[csdenmark]

I have been reading the contributions. From that I can see that others too are concerned to be able to play special systems trying to provide opps best possible information.

BurnKryten mentioned the ZONE performance of cc's there. I think the ZONE feature is second to none. Pity it is less needed there, really nobody plays anything but "SAYC" and "2over1" there. More than once I have been booted asking partner for Precision-play. I think the reason why this excellent feature(setting pointer to bid and relevant part of cc pops up)is not used on BBO is a technical matter. BBO has according to my information done the programming work on ZONE.

Other solutions to the problem may be considered.

Maybe things would be more easy if players interested in special systems tried to play against each other. One have suggested me to create a club and as I have understood BBO has a feature calling club members. I dont know how it works, I have consulted Stig(yellow) who recommended me to contact Fred. - I haven't done so!

Another possibility might be a checkmark on table warning incomers of artificial systems are played at that table. I think of a checkmark like the ones used for defining table restrictions. Then a special colour for that table in the lobby will be displayed or something like that.

Claus - csdenmark  

[keylime]

As a logical extension - how about color-coding the tables to alert incoming players of any "special" methods along the lines of the WBF?

Green - natural (ACOL, SAYC, Goren, 2/1)
Blue - any forcing club method (Precision, Viking)
Red - anything that doesn't fit in Green or Blue (Polish)
Yellow - highly unusual methods (fert bids, forcing pass)

I doubt it is possible in the profile to have colored squares denoting which color groups one would be interested in...but it's just a thought.

[Mike]

By my experience, the vast majority of players do not read even the particular optional description of the table they jump in. Seemingly, they do not care what system the partner or opponents play, what level of player is welcome, etc. So, what we the minority are discussing  here is a problem of the few, lol.   ;D

[vikicata]

Hello everyone!
First of all like to say that I Love BBO and playing there.
I'm not going to critisize and i doubt that will ever do.
To the point, I absolutely agree with Claus(csdenmark) that CC in BBO needs some improvment.
I speak from personal experiense playing strong pass sys.
Mike, i really doubt you'll think that way if you have to give your opps info(one, two lines) for almost every bid of yours(it is very annoying  >..)
I am beginner, playing from 1 year only and i'm certainly not an "extreme scientist".


  I like Dwayne Hoffmans idea(.."how about color-coding the tables to alert incoming players of any "special" methods along the lines of the WBF?" ), imagine how often my opps are changing, we all can skip such confusions if incoming players can be alerted that they are going to defend unusual system.  

[keylime]

As a logical adjunct, the profile could have a subapplet or a separate popup of sorts to allow hosts to preview their potential partner's posted preferred (nice alliteration eh?) methods. Combined with the color coding, this would serve as an excellent means to maximize enjoyment and minimize confusion.

On a side note, I'm happy to say that I did not renew my membership to E-bridge. E-bridge was like the girl that you wanted to go out with, but couldn't because they were either too popular, too busy, too occupied, too problematic - you get the idea...and BBO is like the girl that's always willing to listen and gives you a hug when you need it. It was really a no-brainer, and am happy that the stability of BBO combined with the international flavor the service provides steered my decision happily. I've played at many bridge sites and BBO is the best around and will only get better...that's the exciting part I look forward to.

[csdenmark]

Right Mike - the vast majority of players don't read the table description. They simply assume all tables they jump into are some sort of classical standard. - In reality it is those people we are trying to inform via convention cards and to protect them from what they really don't want. - They tell me so when they leave table after 2-3 hands, thanks for a friendly atmosphere, but from the bridge they are up against they don't understand a word. - On the other hand I also think we ought to encourage them to explore the options players of artificial systems will be able to offer.

Your comment led me to wonder why I am promted whether I really want to leave a seat or leave a table. When I jump into a table I am neither prompted nor informed of anything. - How about this, trying to jump into a seat, table description will be displayed alongside prompt for "enter or not". Then all will be informed by a general alert on table description.

Claus - csdenmark  
   

[Mike]

I have seen many good ideas above. All want to protect those who does not care even reading the sub minimum. Because of bad habit or else, who knows?

Forcing these people to make a concius choice is one side of the would be solution.

The other side is accepting them on the basis of some info on the applicant.

Both needs software development and we are discussing something that will put burden to Fred and Co.

Still, it is needed that players fill in some questioner on themselves, that many does not do at all. Look the many empty name field!

Further on, the opps have zero influence who will be their next partner, even if the host can accept or reject anybody on a well systemized basis in the future. The only thing an opp. can do is leaving the table.

My opinion is that the left alone sitting opponent shall have some means to accept or reject incoming partner!

This is not an easy thing. Waiting till opps are ready (while weaker opposition is not against the interest of the average host pair) slows the play. (Sometimes, the same unpatient guys discuss their system intricacies long and longer during a hand, and they are not in a hurry at all.)

Again, wishing or advising something that works in random human behaviour environment is a fine balance between goodwill and reality check. What are your opinions?