Faulty Concession

[noldi]

We play in a tournament and my partner concedes the rest of the tricks. In live play I can say "STOP" and still make my winners. How can I do this on BBO without calling the TD and explaining in detail?

[sfi]

You can't. You need to call the director to sort it out.

[Vampyr]

You can't. You need to call the director to sort it out.

 

This seems so easy to fix, but the BBO staff are not interested.

[paulg]

You can't. You need to call the director to sort it out.

This seems so easy to fix, but the BBO staff are not interested.

It is not that easy to fix and keep to the Laws, which I know that you are keen on. In almost all situations the Director must be summoned and in all situations it is better for the Director to be called.

 

I suspect it is on the list of priorities for BBO, but in a position that allows almost any other request to be higher :)

[Vampyr]

It is not that easy to fix and keep to the Laws, which I know that you are keen on. In almost all situations the Director must be summoned and in all situations it is better for the Director to be called.

 

I suspect it is on the list of priorities for BBO, but in a position that allows almost any other request to be higher :)

 

I honestly cannot imagine anything that could be a higher priority.

 

Also why do you think it is not easy? A claim/concession needs to be accepted by some people at the table; why not everyone?

[jandrew]

Also why do you think it is not easy? A claim/concession needs to be accepted by some people at the table; why not everyone?

 

In the absence of certain winners in his own hand (can s/he be sure?) how does the non-conceding defender know whether or not to support the concession without seeing his partner's hand. I guess that might be UI.

[Vampyr]

In the absence of certain winners in his own hand (can s/he be sure?) how does the non-conceding defender know whether or not to support the concession without seeing his partner's hand. I guess that might be UI.

In real bridge you don’t see partner’s hand, so why should it be different online? And if the person is not sure she has tricks, but thinks it is possible, then as with any contested concession, “no concession has occurred” so no harm has been done.

[mycroft]

I honestly cannot imagine anything that could be a higher priority.

Getting the Casual/competitive link back up. Getting access to the right director tools to all directors. Getting the "hacks" formalized into something that isn't hack. Heck, fixing your "but the host can cheat in a team game" issue.

 

CODING A DELAYED VUGRAPH MECHANISM.

 

I can think of many things that are higher priority than "for tournaments, call the TD and have them fix it. For team games, have the host throw out a message: 'hey, <team X> is only -3 on board 5, there was a faulty concession'. For casual games, knowing in your own heart that your actual score on that board is 65% not 53%."

 

Also why do you think it is not easy? A claim/concession needs to be accepted by some people at the table; why not everyone?

Says the lady who has clearly never had to fix 20-year-old spaghetti code with no tests and push into production where any failure is obnoxiously public (and to give BBO users 'credit', the ones who complain about issues, at least the ones that do on these forums, seem to skew very heavily toward the "how could you let this happen to *ME*?" demographic. And they're practically milquetoasts compared to ye average BW poster).

 

I'm sure it's an "easy fix". I'm reasonably sure it can be isolated to that one effect, and fixing it wouldn't trigger a Heisenbug way over in some other part of the code. I can't imagine that the people with access to the code would be much more confident than I am (but BarMar has definitely told me "you're wrong" in those words before). Putting in a fix that I'm "reasonably sure" won't cause problems somewhere else, in the kind of environment I work in, or the kind of environment BBO runs, is not something you just do, and hope you were right - it requires plans, and coördination, and fallback, and...

[pescetom]

Getting the Casual/competitive link back up. Getting access to the right director tools to all directors. Getting the "hacks" formalized into something that isn't hack. Heck, fixing your "but the host can cheat in a team game" issue.

 

CODING A DELAYED VUGRAPH MECHANISM.

 

I can think of many things that are higher priority than "for tournaments, call the TD and have them fix it. For team games, have the host throw out a message: 'hey, <team X> is only -3 on board 5, there was a faulty concession'. For casual games, knowing in your own heart that your actual score on that board is 65% not 53%."

 

Says the lady who has clearly never had to fix 20-year-old spaghetti code with no tests and push into production where any failure is obnoxiously public (and to give BBO users 'credit', the ones who complain about issues, at least the ones that do on these forums, seem to skew very heavily toward the "how could you let this happen to *ME*?" demographic. And they're practically milquetoasts compared to ye average BW poster).

 

I'm sure it's an "easy fix". I'm reasonably sure it can be isolated to that one effect, and fixing it wouldn't trigger a Heisenbug way over in some other part of the code. I can't imagine that the people with access to the code would be much more confident than I am (but BarMar has definitely told me "you're wrong" in those words before). Putting in a fix that I'm "reasonably sure" won't cause problems somewhere else, in the kind of environment I work in, or the kind of environment BBO runs, is not something you just do, and hope you were right - it requires plans, and coördination, and fallback, and...

 

To be fair to the lady, I do note that Olivier Comte just wrote that BBO "want to emphasise that we are actively working to develop enhanced techniques including adding audio/video during play and delaying kibitzing". That seems to be raising the bar a fair bit compared to the minor and obvious fix requested here, but at least one startup competitor is already there.