Version 1.48g - please post feedback and suggestions here

[diana_eva]

A new version of BBO has been released. This is version 1.48g.

 

This version's main change is the addition of a "traveling scoresheet" tab in most tournaments. Any Robot Duplicate tournament (eg, ACBL Robot Duplicate or Robot Rebate 55) and any normal tourney with "Barometer" option on will let players view other table results as soon as they've completed the board.

 

Please post your suggestions/feedback here.

[sagica]

Great, I was really missing this.

[baraka]

A new version of BBO has been released. This is version 1.48g.

 

This version's main change is the addition of a "traveling scoresheet" tab in most tournaments. Any Robot Duplicate tournament (eg, ACBL Robot Duplicate or Robot Rebate 55) and any normal tourney with "Barometer" option on will let players view other table results as soon as they've completed the board.

 

Please post your suggestions/feedback here.

 

Great idea. Love it. Sometimes you get a good/bad result and dont know why. This way you dont have to wait the end of the game to know. thx.

 

On an other subject... when I pause the mouse pointer on a bid, the meaning of the bid appears but disappears soon after. Sometimes I dont have the time to evaluate everyting that I want (I'm not too fast), so, I have to reposition the mouse pointer so as to make it reappear and it is kind of disrupting. Could it be possible to keep the meanings of bids on screen until one removes the pointer ?

 

THX, Regards.

[Leo LaSota]

A new version of BBO has been released. This is version 1.48g.

 

This version's main change is the addition of a "traveling scoresheet" tab in most tournaments. Any Robot Duplicate tournament (eg, ACBL Robot Duplicate or Robot Rebate 55) and any normal tourney with "Barometer" option on will let players view other table results as soon as they've completed the board.

 

Please post your suggestions/feedback here.

 

 

This capability needs to be removed from the ACBL robot games. There are reasons why reviewing results from other tables is never allowed in ACBL tournaments, and only a very small % of ACBL clubs still allow this capability.

 

Why should a player be punished for playing quickly, having their results seen by everyone else as they finish their boards? As an example, suppose player A finishes all 12 boards very quickly. Player B is more deliberate in playing the 12 boards. Player B knows that Player A is a very strong opponent that frequently is on the leader board for an ACBL robot tournament. It is a huge advantage to Player B if they can see after 9 boards just how far ahead or behind they are from another player through the number of boards that they have played.

 

Suppose you are Player B and you are +30 IMPS through 9 boards. If you see that Player A is only +28 IMPS through the first 9 boards, then you know that you are on pace to beat Player A as long as you get the final 3 boards right. However, suppose instead that you see Player A is +65 IMPS through the first 9 boards. In that case, you would know that your goal should be to prevent losing IMPS and dropping to 3rd place, as 1st place appears unattainable. While it is questionable already whether it makes sense to allow seeing your current rank, it is exponentially more unfair if you can check how far ahead or behind you are from someone else that has played the boards at least as fast as you have. You can use this information to adjust your tactics for the last few boards if you know the other players that you should keep an eye on for your competition.

[PhilKing]

This capability needs to be removed from the ACBL robot games. There are reasons why reviewing results from other tables is never allowed in ACBL tournaments, and only a very small % of ACBL clubs still allow this capability.

 

Why should a player be punished for playing quickly, having their results seen by everyone else as they finish their boards? As an example, suppose player A finishes all 12 boards very quickly. Player B is more deliberate in playing the 12 boards. Player B knows that Player A is a very strong opponent that frequently is on the leader board for an ACBL robot tournament. It is a huge advantage to Player B if they can see after 9 boards just how far ahead or behind they are from another player through the number of boards that they have played.

 

Suppose you are Player B and you are +30 IMPS through 9 boards. If you see that Player A is only +28 IMPS through the first 9 boards, then you know that you are on pace to beat Player A as long as you get the final 3 boards right. However, suppose instead that you see Player A is +65 IMPS through the first 9 boards. In that case, you would know that your goal should be to prevent losing IMPS and dropping to 3rd place, as 1st place appears unattainable. While it is questionable already whether it makes sense to allow seeing your current rank, it is exponentially more unfair if you can check how far ahead or behind you are from someone else that has played the boards at least as fast as you have. You can use this information to adjust your tactics for the last few boards if you know the other players that you should keep an eye on for your competition.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's entirely possible that that BBO do not care whether this disadvantages the top 0.01% of their clientelle. If it's a nice little novelty feature for the majority, just go with it.

 

The death of online poker came about when the main sites started to cater to the wishes of the high volume pros. As long as the punters have features they like and a game they like then everyone wins.

 

Footnote: serious question - how many of these sharks are examining your results and rivering you?

[Leo LaSota]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's entirely possible that that BBO do not care whether this disadvantages the top 0.01% of their clientelle. If it's a useful advantage for the majority, just go with it.

 

The death of online poker came about when the main sites started to cater to the wishes of the high volume pros. As long as the punters have features they like and a game they like then everyone wins.

 

 

It is illegal in ACBL to view recap sheets for what everyone else has done on a board after you have played it, with the exception of the Barometer games in which everyone plays the same boards at the same time.

