[stevenagy]

uday, on 2012-July-28, 10:42, said:

Slightly off topic, but -

at one point we forced hands to be auto-redealt when someone bailed and someone else sat down.

As you know, one can't really complete a hand from the middle, with no knowledge of what happened on prior tricks. Yet, we received a number of complaints about this behaviour and decided to roll back the change.

Back to the main topic.

We're looking at the HMFAG ( help me find a game ) logic again. But lets ask this:

Someone clicks HMFAG. Where should he go if he's known to be a table hopper with (say) a 35% completion rate? to a table with other table hoppers? Or should we say 'Sorry, no tables available?'

U

If someone has a significantly low completion rate, would placing a timer on their next sit-down help discourage the bad behaviour enough? For example, a player with that awful 35% completion rate gets into a bad board and quits the table, hits the HMFAG button, and then, 30 seconds later they are placed at a table. When they get their completion rate back up to an acceptable level (60%?), the delay disappears.

[Antrax]

uday, on 2012-July-28, 10:42, said:

Slightly off topic, but -

at one point we forced hands to be auto-redealt when someone bailed and someone else sat down.

As you know, one can't really complete a hand from the middle, with no knowledge of what happened on prior tricks. Yet, we received a number of complaints about this behaviour and decided to roll back the change.

Of course you got complaints, because this encourages a deliberately poor player to ditch bad boards and not have them reflected on his "my hands" page.
You COULD let a new player review the play for a limited time after sitting down, but it's probably more work than it's worth.
[edit] or have some sort of "procedural penalty" for such redealt boards to the player who ditched, and keep the auto-redeal

Are there really players with completion rate less than 50%, or is it a purely theoretical problem?

[quiddity]

uday, on 2012-July-28, 10:42, said:

Back to the main topic.

We're looking at the HMFAG ( help me find a game ) logic again. But lets ask this:

Someone clicks HMFAG. Where should he go if he's known to be a table hopper with (say) a 35% completion rate? to a table with other table hoppers? Or should we say 'Sorry, no tables available?'

U

People table-hop because they are not enjoying the game. In many cases they are not enjoying the game because the partner and/or opponents are incompatible. How about trying to fix this obvious problem with the site instead of blaming the players and trying to punish them? The table hopping is not the problem, it is a symptom.

[barmar]

quiddity, on 2012-August-06, 16:58, said:

People table-hop because they are not enjoying the game. In many cases they are not enjoying the game because the partner and/or opponents are incompatible. How about trying to fix this obvious problem with the site instead of blaming the players and trying to punish them? The table hopping is not the problem, it is a symptom.

I think most people who do this jump as soon as someone makes a little mistake. It has little to do with compatibility (can you really tell if you're compatible after only a couple of hands?), they're just expecting too much from a random pick-up partner.

We are looking into ways to make HMFAG smarter about pairing people, but I think the real problem is that players set their expectations too high, so they're setting themselves up for disappointment.

[Antrax]

Not sure what you're basing this on, barmar. Is this a statistic you can figure out from looking at server logs?

[barmar]

No real data, just my intuition. I've been on the Internet for 30 years, and playing online bridge more than half of that time, I think I have a good feeling for how people behave.

[Antrax]

Up to the fundamental attribution error, no doubt.

[quiddity]

barmar, on 2012-August-06, 20:05, said:

I think most people who do this jump as soon as someone makes a little mistake. It has little to do with compatibility (can you really tell if you're compatible after only a couple of hands?), they're just expecting too much from a random pick-up partner.

We are looking into ways to make HMFAG smarter about pairing people, but I think the real problem is that players set their expectations too high, so they're setting themselves up for disappointment.

Definitely disagree with this. I have been using the HMFAG feature a lot over the past month or so. I have seen very few blatant spammers. Mostly what I see is this: someone gets whisked to a random table. They don't speak the same language or play the same system as partner. They make a few bids, get to a ridiculous contract, and give up in disgust.

[quiddity]

Also, this probably goes without saying but I hope you are not counting the dummy leaving early as "hopping". At pick-up tables it is standard practice to leave early as dummy if you know you are leaving. This gives the table a better chance of picking up a fourth for the next hand with minimal waiting.

[Bbradley62]

I would count any situation where a player stays for fewer than about 6 hands as "hopping". Certainly if you join a table, bid one hand, become dummy and leave during the play of that hand, that qualifies as "hopping", even if it is more considerate than staying until the end of the play of the hand and then leaving.

[Antrax]

hopping implies a pattern of activity. Just leaving a table once quickly isn't it.

[barmar]

That's my understanding as well, and the reason for my feeling that table hopping reflects more on the hopper than the system. Of course there will be occasions where you end up in completely incompatible table, but I hope it's not so common that it results in frequent hopping.

[Antrax]

Allow me to present my one-man play, "a day in the life of a suspected hopper". Log in, HMFAG. "hi all". Silence. E leaves and a new player appears. "hi. -hello". W leaves. A new W appears. "host?". Nothing. Darn, I fell into one of the HMFAG black holes, a table with an inactive host. Stand up, HMFAG. What's that? SEF? No clue how to play that. Stand up. HMFAG. Ah, an American intermediate, no profile. Should work well enough. Hand one, constructive auction, bidding completely out of this world, silly contract. Oh well, I guess sometimes you rebid a broken five-card minor instead of a normal 1NT. Second hand, LHO opens, X, I bid aggressively with my shortness. Partner tables a 9-count with Jxxxx in the opponent's suit and berates me. Apparently she plays penalty doubles of 1-level bids. Third hand, she declares, takes only the practice finesses and loses count of key suits. "Don't open NT with 5-4-2-2 pd". Oh well, not a good fit. "ty all, bye". Hop. "NT 13-16, Strong 2s, NO TRANSFERS". Hop.
I could go on, but I'm guessing the point is clear: typically it takes several hops (often without interfering at all, i.e. hop in, read profile, hop out while the hand is still being played by the other three players) until I find a suitable partner. Some of it is certainly due to software limitations: it seats me in tables with an inactive host, partners me with enemies, has no notion of how to define some basic system so I don't end up playing with a backwash precision partner or whatever and I doubt it even relies on self-ranking when making matches. So yeah, some of it is on me - I don't know how to play too many systems and I probably frustrate some good players the way people who double 1-level bids for penalty frustrate me. But I still don't think the solution is any restriction on my behaviour.

