[BnBeever]

Could we have a 'regular partnership' status?

By that, I mean that a player would be able to select that they were regular partners with someone else, either by being able to define another player as 'partner' (instead-of / in-addition-to 'friend'), or else checking a box in their own profile that tells others that they are currently playing with a regular partner.
Of course BBO could maintain the list of regular partnerships, so you would only have to do this once per partner.
The 2 main benefits to this as I see it, would be:

1) Opponents would see this info about you and your partner, and would then know that it was appropriate to ask for detailed understandings in regards to bidding and carding.

2) TDs would have access to this info, and would then know how quickly to substitute when a player vanishes, the assumption being that 'regular partnership' indicates that someone hasn't simply got angry or embarrased at a mistake and logged off.

A way to solve point 2 (tho not point 1) which requires probably less additional programming, is simply that TDs be allowed to see whether a disconnected player is 'friends' with the partner they have left behind. Currently I try to ask the left-behind player if they expect their p to return, but this is fairly time-consuming, and often I receive no response anyway.

Ben

[Old York]

Hi

1) It is highly unlawful and unethical for regular partnerships to attempt to conceal their agreements, oppo should not have to ask for this information, any ethical player must alert and give full details (otherwise guilty of having an undisclosed partnership agreement)

2) All players in any tournament should be treated in exactly the same way.
Regular partnerships have no rights to special treatment, nor do they have any automatic right to be re-seated after disconnection. ( unless the seat has been paid for)

So, my vote is a resounding "No"

Tony (Duke of York)

[awm]

I don't think there is any allegation of cheating here.

1) For example, I often see (uncontested) auctions like 1♥-2♦-2♥-2NT-3NT. It might be useful for me to know on defense whether 2♥ promised a six-card suit, or would be a frequent rebid on a five-carder with minimum values. If my opponents are a practiced regular partnership then it is pretty reasonable for me to ask about this and expect an answer. But if my opponents have never played together before and just agreed "standard" or "two-over-one" or the like, then my guess is likely as good as theirs and there is no reason to waste my time asking (or to complain to a director if they can't give a clear answer).

2) At one point I registered for a free tournament in order to practice with my regular partner. I disconnected momentarily (BBO Flash seems to do this to me more often than BBO Windows did). The director was very pro-active; within 30 seconds I had been replaced by a substitute. I was back online quickly, but the director said tough luck, you disconnected. This left my partner to play the entire tourney with a random substitute or risk being black-listed. While I can understand the director's viewpoint (he is trying to keep a big tourney running smoothly), knowing that we are a regular partnership that really prefers to play together and that I will surely be online again ASAP might lead him to give me a minute or two instead of the thirty seconds or so I received.

[BnBeever]

Thanks Adam.

Tony: Re 1) It is impractical to give all agreements in all situations at the start of a round, and and when a specific auction arises, as in the example Adam gives, it may well be unclear as to what information 'should' be given along with the bid, as many partnerships don't realise that their bids are carrying extra or different information than is standard for their auction.

Furthermore, many calls carry agreements but are not alertable, and many are too complicated to give accurate conditions (especially doubles & passes) due to being the mathematical complement of an long disjunction. What is comes down to, is that bidding at bridge is not an exact science where the interaction of 4 players is concerned, and never can be. So for the most part, I am happy to enjoy the game for what it is - a series of logic/psychology problems. When I play against 2 players who have never played together, I am happy to guess at the meaning of their bids, just as they are probably doing. But when I am playing against a regular partnership, there will be extra information that I should be allowed access to, and it would be useful to know when this is likely to be available.

Re 2) Of course players don't have an absolute right to rejoin the tourney when they disconnect, but then people don't have the right to insist that others respond to their chat messages or shake their hand when they meet for the first time. It's about courtesy and promoting good vibes.
For example, my Romanian partner has a terrible connection, which sometimes breaks 3 times in 20 minutes, but he is powerless, as the problem lies with his provider, who are unwilling to do anything to help. He is almost always back online within 60 seconds, but overzealous TDs sometimes sub him immediately, unless I try to message them all in advance. We play quickly, so it causes no time pressure when this happens. As a TD myself, I would dearly love to have information which tells me whether or not to expect players to return, as replacing players too soon causes bitter feelings and devalues the whole tournament.

Perhaps a further and simpler alternative would be for bbo to monitor the number of boards you have partnered another player on, and display this info somewhere appropriately.

On a related TD issue, it would also be nice to know how many minutes each disconnected player has been logged off.

Ben.