[tsankaR]

When more than 1 person withdraws from a TM, then BBO shows "TM closing. Stand by" and then closes the TM. Why cannot the TM continue with the host finding subs?

[Gerardo]

It is assumed that when there is more than one sitout (which needs people actually withdrawing, as opposed to a disconnection), something is wrong with the match.

Note this also needs the first sitout not to be filled in at the time the second one happens.

[tsankaR]

In that case why close both the tables?
Why not give an option, to the other table, to continue as a normal table [and not as TM]?

[mink]

I see no point to let the other table continue when one of them is closed. However, it would be nice if a table playing is allowed to finish the current board and only cancel the game when a board is finished at one table and there are 2 sitouts at the other table, or if there are sitouts at both tables.

In another thread, I already suggested that withdraws at at table that has not yet started should cause the seat to be open again, and any player looking for a new team game can apply for it, in contrast to sitout where only the host can select a player for the sub list. Players tend to withdraw from a table that has not yet started much easier than from a playing table.

And I also suggested to leave the choice whether to cancel a team game or not to the host or TD (send him a message that suggest the cancellation) and only cancel automatically if no td is online. This can be done by a dialog that contains a "Cancel" and a "Continue" button, and some deadline after which the automatic cancellation takes place if no button it clicked.

Karl

[mink]

I just tried to play in a team match. Found one with a nice host, who chose me as partner. 12 boards. After 6 boards completed with no problems, at each table 1 player did withdraw, and this happened almost simultaneously, so that the host could not do anything to prevent the automatic close. Instead, he started a new team game. While playing board 2, at the other table 2 players did withdraw almost simultaneously, one of the reasons was that partner cannot play bride. Again, the host could not do anything to prevent this. I am really frustrated now, and have stopped to play for some time.

Karl

[barmar]

It seems like our assumptions were wrong -- people seem to withdraw for no good reason more often that we expected.

However, I suspect this is only likely when you play with randoms. Find people you know and arrange team matches with them, and this is unlikely to be a problem.

[mink]

Of course this is not likely to be a problem if I really find 7 players among my friends, but this is not easy, because there are so many opportunities to play (tourney, BBO tourney, main bridge club) or to watch (star players, friends, viewgraph). Most time, most of my friends are busy.

On the other hand, pickup team games work very well most time, and the quality of the players there tends to be much better than at Main Bridge Club tables or in tourneys. Maybe make a survey how many team games are pickup at a given moment of time, and I would not be surprised if it is half of them.

Karl

[scarletv]

 barmar, on 2013-August-10, 00:30, said:

It seems like our assumptions were wrong -- people seem to withdraw for no good reason more often that we expected.

However, I suspect this is only likely when you play with randoms. Find people you know and arrange team matches with them, and this is unlikely to be a problem.

One of the problems is that when one player withdraws very often a second one is withdrawing shortly after. One of the reasons might be he does not want to play with a sub. The host/TD has no chance to rescue the match. He should have at least one minute time to find a sub before automatic cancellation process starts. Maybe two minutes even better.

The new features we got in this area some month ago where exactly aiming for random team matches and I think that is a good direction to go for. You can step in with your partner or even select a random partner. I would very much appreciate if the software would support hosts a bit more and make it more enjoyable for the stayers.

[mink]

It happened again to me. This request seems to have a low priority, and nobody has stated yet that a change has even been considered. I am aware that there must be a priority list for changes. But this automatic abandoning of a teamgame is by far the most annoying software feature I have ever encountered at BBO. It is especially annoying if I am the host and other players maybe blame me for the abortion.

It is obvious that this could be changed fast and easily, at least if you simply increase the threshold of withdrawn players, even though this would not be the optimal solution.

Karl

[uday]

I don't think there are any good answers here. We tweaked it in the recent upgrade earlier this week so that if the game was still forming ( a Teamgame is forming when created by the web client and sitting there waiting to fill up ) a withdrawal isn't a black mark but instead is treated as if the player had never joined.

For a fully formed game, tho, like the one Mink describes, when one player bails, then another....

we could easily eliminate the automatic closure. But we put it in there for a reason - to shut down non-viable team games. it isn't uncommon for me to get messages like this

"Host gone in TG - we need a player"
uday: "ok, you're now the TD"
"I don't know how to replace the player"

or

"Help. the host is gone and we're stuck"


The problem is that at some point - be it two or three or four - we have to give up on the match, I think.

If we bump it up to 3 withdrawals, it will make things difficult for others.


Possible solutions:

a. increase to 3 withdrawals for all ( and send complaints to Mink )
b. allow host to use some sort of hack like a special string in the description to say that his tourney wants a higher limit
c. replace any withdrawn (or disconnected?) players immediately with basic robots so the game can continue

[mgoetze]

But that's a different situation, isn't it, Uday? If the original host is gone, sure, shut the game down. But if two non-host players disappear you could at least give the host an option to keep the match open.

[onoway]

 uday, on 2013-September-15, 08:40, said:

I don't think there are any good answers here. We tweaked it in the recent upgrade earlier this week so that if the game was still forming ( a Teamgame is forming when created by the web client and sitting there waiting to fill up ) a withdrawal isn't a black mark but instead is treated as if the player had never joined.

For a fully formed game, tho, like the one Mink describes, when one player bails, then another....

we could easily eliminate the automatic closure. But we put it in there for a reason - to shut down non-viable team games. it isn't uncommon for me to get messages like this

"Host gone in TG - we need a player"
uday: "ok, you're now the TD"
"I don't know how to replace the player"

or

"Help. the host is gone and we're stuck"


The problem is that at some point - be it two or three or four - we have to give up on the match, I think.

If we bump it up to 3 withdrawals, it will make things difficult for others.


Possible solutions:

a. increase to 3 withdrawals for all ( and send complaints to Mink )
b. allow host to use some sort of hack like a special string in the description to say that his tourney wants a higher limit
c. replace any withdrawn (or disconnected?) players immediately with basic robots so the game can continue

May I suggest a compromise? I was hosting and not playing so BBO may have decided that 2 people had left although only one had. Unless it is the host who has withdrawn ( and how does this work if the host isn't playing in the first place?) then a GIB go in until a sub is found. A lot of people prefer to play with humans, so being able to replace the bots with humans would be a good thing. If a GIB could pop in after a minute, say when the second notice of a player missing used to happen, and then be replaced when a new player was found that should take care of the situation? Would that be difficult to do?

Otherwise, I'd prefer it either to allow for more withdrawals, or at the very least allow more time to find a sub. Please.

[pio_magic]

dug out that old thread since I didn't find a newer one (and found that one throug google and not the forum search engine which sent me to an error page)...

2 team matches just have been closed, for the first one I only saw one player leaving (at least during play) so why close?
The second one may have been canceled by the host (because of a bad first board).

Maybe add withdrawal-percentages and similar statistics...

I know its difficult but it really is frustrating...

P