[bid_em_up]

Fred, in another thread you stated,

Quote

Although it is hard for me to be objective about this, I think it is fair to say that throughout the 5+ year history of BBO:

- Our software has changed and improved more quickly and more dramatically than the software of other online bridge services
- That we are more receptive to suggestions for changes than the companies that run other online bridge services
- That we actually implement a much larger % of suggestions than the companies that run other online bridge services
- That when we refuse to implement what seems like a good suggestion we generally have what we think are good reasons and we try to share these reasons with our members (and that most software companies do not do this)

Even if you buy all of this, if you have been paying attention you will have noticed that it has been several months since we have released a new version of BBO. For most online bridge companies that would not be unusual (most tend to go for several years without any major changes), but for BBO this has been an unusual time.

The reason is that we are working on something entirely new. The existing BBO software has essentially been put "on hold" while we work on this new project. I am sorry about this, but in order to get the new software written in any reasonable time frame, this policy is a practical necessity.

Please keep making suggestions - they all get read. But please do not be disappointed if we don't respond to every suggestion or if the rate of change of the existing BBO software continues to be slow.

I am hopeful that most of you will be happy when you see what we are working on. Sorry that I can't provide any more details now - hopefully the wait won't be too much longer.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

You also stated something to this effect back in mid- March, and I believe even earlier than that as well. Of course, you should realize that if you keep making statements like this, sooner or later, the users will start to get antsy for details.

I think all of us realize (and acknowledge) what a fine job you have done with the current BBO software, even if it is not "perfect" in every possible way. You simply cannot make everybody happy all of the time. Design "flaws" are inherent to any user application design. They aren't really 'flaws", it is simply impossible to forsee what each individual user will consider to be "ideal" for them. You must try to make as many people as happy as possible with one design.

I commend you on your approach when it comes to making decisions regarding software changes in this regard. Your reasons and explanations for making (or not making) changes have always been well explained in the past, and I believe you will continue to do so. The fact that you do take the time to at least explain why you will not be implementing something, at least lets the users know that you at least heard and considered the request and made a decision accordingly, as opposed to the other sites where user requests just went off into never-never land with no response. This is one of the many things that makes BBO the great site that it is.

With all of that said....when can we expect some details? When you alluded to soon in mid-march, I thought we would be hearing something in 3-6 weeks. Now you still say "soon". Is that another 6 weeks, or 6 months?

I don't think anyone needs a detailed and comprehensive list of every individual feature or improvement at this time. But some hints would be nice.

Will the new software allow for the running of a real Swiss team tournament?
Will the new software allow for seeding across sections/tournaments?
Will the new software allow for real accredited ACBL sectional/regional level tournaments to be performed online, instead of just "online-unpigmented" tournaments?
Have any improvements been made to the "cheating" aspects of kibitzing tournaments?
Will it be possible to "record" a vugraph for a pay-per-view later? I would like to have been able to watch most, if not all of the Cavendish. Work precludes that. It would be nice to have an option to pay a small fee to watch it at my convenience later.

Of course, you can still say "I am not prepared to provide any information at this time", and if you do, I am certain that you have your reasons for doing so and I will accept it.

But your "secrecy" now is, at least to me, giving the appearance of being in conflict with the forthcoming nature that BBO has always had with its users in the past. This is starting to concern me, although my concern may be totally unwarranted. It could just be you are too busy at the moment to write up a summary of the new design, and don't wish to do so until its completed. Or you feel that a complete and detailed summary is necessary and don't wish to release details on a piecemeal basis.

However, I will share with you that I was on "friendly" terms with the programmers and adminstrative staff at eBridge. I could make suggestions for the software, and they were usually implemented on a fairly timely basis. At least until such point in time, as they began to have cash flow problems, or got greedy (I am not certain which the real problem was). When they reached this point, the programmers and administrators became less and less responsive to user requests, and less forthright with their users.

Now granted, eBridge was a paid subscription so I had more of a vested interest in how that site was operating. Changes made (or not made) affected my decisions regarding subscription renewals and monies that I had already paid for the current 2 year subscription that I had. I was not thrilled when they sold out to WorldWinner when I had a year and a half remaining on my subscription.

Unfortunately, I am starting to get the same "queasy" feeling regarding your current unwillingness to provide any information as I was when eBridge began its demise, and especially without any explanation of why you are unwilling to offer any details considering the forthrightness we have experienced in the past.

