Why am I being shunned?

[Kaitlyn S]

I'm starting to solve the issue myself, based on the assumption that if I don't see the message "Seat no longer available" and a refresh shows the seat still available, I assume that the person chose to wait for someone better, which could mean someone he is already friends with. I put a note in his profile "Rejected" so that I won't try to partner that person again. I think this will largely solve the problem because I'm probably trying to partner the same person several times since his profile always looks good to me and I don't remember who clicked "Reject". After a while, I will already know most of the people who are going to click "Reject" so clicking on an empty seat will meet with a much higher chance of success.

 

Incidentally, if you do not wish to play with me, rather than just leave the table in a huff, let me know and I'll put "reject" in your profile and you'll never see me again which will be much easier for both of us.

 

In case anyone is interested, I've had a much higher success rate with three people at a table - either I am accepted or someone else gets the seat first. It is those tables that have one person and three locks that have a very low success rate. Many of them have perfect bidding profiles but I rarely get into one of those seats which are usually still open after I refresh. I'm still curious about what exactly those players are looking for. Maybe a couple of them can tell me. If I had nerve, I would ask them by chat but that just seems too intrusive but TBH one day my curiosity will get the best of me. I can't believe that it's an "expert" self rating; if it is, then that player deserves to play with one of the BBO "experts" who can't count that they have 9 tricks in 3NT rather than someone who refuses to call herself an expert because she doesn't think she's good enough to be a bridge playing professional.

 

EDIT: That last sentence sounds snarky or condescending but I don't mean it that way. My point is that the ratings are pretty useless and if anybody uses that as a reason to reject somebody, then they get what they deserve. I'm thinking of a table I sat at yesterday. My partner left and I called in the lobby for a 2/1 partner and the player who came was "Beginner" with no profile. Expecting to be treated to a barrage of ruff-sluffs, leading into tenaces, and getting to play in forcing bids, I was extremely pleasantly surprised when said "beginner" played better than most of the "advanced" players on this site. In several hands he only did one thing that I could classify as an error (how many of your partners can you say that about?), and we won lots of IMPs despite neither of the opponents being a Beginner or Novice. Most people probably see the "Beginner" label and leave immediately.

[billw55]

In case anyone is interested, I've had a much higher success rate with three people at a table - either I am accepted or someone else gets the seat first. It is those tables that have one person and three locks that have a very low success rate.

Aha, I see. In this case - only the host is at the table - very often he/she is not actively looking to play. It is quite common for people to just sit around by themselves at a table, ignoring all requests to join, perhaps not even looking at their screen. I have never figured out why they do this, but they do. I do not bother to apply to such tables.

[Vampyr]

Aha, I see. In this case - only the host is at the table - very often he/she is not actively looking to play. It is quite common for people to just sit around by themselves at a table, ignoring all requests to join, perhaps not even looking at their screen. I have never figured out why they do this, but they do. I do not bother to apply to such tables.

 

Maybe they were playing and just never closed the table.

 

If you are playing on a tablet and just close the window, is the table still open?

[barmar]

Maybe they were playing and just never closed the table.

 

If you are playing on a tablet and just close the window, is the table still open?

Yes. Notice that you can reopen the window and you're still logged in. You need to Logout explicitly, or kill the app.

 

After a while the server will boot the host from the table. It determines that the host isn't really there by noticing the the table has had too many players join and leave, with no hands played, in a certain period of time (something like 10 or 20 minutes).

[lcsmw]

Is the main bridge club the same tables as take me to the first available seat? If it is, people come and go and your partner may leave shortly after you arrive. I currently don't have a partner on BBO except my wife. When she doesn't play, I usually play with robots and hate it. It also costs some money. The best deal on BBO is the Express free individual tournaments.

[barmar]

Is the main bridge club the same tables as take me to the first available seat? If it is, people come and go and your partner may leave shortly after you arrive.

Yes, that's the main bridge club. You don't have to use that, you can get a list of all the open tables and select where to play by hand. But unless you're looking for specific players that you know, there's not much point in doing it that way.

[Kaitlyn S]

Yes, that's the main bridge club. You don't have to use that, you can get a list of all the open tables and select where to play by hand. But unless you're looking for specific players that you know, there's not much point in doing it that way.

