[inquiry]

Quote

how important do you think cleaning up the clocked/unclocked movements is, as opposed to adding new movements

- team games (presumably swiss to start with, but maybe KO)
- Qualifying events ( Some percentage of the field is discarded after each XX boards )

?

Top priority... TEAM GAME board a match or IMPs with large fields. This is very important I would think. Followed by fixing the movement, followed by qualifying events. Of course, this is my personnal preference.

[uday]

Ben

We already have BAM as an option for Team games.
We also support IMPs with large fields. Not sure what you mean here.

Or perhaps you mean Swiss-style movements? Tourneys in which teams-of-4/6 enter?

[inquiry]

What I mean is a team event with a dozen tables...

The pairs move such that each round my north/South pair of my team is playing the EW pair of one team while my EW pair is playing agaisnt the same NS pair. Thus the imps my team wins or loses on a board is depending upon how my team does against the other team... here is an example round one and two...

round 1

Table NS pair EW pair
1 1 2
2 2 1
3 3 4
4 4 3
5 5 6
6 6 5

Round 2
Table NS pair EW pair
1 1 6
2 2 4
3 3 5
4 4 2
5 5 3
6 6 1

Something like that. With an odd number of tables, the hands are a little tricker to line up. This is usually handled with a delay in compasion like this...

Table bds
9 9 11 1-3
10 10 9 4-6
11 11 10 7-9

followed by

Table
9 9 10 4-6
10 10 11 7-9
11 11 9 1-3

So the comparisons are board 1-3 for 9 vs 11,
boards 4-7 for 9 versus 10, 7-9 for 10 versus 11. Sadly, this means these guys play different boards, so to be totally fair they might should all play the same boards (1-6) and for this odd group only cross match imps across three tables. At all other tables, you imp score is influenced only by what your partners do on the hand at their table plus what you do at yours.

Ben

[mink]

Hi Ben,

I would call it "team tourney" what you are proposing as opposed to the team matches already implemented.

But I doubt that team tourneys would be very popular, because it is hard enough to find 8 players for a team match, and I wonder if you really find 3 or 4 or 5 teams for a team tourney.

On the other hand, if you find more than 5 teams, there is the problem that you would have to play so many boards that it is unlikely that all the players like to play for so long. And you need a tourney director for the subbing, because it is no fun to have a sitout for a whole team match (which should last for 6 boards at least).

All possible, but no so likely to happen if you consider the normal length of a pairs tourney here at BBO.

Another difficulty: swtiching tables can only be done when all tables have finished (no matter if even or odd number of teams). This may result in long breaks for tables which play fast. In a recent normal team match at BBO one table had finished all 8 boards when the other had only managed to play 4! And there have been no connection problems.

If you implement it, I would sugest a different movement for an odd number of teams:

Round 1:
NS pair EW pair board set
1 3 B
2 4 C
3 5 D
4 1 E
5 2 A

Round 2:
NS pair EW pair board set
1 5 C
2 1 D
3 2 E
4 3 A
5 4 B

Round 3:
NS pair EW pair board set
1 2 D
2 3 E
3 4 A
4 5 B
5 1 C

Round 4:
NS pair EW pair board set
1 4 E
2 5 A
3 1 B
4 2 C
5 3 D

This way all teams play all boards but one set, and it is easier to implement as it does not include exceptions like a 3-party team match.


My top priority would be improved handling of the existing pair tourneys - e.g. no replays, no subbing, no automatic timeout for the last board of the round, enhanced director tools.

Karl

[DrTodd13]

My vote for new features goes to:

1) Swiss movements for pairs tourneys...both MPs and IMPs. This makes for
better kibitzing, more accurate results, and less ridiculous scores where some
pair gets blessed with 7 IMPs per board from a succession of novices.

2) Restricting tourneys based on the presence of convention cards and the ability
for tourneys owners to remove pairs whose convention cards do not satisfy the
conditions of contest.

3) Ability to load text files for the conditions of contest button and a way to force
people to see the message when they try to register for that tourney.

[JRG]

Here are a couple of suggestions for teaching tables, one of which I made in the past (but I cannot find the e-mail about it). Here goes:

Suggestion 1:

When a table is being created, one can "reserve" seats. This applies to a teaching table as well.

What would be nice is if, for a teaching table, there were two sets of reservations. Here is how it would work.

