[skrshawk]

I've come up with another idea for meaningful subdivision of BBO.  I'd like to hear your feedback and suggestions.  My plan is for all of the duplicate scores to be seperate for each club.

The Main Bridge Club would remain as is, current rules applying.

In addition, we would have a Social Bridge Club which would have a set of "relaxed rules" regarding table talk and the like, but would be more stringent on courtesy.  Conventions could be discussed during the hands as needed and undos would be considered acceptable under many circumstances.

The other club would be the Competitive Bridge Club, which would have more stringent rules on discussion of conventions.  Leaving the table in the middle of these hands would also be looked at more harshly.  The expectation of attentiveness and effort (NOT skill) would be stronger.

I believe this approach keeps the clubs open to all skill levels and helping to cater to the types of games players like to have.

More on technical issues - The Main Lobby would remain the same as is currently.  Entering the club would bring you to the main club where you could select by buttons to change clubs and view the tables in those clubs (the buttons at the top, the one you're currently viewing highlighted).  Private and public sub-clubs could also be set up based on the main, social, or competitive club (for instance, I would likely start a Beer and Chips public club under the Social Club).

Again, I encourage your feedback .

Thanks,
John

[keylime]

John a few things to consider...the pace of play at the comp. club if we move forward would be dramatically slower than in a social setting because of the mindset this brings forth:

Here's player A...and they are a advanced player that knows a large collection of treatments and systems and there's player B...who knows some treatments but has never met player A before. They sit down together, and then they spend 4-5 minutes hammering out a CC. During this time the other players are having to wait and wait and wait until things get sorted out, then they play 3-4 hands and have to do the process all over again.

I am very very concerned that dividing the membership into subcategories is necessary and time-efficient. This is going to place a demand on software, players, and time because it is not the norm on BBO to have set partnerships. Also, in a competitive situation, there's a lot more opportunity for ZT issues. I am afraid of the discipline problems increasing from a two pronged approach.

I firmly feel that keeping one community but allowing the host more flexibility in setting table requirements is the way to go. Host should have a mechanism to set minimum skill requirements, desired players, and maybe the program could offer a pop-up for two players attempting to fill out a CC BEFORE entering the table. If that could be accomplished I might agree to this proposal.

However that brings up the next question: the social element of the game. Wouldn't it be more detrimental to section off to begin with? I for one can play both proposed styles, but I play the game for the social congenialty not to see if I can outplay Y and Z on that day. The ramifications of such a division is difficult to predict, and like chaos theory, bound to cause numerous headaches.

I don't know John, I kind of like things the way they are, but with modifications that benefit all. To section off an area for those diehards would defeat one of the major motifs of BBO: to provide and nuture a community of bridge players.

[Ken50]

John..............your post had me scurrying off to the BBO Rules Site to reread them and i think i may be missing a point here, but for the life of me i cant see where the main bridge club hasn't already been designated as the main social venue provided by BBO.

BBO has provided lots of other options ie...table designations, private clubs, and public clubs where people of similiar bridge experience, preferences etc. can use if they wish too.

Why is there this thought to create at BBO the very same things that a lot of us have left other bridge sites to avoid.

To me BBO is gaining in popularity because of the differences from the other sites, and the lack of designated room classifications is one of the main reasons, as well as rateings.

The main theme that seems to be prevelent among the majority of people i have met here , is that we enjoy playing this great game, we enjoy learning about this great game, but most of all we enjoy meeting the great people that play this game here at BBO.

There are existing options already in place here, they can be used by anyone, but please dont change the appeal that BBO's reputation is based on, dont become just another bridge site.

I do love Chips and beer though ;D

[bglover]

I think there is no need for subdivisions if there is a change to the rule structure regarding hosting (re two other threads).

I won't repeat the arguments I've made in favor of these rule changes, but until there is a way to get unwanted players to leave without violating said rules then a new division might become necessary.

