software enhancements

[mink]

During the last several weeks I helped to direct some more and larger tourneys than I normally do. Normally, this is directing the Friday tourney for the Beginner/Intermediate Lounge with about 8 tables, 1 substitutions, 3 unfinished boards to be adjusted and no other direcotor calls. For this purpose, the software is very nice and no reason to change anything (except for the normal clocked movement perhaps that could be improved to allow such small tourneys with 1 board per round and still no replays).

 

But when directing large tourneys, even if there are some directors working together, I am busy nearly the whole tourney and often cannot serve calls in time, probably resulting in frustrated players. What are the calls about?

 

1. Sub requests

2. calls because of slow play mostly due to connection problems

3. calls for adjustment of unfinished boards

4. other reasons

 

I believe other reasons are only 5% at most, so we should concentrate on the issues 1-3. What could be done to facilitate the task of directing regardging these types of calls?

 

1. There are 2 possible solutions. But for both, it is required to have a standard how long should be waited for a player's action when it is his turn to bid or play. I call this the maxthinktime. It could be specified in the tourney creation dialog. It is not necessary that the server is involved in the surveilance of this time, the clients at a table could do so as well. They should send a message to the server when this time has elapsed. If the connection of the player in question is still alive, his client should warn him 10 seconds before the maxthinktime elapses. When maxthinktime has elapsed and the player has not bid/played, his partner should be given the opportunity to select a sub from the sub list. If the partner does not do this 20 seconds later 2 different things could happen: Either the server initiates the subbing automatically, or the pair is excused from the tourney, and the current board is given to any director in order to be adjusted. It should be possible to select the method how to deal with missing players in the tourney creation dialog. Personally, I would chose excusion from the tourney as this does not require any subs in order to work.

 

If this was implemented, direcotors would not have to deal with missing players anymore.

 

2. Each client measures the time any player at the table uses for bidding and playing, accumulated over the whole board. These times are submitted to the server when the board is finished. Now, if a decision has to be made concerning who was responsible for the delay, this figures could be used both by the software and by the director in order to find the appropriate action. As players would know that this happens, there would be no advantage of playing slow anymore, and no need to call the director to tell him about slow play, as everyone knows the software will tell him if he needs to know.

 

3. The laws of duplicate bridge do not know the notion of an "unfinished board". Instead, they state that any board that was started to bid should be finished even after the director calls to change tables for the next round. There is no reason why this should not be handled this way in online bridge, and in fact, other sites handle it like this. It would result in pairs having to wait for their opps of course because they are still playing in the previous round. But it is better that some pairs have to wait than nearly all pairs have to wait because of super-long minutes per board because few pairs that are slow. In case of difficult boards or massive loss of connection, the server should delay the change of tables until at least e.g. 95% of all tables have finished the round. Of course, if there is not enough time left in a round to have a chance to finish a board in time, it should not be started, which is already implemented. But with times recorded as described in (2.), the software could determine who was responsible that a board could not be played and assign an appropriate artifitial score automatically (ave== is never appropriate in my oppinion).

 

Of course, when switching tables for the next round, a swiss movement has to know the results in order to match the pairs accordingly. But in case of boards still being played, the %/IMPs of the boards already finished could be used for those pairs. Or, as an alternative, those pairs are not included in the swiss calculation but matched against each other as soon as they become available.

 

There is a trick possible to greatly reduce the number of tables still playing in the previous round: Software included in each client determines if a board can be claimed because it is really impossible by any play to achieve different numbers of tricks. When this state is reached, the server is informed, so that at the time of the round switch an auto-claim is performed, and the pairs can start the next round in time though they had not finished the previous board in the traditional sense. Most unfinished boards need only 1 or 2 tricks to be played and therefore easily qualify for such an auto-claim. Also, if playing in round n-1, the auto-claim could occur immediately when possible, thereby reducing the waiting time.

