, I have had people on my "ENEMY" list because of their boarish behavior who join my table. I still prefer open tables, but I would like to see a table option that no enemy of the host can "join" the table as a player and a second option that no enemy can join as a kibitzer. The reason I would like to see it this way, there are some rude people I love giving a complete thrashing too as opponnents, but as a general rule, I don't want them kibitizing at my table as they are disruptive enough as it is.

 

And to rain, if you ever see my table locked (where I am host)... send me a chat and let me know, undoubtly it is a table I inherited. Sure it is easy enough to click and change, but before that first request comes in, I don't realize that it is locked.

 

Ben

[csdenmark]

No Ben - it is a bug and it does not affect me as I have knowledge of computers, programming internet etc. But most dont have such and therefore you see this bug is on its way to strangling the open bridge society into a closed and restricted area - really to the disadvantage of all. This does not affect me as I know, I rarely kibitz and I never enter free seats but always open my own free tables. It is a good example of how much effect it has whether default settings are this or that!

 

If it was so that the restricted setting was the default by BBO - I would just have assumed the setting was not appropriate but in no way a bug. It is not so. Downloading BBO - the default is open setting. When you kibitz a table, play at a table or just enter by a mistake you get that hosts settings as your personal defaults next time you open a table. What the reason of such - nothing of course. Only a bug can explain such.

 

I assume it is an ending frame like this one ")" set at a wrong place which causes the big effect. Such is inevitable to avoid in programming and it can take years before such are discovered.

 

Nearly nobody - 95% - has any reason to restrict anything. They simply want the table to be filled and play SAYC. So it is. They dont care about settings and they dont know anything about it. As those who deliberately want to restrict entry to their tables also are those most people think they ought to kibitz - they inheritage that restricted setting as their own - and they dont know anything about it. - So the snowball is working to the disadvantage of all.

 

A bug it is - for sure - and it ought to be corrected.

[Gweny]

:) For me I wish software preserve settings when I log on so if I make new table it defaults to what I set last time vs start all over...

[spwdo]

hi,

 

maybe the ones not liking the lock on other tables can create an unlocked table themselves , i start new table in 90% of the times i play in main bridge club but when allowing new players on i check for similarity in profile, also u must think sometimes when a seat comes free, 10 or more people jump on this, it doesnt mean u personnally are rejected but seat can be taken in the mean time(and all others are rejected then)

[blackest_k]

I do like the suggestion of allowin an opponent to choose their partner could be even more fun if they could remove their partner too :)

 

locking a table for me is usually a preventative measure to allow my partner to get seated before someone else jumps in the seat but once they are there i tend to unlock.

 

pity there is no way of getting rid of the following senerio

p says i am leaving after this hand

ok msg friend

The guy i am playing with is leaving do you want to take their seat.

ok i will come kibutz

msg table host my friend mrx is waiting to be my partner when my current p leaves.

 

hand finishes partner bids... one more hand ... half an hour later and your friend gives up and joins another table.

 

seriously thou letting an op choice his/her partner a good idea :)

 

regards

 

john

[Frosty]

It can be hard for new or unknown players to get a seat in the Main Club - I've seen this happen - because so many tables require permission. Once or twice being denied is enough to discourage one to avoid all tables that require permission. It's possible that this is aggravated when new table hosts inherits settings of which they are unaware.

 

Its true that there are simple solutions, but the underlying concern that I see permeating several of these posts is the issue of openess versus the right to filter. Both of these are important so it is likely to be a "which came first?.. the chicken or the egg?" situation.

 

I'd like to offer the thought that Individual Tournaments are a great place to meet and greet when you are new. No one can refuse you seating and, in theory, everyone signs on for a given set of Boards so you won't find yourself sitting at an empty table. Sure - it would be better for newbies to work out the kinks in the Main Club, but if the climate is chilly - there are still Indy's.