Let's face it, many of the more advanced players want to play with people of a similar skill level and there is nothing wrong with that. Since we all set out own skill level individually, there is somtimes a problem when an unknown sits down. They have self-designated themselves as an expert and they are really a beginner (happened to me twice yesterday.. and I do not want to get into a discussion of what gives me the right to make that assessment). Both times 3 people had to leave the table so as to not violate the rules-- and both times we 3 said to each other too bad the rules don't allow us to boot him.

Am I advocating wholesale booting of players? No. Emphatically not. Nor am I advocating that BBO institute ratings... that is what makes OKB a horror to play at (for example).

But, if the rules permitted a host to request someone to leave (with the consent of the other two players) and that request was not complied with, then booting would NOT be considered a rules violation, then all this discussion would end.

I know this is anathema to some... this discussion is an old one.. but as new faces appear (and there are more everyday) who we regulars are not familiar with, this problem can only grow, either necessitating an "expert" class and a "Social" class set of rooms, or a relaxing of the rules can solve it the way Ken suggests... which I feel is a more sensible approach.

Just my 2 pennies worth.

[easy]

Quote

I've come up with another idea for meaningful subdivision of BBO.  I'd like to hear your feedback and suggestions.  My plan is for all of the duplicate scores to be seperate for each club.

The Main Bridge Club would remain as is, current rules applying.

In addition, we would have a Social Bridge Club which would have a set of "relaxed rules" regarding table talk and the like, but would be more stringent on courtesy.  Conventions could be discussed during the hands as needed and undos would be considered acceptable under many circumstances.

The other club would be the Competitive Bridge Club, which would have more stringent rules on discussion of conventions.  Leaving the table in the middle of these hands would also be looked at more harshly.  The expectation of attentiveness and effort (NOT skill) would be stronger.

I believe this approach keeps the clubs open to all skill levels and helping to cater to the types of games players like to have.

More on technical issues - The Main Lobby would remain the same as is currently.  Entering the club would bring you to the main club where you could select by buttons to change clubs and view the tables in those clubs (the buttons at the top, the one you're currently viewing highlighted).  Private and public sub-clubs could also be set up based on the main, social, or competitive club (for instance, I would likely start a Beer and Chips public club under the Social Club).

Again, I encourage your feedback .

Thanks,
John

I think the reason John suggested setting up different rooms was to make the imps won or lost make more sense!. I like the idea of some way to make the imps we win or lose more meaningful. How many times have we played what we thought was a normal contract making only to find that we have gained or lost 7 imps because the "field" had done something ridiculous.

I've only played on okbridge (many years) and here. So i have no clue as to how having various rooms would affect the "community".  When i go to a tourney there are several strata all catering to various levels of players. Isnt this the same?

Frankly i dont care if there r additional clubs with varying levels or not but i do like to think that BBO is trying to come up with a way to make the imp scores more reasonable.

Anyone have any suggestions as to how to do that without having various types of clubs?

[bglover]

Actually, I long ago suggested to Fred and Uday a suggestion that the top and bottom scores be thrown out to take into account freakish scores by bad players.. This suggestion was met with a lot of positives by both of them as well as by the people I told it to.

If, indeed, the purpose is to have more meaningful imp scores, this would do it... Hands that should be relatively flat (but aren't and we have all seen them) due to one pair's inability to bid a 27 point, nine card fit (that happened a couple of days ago), coupled with some sort of Deep-Finesse type analysis (so that a pair that bids a reasonable, making grand, doesn't get penalized when ther rest of the filed bids six) to ensure the results are UNREASONABLE before being discarded, could fix this.

[keylime]

Throwing out the high and low and averaging against the average score of the board preserves integrity of the board and prevents the 20 imps swing (just happened as I wrote this) for a double contract going down 2300. Also, with regard to field protection, on BBO I've noticed one glaring trend: on boards where slam is bid and made, a lot of swings are formed due to some pairs not getting there. Does this mean that there is no field protection? Of course not - it is the field adjusting to the playing conditions at that current time.