The host creates a new table. In the dialog box, he or she specifies the first set of players in the "primary" reservations. If a player gets disconnected, as normal, the seat should continue to be reserved for him (i.e. it is "reserved" for the member specified in the primary reservation).

At any time while the players are playing, the host can use the TABLE button (as now) to access the table settings and change them. When the host knows the next set of players who are going to sit, he accesses the settings and fills their login ids in the "secondary" reservations.

Now, when players give up their seats voluntarily, the corresponding secondary reservation is moved to the primary and is cleared from the secondary. Alternately, there would be a "Change Players" button in the TABLE dialog for a teaching table that would allow the host to force a change of players (with some sort of automated chat message to the table).

I seem to remember having some other details regarding this, but I don't remember them off the top of my head.

Suggestion 2 (new):

Have an option (i.e. a checkbox in the table setup dialog) that would only allow kibitzers at the table to chat to the table host (not the players or the table - they could still be allowed to chat to people away from the table). Clearly, the table host (the teacher or mentor) must still be able to chat to the players and the table. If a kibitzer attempts to chat to a player or the table, they should either get a message that it is not allowed, or it should be redirected to the table host (I prefer the former; the latter could be embarrassing).

[csdenmark]

Since this thread came up I have tried to check out the relationship between private clubs and set up of pair-tourney's. And I really don't like what I have seen. To me it looks like nationalistic structures have evolved very rapidly based on the ability to create tournaments for members only. I think this a worrying tendency which ought to be fighted against to. There seems still to be clubs not yet used in this way but which can be revitalised for that purpose very quickly. I assume 1 person have been denied ability to create such a club and I know 1 for sure.

To me it therefore looks like something must be done if it is so that the public web-site, I know very well private owned but generously offered for all, will be able to stay as a nice meeting place for all lovers of bridge despite all other differences. This means a meeting place bridging nationalities, sexes, bridge-skills, economy, religion etc.

I assume I am right in this interpretation of the intensions of private clubs: To create a place where people can develop their strenght and on that basis go public for testing their achivements in competition with others.

I therefore think:

• the general ability to create tournaments for members only must be restricted to the numbers of players like those for team-tournaments(8 persons)
  
• the general ability to create tournaments for friends only must be restricted to the numbers of players like those for team-tournaments(8 persons)
  
• restrictions involving more than 8 persons must be created as invitional tourneys

I see one clear exception here: 'The beginner/intermediate Lounge'. A very well run initiave by Maureen Hallway. It is a safe heaven really run as an example for all administrators of private clubs. I think the members of B/I Lounge really will be able to benefit from above mentioned proposals.

I see no problems in restrictions for members only for more than 8 persons - but that ought not to be a part of the offer for the general public. Such ought to be for payment only and therefore based on a direct business contract between BBO and the respective club administrators. As such will not be an integral part of the general public offer - the activities ought to be invisible for non-members of those clubs.

[hrothgar]

To me it looks like nationalistic structures have evolved very rapidly based on the ability to create tournaments for members only. I think this a worrying tendency which ought to be fighted against to.

I believe that Claus' concerns are very misfounded. From my perspective, I think that it is extremely valuable for users to have the option of self-segregating based on any one of a variety of different attributes. National boundaries happen to correspond to two of the most logical points of demarcation within the borader BBO membership:

1. Language: It is personally reasonable that users would want to organize a club in which the default language was Polish/Turkish/Italian/whatever.

2. Administrative methods. It is perfectly reasonable to want to organize tournaments in which the default convention charts and alert structures match those used by the ACBL/EBU/whatever.

In a similar fashion, we also see the emergence of clubs are are stratified by level or social affiliation.

Ultimately, the clubs that succeed in providing value to their members will grow and flourish. Those that don't will not. I see not reason to restrict this dynamic because some individual clubs don't happen to match my notion of how things "ought" to be done.

Let a thousand flowers bloom.

[Rain]

1) I like Dr.Todd's suggestion of letting tourney host/director remove players forcibly...

2)Forgot to mention that I think directors (apart from host of tourneys who should be directors by default )should be asked permission before included as director. Maybe have a dialogue box where host of tourney types in each director's name, and server then ask that member for permission to be included as director.

It works in the same way as partnership sign ups..

3)The video vugraph--I have never seen a real vugraph, or been to any live tournaments, much less something of so grand a scale as NABC.

My suggestion was not really a joke--I had no idea Uday was really thinking of using a webcam to transmit, hehe. I just thought it'll be cool to see real players (if BBO can afford this transmission).