 

 

Conclusion: If all this was implemented, the workload for directors would be greatly reduced, and fewer directors could run more, longer and larger tourneys - in my oppinion running a bigger tourney for more than 12 boards is just to much stress for the directors given the current software. And probably more people would be willing to host and direct tourneys. I do not believe in directorless tourneys, however, as there will always be some issues that cannot be handled by software. At least, those could be handled by a human director then, because he has time for it and is not called for a substition in the middle of a difficult case of e.g. unauthorized information.

 

 

One more thing about survivor tourneys: Except in cases of own connection problems, a pair should _never_ be kicked out of the tourney before it has _played_ at least 4 boards. If this results in a table with a sitout pair, because this pair had been excused because of bad connection, so be it.

 

 

Karl

[Frosty]

Along this same line, there are several previous posts regarding TD calls and better ways to manage them. Indulge me as I elaborate on these ideas which involve the addition of a different "view" of the tourney lobby/table screens for the active TD's.

 

The addition of CALL COLUMNS on the TD's view of the Tournament lobby screen: The column on the current lobby view titled SCORING would be appropriated to provide a usable area (and the scoring method would be listed just once in the heading margin with the tourney #, etc.). Both the Kibs and the Table # columns would be narrowed to provide the additional space needed for 3 new call columns on the TD's view of the screen.

 

#1 Column Heading = Need TD: Requests for help/ruling/arbitration/instruction should fall into this most pressing category and be listed by the Table# only with multiple calls from the same table being blocked. As an example, the display might read "4" meaning that a director needs to come to Table 4. The player's explanation when calling for help/ruling/arbitration/instruction should NOT pop-up when the call is made. Rather it should appear in the chat when the TD arrives at the table along with the announcement of the TD's appearance and the player who who called. This is the point in time that the information is needed. It also becomes part of the chat log for reviews when needed if handled this way.

 

#2 Column Heading = Sub Reqs: Requests for help with missing or stuck players should appear in a separate list with mulitple requests from the same table being blocked. The nick of the missing/stuck player should be required. Display for the TD should list the Table# and nick of missing/stuck player. Not every missing/stuck player requires a visit to the table and this listing would provide the TD with the option to deal with the problem without visiting the table. As an example, the display might read "Frosty(15)" indicating that I was missing or stuck at Table 15. No need to list who called,since this will show in the chat if the TD opts to visit the table.

 

#3 Column Heading = Adj/Board: Adjustment calls should only allow for the player to list his nick and the Board #. Long explanations are only an impediment to getting the adjustment done and the TD will ask for information he/she needs from which ever player(s) has(have) the answers to any questions that arise. Adjustment requests should show on the list with name of player requesting and the Board # in the order received with multiple requests from the same table being blocked. As an example "Frosty(2)" in the list could indicate that I have requested an adjustment for Board 2.

 

It isn't necessary to alter the players' view of the lobby screen - rather present to the active TD's an automatically souped up view of the lobby screen. The complete lists should be visible by all the TD's listed on the tourney and each time a TD takes a call, they should be able 1) to click on a new call to show it is being worked, and 2) click (or double click) on the entry to remove it once resolved. I would suggest that the calls being worked simply change in color or be highlighted in some way to show that a TD has responded. This way all the open calls and their status are visible to all the TD's and can be addressed with the fewest keystrokes in the most timely manner possible.

 

Finally, the TD's most frequently used tools (subbing, adjusments, status) - as opposed to those that are not acutally used during a tourney - should always be open on the TD's view of the tournament lobby and/or tables screens so that there is no need for the repetitive keystrokes to constantly open and close the bigger list. This should be structured to use the top section of the chat box ( where you might otherwise view the table or tourney listings) so that it does not block the table screen or table listing area as the current pop-up screen does. A round clock should be added to this area as well. If anyone wants specific ideas about how this could be layed out, just ask.

 

 

Obviously this would require some further refinements to the Call options the players see and some re-education, but the increased ability of the TD to respond to effectively meet the player's needs in a timely manner would be well worth the growing pains! Could also reduce the early onset of arthritis in TD's hands/fingers. :)

 

 

Frosty

[hotShot]

Hi!

 

 

I posted something like this this before and perhaps it needs some refinement.