I don't agree. If I take the first available seat, my partner might play ACOL or the Polish Club (he won't enjoy seeing me either.) If I click on the players' names, I can see their profiles and find a partner that plays something that I also play.

[barmar]

I don't agree. If I take the first available seat, my partner might play ACOL or the Polish Club (he won't enjoy seeing me either.) If I click on the players' names, I can see their profiles and find a partner that plays something that I also play.

The problem is that the method where you click on people's names and decide whether to play with them is slow. While you're thinking, someone else using HMFAG may be put into the seat.

[ladydoc]

Hi. I'm fairly new to the site. I play 2/1 with many gadgets but prefer not to play O/E discards or Lavinthal or something bizarre that I haven't heard of. So I walk into the main bridge club, click on names until I find somebody that plays 2/1 that either cards standard or UDCA. 95% of the time, the seat partnering this person has a lock. I click on the seat, and out of maybe 500 attempts, I was only allowed to play once. The one time I was allowed to play, I had a good time, but that hardly makes up for the time that I have wasted clicking on spots and being refused.

 

Many times I have started my own table and requested a 2/1 partner. 90% of the time I get someone who plays SEF or Polish Club or something else foreign to me and I'm shooting in the dark, especially as very few of the players will even say anything about what they play or how they signal. I think that the "Take me to the first open seat" feature is responsible.

 

I am wondering if my newness is responsible for me being refused. I looked at my profile and I have a 100% hand completion rate so that isn't the issue. I list myself as Advanced and my listed conventions imply that I have some clue, so that doesn't appear to be the problem, although maybe it is. I refuse to call myself an Expert since I feel an expert is somebody that people might pay to play with, and I definitely don't qualify, although I sometimes play live with my friends with thousands of master points and nobody is unhappy to draw me as a partner (I don't do tournament bridge myself.) I have learned that others classify differently though, most "experts" do not realize that double and correct shows significant extra values. I really hope my self-classification isn't the reason I'm being shunned.

 

If there is some secret place where past scores are shown, that is not what is causing players to reject me, for the few times I have played with a random partner against two random opponents, my IMP score is usually at least twice theirs.

 

So can one of the experienced players on the site tell me why (a) all 2/1 players that play std/UDCA have to lock their partner's seat, and (b) when I try to play in that seat, I am only allowed to play 0.2% of the time?

 

Hi Kaitlyn,

I'd like to play with you, so if you see me on, then ask me.

I can play all your conventions, and also prefer udca.

Also, if you're looking for a nice table, join 2shaina... who is Always pleasant, and even if you kib there she'll invariably stand so you can sit.

Gluck,

Shirley

[OldPlayr]

There is such great potential for an improved "find a table" function, where one could specify the bidding system to be played. It has been suggested many times, but BOO seems to have no interest in improving the current function, which drops one at a random table.

[Vampyr]

There is such great potential for an improved "find a table" function, where one could specify the bidding system to be played. It has been suggested many times, but BOO seems to have no interest in improving the current function, which drops one at a random table.

 

Bidding systems still have variations, e.g. the OP listed specific preferences with regard to conventions. However, I understand that BBO has stock convention cards. If players could specify the ones they are willing to play without changes (although of course changes could be agreed) this would make it pretty easy to match up people.

[Kaitlyn S]

Bidding systems still have variations, e.g. the OP listed specific preferences with regard to conventions. However, I understand that BBO has stock convention cards. If players could specify the ones they are willing to play without changes (although of course changes could be agreed) this would make it pretty easy to match up people.

That is an interesting post in light of what happened when I joined. For the first few days I had "GIB 2/1" in my profile as it would give me a pretty good idea of what we were playing without discussion. What I found is that nobody seemed to understand what GIB 2/1 (a stock BBO convention card) was, and understandings improved when I got rid of it and started listing conventions instead.

 

I had initially thought that if I put GIB 2/1 on my profile, and put the comment 2/1 partner wanted on my table when creating a table, the partner that showed up would likely have something in common with me. Sadly, now I realize that the partner would have been put there by the random HMFAG function. Quite honestly, a HMFAG function that finds partners that play certain systems, along with setup option that will allow you who to accept as a partner when someone else uses HMFAG would be extremely useful. It would be awesomely useful for people that play less common but not rare systems, such as K-S or Precision. If there was a BBO standard strong club card (there may be, I haven't looked) which included some of the more basic asking bids, strong club players could wait in the Main Bridge Club and wait (probably not that long) for a Precision player to HMFAG. That would be pretty awesome as the Precision players would get to play Precision here frequently instead of almost never (unless they hook up with a known partner.)

