hantveit Posted March 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2008 Ewwwwwwwwww. I would absolutely refuse to play in such an event. That's not bridge, or anything even close to it. If you want a game that doesn't give proper thinking time, play blitz chess or something. Yes, tought time limits can ruin the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 24, 2008 Report Share Posted March 24, 2008 Note that BBO are not writing on the tourney that the same cards are not played. It would be easy to inform about this, but they choose not too. Click on "Tournament Rules", and it's on the second page of the rules: 2) RRTs are not duplicate tournaments. Since players do not play the same hands as each other, it is impossible for players at different tables to collude with one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hantveit Posted March 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Note that BBO are not writing on the tourney that the same cards are not played. It would be easy to inform about this, but they choose not too. Click on "Tournament Rules", and it's on the second page of the rules: 2) RRTs are not duplicate tournaments. Since players do not play the same hands as each other, it is impossible for players at different tables to collude with one another. Excatly my point... second page on the tournaments rules... Why not post it on the page that everyone reads; the page where you enter the tournament? It is a loooot of free place there, and this is critical information that you want as many as possible to read... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hantveit Posted March 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Note that BBO are not writing on the tourney that the same cards are not played. It would be easy to inform about this, but they choose not too. Click on "Tournament Rules", and it's on the second page of the rules: 2) RRTs are not duplicate tournaments. Since players do not play the same hands as each other, it is impossible for players at different tables to collude with one another. It is very easy for the players to communicate through msn, phone and so on. So the argument about that two players might help each other out to win will be applicable here.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Note that BBO are not writing on the tourney that the same cards are not played. It would be easy to inform about this, but they choose not too. Click on "Tournament Rules", and it's on the second page of the rules: 2) RRTs are not duplicate tournaments. Since players do not play the same hands as each other, it is impossible for players at different tables to collude with one another. It is very easy for the players to communicate through msn, phone and so on. So the argument about that two players might help each other out to win will be applicable here.. You are completely clueless. I don't know if this is related to English as a fourth language, systemic abuse of chemicals, or just really really bad luck in the genetic lottery. Regardless, you do not understand even the most rudementary elements about how this system is structured, nor do you show any interest in learning. Instead, you simple prattle on with random delusional comments. Why do you bother to post? More formally, the reason that the RRTs use random boards without duplication is to stop people from acruing any advantage from using MSN or the phone system... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Yes, you can put on time limits, but do you really think that the problem with cheating is so hugh that bbo should bother to do this? When it involves money and the Internet? Um, yeah. Keep in mind that a few people have been caught cheating (and a number of others we know but cannot prove) in Bridge Addicts. This is unimaginably stupid. You don't get money, Masterpoints, club rankings, or anything else for winning a game like this one...it's just a social game. We don't even keep records. If they're going to cheat with nothing on the line.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hantveit Posted March 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Yes, you can put on time limits, but do you really think that the problem with cheating is so hugh that bbo should bother to do this? When it involves money and the Internet? Um, yeah. Keep in mind that a few people have been caught cheating (and a number of others we know but cannot prove) in Bridge Addicts. This is unimaginably stupid. You don't get money, Masterpoints, club rankings, or anything else for winning a game like this one...it's just a social game. We don't even keep records. If they're going to cheat with nothing on the line.... Yes, some will always try to cheat. But the point is that BBO offers, through different clubs, tournaments that includes money and they play the same cards. So it is not an argument against making the same tourney with only gib's involved and one human per table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 But the point is that BBO offers, through different clubs, tournaments that includes money and they play the same cards. But the clubs catch cheaters. They have human opponents who notice oddities. Some clubs have volunteers who actually check unusual results for suspicious bidding or play and then the directors watch them. In addition, a club doesn't have to accuse somebody of cheating to keep them out. The next time the cheater tries to join, they're not allowed to. When they ask why, they are not given a reason. Since clubs are 'at will', they can kick you out because they don't like you. In contrast, GIB has no human overhead, and the only reason why somebody would be locked out is if they were accused of cheating. So with GIB games it's much tougher to catch cheaters and causes more problems when they do catch them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hantveit Posted March 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 But the point is that BBO offers, through different clubs, tournaments that includes money and they play the same cards. But the clubs catch cheaters. They have human opponents who notice oddities. Some clubs have volunteers who actually check unusual results for suspicious bidding or play and then the directors watch them. In addition, a club doesn't have to accuse somebody of cheating to keep them out. The next time the cheater tries to join, they're not allowed to. When they ask why, they are not given a reason. Since clubs are 'at will', they can kick you out because they don't like you. In contrast, GIB has no human overhead, and the only reason why somebody would be locked out is if they were accused of cheating. So with GIB games it's much tougher to catch cheaters and causes more problems when they do catch them. Fantastic, this reminds me of the refugee camps usa have... Noone should be locked out before they are convicted. Too look out someone just because you are suspicious is very bad. It is important that the clubs, managers and tournament directors play accordingly to the rules of the society. The persons should also be allowed to defend themselves. Nobody will gain from a system that locks out a persons based on a "feeling". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Fantastic, this reminds me of the refugee camps usa have... Noone should be locked out before they are convicted. Too look out someone just because you are suspicious is very bad. Yeah, because being locked out of a bridge club is so much like being in a refugee camp... My short answer is, too bad. Don't like it? Don't play them. My slightly longer answer is, if the pay games didn't lock out people who were suspected of cheating, the only people playing them pretty soon would be cheaters with the occassional sucker thrown in. It's easy to show mathematically if somebody is a likely cheater. It is next to impossible to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, even if (for example) both members of the partnership come from the same IP address. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hantveit Posted January 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 It is fun to re-read all the comments I got on my suggestion on the new tournament form, when we all know how popular the new tournament form has becommed. Strangely, I have not received even a thanks from BBO. Many years ago I also suggested (through email) that they should create a function "follow that player in the whole tournament". They made that too, and I heard the same; nothing. I hope they at least appreciate the input... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 How do you know you are the only one to come up with the idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rain Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Good memory Hantveit. :) I think dups and a few other features were planned before you said anything, but you were definitely on the same wavelength as Fred. See if you can predict what's coming in 2012 :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babalu1997 Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 It is fun to re-read all the comments I got on my suggestion on the new tournament form, when we all know how popular the new tournament form has becommed. Strangely, I have not received even a thanks from BBO. Many years ago I also suggested (through email) that they should create a function "follow that player in the whole tournament". They made that too, and I heard the same; nothing. I hope they at least appreciate the input... :) Next time, before issuing a sugestion, demand CASH ON DELIVERY. that way the burden sgifts to you to thank bbo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Next time, before issuing a sugestion, demand CASH ON DELIVERY. that way the burden sgifts to you to thank bbo.Register your ideas with the Patent Office first :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.