new obligatory format for BBO

[1eyedjack]

And please, please add an option that the host can set that allows the dummy player to view the opponents hands during play.

I am only guessing, but I think that on balance this would be an unpopular change, and I think that the elimination of that option when developing the web version was a conscious decision by the developers, so the policy is unlikely to be reversed unless you can provide evidence that it would in fact be popular among the membership at large.

[barmar]

Suggestion - let it be a user definable parameter, with 6 seconds as the default, but it could be reduced to 0.

One of the deliberate design decisions in the web version was to keep user options to a minimum, just those that are really useful to lots of users.

 

So while we might redo the timing of the auto-close (perhaps make it more like the old version), making the exact number of seconds an option is pretty unlikely.

[onoway]

Most of the problems for me are because it is so clunky and cluttered with the buttons you need scattered all over the place. Someone yesterday simply gave up trying to reach the club, said it was just too complicated, especially having to argue about whether or not he could get into the club when he was told by the system no tables were available because the table he wanted to kib had 4 players.

 

The people setting matches really need to be able to set the match all at once, instead of having to wait until the match has started to add a co director. This delay almost guarantees they won't remember and therefor cannot be helped if there is a problem. If the option is going to be there at all, why not make it part of the settings instead of tacking it on later, where people are highly unlikely to remember to leave the hand underway to fix the match settings? It makes it very difficult to run team match series for club championships and means I have constantly to pester yellows to interfere. This is the major reason why we are not presently running a series, so the players are the ones who are losing out.

 

If trying to limit options why not trade the ability to easilly see who is kibbing as in the download version by using only ONE chat box instead of having to juggle two? One of which has to be parked somewhere because it lands right in the middle of everything and is very difficult to see the rationale for in any case, it decidedly doesn't stop messages from going astray.If anything I get more missent messages now than ever.

[ArcLight]

I am only guessing, but I think that on balance this would be an unpopular change, and I think that the elimination of that option when developing the web version was a conscious decision by the developers, so the policy is unlikely to be reversed unless you can provide evidence that it would in fact be popular among the membership at large.

 

Sorry for the late response.

 

Why would this be unpopular? Was there a survey and the majority of players asked for this?

 

It surely was a conscious decision by the developers, but I don't like it.

It makes the game far less enjoyable for me.

I want to see how the opponents card during play.

And I want to see how they play.

 

As it stands now, I have to delay my opening bid until after I review the card play of the prior round.

 

Why would anyone object to dummy seeing all 4 hands during play, cheating?

At the expense of not being able to follow the play? I don't think there is a large majority of players would refuse to sit at the table where dummy can kib.

 

If I really wanted to cheat, couldn't I have a kibitzer text me the hands? Why ruin the game for > 99% of the players to stop the fraction of 1% who cheat?

[ArcLight]

One of the deliberate design decisions in the web version was to keep user options to a minimum, just those that are really useful to lots of users.

 

So while we might redo the timing of the auto-close (perhaps make it more like the old version), making the exact number of seconds an option is pretty unlikely.

 

I think it was a bad decision, as this is annoying in practice.

 

But far worse is not being able to kibitz as dummy, seeing all 4 hands.

I want to see if opponents underlead aces against suit contracts, how they card, how they signal.

As it stands now after each hand I have to pause and go through the prior hand to review how they carded, and this delays the game.

I don't have a great memory that I can remember all the carding, so without being able to watch all 4 hands, I have to delay the game while I review.

 

It must have been a conscious decision to disallow dummy from seeing all 4 hands, and I think it's a bad choice.

At least make it a host option. I doubt many players will refuse to sit at a table because dummy acn see all 4 hands.

 

If I want to cheat, I can have a kibitzer text me the opponents hands.

How many cheat like that, at least in casual games?

1 in 1,000?

 

 

For my partner and I, the new interface really lessens our enjoyment of the game.

[johnu]

And please, please add an option that the host can set that allows the dummy player to view the opponents hands during play.

 

 

I am only guessing, but I think that on balance this would be an unpopular change, and I think that the elimination of that option when developing the web version was a conscious decision by the developers, so the policy is unlikely to be reversed unless you can provide evidence that it would in fact be popular among the membership at large.