 

Frosty/Jan

[inquiry]

I do like the suggestion of allowin an opponent to choose their partner could be even more fun if they could remove their partner too :)

John,

 

Not to split hairs but this "fun" is unecessary and its availability would create frequent violations of the rules of the site, and the partner of the table captain could throw someone off his own table.

 

The ability to discard a partner sounds like a vindictive thing (my partner is not good enough to play with me...) especially with the implication that would be fun. In fact, you should go to the "rules of this site" in the online bridge library and see the acceptable reasons why a player can be booted. Since this is a short list, having just one person (the captain) decide when these are meet is good enough. What most people do if they decide their partner is just unbearable for one reaosn or the other, they excuse themselves (hopefully politely), and move to another table. This seems most reasonable to me.

 

Ben

[Br_Roberto]

I have to strongly agree with csdenmark. In my oppinion, inheriting any table option from another player (or actually from a table where you played or went to watch) is bad, by principle, for the obvious reason that it is a "not chosen choice". Additionally, the menthioned possible lack of knowledge of the players may really turn it worse, creating the snowball effect.

 

However, I need to add another point of view and perhaps this would increase the necessary effort to fix the problem. Anyways, this happened to me and many friends: when you finish playing a Total points tournament for example, and then go play in Main Bridge Club, you start a table, get partner and opponents, play a hand completelly, and only after the score comes up, you realize that you are still playing total points. This time the inheritance came from yourself because you made the choice to play that tourney. So, I think there should be two different table options, one for tournaments, which doesn't necessarily need to be under host's control, and one for casual play, the default one.

 

Finally, as Gweny said, preserving our own settings for the next time we log in is a good feature for sure.

 

Thanks, Roberto

[bearmum]

It can be hard for new or unknown players to get a seat in the Main Club - I've seen this happen - because so many tables require permission.  Once or twice being denied is enough to discourage one to avoid all tables that require permission.  It's possible that this is aggravated when new table hosts inherits settings of which they are unaware. 

 

I'm not a computer wizz so don't know if it's possible for the system to revert to the NEW table owner's options (ie IF playing in Main club you are happy to have open table) then IF you become the default owner THOSE settings apply :D

[blackest_k]

I do like the suggestion of allowin an opponent to choose their partner could be even more fun if they could remove their partner too :)

John,

 

Not to split hairs but this "fun" is unnecessary and its availability would create frequent violations of the rules of the site, and the partner of the table captain could throw someone off his own table.

 

The ability to discard a partner sounds like a vindictive thing (my partner is not good enough to play with me...) especially with the implication that would be fun.

It wasn't meant as a serious suggestion.

 

In fact I have removed myself from a table for my own poor play my partner deserved better and once due to the intolerablely rude behaviour of an op to their partner.

 

The ability for a table "captain" to delegate the responsibility of choosing an ops partner to the remaining op was a serious suggestion although the abilty to remove should remain with the table host (preferably consulting the other players first).

 

john

[inquiry]

It wasn't meant as a serious suggestion.

Hi John,

 

Ok, your suggestion wasn't serious. But let me point out to you that this forum, the one you posted it in, is entitled suggestions for BBO software.

 

Fred and uday read this threat, and if you make a suggestion, they will consider it. I think, however, their reply would have been similiar to mine (but who knows?).

 

Any way, if you read this group from the beginning you will see that a lot of suggestions made here have been implimented. For instance, early on a user recommended an option that the lobby be sortable by "country", and as you know it now is...

 

http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...findpost&p=6470

 

The ability to have a non-captain (captain's opponent) to be able to select his own partner is worthy.. this is usually done by reserving a seat for a name that doesn't exist and having you hunt for that player and then tell the captain whose name to type in. To have a software option for this, while useful, creates other potential problems. Say a captain really doesn't want an enemy at the table, he would not have the right for this restriction. I am sure as an option, a captain granting the permission over to one opponent for his partner would be a good thing, but I rather see howell tournment movements first. :-)

 

Ben