[EricK]

Codo, on Nov 10 2006, 07:30 AM, said:

HI Eric,

I disagree, because if you can "doubleclick" some will dfo so and you still have the problems.
And if you really have to click twice, you just produces millions of additional clicks for just a small gain.

And I see no problem in giving undos in bidding and play.

Maybe I will change my mind, if I play for big stakes of money or some national championships via BBO. But for a simple tournement or in the Main room? Why not grant undos? What will happen?

If you really once in a life meet a cheater, so what. You loose 12 or 20 imps at a board. My godness, where is the problem?

If this were to be implemented, the clicks would have to be in different parts of the screen so that a double click on a bid or card would do nothing more than a single click would.

You could even make it optional and still do away with the Undo functionality. Want to save all those unnecessary clicks? Just turn the option off and take your medicine if you click on the wrong bid/card. Want to guard against misclicking? Turn the option on and make sure that the bid/card you clicked on was what you meant.

In an ideal world, people would only ask for undos if they genuinely misclicked, and their partners would not take advantage of any UI which arose from a misclick. But this isn't an ideal world. I take your point about none of this being really important, but why even bother keeping score then? It isn't important in the grand scheme of things, but so what? Nothing is important if you look at it like that!

[blackshoe]

The laws of bridge allow bids and plays to be "undone" in certain circumstances. Therefore, eliminating the capability altogether is a bad idea, I would say a complete non-starter, because if you can't apply the laws, you aren't playing bridge.

That said, it should not be up to the players to decide whether an "undo" should be granted - that is the TD's job.

Some people want to, in effect, eliminate the TD because "it's a waste of time" to call him (this attitude exists in f2f bridge, too). I wonder whether those people feel the same about referees and umpires in other games - like soccer, or football, or baseball, or tennis.

[Trumpace]

EricK, on Nov 10 2006, 03:36 AM, said:

If this were to be implemented, the clicks would have to be in different parts of the screen so that a double click on a bid or card would do nothing more than a single click would.

You could even make it optional and still do away with the Undo functionality. Want to save all those unnecessary clicks? Just turn the option off and take your medicine if you click on the wrong bid/card. Want to guard against misclicking? Turn the option on and make sure that the bid/card you clicked on was what you meant.

I don't think this will work.

You want people to go to the trouble of clicking at least 2 times each time they want to make a bid or play, so that you can reject an undo, claiming that it cannot be a misclick.

We cannot affect the whole BBO membership just to make sure that people don't cheat using the undo button. btw, if people wanted to cheat, they have better options available, which I don't see how we can prevent using software.

If you make the multiple click thing optional, you might turn it on, but it won't help you with the undo problem, as you have to convince your opps to turn it on. You will be in the same situation as before. Reject all undos.

If you make this so that the table host can turn it on, good luck finding opps.

[EricK]

Trumpace, on Nov 10 2006, 07:58 PM, said:

I don't think this will work.

You want people to go to the trouble of clicking at least 2 times each time they want to make a bid or play, so that you can reject an undo, claiming that it cannot be a misclick.

We cannot affect the whole BBO membership just to make sure that people don't cheat using the undo button. btw, if people wanted to cheat, they have better options available, which I don't see how we can prevent using software.

If you make the multiple click thing optional, you might turn it on, but it won't help you with the undo problem, as you have to convince your opps to turn it on. You will be in the same situation as before. Reject all undos.

If you make this so that the table host can turn it on, good luck finding opps.

My idea is that there is no Undo to accept or reject. The Undo button just doesn't exist in my scenario.

Each player has the option to have a safeguard in place which allows them to check that the bid/card they clicked on is the one they actually wanted. On the other hand, if they want to risk misclicks then they can play without that option, but they still don't have an Undo button to rescue themselves.

Since, as you pointed out in another post, the actual results aren't important, why bother having an undo button at all? Just accept the loss of "12 or 20 IMPS" and move on.

[Trumpace]

EricK, on Nov 10 2006, 03:08 PM, said:

My idea is that there is no Undo to accept or reject. The Undo button just doesn't exist in my scenario.

Each player has the option to have a safeguard in place which allows them to check that the bid/card they clicked on is the one they actually wanted. On the other hand, if they want to risk misclicks then they can play without that option, but they still don't have an Undo button to rescue themselves.

Since, as you pointed out in another post, the actual results aren't important, why bother having an undo button at all? Just accept the loss of "12 or 20 IMPS" and move on.

We need an UNDO, there is no question about that.

And yes, the actual results are not important (I don't know if _I_ said that earlier...)

Having an UNDO in fact supports the above statement.

I would not want to play a silly game due to a bad bid/play(misclick/whatever) by an opponent which would give _me_ good results. I want to play a good game, which will help me improve my game, and I would not want to capitalize on silly errors like opps clicking the wrong card, or giving the wrong blackwood response.


If I find that the opps are cheating, rejecting undos will not help me improve my game anyway and I will just leave that table. (I haven't yet encountered that situation).


In competitive bridge, it is different, as you are playing to win.

[mycroft]

I'm pretty lenient, but I'll reject undos in obvious discovery play situations (even if it really was inadvertent, once you realize your first play was wrong, you don't get it back).

If I allow an undo and find out it was a clear rethink, then I get a lot more cynical with that person, fast. I do the same in RL (as a player or a TD).

I also play by different rules in the club or in a tournament - but yeah, I'm a stickler for the rules at my table. OTOH, I don't even ask for recovery when I blow it (like yesterday calling for a heart rather than a high heart, making all the work I did to cater for a 4-1 break go whoosh), because whether it would be allowed or not, it wouldn't be legal (inadvertent is inadvertent, though - that's different, but if it was a brain blowout, even if it's a microsecond braino, then I eat it).

I *think* that people are a lot more comfortable with rules-stickers like me if a) it's always polite (and "I am sure there's no problem, I just want to be protected" rather than "He hesitated and she bid! She can't do that!", for instance) and b) it is absolutely clear that I hold myself and my partner to the same standard.

In another game I play, following the rules and the order of play is much more rigid, in fact impossibly so; most people are of the "okay, I'll let a little variance go by, except in situation A,B,C (basically too much information issues), but if after opponent asks and gets leniency, if he shuts me down when I ask for it, then A.2 (errors stick after it's too late to correct) and ASOP (sequence of play) to the letter." I think that's a decent way of playing any game.

Michael.