 

I'm going to have take out my red Double card on your guess.

 

Maybe there is a small percentage of players who prefer not to see the opponents hands, but my guess is that 99+% do. It is inconceivable to me that the percentage would be less than 50% which would qualify as an unpopular change.

 

I agree the original decision(s) on the web version was done after some deliberation, but IMO, many if not most of those decisions had nothing to do with whether they would be popular decisions. Rather, they were the result of programming restraints and resources, and assigning priorities to implementing features.

[diana_eva]

I'm going to have take out my red Double card on your guess.

 

Maybe there is a small percentage of players who prefer not to see the opponents hands, but my guess is that 99+% do. It is inconceivable to me that the percentage would be less than 50% which would qualify as an unpopular change.

 

I agree the original decision(s) on the web version was done after some deliberation, but IMO, many if not most of those decisions had nothing to do with whether they would be popular decisions. Rather, they were the result of programming restraints and resources, and assigning priorities to implementing features.

 

Fred explained the decision to stop showing all hands as dummy back in 2010. Things have changed since, but there was a good reason, and it wasn't programming restraints:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/39186-viewing-all-hands/page__view__findpost__p__465840

 

I personally don't think players will behave any different now, if we were to re-add this feature, but who knows...

[1eyedjack]

Johnu, your own guess is duly noted but I don't see any cause to shout. I suppose that it expresses your strength of feeling but it does not add objective persuasiveness.

 

The point I believe is that you are taking into account only the popularity as perceived by dummy, without netting off the unpopularity as perceived by the other three players who outnumber him 3 to 1.

[ArcLight]

The point I believe is that you are taking into account only the popularity as perceived by dummy, without netting off the unpopularity as perceived by the other three players who outnumber him 3 to 1.

 

 

Our table is set up by my partner and I. We don't allow opponents to make obnoxious comments, and we don't make them ourselves. So its not 3-1.

Its 4-0 at our tables.

 

How do you know it's unpopular to see the dummy anyway? There was no scientific survey, no proof, just hearsay that people repeat.

I'm sure there are some obnoxious dummy players, but why spoil the fun of 90% of players because 10% are obnoxious? Just warn them not to make further comments, upon threat of being removed.

[ArcLight]

Fred explained the decision to stop showing all hands as dummy back in 2010. Things have changed since, but there was a good reason, and it wasn't programming restraints:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/39186-viewing-all-hands/page__view__findpost__p__465840

 

I personally don't think players will behave any different now if we were to re-add this feature, but who knows...

 

Diana,

Thank you for the link, this explains a lot.

 

Unfortunately, I don't agree with Fred.

At our table, we don't allow obnoxious comments. We warn players not to make more comments like that.

But it negatively impacts our enjoyment to not see all 4 hands.

And few dummies make these types of comments, so the large majority of players have to suffer to stop a few comments here and there.

I think that's a poor trade-off.

 

 

What I now have to do is after every hand I force the entire table to wait for me as I reveiw the opponents carding.

I look for how they play, signal, discard, underlead aces against suit contracts, and their bidding.

So all 3 players (4 counting me) have to wait an extra minute.

Isn't that worse than allowing dummy to see all 4 hands?

[barmar]

At our table, we don't allow obnoxious comments. We warn players not to make more comments like that.

You're the exception, not the rule. Probably the vast majority of tables are randoms playing with each other, not set games with hosts who set rules. Players sit in, do annoying things, then leave.

[mycroft]

After the first dummy calls "clm" after he sees that everything is going to break nicely, despite your and partner's careful falsecarding to advertise a bad break, you might change your mind. After the first time dummy calls "wdp" after declarer makes the last "right" play required, maybe then. Once dummy says something that implies that everything's obvious (when to partner looking at only their cards, it's clearly not), declarer might be a bit miffed (that one certainly bothers me, "yes, any idiot can do better looking at 52 cards than 26, but if you want to lord it over me, go right ahead." is my frequent (unspoken) response).