 

Even in ACBL clubs that allow users to view other results on their bridgemate after they complete a board, everyone is forced to play the same number of boards at the same pace. Therefore, you do not have the advantage of always seeing what a specific player has done on each of the boards that you play as you complete them.

[PhilKing]

It is illegal in ACBL to view recap sheets for what everyone else has done on a board after you have played it, with the exception of the Barometer games in which everyone plays the same boards at the same time.

 

Even in ACBL clubs that allow users to view other results on their bridgemate after they complete a board, everyone is forced to play the same number of boards at the same pace. Therefore, you do not have the advantage of always seeing what a specific player has done on each of the boards that you play as you complete them.

 

Let me get this straight - your motivation is just to bring BBO ACBL games into line with ACBL games for entirely altruistic reasons?

[1eyedjack]

If ACBL have a regulation preventing this practice, AND have proscribed from local affiliated clubs/events the authority/discretion to disregard it, then BBO have no choice but to comply. I have not checked the facts but my reading of the thread is that while the regulation is popular it is not universal. If it is not universal then its implementation is down to local preference. There may be sound reasons for following the flock, but to do so just because it is a majority preference in other clubs is a weak reason.

 

To be frank I am very surprised that there are any events other than online bridge that afford the opportunity to play faster than the field, a prerequisite for anyone to have an opportunity to take advantage, fair or unfair, of that format, so I am rather amazed that ACBL have even considered the issue, let alone other clubs implementing it.

 

Even on BBO it is far from trivial to capitalise on the information in the way suggested. The travellers show you how each individual performed on a hand, but the only individual for whom a player can see his running percentage score and position is his own. You could work it out for another contestant if you wanted to do it manually, but the effort involved would surely detract from your concentration on your own game to the extent that it would be counterproductive.

 

Furthermore, you only get to see your opponents' results on hands up to the one that you have yourself completed, so you are strictly in a position identical to any barometer event.

 

Playing fast is a matter of choice. You may decide to exercise that choice for a variety of reasons, among which are

(1) playing slower than your natural speed detracts from your enjoyment, or

(2) in order to accelerate your profit (money, master points or whatever).

But never lose sight of the fact that it is a choice, self-imposed and with the potential to be self-un-imposed. If the second listed reason is what motivates you then you may need to evaluate whether this effect is sufficiently widespread in practice that the disadvantage outweighs the other advantages of fast play. I would be very surprised if you came to that conclusion.

 

I am not an ACBL member and very rarely play in ACBL events, so have no axe to grind. I do say that this added facility significantly augments my enjoyment of robot tourneys so if it is withdrawn from ACBL events I hope that it is limited to those events.

 

 

 

[Antrax]

There seems to be a relatively simple counter to this - start playing as late as possible while still allowing yourself time to finish all boards. Is this worse than having to wait at the end?

[barmar]

This capability needs to be removed from the ACBL robot games. There are reasons why reviewing results from other tables is never allowed in ACBL tournaments, and only a very small % of ACBL clubs still allow this capability.

I suspect you underestimate the number of clubs that allow it. Clubs that use paper travelers naturally still allow it, and I'll bet this is still the majority. And many clubs that have switched to electronic scoring enable the feature because their members are used to looking at travelers. Some clubs have weened their members off it, but I don't expect it's the majority.

This issue is a frequent topic of letters to the ACBL Bulletin, and ACBL has stated that it's entirely up to clubs to decide. They do not have any regulation for or against it. As I said earlier, even though we call our games "tourneys", we are essentially just another bridge club, albeit a huge one.

If we ever run true ACBL sectional/regional/national(?) tournaments that award pigmented points, I expect we'll operate them more closely with the way ACBL f2f tourneys are run (to the extent feasible with our software).

[Bbradley62]

I would actually prefer something more simple. When I finish a board, and my scoresheet shows my net IMPs or MP%, I'd just like to know how many of the tables have completed that board (i.e., how many raw scores have gone into calculating the IMPs or MP%). I can wait until the end to see that my bottom board was because I bid higher than everyone else as opposed to any other reason, but I'd like to know while I'm playing whether my 100% is a final or near-final score or simply the result of having beaten the one other player who is playing faster than I am.

 

Full access to traveler information could/should be given when I finish my last board, rather than making me wait until everyone else is done.

[webwiz]

This is terrible! Is it just me? Although I can see the result at the other tables I can no longer see the bidding or the play after thye tournament has finished.

[barmar]

This is terrible! Is it just me? Although I can see the result at the other tables I can no longer see the bidding or the play after thye tournament has finished.

 

There's always been a delays of about a minute after a tournament completes before you can review the hands. There are two different databases, one used while the tourney is in progress, another used after it's over (this is the same as the database used for the myhands web page). There's a background process that migrates completed tourney results to myhands, and it takes about a minute to catch up.

[cherdano]

There's always been a delays of about a minute after a tournament completes before you can review the hands. There are two different databases, one used while the tourney is in progress, another used after it's over (this is the same as the database used for the myhands web page). There's a background process that migrates completed tourney results to myhands, and it takes about a minute to catch up.

