Poll - rotating the table for human declares

[smerriman]

(Continuing discussion from http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76523-switching-sides-to-declare-in-robot-games/page__gopid__920168#entry920168 ).

[silvr bull]

I did not vote in the first question because my choice "It dies not matter to me" is not available. I was a little disoriented the first time I played the hand from dummy's position, but I have had no problems with it since then. I also have no problems with deciding how I would play the hand from dummy's perspective when partner is declarer.

 

FYI, I tried twice to vote "No" in only the 2nd question, but I got a BBO error that deleted my reply. I hope this reply survives without any vote.

[smerriman]

Actually, good point. Since we've only had two voters, let me tweak things a little..

 

Have updated the poll - couldn't seem to get rid of the 2 current voters, so treat sfi + 1eyedjack's votes as incorrect unless they change their choice.

[silvr bull]

Actually, good point. Since we've only had two voters, let me tweak things a little..

Thanks! BBO seems to not like answering only a 2nd question, but I was able to vote after the third option was added to the first question.

[1eyedjack]

Have updated the poll - couldn't seem to get rid of the 2 current voters, so treat sfi + 1eyedjack's votes as incorrect unless they change their choice.

Now corrected, for self.

[barmar]

Thanks! BBO seems to not like answering only a 2nd question, but I was able to vote after the third option was added to the first question.

I've also added a don't care option to the second question, so people can vote on just the first question if they want.

[Phil]

This should also be mandatory for money bridge.

[m1cha]

(Continuing discussion from http://www.bridgebas...168#entry920168 ).

I agree that the exchange of seating by NW sometimes confuses me and costs a trick. On the other hand the alternative, rotating the table, can also lead to confusion as to which opponent has bid what, and can also cost tricks. I have no idea which is worse because I have never tried the alternative. But actually I believe that this question is beyond the point. The real problem IMO is that the declarer hand and the dummy look exactly alike. Which by the way violates WBF Law 41D, if anyone cares. And while placing dummy's cards on the table in exact agreement with Law 41D would certainly bring trouble to people with small displays, there should be other ways of marking dumms's cards, such as slightly graying them out, painting them with a red boundary or whatever. I believe if the dummy were clearly marked as dummy, the problem would disappear.

[1eyedjack]

The real problem IMO is that the declarer hand and the dummy look exactly alike.

That may be the case if you have configured it to show "pictures of cards" rather than diagram layout. I cannot fathom why anyone would choose pictures of cards layout, but each to his own I guess. Anyway, if you go with diagram layout then the background behind dummy's cards is a darker shade of grey than the other three tables.

 

If you insist on using that ("pictures") layout it certainly improves the argument for rotating the hands to make dummy North, as I would not want to forget during the play which hand is visible to the opponents. That said, I think that a better solution than rotating them would be to make it more obvious which hand is dummy when in pictures mode.

[m1cha]

That may be the case if you have configured it to show "pictures of cards" rather than diagram layout.

What an interesting point! For how long have I been playing this now? And I never noticed this option. Thanks! :)

 

That said, I think that a better solution than rotating them would be to make it more obvious which hand is dummy when in pictures mode.

That's what I meant, and I would say the same for the diagram mode, too. On my PC, at least, there is not that much difference between the two grey levels. I suggest the dummy get a little shift to yellow or orange.

[johnu]

I agree that the exchange of seating by NW sometimes confuses me and costs a trick. On the other hand the alternative, rotating the table, can also lead to confusion as to which opponent has bid what, and can also cost tricks. I have no idea which is worse because I have never tried the alternative. But actually I believe that this question is beyond the point. The real problem IMO is that the declarer hand and the dummy look exactly alike. Which by the way violates WBF Law 41D, if anyone cares. And while placing dummy's cards on the table in exact agreement with Law 41D would certainly bring trouble to people with small displays, there should be other ways of marking dumms's cards, such as slightly graying them out, painting them with a red boundary or whatever. I believe if the dummy were clearly marked as dummy, the problem would disappear.

 

I brought up the point about BBO's web version dummy display being in violation of the bridge laws in a different thread. IIRC, Fred said the reason was that there was a problem fitting a dummy with a long suit into the display. Obviously this isn't a problem for the windows version which has slightly smaller card images. I had a couple of suggestions for the web version (besides blowing it up and going back to the windows version :D :P ) Maybe the next web version will have a "legal" dummy display.

[johnu]

That may be the case if you have configured it to show "pictures of cards" rather than diagram layout. I cannot fathom why anyone would choose pictures of cards layout, but each to his own I guess. Anyway, if you go with diagram layout then the background behind dummy's cards is a darker shade of grey than the other three tables.

 

Funny, I can't think of a reason why anybody would prefer a diagram layout, at least not in the 21st century when advanced graphics is so important. Maybe on the cheapest, smallest phone displays where you have severe size constraints, but other than that, ???

[1eyedjack]

Funny, I can't think of a reason why anybody would prefer a diagram layout,

Well I can sort of answer that for myself. I can't speak for others. Beyond acknowledging that they are entitled to a point of view without my having to understand it.

 

I prefer the diagram layout because, for me

1) It minimises the amount of time that it takes me assimilate the hand into my brain

2) It minimises the scope for error in assimilating the hand into my brain

3) It minimises the scope for error and maximises the ease with which I can select/click on a card to be played.

 

As to WHY that should be the case, that is for the psychologists to answer. I am no psychologist qualified to pontificate on the cause, but that does not prevent me from observing the effect.

 

I have some views on the matter, related to cleanliness or lack of surplus clutter in the display, and the opportunity to shed yourself (as programmer) from visual display constraints that add nothing to ease of use. It would not surprise me if the reasons why diagram mode is necessary for a small (mobile) display also contribute to positive (if not essential) benefits in a larger display.

 

at least not in the 21st century when advanced graphics is so important

Thing is, as a consumer (just one among thousands) *I* don't place such importance on advanced graphics. OK fine if all other aspects are equal. But absent that equality, for me functionality takes priority over elegant artistry of display.

[barmar]

Funny, I can't think of a reason why anybody would prefer a diagram layout, at least not in the 21st century when advanced graphics is so important. Maybe on the cheapest, smallest phone displays where you have severe size constraints, but other than that, ???

I prefer diagrams, always have, even before I started playing on tablets most of the time. I find picture mode too "busy". It seems like it's using graphics just for its own sake, not to actually improve the interface.

 

But I acknowledge that many users like pictures because it more closely resembles the way we play at tables.