[semeai]

Antrax, on 2012-August-07, 12:00, said:

Allow me to present my one-man play, "a day in the life of a suspected hopper". Log in, HMFAG. "hi all". Silence. E leaves and a new player appears. "hi. -hello". W leaves. A new W appears. "host?". Nothing. Darn, I fell into one of the HMFAG black holes, a table with an inactive host. Stand up, HMFAG. What's that? SEF? No clue how to play that. Stand up. HMFAG. Ah, an American intermediate, no profile. Should work well enough. Hand one, constructive auction, bidding completely out of this world, silly contract. Oh well, I guess sometimes you rebid a broken five-card minor instead of a normal 1NT. Second hand, LHO opens, X, I bid aggressively with my shortness. Partner tables a 9-count with Jxxxx in the opponent's suit and berates me. Apparently she plays penalty doubles of 1-level bids. Third hand, she declares, takes only the practice finesses and loses count of key suits. "Don't open NT with 5-4-2-2 pd". Oh well, not a good fit. "ty all, bye". Hop. "NT 13-16, Strong 2s, NO TRANSFERS". Hop.
I could go on, but I'm guessing the point is clear: typically it takes several hops (often without interfering at all, i.e. hop in, read profile, hop out while the hand is still being played by the other three players) until I find a suitable partner. Some of it is certainly due to software limitations: it seats me in tables with an inactive host, partners me with enemies, has no notion of how to define some basic system so I don't end up playing with a backwash precision partner or whatever and I doubt it even relies on self-ranking when making matches. So yeah, some of it is on me - I don't know how to play too many systems and I probably frustrate some good players the way people who double 1-level bids for penalty frustrate me. But I still don't think the solution is any restriction on my behaviour.

Two comments:

1. Sounds like you should consider the "list interesting tables" option under HMFAG instead of the "take me to the first seat available" option, at least on a trial basis.

2. I agree that what you're doing doesn't seem destructive. The only sort of hopping that seems actively destructive is (frequently) leaving mid hand when not dummy.

[Bbradley62]

semeai, on 2012-August-07, 13:24, said:

The only sort of hopping that seems actively destructive is (frequently) leaving mid hand when not dummy.

So, you disagree with OP that it's inconvenient for the three remaining players to have to wait for a replacement player every hand or two?

[semeai]

Bbradley62, on 2012-August-07, 14:00, said:

So, you disagree with OP that it's inconvenient for the three remaining players to have to wait for a replacement player every hand or two?

It certainly is inconvenient, but it's hard to fault Antrax too much. I guess I would hope that a better pairing method is possible.

Maybe a compromise is that if you play zero hands at a table, it doesn't count as table hopping. Then all that happened in Antrax's story is that he played three hands at a table, found it incompatible, and left. Hardly a pattern of table hopping.

[Bbradley62]

I think players should get "dinged" for asking to be randomly assigned a table then not accepting that assignment. But, "hopping" statistics would presumably be mined from myhands data, and myhands data excludes hands where players don't actually take any action, so this would work the way you want it to.

I'd like to see "preferred bidding systems" as a radio-button item in each player's profile, allowing multiple selections. Then, "take me to the first seat available" (TM2FSA) should only place the player in a seat opposite a partner who has at least one of the same systems marked. I also think TM2FSA should only place an incoming player at a table where everyone already at the table is within one "BBO self-rating level" of the incoming player.

PS: "Help me find a game" leads to a choice between "Take me to the first seat available" and "List interesting tables" (among other choices); hopefully people will stop using HMFAG in this forum when they mean TM2FSA.

[Antrax]

Bbradley, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. Let's say in order to keep my 100% no-hopper status, I stay in the SEF table the required six boards or whatever. That means the three people there, instead of waiting for someone to appear, are now stuck with an idiot who can't bid for six boards. How is this better for anyone?
I tried "list interesting tables" when it was new, but the raciness of it threw me off - you go over the list, choose a table and find out it's been filled. After several times this happened, I gave up. The reason I like TM2FSA is that it's fast, and I'm a part of the ADD generation.

[Bbradley62]

teal_lady, on 2012-May-25, 11:36, said:

It removes the enjoyment of the game for me (and for most of the people I play with and against) to have players stay 1 or 2 hands and then leave... Would love to see it slowed down (preferably stopped).

Antrax, on 2012-August-07, 21:17, said:

... I'm a part of the ADD generation.

Sounds like OP (not me) was asking for protection from the annoyance of having the ADD generation pop in and pop out.

It seems clear that both hoppers and non-hoppers would benefit from an improved TM2FSA routine, and that should be the take-away form this thread.

[Antrax]

That's taking my quote out of context. I was explaining why I prefer "TM2FSA" to browsing a list of tables and choosing one until the one I choose is available, similar to how people who watch TV tend to zap between channels instead of reading a TV guide. Neither you nor the OP explained how it's better (or less "annoying") to play some set number of hands with a partner that butchers hands or that can't bid your system at all.