 

This seems to take much much longer than one minute in my experience. Instant review of "what happened at other tables" would make this feature much much better, and would make robot duplicates overall a nicer experience.

[cherdano]

This seems to take much much longer than one minute in my experience. Instant review of "what happened at other tables" would make this feature much much better, and would make robot duplicates overall a nicer experience.

I think this may be a bug. My theory is: if I have clicked on "Other Tables" for a specific board before that update happened, then I won't be able to access results for that same board if I click on "Other tables" again _after_ that update.

[Bbradley62]

I just played a free robot dupe... 7 of the 10 players who started completed the game... it's now 7 minutes after the game ended, and the travelers for the last 2 boards still show only 4 tables.

 

Edit: At 15 minutes after the end of the tournament, I have seen all the results in http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/... but the travelers shown under "Other Tables" have not been updated. Now I leave the table, and the records are complete in My BBO/Hands and Results.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Bbradley62

[Bbradley62]

It appears to me that either Leo didn't try out this new feature before posting #4 above, or it has been revised since he posted. In the game I just completed, I could see the other contracts and scores for each board that I had completed, but I could not see which opponent got which score.

[Leo LaSota]

It appears to me that either Leo didn't try out this new feature before posting #4 above, or it has been revised since he posted. In the game I just completed, I could see the other contracts and scores for each board that I had completed, but I could not see which opponent got which score.

 

 

You can check exactly who did what on any board while you are still playing the boards. It is only after you are done that you cannot see who did what on each board. I recently finished 2nd in my section in an ACBL robot IMP game with a +48ish IMPs. 1st in my section was +51 IMPs. 3rd in our section was way below 2nd (low 20s for IMPS I believe). This is a perfect example of where if someone is in a clear 2nd place with a couple of boards left, they can take an extreme action. If the extreme action does not work, they still finish 2nd. If the extreme action does work, they can finish 1st.

 

My belief is that they should have the settings the same while you are still in the game. That is, if you can see other results, you do not know who did what on each board.

[Bbradley62]

Yes, I was just logging in to apologize for my earlier post... it does seem backwards... you should not see opponents' names until after you have finished playing.

[Leo LaSota]

The % of users that would ever look through other table results during an ACBL robot tournament is small. However, for those that do choose to look at other table results, this gives them a huge advantage in determining how to go about on the last few hands.

 

In tourney #650, I finished second in my section with +49.34 IMPS; first was +50.03 IMPS. On board #12, the winner took an aggressive view and it paid off handsomely when they won 12.88 IMPS and earned them 1st place. I believe that the individual just took a blind chance and were lucky with the outcome.

 

However, holding Axx KQ10x x Axxxx, the bidding went 1C (from partner)-2S overcall-Dbl-3S-P-P back to this hand. They have a wide cariety of choices at this point, including 4C, 5C, 6C, dbl, 3nt & 4S. The 4S cuebid or the jump to 6C both show more total points than this hand has. However, the person chose the 4S cuebid. This struck gold when their partner held a stiff spade, the Axxx of hearts, and the KQxxx of clubs.

[hrothgar]

I like having the feature available, but agree with Leo that this should only be allowed in events that already have the barometer enabled.

[Bbradley62]

In tourney #650, I finished second in my section with +49.34 IMPS; first was +50.03 IMPS. On board #12, ... I believe that the individual just took a blind chance and were lucky with the outcome.

And you think this had something to do with being able to trace your results, rather than simply knowing that he was in second place at +37 with one board to go?

[Leo LaSota]

And you think this had something to do with being able to trace your results, rather than simply knowing that he was in second place at +37 with one board to go?

 

I am not claiming that the individual in this situation did or did not look at the previous boards. However, I give this as an example situation that arises quite frequently. If you are having a very high score, and see that one other individual is having a very high score, you know that you can take a risk on the last board. If it works, you move to first. If it does not work, you will likely stay in 2nd place. By seeing the actual results from the other competitors, you can see where everyone stacks up through the boards that you have completed. When you see Rank 2 on the bottom, you may be surprised that you are not currently in first place. When you check the individual boards, you see that you and the individual currently in first place are well ahead of the field. Therefore, you know that you have a "free" opportunity to try something to reach first place.

[1eyedjack]

As I read this discussion, it seems to me that the objection has less to do with monitoring another specific player's performance during an event than the fact that barometer scoring is itself intrinsically unfair (to a degree) for as long as one player can lag behind another in the completion of rounds. If I am running at 70% but in 2nd place that is all the info I need to conclude, and I believe with a high hit rate, that I am in competition for 1st place with one other, and I expect a gap with third.

 

In a normal event, everyone moves at the same time, so everyone's view of the barometer is at the same snapshot in time. But at that instant you know who you are in competition with.

 

I have some sympathy with this. There Is a strong case for disabling barometer in any event. Not sure that I have enough that I would prefer an alternative format, but I see the substance of the complaint.

[barmar]

I think we only enabled the traveler feature on tourneys that were already using barometer scoring. So I don't think it has much impact on how you play the last few hands.