It almost strikes me as if Microsoft/MSN is intending to buy or partner with BBO in some regards. Given Bill Gates' interest in bridge, I do not for one minute believe that he would drop Bridge from MSN games, with no intent to replace or promote the game. I know he is a fan and user of BBO. I would not be surprised if Microsoft programmers or design team(s) are helping you with the redesign before the announcement. I would not be surprised if those same people then become responsible for integrating subsequent changes at a possibly faster rate. I would not be surprised if you are not under some sort of contractual/business agreement where you cannot say anything regarding this.

All of this, of course, is strictly speculation on my part. I really hope that it isn't the case, as I think it would be the beginning of the end for the site as we know it. But lets face it, we are all bridge players at heart, and I am certain you would rather be out at a tournament, than stuck somewhere having to program or listen to drivel like I just typed.

Of course, please feel free to tell me if I am totally off base. Or delete this post if I am too close to being right and the cat can't be let out of the bag yet.

[hrothgar]

bid_em_up, on May 30 2007, 10:19 PM, said:

Will the new software allow for the running of a real Swiss team tournament?

...

Will the new software allow for real accredited ACBL sectional/regional level tournaments to be performed online, instead of just "online-unpigmented" tournaments?

One very quick comment:

Back around the turn of the year, I started making some inquiries about the feasibility of running ACBL accredited KOs on BBO.

I was consider a number of different formats (the primary difference between formats essentially boiled down to scheduling. Would be better to collapse a 32 team field down to one winner over the course of 5 consecutive nights or five consecutive mondays or what have you). I (pretty much) wanted to run a demo project that wouldn't require any coding on the part of BBO. In the short, run everything manually, judge the degree of interest, and then - down the line - use this to make an informed decision regarding making changes to BBO's feature set.

I had a couple quick chats with Uday and some longer ones with folks from the ACBL. My impression is that the main sticking point in implementing a number of these changes is fear on the part of the ACBL that the online game will cannibalize the face to face game.

[bid_em_up]

hrothgar, on May 30 2007, 02:30 PM, said:

I had a couple quick chats with Uday and some longer ones with folks from the ACBL. My impression is that the main sticking point in implementing a number of these changes is fear on the part of the ACBL that the online game will cannibalize the face to face game.

Assuming you mean that by playing in online tournaments that attendance in f2f tournaments would drop, I don't see how this is necessarily a bad thing, at least in terms of revenue to the ACBL. They would not have to be run every week (although they could be), they could be a once or twice a year event.

Even if they were run on a weekly basis, there are lots of people who still wish to play f2f or go on a vacation with bridge as a side excuse. There are also those like myself who are prohibited from attending f2f tournaments due to cost factors and time factors. But I might play in events that were sectionally, regionally, nationally rated from home, if I could. So what you lose on one side (f2f), would most likely be more than offset on the other side (online). Online you would have people available from all over the world, at any given time.

The ACBL and/or districts could gain the extra revenue that is currently spent subsidising f2f tournaments. Hotel costs and the like would be eliminated providing more of the monies generated directly to the components of the ACBL instead of a third party.

However, I do believe that this would be typical thinking on the ACBL's part.

I am not asking for this to be done, however, it was just one of the many thoughts that occured.

[Walddk]

Let me emphasize that Fred did not ask me to "defend" him, but please give the man a break for goodness sake. He just returned from a regional, he will be leaving for the US Trials in a few days (Bermuda Bowl berth at stake).

Why the impatience? This is a free site, remember. There is only so much you can "demand". I am sure Fred will reveal the details when he finds it appropriate.

BBO is great as it is. Enjoy it and let Fred get the time he needs.

Roland

[hrothgar]

Running an ACBL sanctioned Swiss teams event is more complicated than one might think:

My original assumption was that a bridge is a bridge event. If you are running an ACBL sanctioned game (and issuing masterpoints) it really shouldn't matter whether you are running an IMP pair match or a Swiss Teams type event or Knockouts or what have you.

It turns out that the ACBL has a whole set of procedures that club owners use to run pairs events. However, they seem to lack the same well defined process for running teams event. Each and every time a club owner wants to run a teams event they need to ask special permission from Memphis. (Needless to say, Memphis doesn't really like dealing with anything new or different). I was hoping that Memphis might be willing to try an experiment and grant permission to run a series of team events that would issue non-pigmented master points but there didn't seem to be any interest.