 

Of course, they could use the Find A Partner feature here on the forums, but that isn't nearly as effective, as you have to hope your newly found partner happens to log on at the same time I do. That's not likely (without prior agreement) as the following real life experience from me shows: I sent a message to several of my BBO friends to make a set of agreements that go beyond the convention cards, and have, through several emails, have detailed agreements with two of them. Unfortunately real life made me busier and I log on only sporadically hoping to find one of them available for a few hands. Almost always one of both of them are on but playing in an ACBL tournament (which I would expect.) So without prior time agreements, pre-made partnerships aren't going to work, and they will do very little good for the casual player who wants to log on at a time not knowable in advance. How much better it would be if you could start a table and only have someone fill your seat if they are willing to play one of the prepared BBO convention cards of your choosing (I would assume it would be okay if any friend joined - if you don't want to play with a person, unfriend them.)

 

I would put such an idea in Suggestions for the Software, but it sounds like it has already been suggested lots of times already.

[barmar]

That is an interesting post in light of what happened when I joined. For the first few days I had "GIB 2/1" in my profile as it would give me a pretty good idea of what we were playing without discussion. What I found is that nobody seemed to understand what GIB 2/1 (a stock BBO convention card) was, and understandings improved when I got rid of it and started listing conventions instead.

I think most of the people who play with randoms in the MBC are not very advanced players, and they don't play any form of 2/1. The de facto standard bidding system in Internet bridge for many years has been SAYC, and even there most people have imperfect understandings of what it includes.

 

The only people who are likely to be familiar with the GIB 2/1 CC are those who play lots of robot bridge. And if they're like me, they do that to avoid playing with randoms in the MBC, so you're not likely to run into them when you look for partners there.

[OldPlayr]

 

I would put such an idea in Suggestions for the Software, but it sounds like it has already been suggested lots of times already.

 

Sad, but true. Despite many suggestions over the years, BBO has shown no interest in improving the useless "find me a table" function. This prevents many, including myself, from playing in the main room. Unable to get paired with players using the same bidding system, I use BBO now only for playing in robot tournaments. With work to set up a partner matching function based on bidding system, BBO could be a lot more than it is today.

[1eyedjack]

I suspect that there are some who will never be satisfied in this area. Some players have a low tolerance for partners who do not exactly match their system preferences and no amount of software tweaking is going to solve that. The vast majority of advanced players on BBO have a working knowledge of "BBO advanced" modelled on 2/1, without even having read the system notes, and the vast majority of the rest (including the aforementioned subset) have a working knowledge of "BBO basic" modelled on SAYC, likewise.

 

Within that basic framework there are myriad permutations, most of which you can live without (and you can attempt to agree on them as the hands progress, if you really insist), but if you program the software to auto reject a partner who does not meet your profile at the outset including all your pet tweaks then you will be sitting in the lobby for a long time.

 

It is ironic if players are migrating to robot tourneys for this reason (which I doubt), if that is indeed happening on a significant scale, given that the robot's system is widely criticised for being neither standard nor optimal nor system of choice for most.

 

You say that "BBO could be a lot more than it is today". That may be the case, but do not presume to speak for others on the unproven assumption that their preferences must coincide with your own.

[Kaitlyn S]

I suspect that there are some who will never be satisfied in this area. Some players have a low tolerance for partners who do not exactly match their system preferences and no amount of software tweaking is going to solve that.

For those players, the automatic finding of partners won't work so well, and they will need to find partners. However, many people currently just HMFAG which would be greatly improved if each player will play one or more stock card.

 

One reason Bridge World Standard was invented is so two decent players could sit down and agree to play it and voila! Many agreements will have been made. In 2017, that beast will have grown so large that few players will know all of BWS2017 so it will lose that functionality. Once, I picked up a partner at a tournament and we agreed to play BWS and had no bidding misunderstandings all day. Agreeing to play a stock card would somehow make that happen here, but my guess is that most of the players don't know the stock cards, and since that is true, there is little incentive for me to learn any of them. Nobody ever agreed to play GIB 2/1 with me when I had it on my profile.

