[jillybean]

Well, while we are at it I like most of the above and...

Halt the play when a TD call is made and send a message to the table indicating such.

Track unfinished boards and revamp the adjustment procedure.

A 'ping' option to see if a player is really dead or just playing possum


Change the signup process so that players read the rules and click 'I accept' before they join

jb

[mink]

I would add the following to candybar's wish list:

Clocked tourneys produce unfinished boards. Unclocked tourneys tend to last forever. Therefore create another kind of tourney format where a round lasts for a predefined number of minutes like in clocked tourneys, but tables that are still playing at end-of-round time are allowed to finish the current board and then start the next round. In the new round, if there is not enough time for all boards, the last board(s) of the round are skipped automatically. This is the way the problem is handled in face-to-face tourneys, and I see no reason why not implement the same procedure online, but I realize some progamming effort is needed for this.

Let the software measure times of inactivity (no bid or card played and and no chat, no matter if disconnected or not), and if some predefined limits are exceeded, automatically remove that player/pair from the tourney. Design the movement such that it can handle a shrinking number of contestants. This already possible with survivor tourneys today, but there are some drawbacks with the current implementation such as a pair is removed if a player loses connection two seconds before the round ends, though it would not have been a problem as he reconnects after 10 seconds.

If the tourneys can handle slow players this way, the issue of players who leave on purpose would be no longer something to worry about - just let them leave, and record their leaving rate, so that potential partners can avoid them.

I know I have made these two suggestions several times in the past, but please forgive me that I do it again, because I believe that these two improvements would reduce the the TD's workload by more than 90% - no more substitutions and no need to adjust unfinished boards. Many items of candybars wishlist would become much less important if TD calls for substitution and because of slow play were no longer necessary.

Karl

[Gerardo]

jillybean2, on Apr 1 2006, 01:27 AM, said:

A 'ping' option to see if a player is really dead or just playing possum

jb

Already there, the red dot shows connection problems (two beats missing?)

Who remembers the short lived green square and yellow triangle?

[uday]

The red dot is only visible to players/specs at the table in question.

[Winstonm]

Perhaps it is better to learn the lessons of the great Stock Market Internet Crash.

There are some things for which the internet is well suited; there are many things for which the internet is poorly suited; and the bottom line is the bottom line; if an internet business cannot generate a profit it is doomed to eventually fail.

The internet is not well-suited as a site for bridge tournaments - it is next to impossible to supervise electronic communications; the internet lacks the inherent enforcement of cultural taboos that face-to-face behavior provides.

It is too easy to cheat via the internet, so having any type of purse worth playing for is next to impossible to provide, whether cash, prizes, or masterpoints.

Without a purse perceived to be worthy of the effort, there is no point in a "tournament". Would CBS televise the Master's Golf Tournament if the winner received $4.00 in Master's Points to be redeemed for a candy bar at the gift shop? Would any of the touring professionals care about winning the Green Jacket of the Master's and its $4.00 prize?

Because of these limitations, internet tournament bridge in the long run is bound to fail. Any "spike" in current interest can be viewed as a microcosm of what happened to the "tech" stocks that soared into the stratosphere with no underlying fundamental reason, i.e., earnings. Without a method to provide a totally secure tournament with player behavior that is organizer driven the "earnings" - in the case of tournaments the reason to play - is lost. Collapse is inevitable. The current "hot" site of internet poker has the same inherent weaknesses - and therefore IMO is an illusion worthy of David Copperfield - however, unlike other failed internet businesses at least poker can "drag" the pots and show a bottom line profit - the collapse of internet poker will be from the inability to provide adequate supervision. It would not surprise me in the least to see in the headlines soon the breaking story of a huge internet poker cheating scandal - a scandal that would awaken all but the most hardcore gambler that "something in Denmark is rotten." Gambling, whether one wishes to believe the corporate "hype" about its "recreational" value, is not a clean business. With the prize money now in the millions for just making the final table of the World Series of Poker main event, one is naive if he believes player collusion is not rampant.

