Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eugene Hung
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 63 64 65 66
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Richard Willey flagged by commuunity for being a personal attack on another poster (and offensive), and removed.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alerted by a user, I can say we've heard about this via support and are looking into it. The responsiveness definitely comes and goes and it feels like it's been going a lot more lately.

In general, posting a thread on the front page is good for getting feedback from other users, but it's not good for alerting admins. The way to get things to our attention is via emailing support, or flags. I personally don't have time to read the front page. For the most part, the things I read are featured/trending articles, threads with flags, and sometimes the Feedback Forum.
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Article removed by request of author.
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Michael Rosenberg pointed out, online, it's okay if actions are a little slow, as there are more reasons for things to be slow than live. In addition to the external reasons Michael mentioned, there are delays from the game itself including self-alerts, looking at ccs, looking at notes in open notes events, responding privately to opponents, and if this proposal is implemented, processing two bids at once. Add to this the possibility that RHO might be delaying things a little in a tempo-sensitive auction, and all of this makes a slow bid more likely to be less meaningful. So the false positive of a slow call isn't as much of a concern as it is in face-to-face bridge.

A fast action, however, is unambiguously fast. So if you have a problem with fast actions, you can fix them with this proposal.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By the way, from a UI-minimization perspective, it's bad to merge LHO's and Partner's bids instead of RHO's and Partner's bids. When LHO and Partner are merged, then partner is the final arbiter for the tempo, which is not desirable if it's obvious who took the time. Say N/S are cuebidding at the 4-level with opponents silent and North bids a quick 4M signoff. That will still transmit “too fast” UI to South under the “merge LHO and partner” solution if West had also passed quickly. But under the “merge partner and RHO” solution, RHO (East) can slow down his obvious pass once he registers that the signoff was too quick - or just do it on general principle knowing that this is a situation where a “bullet” bid would be transmitting UI.

Under my proposal, a watchful player can ensure their LHO will never receive a “bullet” bid from RHO in a situation they deem sensitive. For example, after partner makes a skip-bid and you see both the skip-bid and RHO's call appear simultaneously, you can take a minimum of 5 seconds for your call because it's possible RHO insta-bid. If LHO transfers and RHO makes a normal accept, you can pass quickly if you feel an instant accept doesn't transmit much UI. And if you open 1NT and see a quick P 3NT P, you can delay 5-10 seconds to simulate East thinking about a potential lead-directing double. But you don't have to. If you don't add delays, the opponents may get UI from super-quick passes but it's only because you allowed it. And in social games, that's fine.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phil, I don't understand your criticism because there is no asymmetry in my proposal.

My suggestion is: All players see their LHO act in real time. Partner's bid is seen after RHO's bid.

Say I am South. I open 3. 3 is transmitted to E/W, but not partner North.

West is next and overcalls 3. South, the preemptor, sees West overcall in real-time tempo. North now gets 3 and 3 at the same time. East still sees the auction paused at 3.

North now raises to 5. East sees 3 and 5 at the same time. West gets 5 in real time. South still sees the auction paused at 3.

Finally East passes. Now South gets North's 5 bid and East's pass. North gets East's pass. West is still waiting for East's call.

There is no disadvantage to playing NS or EW. You always see LHO's bid in real time, and partner's bid at the same time as RHO's.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard -

It is, but high-level play routinely dispenses with half of this information in screened events. I think people will accept this in return for not being sure how long partner takes.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An important and often ignored factor in the adoption of any change is ease of implementation. If it's too difficult to code (like compiling lists of what calls have a long delay vs. a short delay, and then parsing it for every call), it's less likely to be done.

I think the simplest solution is to not display your partner's call until after your RHO's call. It would be like screens, where you'd see your LHO's call in normal tempo, and then a pause before the next two calls are revealed. So if your opponent makes a ‘bullet’ bid over partner's preempt, you can delay its display to your LHO by waiting what you deem to be the proper amount of time, before you act. People who care about their opponents' tempo can purposely delay a fast bid to what they judge to be the proper time, and people who don't care can continue to play as quickly as they used to.

This suggestion doesn't work as well in cardplay - knowing how long each opponent is thinking for each card is AI. Maybe enforcing a minimum of a random 2-4 seconds for each card played before trick 8 is enough.
June 26
Eugene Hung edited this comment June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Shirley Junkin Moorhead flagged by the community for being a bullying, personal attack, and removed. Please remember to keep things civil here.
June 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Giles Hancock now flagged by enough members of the community as political and removed.
June 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Jim Fox flagged by the community as political and removed.
June 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comments by Bobby Levin and Norman Selway flagged by the community for containing personal attacks, and removed. Please remember to keep things civil here.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have received a request from both the person whose hands are analyzed in this post, and the author of this post, to take down the post. We have decided to honor the request and are removing the thread immediately.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given that the person who Peter Fredin insinuated was cheating has now chosen to defend himself in public in the comments below, we have decided to restore his post, along with the accompanying comments, so that our readers have all the proper context. Again, we do not condone this sort of posting in general.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comments by Justin Lall and Ron Lel were removed because enough members of the community deemed they contained personal attacks in violation of our Community Guidelines. In general, if you associate anyone with a trait that people consider negative, don't be surprised if enough people flag it as a personal attack, which causes it to be removed.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comments by Peter Fredin were removed because either they accused a specific, named player of cheating, or could be used to identify the specific player he accused. Bridge Winners is not the place to accuse people of cheating. See:

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bw-policy-on-cheating-allegations/

for a full explanation of what is and what is not tolerated here.

Since this is not Peter Fredin's first offense in this area, his posting rights have been suspended for one month. Subsequent violations of this policy will lead to a permanent suspension of his posting rights.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This will be my only public statement on this matter.

Bridge Winners is not a political forum, but a bridge forum. There are many other forums on the Internet for political discussion. Our general policy is that we will remove posts on any political topic that shows (via flags) that it is dividing our membership. In practice, this is a ban on the mention of all contemporary politicians, because it's our experience that just mentioning them usually results in flags from people who disagree with the judgement of that politician (either positive or negative). If you can't rephrase your argument to avoid discussing a politician's non-bridge-specific actions or policies, then you're likely going to end up offending a significant portion of your audience when you praise or criticize that politician, which leads to removal of your content.

You may not like this policy, but this is the way our community operates. We are not a place for political debate. We are bridge players trying to discuss (in a civil manner) matters of interest to bridge players. User comments mentioning contemporary politicians that are flagged as offensive will be removed, unless those politicians are doing something that _directly_ impacts bridge.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
James - Sounds like you might be surprised at how much cheating increases in a disconnected, online environment, even when people explicitly promise not to cheat.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/10/25/online-students-might-feel-less-accountable-honor-codes
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Sathya Bettadapura flagged by the community as unnecessarily political and removed.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is an article that replicates news posted elsewhere and has been flagged as not contributing materially to the discussion. Removing so that the discussions can take place in one thread for ease of reading.
June 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 63 64 65 66
.

Bottom Home Top