 

Not obnoxious comments (at least not meant that way), not deliberately trying to gain advantage, definitely not "cheating"; but after dummy takes the play away from the other three players *again*, it's very understandable that that option was removed. It has certainly led to nicer games when I play, I know that.

 

"Polite, responsible and ethical". There are a few in the world, and a few more that could become so when their (purely from lack of knowledge or understanding) faults are pointed out. I assume you and your partner are of those. I assume the average player is not, from long and arduous experience. Luckily, the deliberately obnoxious are also few. It's the huge mass in the middle that are the problem.

[ArcLight]

After the first dummy calls "clm" after he sees that everything is going to break nicely, despite your and partner's careful falsecarding to advertise a bad break, you might change your mind. After the first time dummy calls "wdp" after declarer makes the last "right" play required, maybe then. Once dummy says something that implies that everything's obvious (when to partner looking at only their cards, it's clearly not), declarer might be a bit miffed (that one certainly bothers me, "yes, any idiot can do better looking at 52 cards than 26, but if you want to lord it over me, go right ahead." is my frequent (unspoken) response).

 

We only let experts sit, and we never have these types of problems.

 

In addition, I'm asking for this to be an OPTION, not mandatory. In pure random vs random games, you can have it off, but make it an option.

It's not a difficult task to have the 2 defenders visible to dummy.

 

It would be easy to code and would make (let's say) 25% of the pairs happier while those that hate that option don't have to use it, nor sit at a table that has it on.

 

I don't understand all the resistance. My partner and I REALLY want to see all 4 hands as dummy, and neither we nor our opponents make dumb comments.

If an easy to implement feature makes some of your client base happy, and doesn't harm the others, isn't that a good thing?

[ArcLight]

You're the exception, not the rule. Probably the vast majority of tables are randoms playing with each other, not set games with hosts who set rules. Players sit in, do annoying things, then leave.

 

So the vast majority (whatever that means) don't have to have the dummy sees all 4 hands option turned on. That seems like a pretty simple solution. Have teh edfault mode set to 'Can't see' the 4 hands.

 

1 - it's easy to code that option

 

2 - it's not confusing to players

 

3 - it would make some of us happy, and not make anyone unhappy because the host can control this option and who sits.

 

4 - As it stands now I delay the table about a minute after every hand while I review the opponents bidding and carding. That is a far worse annoyance than an occasional dumb comment.

 

We really Really REALLY *HATE* the new BBO format.

We would go elsewhere if there was a viable alternative, which there isn't.

But we liked BBO prior to being forced to using the new software.

 

Is that how you want people who have been using BBO for 10+ years to feel? Don't you want you customers happy if what they are asking for is trivial to code, and can be an option that most don't use?

[1eyedjack]

In my view it is not just down to ethics and popularity. Consider a utopian society in which dummy never utters an inappropriate squeek during play.

 

Consider further 2 tables in the same movement with the same auction (or at least same declarer).

 

Dummy 'A' is reasonably competent and capable of capitalising on live observations of opponents' consistency of signals, false cards etc, but lacks the extra skill required to draw those inferences blind.

 

Dummy 'B' by contrast is an expert player who is additionally capable of noting such matters without the benefit of advance sight of defenders' cards.

 

Should not 'B' be entitled to reward for his additional skill?

[1eyedjack]

Another benefit of concealing defenders from dummy (and for that matter displaying declarer to dummy, for there is a case for concealing that hand as well) is that it enables dummy to swap places with declarer should the latter lose connection, and allow the hand to proceed to completion without fouling the hand.

[lgkc1]

I'm going to have take out my red Double card on your guess.

 

Maybe there is a small percentage of players who prefer not to see the opponents hands, but my guess is that 99+% do. It is inconceivable to me that the percentage would be less than 50% which would qualify as an unpopular change.

 

I agree the original decision(s) on the web version was done after some deliberation, but IMO, many if not most of those decisions had nothing to do with whether they would be popular decisions. Rather, they were the result of programming restraints and resources, and assigning priorities to implementing features.

 

 

I agree with Johnu. Let the table host have an option to expose declarer/defenders so I don't have to sit there uninvolved. That was one of the best things about BBO.