One way to side step this whole issue is to get permission to run a regional or a sectional. Apparently, when you get permission to run one of these events automatically get permission to run Teams events associated with the Sectional.

[bid_em_up]

Walddk, on May 30 2007, 02:42 PM, said:

Let me emphasize that Fred did not ask me to "defend" him, but please give the man a break for goodness sake. He just returned from a regional, he will be leaving for the US Trials in a few days (Bermuda Bowl berth at stake).

Why the impatience? This is a free site, remember. There is only so much you can "demand". I am sure Fred will reveal the details when he finds it appropriate.

BBO is great as it is. Enjoy it and let Fred get the time he needs.

Roland

Phuleeezzee, Roland. What impatience? As I stated, it has been quite some time (I think the original statement was about 6 months ago) since this claim of a new software design project was originally made.

I haven't demanded a damn thing. I think I was fairly clear in addressing my concerns, and just as clear in stating that Fred was certainly under no obligation to tell me (or anyone else) anything until he is prepared to do so.

If it is, as Justin states, a completely different project that is consuming the majority of his time (when combined with bridge obligations), then it is completely understandable that Fred may not wish to disclose or announce it yet.

However, I had been left with the impression that the software project was a major redesign of the BBO software. Perhaps mistakenly, but I doubt that I am the only one who interpreted Freds post in this manner.

[jtfanclub]

bid_em_up, on May 30 2007, 02:42 PM, said:

However, I do believe that this would be typical thinking on the ACBL's part.

I think you badly misunderstand the purpose of the ACBL. Asking them to lower their ftf competition attendence while increasing online attendence is like asking a cruise line to lower their cruise attendence by just flying people to their destination. Kinda defeats the point.

As far as the ACBL is concerned, I believe that they support online bridge as long as they think it can INCREASE their ftf tournament attendence (which it probably does right now). Online is a means, not an end.

[bid_em_up]

jtfanclub, on May 30 2007, 03:01 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on May 30 2007, 02:42 PM, said:

However, I do believe that this would be typical thinking on the ACBL's part.

I think you badly misunderstand the purpose of the ACBL. Asking them to lower their ftf competition attendence while increasing online attendence is like asking a cruise line to lower their cruise attendence by just flying people to their destination. Kinda defeats the point.

As far as the ACBL is concerned, I believe that they support online bridge as long as they think it can INCREASE their ftf tournament attendence (which it probably does right now). Online is a means, not an end.

Hilarious, but we can discuss it elsewhere if you wish.

[bid_em_up]

Jlall, on May 30 2007, 02:59 PM, said:

Fred/Uday did claim a major software overhaul a while ago and they delivered, where were you? (joking with the second part not being hostile ).

They changed the whole format of BBO from the old days (though you can still use classic view). Now they are on to a different project for a while. Sorry to speak for them, hopefully they will correct me if anything I say is wrong.

Justin, note the date of the quote below. It is significantly later than the release date of the newest software version. It was this post that led me to believe that Fred was referring to a major rewrite of the BBO software. It does not mean you are not correct, only that I just interpreted this post in a different manner.

fred, on Mar 27 2007, 11:48 AM, said:

Essentially that is correct.

Besides that, fixing this would require changes to both the client and the server and careful consideration of backwards compatibility issues. We are currently spending whatever time we have for development these days working on some new software (hope to announce the release of a prototype before too long).

Shifting gears to work on new versions of the existing software (plus all the subsequent testing and tech support that would be required) would be a giant distraction for us. This is especially true given that we do not like to release new versions to the general membership unless there are substantial improvements or important new functionality. While the change suggested would no doubt be appreciated by many people, it does not come close to being enough to justify a new release for the general membership (and all the ensuing problems that inevitably come from such a release).