Earlier today I watched a top level pair be down over 45 imps playing against intermediate players, and looking at the results, it was because they were simply outplayed. There is hope for all of us .

[skrshawk]

Thanks everyone for all of your thoughts on the issue - I honestly didn't expect to see this quantity of opposition, but that's why I asked, sometimes I miss things that seem quite obvious to others.

For curiousity's sake, would the ability to set the table to "Regular, Social, Competitive" with the same approaches as the clubs were intended and the rule references applied be more effective?

Also, regarding competitive clubs, as somebody mentioned, there should be a minimum hands played to justify hammering out a CC before the game.  What would be an ideal minimum?

Thanks again,
John

[julie5607]

I, for one, support the idea of keeping one main bridge club but allowing better designation of desired play levels as you just described.  

The problem with seperating the club is that people want to be "where the action is", with the biggest pool of tables to choose from, whether to watch or play, and the biggest pool of potential players to come to a table when opps are needed.  I think this is the reason the various public and private clubs have never quite taken off.

Although I am afraid it would require a significant change in the software, and resource allocation for it would be difficult, adding a check-box for desired table level seems to be the easiest way to accomplish that goal.  I consistantly use the table description field, but I fear that few people actually reference it before coming to a table.  Pehaps if a table level checkbox could be implemented, and the tables color coded (expert, advanced, intermediate, beginner and social as an example) it would help to sort out the field while keeping the club as open and friendly as possible.

Thanks, Julie

[bglover]

Great suggestion! Wish I had thought of that.. that would simplify things so much!

I would still like to maintain some booting power over those who overrate themselves per previous post but that idea has real merit!

[skrshawk]

I don't know what the thoughts are on this but I'm going to solicit opinion on this - would it be better if the boot player from table function required approval from the other two players at the table?  That might solve a lot more problems right there as I can commiserate about having unwanted players at a table and being forced to make another table because of it.

Thanks,
John

[inquiry]

Gosh John, this seems somewhat reasonable. I think it should be a situation where a player clicks one of the other players name using a boot button, and the other two players (not whose ouster is being considered) have a chance to reject the boot (essentially like claims and redeals).

If not, how are you going to implement this? First, you can not talk in private to your partner, so if you were thinking of booting an opponent, you have to ask your other opponent for permission or, lacking that, ask your partner in public, "hey can I boot that jerk in the WEST seat."  Imagine the bad feelings.

Even the first method, might generate hostility... but if you get booted, at least all three players agreed. The message should be you have been booted by the TABLE rather than the host.  And if the request for a boot goes bad? Say someone tried to boot me because they were tired of all the good boards they were getting and wanted more of a challenge, my partner might not only reject the request (I play with masochist), but add, "hey they are trying to boot you ben."

Still, all in all a group decision to boot seems acceptable to me.  Rather it would be best to require 2 or 3 votes is less clear.  

[bglover]

That's a fine idea John.. I still think a person should be requested to leave 1st and not just be booted because there is agreement amongst the other 3, but if they refuse then some sort of "table" agreement to boot the 4th makes a lot of sense.

I think there is a growing minority that would like to see this type of feature implemented, based on the number of private messages i've received regarding this issue. To develop a system (such as you've proposed) that would take some of the power away from the host and redistrbute it to the rest of the table would probably be best.

I think there would be less harsh feelings if a player knew there was a consensus that he or she be booted and that can only be a good thing.

[Mike]

I read this thread started with John's revised ideas with quite an interest. Almost all other problems like booting reappeared as well.

In essence the liberty provided to us on one side has its drawback on the other side. So, we are trying to immagine  some kind of voting scheme that would curb the petit tyranns. If that would be feasible, maybe a solution for many thing is just that. For example to accept in opponent position an incoming partner, why the host decides who will be my new pd.

Anyway, without going into details, I would like to warn anybody who want to make important changes on the present very very successfull form and rule complex. Paysite or free, the main point is the freedom BBO empowers all of us. Additionally, it provides more enjoyment of the game than any other site I ever tried. In our good situation, we want to improve it further on  because all of us experienced unwanted phenomena.