Having bridge tournaments played out on computers will dilute the excitement and feel of bridge, imo. The main coherant argument I can think about is tradition and historical value (I don't know how to express this properly--There is value to being at an actual table, holding up real cards. Its just like how there is value to being at a piano concert, with a top pianist playing on a normal (although steinway will argue differently ) piano, instead of the pianist performing on a digitalised piano that can enhance sound in various, non traditional ways.....

Qualifying events could well be played on a computer (audited by qualified directors!!). Its like the computerised tests the testing boards force us to take, I guess. But also, can you imagine the scene? How many computers would you require? If, on the other hand, you prefer that finals/semis should be played out electronically, I would have to bring up the point I mentioned in the earlier paragraph--Why remove elements of surprise and excitement from the top levels of bridge?

The "human" factor is important. Computers don't win fans...it sets up a buffer between players/performers and their "audience".


Hey I'm looking forward to hearing about the exploits of the David copperfield of bridge or serena williams or Vince Carter or something. This raises the profile of bridge, ups the "human" interest portion...This is my (very )humble opinion.

4) Video broadcast specific to BBO

I think it would be cool for the BBO context to have footage of various scenes in the competition area--maybe it won't be possible to have close ups of players' every grimace and frown and grin and whatever, but let us share the excitement a bit...

Or if its possible to get the ACBL video footage (or part of it )also broadcast "live" to bbo viewers....

I just think this will be a great new feature, attracts a lot of people! The "bridge" portion could be diluted, obviously--I would probably count myself as one of those more interested in admiring xxxx expert's long, elegant fingers or something


Rain

[Gweny]

8)
Uday you amaze us all

On topic of add/delete register pairs I think this is nice feature but see great potential head aches for BBO staff for people complaining open tournaments is not open.

On other side this would allow tds to remove pairs with chronic connection problems, history of intentional slow play, etc.

on topic of permanent subs...
in bbo tournament area all subs is permanent subs, however this is not sole option available. if we list people who is willing to do temp sub, a thing that is very very fun, then this allow players to return to partners vs thing who happen now - if player do not like sub then player AND sub disconnect and td now need find 2 subs. :-(


other advantage to doing temp subs is person who is doing this learn very much new conventions and styles of play and this is very fun. if we ability to use temp subs, and temp sub list then original player may return to game vs kibitz and grumble for not finishing match with partner.

[Gweny]

Quote

Vugraph

When do we get video vugraphs? ;D

[shadow=red,left]very cool idea but.... 2 things come to mind... memory and viewers[/shadow]

Quote

Lectures
I've never seen any lectures in BBO. I think Fred stopped giving them a long time ago. Is it possible for anyone else to give lectures? Maybe you can also have famous guest speakers. Invite Mike Lawrence or someone equally cool to come and talk...maybe they can also take this chance to promote their books. Win-win situation for bbo, authors/experts and everyone else!

[glow=red,2,300]YES PLEASE! 8)[/glow]

Quote

I like Fred's lecture transcripts. There are only a few of them though...maybe Fred would like to give more lectures? I think it doesn't even have to be *focused* on bridge. Hey, I'll attend a talk on "The darker side of tournament bridge". It'll be fun, and you can promote it extensively, and attract a lot of new bridgers. ;D

VERY MUCH YES PLEASE ;D

Quote

I would like private chat and general chat--lobby or otherwise, not directed to me to be in seperate areas. For those people who have high enough resolution and can maximise BBO window, do you think having 2 chat boxes, 1 on top for public chat, and 1 at bottom for private chat is a good idea? Having ability to do more with chat would be cool too. ie, cut, paste, delete it so your screen looks neater. Right now its in bigger font. (This has been suggested before I think, just reiterating it).

Ugh to 2 windows... but if option to pick 1 or 2 windows then yes.
YES PLEASE to cut/paste ability. Lack of this option make for VERY much work.

Please consider make check box option for where to talk to. When in Total Points club I must go to chat window, select chat to club each time and this make assigning 20+ tables very time consuming.... :

Same problem for non dockable chat window... and non resizeable table window.

Quote

BBO is a bridge focused place, thoughtfully designed that way by Fred,Sheri,Uday. I think you guys had strong views about a lot of issues and had implemented BBO to fulfil your ideals. Good job! Thanks

[glow=red,2,300]AMEN![/glow] smooch!