[matmat]

If you are at a table, make a call, and leave, you should not be allowed to sit down at another table until the hand you just participated in is finished.

If the table breaks up because of this, and the hand never finishes, then you should be permanently banned from BBO.
(ok, maybe not that last bit).

I suspect this would be fairly tough to implement... though maybe a timer instead of a callback when the hand is finished. who knows...

[uday]

If you use the web version of bbo, you can use one of the new table filters to prevent people from sitting if they have a history of bailing from the MBC

U

[matmat]

uday, on 2010-December-15, 12:19, said:

If you use the web version of bbo, you can use one of the new table filters to prevent people from sitting if they have a history of bailing from the MBC

U

Hey Uday,

I'm aware of that feature, but for several reasons I still very much prefer playing on the stand-alone client. I am also not sure that the filter picks up all of the offenders; in particular, the ones that come to an already started deal, see they have a crap hand, and leave.

[USViking]

matmat, on 2010-December-15, 03:15, said:

If you are at a table, make a call, and leave, you should not be allowed to sit down at another table until the hand you just participated in is finished.

If the table breaks up because of this, and the hand never finishes, then you should be permanently banned from BBO.
(ok, maybe not that last bit).

I suspect this would be fairly tough to implement... though maybe a timer instead of a callback when the hand is finished. who knows...

Please let us not implement anything like this.

IMO by far the biggest problem at BBO is having to leave after taking part
in auction and/or play because some other player, usually but not always
the host, will not do anything, thus inactivating the table.

This probably happens 1000s of times a day (certainly 100s of times a year
for me) and the OP suggestion would be as likely to punish the innocent as
it would be to punish the guilty.

[mgoetze]

USViking, on 2010-December-15, 13:42, said:

the OP suggestion would be as likely to punish the innocent as
it would be to punish the guilty.

I disapprove of indiscriminate use of the word "likely".

[USViking]

USViking said:

the OP suggestion would be as likely to punish the innocent as
it would be to punish the guilty.

mgoetze, on 2010-December-15, 15:12, said:

I disapprove of indiscriminate use of the word "likely".

I am not sure how to take this, but will amend as follows:

The OP suggestion would be sure to punish the innocent as often as it punished the guilty.

[mgoetze]

USViking, on 2010-December-15, 15:26, said:

The OP suggestion would be sure to punish the innocent as often as it punished the guilty.

I feel that this is clearly wrong.

[USViking]

mgoetze, on 2010-December-15, 15:29, said:

I feel that this is clearly wrong.

It seems you mean to be taken literally.

I provided foundation for my point of view.

You have not: All you are doing is saying "I object!".

Can you please try to do a bit better than that?

[mgoetze]

USViking, on 2010-December-15, 16:14, said:

I provided foundation for my point of view.

You have not: All you are doing is saying "I object!".

OK, here is your foundation:

USViking, on 2010-December-15, 13:42, said:

This probably happens 1000s of times a day (certainly 100s of times a year
for me)

Here is my foundation:

I have seen this happen almost never. I have seen what the OP described significantly more often.

[USViking]

mgoetze, on 2010-December-16, 02:51, said:

Here is my foundation:

I have seen this happen almost never. I have seen what the OP described significantly more often.

There are two different events being weighed here.

This one from the OP:

A. "(A player is) at a table, make(s) a call, and leave(s)"

And this one from my post #4:

B. "(A) player, usually but not always the host, will not do anything, thus inactivating the table"


I agree both A and B occur. Without having kept any records I believe A takes place
significantly less than B, maybe half as often for me. I do not believe it would be
exaggerating to say that B is a daily experience for me. I do not think there should
be any possibility of penalzing someone who leaves a table under those circumstances.

With 100s thousand users per month (per week? daily?) different users may have different
experiences due to their playing habits. Someone like me who usually plays pick-up with
three strangers should have experiences similar to mine. Perhaps you usually play with 1-2
who you know well enough to know they are reliable, and won't freeze the table.