 

The vast majority of advanced players on BBO have a working knowledge of "BBO advanced" modelled on 2/1, without even having read the system notes, and the vast majority of the rest (including the aforementioned subset) have a working knowledge of "BBO basic" modelled on SAYC, likewise.

Cool, maybe I should have put that on my profile! I see a BBO Advanced 3 and a BBO Advanced 2/1; I don't see BBO basic but I do see a BBOITA. Maybe that's it? I don't mind playing basic as long as partner and I both know exactly which, if any, conventions we are playing.

 

Within that basic framework there are myriad permutations, most of which you can live without (and you can attempt to agree on them as the hands progress, if you really insist), but if you program the software to auto reject a partner who does not meet your profile at the outset including all your pet tweaks then you will be sitting in the lobby for a long time.

I would never suggest putting pet tweaks in a selection process for HMFAG.

 

It is ironic if players are migrating to robot tourneys for this reason (which I doubt), if that is indeed happening on a significant scale, given that the robot's system is widely criticised for being neither standard nor optimal nor system of choice for most.

I would guess that people migrate to robot tourneys because they are sick of playing with clueless "experts" who are both terrible players and rude, and think they know it all - they at least know what to expect from the robots.

 

I personally enjoy playing with people more. Eventually I'll weed the rude ones out.

 

You say that "BBO could be a lot more than it is today". That may be the case, but do not presume to speak for others on the unproven assumption that their preferences must coincide with your own.

I hope I am not speaking for others; I'll post my own preferences and expect others to post theirs.

 

However, this discussion is strictly theoretical because it appears that little will be done, perhaps the powers that be determined as you did that it would be too difficult to make enhancements that will satisfy many users.

Edited October 13, 2016 by diana_eva
fixed quotes

[OldPlayr]

 

 

Within that basic framework there are myriad permutations, most of which you can live without (and you can attempt to agree on them as the hands progress, if you really insist), but if you program the software to auto reject a partner who does not meet your profile at the outset including all your pet tweaks then you will be sitting in the lobby for a long time.

 

It is ironic if players are migrating to robot tourneys for this reason (which I doubt), if that is indeed happening on a significant scale, given that the robot's system is widely criticised for being neither standard nor optimal nor system of choice for most.

 

 

You may be a big over-defensive... or reading a lot more into the suggestion.

 

There are simple improvements to the find a table function that would yield significant improvements. Simply letting one specify a basic bidding system (not including "all your pet tweaks") would be a significant improvement over the current random table selection.

 

Perfect is the enemy of better.

[1eyedjack]

Nobody ever agreed to play GIB 2/1 with me when I had it on my profile.

To be frank that does not really surprise me. Those with a penchant for playing GIB 2/1 would probably be gravitating to robot tourneys anyway, not looking for pickup games.

 

GIB 2/1 is the Salvador Dali of the 2/1 styles

[Vampyr]

I think most of the people who play with randoms in the MBC are not very advanced players, and they don't play any form of 2/1. The de facto standard bidding system in Internet bridge for many years has been SAYC, and even there most people have imperfect understandings of what it includes.

 

The only people who are likely to be familiar with the GIB 2/1 CC are those who play lots of robot bridge. And if they're like me, they do that to avoid playing with randoms in the MBC, so you're not likely to run into them when you look for partners there.

 

Can't you just print out the card and read it as you play though?

[barmar]

Can't you just print out the card and read it as you play though?

I think most people are not interested in putting that much work into it. They want to play what they're familiar with. If they're not 2/1 players, they don't want to play 2/1.

 

Printing out the CC is not going to help you if you're not used to playing forcing 1NT, for instance.

[helene_t]

If there was a BBO standard strong club card (there may be, I haven't looked) which included some of the more basic asking bids, strong club players could wait in the Main Bridge Club and wait (probably not that long) for a Precision player to HMFAG.

There are at least two stock convention cards for strong club systems. One is Oliver C's version of Jannersten Precision which includes many exotic conventions on top of the traditional greek-letter asking bids. This is very useful for his students and maybe also for other people familiar with advanced Jannersten, but far too advanced for people with a background in Wei/Goren or even Bulgarian, Rigal or Sontag.