I am hopeful that when people see the new software they will find it easier to accept that the rate of improvement of the existing BBO software rates to drop dramatically from what they have become accustomed to during the past several years.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

bid_em_up, on May 30 2007, 07:19 PM, said:

Fred, in another thread you stated,

Quote

Although it is hard for me to be objective about this, I think it is fair to say that throughout the 5+ year history of BBO:

- Our software has changed and improved more quickly and more dramatically than the software of other online bridge services
- That we are more receptive to suggestions for changes than the companies that run other online bridge services
- That we actually implement a much larger % of suggestions than the companies that run other online bridge services
- That when we refuse to implement what seems like a good suggestion we generally have what we think are good reasons and we try to share these reasons with our members (and that most software companies do not do this)

Even if you buy all of this, if you have been paying attention you will have noticed that it has been several months since we have released a new version of BBO. For most online bridge companies that would not be unusual (most tend to go for several years without any major changes), but for BBO this has been an unusual time.

The reason is that we are working on something entirely new. The existing BBO software has essentially been put "on hold" while we work on this new project. I am sorry about this, but in order to get the new software written in any reasonable time frame, this policy is a practical necessity.

Please keep making suggestions - they all get read. But please do not be disappointed if we don't respond to every suggestion or if the rate of change of the existing BBO software continues to be slow.

I am hopeful that most of you will be happy when you see what we are working on. Sorry that I can't provide any more details now - hopefully the wait won't be too much longer.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

You also stated something to this effect back in mid- March, and I believe even earlier than that as well. Of course, you should realize that if you keep making statements like this, sooner or later, the users will start to get antsy for details.

I think all of us realize (and acknowledge) what a fine job you have done with the current BBO software, even if it is not "perfect" in every possible way. You simply cannot make everybody happy all of the time. Design "flaws" are inherent to any user application design. They aren't really 'flaws", it is simply impossible to forsee what each individual user will consider to be "ideal" for them. You must try to make as many people as happy as possible with one design.

I commend you on your approach when it comes to making decisions regarding software changes in this regard. Your reasons and explanations for making (or not making) changes have always been well explained in the past, and I believe you will continue to do so. The fact that you do take the time to at least explain why you will not be implementing something, at least lets the users know that you at least heard and considered the request and made a decision accordingly, as opposed to the other sites where user requests just went off into never-never land with no response. This is one of the many things that makes BBO the great site that it is.

With all of that said....when can we expect some details? When you alluded to soon in mid-march, I thought we would be hearing something in 3-6 weeks. Now you still say "soon". Is that another 6 weeks, or 6 months?

I don't think anyone needs a detailed and comprehensive list of every individual feature or improvement at this time. But some hints would be nice.

Will the new software allow for the running of a real Swiss team tournament?
Will the new software allow for seeding across sections/tournaments?
Will the new software allow for real accredited ACBL sectional/regional level tournaments to be performed online, instead of just "online-unpigmented" tournaments?
Have any improvements been made to the "cheating" aspects of kibitzing tournaments?
Will it be possible to "record" a vugraph for a pay-per-view later? I would like to have been able to watch most, if not all of the Cavendish. Work precludes that. It would be nice to have an option to pay a small fee to watch it at my convenience later.

Of course, you can still say "I am not prepared to provide any information at this time", and if you do, I am certain that you have your reasons for doing so and I will accept it.

But your "secrecy" now is, at least to me, giving the appearance of being in conflict with the forthcoming nature that BBO has always had with its users in the past. This is starting to concern me, although my concern may be totally unwarranted. It could just be you are too busy at the moment to write up a summary of the new design, and don't wish to do so until its completed. Or you feel that a complete and detailed summary is necessary and don't wish to release details on a piecemeal basis.

However, I will share with you that I was on "friendly" terms with the programmers and adminstrative staff at eBridge. I could make suggestions for the software, and they were usually implemented on a fairly timely basis. At least until such point in time, as they began to have cash flow problems, or got greedy (I am not certain which the real problem was). When they reached this point, the programmers and administrators became less and less responsive to user requests, and less forthright with their users.

Now granted, eBridge was a paid subscription so I had more of a vested interest in how that site was operating. Changes made (or not made) affected my decisions regarding subscription renewals and monies that I had already paid for the current 2 year subscription that I had. I was not thrilled when they sold out to WorldWinner when I had a year and a half remaining on my subscription.

Unfortunately, I am starting to get the same "queasy" feeling regarding your current unwillingness to provide any information as I was when eBridge began its demise, and especially without any explanation of why you are unwilling to offer any details considering the forthrightness we have experienced in the past.