After looking all opinions above, I think the only idea that fits to the present site with the known intended changes is to empower the table instead of the host for many sensitive functions. It could solve all problems discussed, including the social or duplicate character of that table, permit or not long system and gadget discussions, boot an expert impersonator, etc.

And again, the system is complex enough and successfull enough that further changes needs to be very carefully planned for having a positive outcome.

P.S. I am sorry for those who seriously took the scoring, though I always watch it when playing. I do not look on it as a measure of our partneship's wit or lack of it.  Anyway, there is no absolute measure except high level competition. So, let's keep it simple, and regard it as a curiosity. How many funny result can come out from the same deal  .

[keylime]

Sometimes for the sake of continuity we forget that simple is normally best. I like the concept of giving all players some say in booting -- at least the perceived notion of "ganging up" isn't nearly as prevalent as it would be if only the host did it.

A rating system would lead to a multitude of problems, and do we really need it? I think the people in the know are aware of who the good/great/stratospheric players are. And more importantly, those players tend to gravitate towards one another.

[Lestat]

While I like the idea of a Competitive Bridge Club, it seems silly to conceive it as "competitive" for experts and advanced++ players only.  When I first started playing years ago with 000.01 masterpoints, I wanted to compete as I'm sure many of our beginners and intermediates would now.  But I didn't want to get killed by experts.  There needs to be a way for all players of all skills to compete with players of similar or close abilities.  This makes for more enjoyable games for all.

SWAN bridge has in effect a social club, which is not heavily used, though they have fewer members than BBO.  I believe that most people who are interested in bridge are by nature competitive.

Already there exists on BBO several private and public clubs which are rarely used (most appear to be abandoned).  I suspect they aren't used much because of the way they are treated--they are not set up on an equal footing with the main bridge club.

I think it's important to improve what we have here, before we jump into uncharted waters by changing things.  Who knows if those changes will make things better?  Changes don't come free.  Someone has to go to a lot of trouble to program those changes.

Regarding booting players... Perhaps there are minor things we can do which minimize the problem.  Tagging the table as to minimum skill level desired is a possibility that others have suggested.  If someone joins a table lacking the minimum skill level requested, then he or she shouldn't be surprised to be asked to leave or booted.

As table host, I have designated the table as Adv ++ Players, please, then checked "Permission Required to Play" box, but find that no one reads the skill level request.  When I try to read their profile, I may find the skill level "private" which doesn't help at all.  Or perhaps before I can read it, someone else tries to join the table and I lose the first player's profile, then someone else jumps in, etc. and all is lost in a jumble.  This is a nightmare which we cannot manage.  If this can be fixed, then the table host might have better control and less to worry about the problems involved in bumping someone.

Frankly, when I host a table, I appreciate those players who have labeled their skill level.  In this "Casual Partnership" and ever-changing player environment, this is essential toward setting up good games.  I would like to go back to the previous method of requiring players to list their skill level, rather than keeping it Private.  I'm beginning to form a criterion to automatically reject those players who have private skill levels.  Seems silly to keep it private, because you can't hide your skill level once the game starts!

Oh, and one more problem I noticed with this beta version.  The situation is that you click to join a table, and are waiting permission and nothing happens.  You get tired of waiting so you can click the "sign off" button, but when you do this, you get signed off of Bridge Base!  I'd just like to go back to the tables and NOT get kicked off.

Hope this helps.  

Best, Jim  

[dageaux]

this thread kinda ties in with the one on ratings, don't you think? if we implemented some sort of rating system and then set the table to (for example) 'skill level 2 or higher' that seems to do the trick.

we already have the ability to create private clubs, and i'm very surprised it isn't used more often. i'd personally hate the idea of not being able to kibbitz really good players in a private club, but i'd never object to not being allowed to play in a game that's obviously out of my league.