 

I assume the Server can score the boards that were finished seperatly.

 

If a board is not finished the following cases can occure:

 

1) declarer is already down

 

The software should now check:

Assuming that the rest of the tricks belong to the declarer,

test if the result is better or worse than Ave-.

If that is the case the system should assign this assumed result,

else Ave-. both sides

 

2) declarer has made his contract

Assuming that the declarer will not get another trick,

test if the defenders result is worse than Ave-.

If that is the case the system should assign the assumed result, else Ave- both sides

 

3) everything open

 

No help here. System has to assign Ave- both.

 

* This way, a lot of obvious adjustmenst will no longer be neccessary.

* Intentional slow play after the damage is done, will no longer be possible.

 

 

Have a nice day

hotShot

[mink]

To Frosty: I like all the ideas you present in your post. However, all this would become less important to have if my ideas were implemented. But maybe improving the tables list for directors is far easier to implement, then this would be a nice start.

 

3 additional ideas, relating to yours:

 

You described an independent window with director tools, which should contain a round clock. Rather, it should contain a round clock for each section.

 

For the tables list, there should be a filter that restricts the display to tables with open calls pending and one button to switch this filter on and off.

 

And tables should be greyed or something like that when they have completed the current round.

 

Karl

[Frosty]

ooooooo - more good ideas!!!

 

I really like the idea of changing the color of the tables that are finished. And yes, a round clock for each section would be best - I have some implementation ideas on this as well.

 

One thing tho - I'm not suggesting that there be a separate window so much as I'm asking for a modified view of the same window we normally see. This would automatically be shown to the active TD's instead of the screen we currently see - much as we see the table button as green while the players do not.

 

If the 3 new Call lists and Tools section are added, other than changing the table to indicate that it is finished, everything else would be visible at all times from the tourney lobby as additions/modifications to the screen view we currently see.

 

Frosty :blink:

[Gweny]

;) Frosty... as usual your grasp of our problems is complete and your solutions are wonderful - if it is possible to program them.

 

Mink, while i agree in theory i am here to tell you you cannot willingly drag me into unclocked events - why? because some people feel need to ponder every card - including singletons, like fate of free world hangs in balance. In theory I like your proposal - but in reality where do you draw line between thinking time and connection time, and how do you (or server) tell difference?

 

I am starting new thread on similar topic but different line of play

[mink]

Mink, while i agree in theory i am here to tell you you cannot willingly drag me into unclocked events - why? because some people feel need to ponder every card - including singletons, like fate of free world hangs in balance. In theory I like your proposal - but in reality where do you draw line between thinking time and connection time, and how do you (or server) tell difference?

Hi Gweny,

 

I am not proposing unclocked events. What I have in mind is clocked. Slow pairs are allowed to finish a board in play after the round change, but the round change does occur at the time scheduled for most pairs. As slow pairs eventually miss a board and automatically get ave- for it, it does not pay to play slow. After missing a board a slow pair will be in sync with the other pairs again.

 

As for time measurement, this can be done in the server or in the client. The client could measure his own thinking time acurately and transmit it to the server when the board is finished. This would be thinking time only, and not time waisted by bad connections. I think it is sufficient to have that one, and it would use only little bandwidth.

 

Karl

[paulhar]

Hi!

 

 

I posted something like this this before and perhaps it needs some refinement.

 

I assume the Server can score the boards that were finished seperatly.

 

If a board is not finished the following cases can occure:

 

1) declarer is already down

 

The software should now check:

Assuming that the rest of the tricks belong to the declarer,

test if the result is better or worse than Ave-.

If that is the case the system should assign this assumed result,

else Ave-. both sides

 

2) declarer has made his contract

Assuming that the declarer will not get another trick,

test if the defenders result is worse than Ave-.

If that is the case the system should assign the assumed result, else Ave- both sides

 

3) everything open

 

No help here. System has to assign Ave- both.

 

* This way, a lot of obvious adjustmenst will no longer be neccessary.

* Intentional slow play after the damage is done, will no longer be possible.

