Please Provide Rotated Hand Option in Robot Tournaments

[USViking]

See link:

 

From Thread in BBO Announcements and Special Events: BBO Upgraded - Version 1.47n is here

 

...Thank you BBFers for helping to test and give feedback...

 

Tournaments that are "Human Declare" (Robot Duplicate IMP/MP and Robot Rebate 55) have been tweaked - When your partner (Robot N) is declarer, you still declare for him, but your perspective is no longer rotated.

 

I can understand doing this for cost-saving or revenue-generating business reasons, but not because of the whims of someone, possibly unrepresentative, selected for new version testing and commentary.

 

I am guessing I am the same as most customers in that I was used to the South hand perspective from day one, I was perfectly happy with the rotated perspective, and I would like to have the option of playing from the perspective I am used to.

 

Could a rotated perspective option be included in the next version?

[barmar]

Please see my response here.

[USViking]

Please see my response here.

 

Thank you for the reply. Bidding box perspective as an issue had not occurred to me, and I'm sorry to hear you are getting complaints from two directions, even though I know you are putting in your best effort. I would still like an option to rotate, but won't harp on it.

[wayne_b]

My complaint is simple, this is DUPLICATE. The current implementation has the lead going trough the declarer not the dummy. This means the hands are bound to differ in outcome. First lead needs to go through the dummy at all tables.

[1eyedjack]

eh? i have never once encountered the opening lead going through declarer

[wayne_b]

eh? i have never once encountered the opening lead going through declarer

 

Then you haven't played the current implementation of the GIB.

[barmar]

He's talking about what happens when the human takes the place of the robot declarer in a robot tournament.

 

We originally had it the way you asked, but it was confusing because the positions of all the players are different during the play from where they were during the bidding. So we switched to this method. It's a little confusing at first, but I think you'll get used to it.

[1eyedjack]

I understand full well what he is talking about and the lead does NOT go through declarer. If he took the time to check my ID out in MyHands before posting he would know my experience in playing with robots

[barmar]

Since declarer is normally at the bottom when you're playing the hand, it seems like the lead is going through declarer when the deal is rotated for you to play for the robot.

[mgoetze]

He's talking about what happens when the human takes the place of the robot declarer in a robot tournament.

 

We originally had it the way you asked, but it was confusing because the positions of all the players are different during the play from where they were during the bidding. So we switched to this method. It's a little confusing at first, but I think you'll get used to it.

I haven't gotten used it to yet despite dozens of robo tournaments and would prefer it be reverted to the previous implementation.

[1eyedjack]

Seems to me that there are 4 possible configurations. So far you have tried out 2 of them on the public. Of the 2 tried there are split preferences, suggesting that it should be made user configurable. *If* you make it user configurable then at that point you might consider allowing us the other choices at the same time.

 

Options are (when North declares):

1) Re-seat the human in the North seat

2) Leave the human in the South seat (with South controlling the card play from dummy)

A) rotate the entire hand so that North is nearest the keyboard

B) leave the hand unrotated.

 

A particular configuration would be a combination of 1 numbered option with 1 lettered option, of which there are 4 possibilities: 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B.

 

The current Flash implementation uses combination 1B.

The current mobile (Android/iOS) implementation uses combination 1A.

Of those 2 I prefer 1B, but clearly this is not a universal preference.

 

Perhaps I cannot be certain until I try it out, but my instinct tells me that were I given a free choice between all 4 options I would go for 2B. I think that in decreasing order of preference I would go fo 2B, 1B, 2A, 1A. In other words, the more you disturb the layout between the close of the auction and commencement of play, the less I like it. And rotating the hand causes more disturbance than re-seating the human, but doing both is the extreme worst case.

 

Maybe worth a poll? Probably would require some practice with the options before a poll would be meaningful

[wayne_b]

Seems to me that there are 4 possible configurations. So far you have tried out 2 of them on the public. Of the 2 tried there are split preferences, suggesting that it should be made user configurable. *If* you make it user configurable then at that point you might consider allowing us the other choices at the same time.

 

Options are (when North declares):

1) Re-seat the human in the North seat

2) Leave the human in the South seat (with South controlling the card play from dummy)

A) rotate the entire hand so that North is nearest the keyboard

B) leave the hand unrotated.

 

A particular configuration would be a combination of 1 numbered option with 1 lettered option, of which there are 4 possibilities: 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B.

 

The current Flash implementation uses combination 1B.

The current mobile (Android/iOS) implementation uses combination 1A.

Of those 2 I prefer 1B, but clearly this is not a universal preference.

 

Perhaps I cannot be certain until I try it out, but my instinct tells me that were I given a free choice between all 4 options I would go for 2B. I think that in decreasing order of preference I would go fo 2B, 1B, 2A, 1A. In other words, the more you disturb the layout between the close of the auction and commencement of play, the less I like it. And rotating the hand causes more disturbance than re-seating the human, but doing both is the extreme worst case.

 

Maybe worth a poll? Probably would require some practice with the options before a poll would be meaningful

 

 

Nice hijack of the thread--NOT. The subject of this thread was to provide rotation, if you want to start a new thread do so. This is arrogance in the extreme.

[1eyedjack]

Nice hijack of the thread--NOT. The subject of this thread was to provide rotation, if you want to start a new thread do so. This is arrogance in the extreme.

 

In what universe could my post possibly be construed as off-topic with regard to the original post? My response goes to the very heart of what is or is not beneficial to rotating the hands and/or to what extent that should be within the control of the user. Arrogance? Quoi? Do you even know the meaning of the word? Given that you have amply demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of how even the existing implementation works, it might behove you to post with a little more humility yourself. Talking of hijacking threads, what possible connection has your post #4 got to do with the OP? Had your ridiculous claim that the lead went through declarer held the slightest validity, the point would have been entirely irrelevant to whether the hands were or were not rotated.