Instead of attempting to make the internet into something it is not, isn't it better to emphasize its benefits? It is a great source of information. It is better than any type of telephone for communications. It may well someday be the equal in market share to another means of travel, such as airlines.

If you want to have a tournament, invite a few friends - ones who are trustworthy - to assemble via the internet at a prescribed time and place and offer them as a prize - shipped directly from e-Bay - a slightly used Green Jacket.

Heck, you might even get CBS to air it.

Winston

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Apr 2 2006, 06:23 AM, said:

Because of these limitations, internet tournament bridge in the long run is bound to fail.

Few comments here:

To my knowledge, "Internet Tournament Bridge" as you define it really doesn't exist. Most of the "tournaments" that take place on BBO don't offer much in the way of prizes. The Matchpoint awards from the ACBL are roughly equivalent to a club game. The monetary prizes awards by groups like SkyClub feel more like a lottery than a game of skill. The only exception to this that comes to mind is that College Championships that the ACBL runs using an electronic playing format.

With this said and done, this doesn't mean that it is impossible to run "secure" events that use an electronic playing environment. The easiest way to do this is to use some form of physical proctoring. (I believe that the aforementioned College Championships use this system). As I noted in an earlier thread, I think that I could design a (reasonably) secure tournament format that makes collusion extremely difficult but doesn't require any kind of proctoring. The only requirement is that you abandon the concept of "duplicate". (I'd argue that this really isn't much of a loss)

1. Tournament participants are anonymous. Identifying one's self is against the rules.

2. Randomly partition the tournament into groups of eight players. Partion each group into two teams of four. Each team will play a two or three board round using whatever scoring method you prefer (BAM, MP, IMPs, whatever)

3. Calculate results and then randomize the tournament once again.

4. Repeat until you have a statistically significant result.

I certainly wouldn't claim that its impossible to cheat using this system. In theory, it would be possible to make multiple entries into the same tournament. Eventually, you're going to get lucky and have two "players" sitting at the same table at the same time. The odds of this happening is a simple function of the size of the tournament and the number of simultaneous entries. Given large enough tournament enrollment, trying to coordinate all of those simultaneous entries becomes very difficult.

If you want to preserve the concept of "duplicate" then you need to partition the tournament into a series of separate smaller individual events. Each individual would exist as a separate virtual "section" and compete using the same boards. Running the individual event would make collusion significantly easier (you have more people playing the same boards). I prefer my original proposal.

I don't claim that this system is perfect. The system is highly impersonal. Players can still cheat by using external aids to calculation. However, I feel that this does eliminate most forms of collusion.

[Elianna]

hrothgar, on Apr 2 2006, 06:51 AM, said:

The easiest way to do this is to use some form of physical proctoring. (I believe that the aforementioned College Championships use this system).

The two times I've played in this, there was no physical proctoring of any kind in the computer qualification rounds. You were left to your own honor. They may have changed it this year, but I doubt it.

[bambi1]

I have another idea......while uday is busy re-adjusting the software for us TDs

I would like a few minutes at the beginning of each tournament where NO one is able to play. Players will HAVE to read what the TD is typing! This way ALL Tournament Rules can be announced, and everyone will be paying attention!! ( you think?)

TD can have a "start" button to begin the tournament, and away we go

[hotShot]

This pause can also be used to make the player define 4/5 card major and nt - range

[pigpenz]

picking tournaments run by different TD's is probably like picking partners...sometimes your right and sometimes your wrong. So if you have a bad experience then dont play in their tourneys again.

I ran a speed ball pairs the other day, I announced 8 boards 8 rounds 5minutes per board, I announced no adjustments....after 2 rounds everyone got the idea and there was no problem with time. I kept stressing claim when you can, it took them a while but by 3 rounds they got it