[1eyedjack]

 barmar, on 2014-June-28, 20:47, said:

We haven't changed this. I just tried and it worked.

Is there a limit on allocated storage space?

[barmar]

There's no limit on the amount of saved hands. There's one player who has more than 21,000 hands! But it's only 10MB. I remember when that was a lot of disk space (my first hard drive, about 30 years ago, was either 10 or 20MB), but these day it's nothing. All the saved hands only take up about 250MB.

[1eyedjack]

Minor bug. Possibly reported before. In any case you are probably already aware. Anyway, just in case ...

My screen is divided into quadrants:

Results or who is online, top right.
Last played hand diagram, bottom right
Chat window, bottom left
Everything else, top left.

OK, I can move the chat over to the right by dragging the divider to the bottom of the screen, and that would in fact solve the problem. Except for the fact that I want the chat where it is, bottom left.

The problem is that the top left quadrant has no vertical scroll bar. Some of the windows displayed within it do (ie the news) but the whole quadrant does not.

So, on the main introduction screen, if I want to click on (say) the "Convention Cards" button under "My BBO", and I mean here NOT from the menu bar but from the button in the top left quadrant, the only way that I can get to see the button on which to click is by dragging the chat window divider down. Otherwise it is concealed behind the chat window.

[1eyedjack]

If I play in a tourney and complete the last hand before other tables, then I am unable to chat to tourney, even though chat to tourney is otherwise (ie prior to completion) generally allowed in the tourney settings (and I suspect still available to windows downloaded client players after completion of final hand).

[LisaJB]

I don't think language, location or common friends should be included in compatibility. One of the great things about BBO is playing with people from all over the world. In fact, I preferred finding a table based upon the contracts that people play and how they rate themselves.

[barmar]

 LisaJB, on 2014-September-10, 04:18, said:

I don't think language, location or common friends should be included in compatibility. One of the great things about BBO is playing with people from all over the world. In fact, I preferred finding a table based upon the contracts that people play and how they rate themselves.

No one is forcing you to use compatibility to choose a table to play. If you want to play with diverse people, ignore the compatibility rating. But if you want to play with people you think you'll understand, the compatibility score may be helpful.

[helene_t]

Today I played a tournament (IMP pairs,using the web client). After the first round (three boards), the scores were posted (I don't remember if the tourney was clocked, I think not).

I now clicked on "other tables" for one of the boards. When I clicked back on my own score card, I saw that the one board for which I had been looking at "other tables" now wasn't scored anymore, and the total IMPs for my partnership had been adjusted accordingly, as if that board had not been scored (similar to how it looks when the original score was Ave= and the director subsequently adjusts: the raw score was there but there was no IMP score for that board).

I then tried inspecting "other tables" for one of the other three boards, and again with the result that the IMP for that board disappeared in the "my table" tab. I don't remember if the IMPs were vissible in the "other table" tab, nor do I remember if they came back in the "my table" later in the tourney, although the final result was correct.

[diana_eva]

 helene_t, on 2014-September-10, 14:41, said:

Today I played a tournament (IMP pairs,using the web client). After the first round (three boards), the scores were posted (I don't remember if the tourney was clocked, I think not).

I now clicked on "other tables" for one of the boards. When I clicked back on my own score card, I saw that the one board for which I had been looking at "other tables" now wasn't scored anymore, and the total IMPs for my partnership had been adjusted accordingly, as if that board had not been scored (similar to how it looks when the original score was Ave= and the director subsequently adjusts: the raw score was there but there was no IMP score for that board).

I then tried inspecting "other tables" for one of the other three boards, and again with the result that the IMP for that board disappeared in the "my table" tab. I don't remember if the IMPs were vissible in the "other table" tab, nor do I remember if they came back in the "my table" later in the tourney, although the final result was correct.

That happens when the score is tied. Normally it should show -- but for some reason after clicking Other tables those dashes go away and the score remains blank.

[helene_t]

But the score wasn't tied. One board was about 8 imps gain. The other was a loss

[mgoetze]

I agree with hrothgar, "some people won't complete it" is a poor reason not to have a questionnaire for the compatibility score - make it useful for the people who want to use it, not for those who don't care!

What should the questionnaire look like though? "How would you bid this hand" would probably work well for the average BBO user but what about those of us who can and do play more than one bidding system?

[barmar]

 mgoetze, on 2014-September-13, 17:43, said:

What should the questionnaire look like though? "How would you bid this hand" would probably work well for the average BBO user but what about those of us who can and do play more than one bidding system?

This reminds me of the frequent suggestions to use a quiz to gauge skill level, rather than self-ratings. The idea always runs into the problem that bidding quizzes will be dependent on how well you know the system being used in the quiz, so it will be inherently biased.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good" is an old saying that comes to mind. We're not trying to be the Match.com of bridge, it's just a little hint that may be helpful when looking for pickup pickup partners. It's likely to be more important that you can understand each other when discussing system than that you play exactly the same way.

[RaceZyzy]

One could use a variety of AI learning techniques to have the compatibility system evolve over time. However, this may require more resources than BBO wants to invest. If they are interested in this approach, I have experience developing such systems and would be willing to help.

[falka]

It works very well. thx

[0 carbon]

I agree completely with this. The current "compatibility" is really similarity & has nothing to do with bridge systems in common - which is what i consider "compatibility".

 mink, on 2014-June-06, 16:06, said:

Compatibility for me is composed of several unrelated factors:

0. Friendliness: There is no objective way to measure this, so I would stick to the Friend/Enemy lists. As this is already shown, there is no need to factor it into the compatibility.

1. Completion rate: This should be a factor, even though it is indicated separately.

2. Do we have a language in common? - This would require the possibility for each player to state the languages he is able to use for communication.

3. Knowledge of Bidding systems and conventions: There should be a list of well described bidding systems and conventions somewhere in BBO, and each player should be able to mark each system and convention with "unknown", "known", "used before", or "like". The relative amount of matches should be an important factor for compatibility.

4. Carding: Similar, but shorter list.

5. Declarer play: For each board played as declarer, and for each card played, determine if the player chose the optimal double dummy action or not. Use this to compute a % value "double dummy action chosen". The smaller the absolute value of the difference of this figure is for 2 players, the more compatible they are. I think this should be the most important factor.

6. Defending: same as declarer play, but it should be taken into account if the defenders shared common carding methods or not.

It could even be implemented for each user to assign a weight to factors 1-6.

Factors that should be not used for the compatibility are: Nationality, self-rating, masterpoints, ratio of number of friends/enemies, IP address (as this depends on where I happen to stay currently, or can even be totally meaningless when a satellite connection or a vpn-tunnel is used.)

How often the par contract or better was reached should also not be taken into account, because this is to much dependent on partner and opps.

Having available the %-Values for declarer play and defending might also help to identify cheaters.

Karl