 

 

Have a nice day

hotShot

Rather than seeing if declarer made or went down in his contract and having all these different IF branches, why not simply have the unplayed boards finished by a computer program? You could have a program that plays at a couple of different levels. The 'good' program would finish your play, unless you took much more time than the opponents in the last round which might imply that you wanted the result not to count, in which you get a program that plays about as well as Microsoft Zone's bots. In most cases where the number of tricks would be quite clear from an adjustment point of view, the computer program would come up with the correct adjustment. Only occasionally, when the player stops early in the hand, might the program fail. The worst travesties would happen when a top player is about to make a contract on a strip squeeze which the program couldn't handle. Maybe in such a case (the players see their adjustment), the player should have the option of playing against a program that can see all 52 cards as well as play well. (This could be done after the tournament is done; the results would be posted 'pending adjustment.')

 

Players who had stuck partners could sub for them. If they decided not to do that within (say) 2 minutes, the bot would play that hand until the next round when someone off the sub list would automaatically come in.

[hotShot]

Rather than seeing if declarer made or went down in his contract and having all these different IF branches, why not simply have the unplayed boards finished by a computer program? You could have a program that plays at a couple of different levels.

Well paulhar,

 

the basic idea of my suggestion is, that it can be implemented in a day or two.

 

Developing a bridge playing robot, with diffferent skill levels is a matter of month or years.

 

The next simple thing would be to let slow pairs finish the round, skip a board/round after that, to syncronize with the field again.

This might even be better, because the TD would not have to adjust at all.

 

A feature like that could also be used in unclocked events.

The TD could define, that pairs that fall behind e.g. more than 3 boards, skip one so that the last tables will not get totally out of control and the faster playing pairs can catch up to the field.

[Frosty]

Honestly - so long as its manageable, I'd really prefer adjustments be done by a TD. IMHO Streamlining the other administrative functions would make adjustments easier.

 

In fast paced games, every extra keystroke can make a big difference in keeping a tourney moving. Usually, 2-4 adjustments per TD each round is manageable. As one of few free games, and usually alone in my time slot with 40-60 tables/7 minute Boards I often do lots more. Frankly the multiple keystrokes and pop-ups that block the screen result in lots more bad words from me than having to do adjustments LOL.

 

SUGGESTION: For adjustments, try finding and minimizing all the BridgeVu screens for pending adjustment in your task bar. This makes them available for you to review as other tasks permit, and they're less likely to be forgotten. If needed, you can switch back and forth from the BridgeVu of the Board to the Lobby to private chat questions to the players involved, without going to a table. Even when there are complaints in mid-hand that need review, you can ask the players to finish the hand and review it this same way, after they are done and you are able to see all the cards.

 

AS LONG AS I'M BEING GREEDY .... I would like to see the table #'s of any tables that didn't finish a round appear somewhere for a few moments after a round change. A new entry on the current TD tool pop-up, or enhanced use of the existing status option, is fine. The information is already captured with the round status, but there is only room for 4 -5 of the table numbers to display. And, if the TD happens to 1) click the table button, 2) click the status option, 3) click the EXECUTE button (count em - 3 keystrokes) one second too late, the information is gone, (another arguement for round clocks on the TD's view of the tourney lobby).

Maybe it makes sense to leave the finishing round information up in the status pop-up for 30-60 seconds or so, with a notation that the round is over and ALL the table#'s that didn't finish (within reason). There isn't an urgent need to watch the clock at the beginning of a round, but there is a need to know who didn't finish the previous one. The round clock could switch back to current status after 30-60 seconds.

 

(SEE - ask for what you want in the most inconvenient way and then suggest an easy solution ...... more likely to net results LOL)!!!

 

Gweny - I'm sure you told me that Fred and Uday can do anything ;)!!!! LOL!!! Most of the suggestions provide information that is already captured or available. The messiest part is providing a new screen view for active TD's and interfacing the information. Just a matter of whether it's worth it given the bigger picture. Might not be :) It's really dangerous to leave me alone with my ideas LOL - they multiply!

 

Frosty