 

Then there is "forum precision" which I made based on a series of forum polls intended to establish the "bbo forum" concensus understanding of (slightly modernized) Wei. I run into opponents (mostly Indonesians, Chinese or Taiwanese) who use it sometimes. It is very primitive (no asking bids) but I think simple enough to be suitable for pick-up partnerships with some kind of Wei-like background while still specific enough to avoid most of the most ridicolous misunderstandings that would inevidably occur if you only agreement was "Precision".

 

If players (who sometimes make use of take-me-to-the-first-seat, or who are happy for that category of players to join them as partners) could somehow be encouraged to indicate which stock convention cards they play, then maybe it would be useful for SEF, WJ and Acol, although I suppose that many such partnership can be matched already using "compatibility" as they will often both have a French/Polish/British flag. For strong club I think you would have to wait quite a while before finding a match, but maybe not too long if you play during East Asian prime hours.

 

There is also the risk of disapointment as people will expect players who indicate a particular system to actually know something about that system. Given how people use the self-rating system I can immagine that "BBO 2/1 player" could become a joke similar to "BBO expert". But maybe it wouldn't be that bad. In my experience, people who pretend to play SEF, WJ or Prec usually have some kind of idea what it means although that is not generally true for Acol and SAYC. SO maybe it would be worthwhile giving it a chance. Maybe in first instance for partnership desk and then, if succesful, later for take-me-to-the-first-seat.

[Kaitlyn S]

By the "partnership desk" do you mean the "find a partner" forum?

[helene_t]

By the "partnership desk" do you mean the "find a partner" forum?

No I mean partnership desks for pairs tournaments.

[Kaitlyn S]

I have a funny story about a partnership desk. I was roped into running one of these. There was this life master who I had played against who was declaring with S-Kxx in hand and S-AQX in dummy, 3nt at trick 11. I was getting antsy with a slow play warning as he thought for I swear it was 2 minutes before placing the SK and then another spade. I asked why he didn't claim and he said "Some of us take longer to see these things."

 

Not surprisingly, he show up at the partnership desk looking for a partner. Of course if has to be a life master. As he did plenty of work for the unit, I was under some pressure to comply despite knowing if would ruin someone'S day. A few minutes later, a man I didn't know came up looking for a partner. He said "I have 150 masterpoints. Oh no, that's not right, I have 750. Why, I'm a life naster!" I said "Well, I do have a partner for you, but only if you're a life master." He stuck with his story and I can only imagine the results obtained by this partnership made in heaven...

[aguahombre]

For those players, the automatic finding of partners won't work so well, and they will need to find partners. However, many people currently just HMFAG which would be greatly improved if each player will play one or more stock card.

 

One reason Bridge World Standard was invented is so two decent players could sit down and agree to play it and voila! Many agreements will have been made. In 2017, that beast will have grown so large that few players will know all of BWS2017 so it will lose that functionality. Once, I picked up a partner at a tournament and we agreed to play BWS and had no bidding misunderstandings all day. Agreeing to play a stock card would somehow make that happen here, but my guess is that most of the players don't know the stock cards, and since that is true, there is little incentive for me to learn any of them. Nobody ever agreed to play GIB 2/1 with me when I had it on my profile.

 

Cool, maybe I should have put that on my profile! I see a BBO Advanced 3 and a BBO Advanced 2/1; I don't see BBO basic but I do see a BBOITA. Maybe that's it? I don't mind playing basic as long as partner and I both know exactly which, if any, conventions we are playing.

 

I would never suggest putting pet tweaks in a selection process for HMFAG.

 

I would guess that people migrate to robot tourneys because they are sick of playing with clueless "experts" who are both terrible players and rude, and think they know it all - they at least know what to expect from the robots.

 

I personally enjoy playing with people more. Eventually I'll weed the rude ones out.

 

I hope I am not speaking for others; I'll post my own preferences and expect others to post theirs.

 

However, this discussion is strictly theoretical because it appears that little will be done, perhaps the powers that be determined as you did that it would be too difficult to make enhancements that will satisfy many users.

For the record, I never made any of the statements quoted in this post. I don't know how my username got used in the quotes, but I don't see any posts by me in this thread. The thoughts quoted are about something I have neither any interest nor any knowledge.