It almost strikes me as if Microsoft/MSN is intending to buy or partner with BBO in some regards. Given Bill Gates' interest in bridge, I do not for one minute believe that he would drop Bridge from MSN games, with no intent to replace or promote the game. I know he is a fan and user of BBO. I would not be surprised if Microsoft programmers or design team(s) are helping you with the redesign before the announcement. I would not be surprised if those same people then become responsible for integrating subsequent changes at a possibly faster rate. I would not be surprised if you are not under some sort of contractual/business agreement where you cannot say anything regarding this.

All of this, of course, is strictly speculation on my part. I really hope that it isn't the case, as I think it would be the beginning of the end for the site as we know it. But lets face it, we are all bridge players at heart, and I am certain you would rather be out at a tournament, than stuck somewhere having to program or listen to drivel like I just typed.

Of course, please feel free to tell me if I am totally off base. Or delete this post if I am too close to being right and the cat can't be let out of the bag yet.

You are totally off base as far as Microsoft is concerned. Bill Gates is indeed a BBO member. He is also my friend. Over the years Bill has given me a lot of advice about business and software. He seems to really like the work we do.

But Bill does not get involved in micromanaging small divisons of Micrsoft (like the Zone). Even if he thought it might be smart for Microsoft to try to buy BBO or get involved in some kind of joint venture with us (I have no idea if has even thought about this), it would not be his style to order the managers who run the Zone to make this happen.

And even if I wanted something like this to happen (I am not saying whether I would or not) it is not my style to ask my friend Bill for a "favor" like this.

The reason I don't want to provide a lot of details as to what we are working on is purely a matter of business strategy. Probably it would turn out not to matter if I never mention anything at all, if I drop hints from time to time (as I have been doing), or if the entire plan was out in the open. I am not sure if I can rationalize this (and I am not going to even try), but it just seems right to keep a relatively tight lid on our plans until we are ready for our first beta release.

We have actually been more or less ready to release something for a couple of months now. We almost did that in March, but decided it would be better to wait until some additional functionality was ready. My travel/bridge schedule has been heavier than usual since that time and this will continue for another few weeks. Some personal/business issues have also slowed things down, but overall things are moving along well.

Uday and I have a pretty clear idea of when we want to tell the world about what we are doing, but it entirely possible that we will either change our minds (again) or that some technical issue will arise that will make it necessary for us to delay things. So I don't want to announce exactly when we are hoping to release a beta.

As for what we are planning exactly, it is a much "bigger picture" thing than introducing new features like knockout teams (for example). In particular, the current BBO design suffers from the following serious problems that we are hoping to address:

1) There are millions of bridge players out there (seriously) who can't deal with the process of downloading and installing our software, configuring their firewalls, etc. If these people are even able to get to the point that they can log in for the first time (many are not), the software itself overwhelms a lot of them and they never get to the point that they can actually play bridge.

2) The current basic architecture is not sustainable in the long term for a variety of reasons.

Sorry if my earlier posts made you nervous. Please relax. We are not about to turn BBO into a pay site or get absorbed by a giant company or anything like that.

We are just doing what we always do - writing bridge software. I personally think this new software will be great, but I don't want to share the details until we are ready to show the general public the software itself. Perhaps this is unnecessary or even foolish, but that's just the way it is.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Walddk]

Jlall, on May 30 2007, 10:21 PM, said:

The quote from Fred is from 2 months ago. I don't think it's unreasonable for nothing to happen for 2 months, especially given that Fred says something else is happening.

That's exactly why I used the word "impatience". bid em up is impatient in my opinion. That is not necessarily bad, but I would just let things take the time they require.

"Of course, you should realize that if you keep making statements like this, sooner or later, the users will start to get antsy for details "

A quote from bid em up's initial post. That's why I used "demand" (quotation marks, mind you). I am not antsy, Justin is not antsy either. bid em up is perhaps antsy, but that should not put any pressure on Fred.

Roland

[bid_em_up]

Walddk, on May 30 2007, 03:36 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 30 2007, 10:21 PM, said:

The quote from Fred is from 2 months ago. I don't think it's unreasonable for nothing to happen for 2 months, especially given that Fred says something else is happening.

That's exactly why I used the word "impatience". bid em up is impatient in my opinion. That is not necessarily bad, but I would just let things take the time they require.

"Of course, you should realize that if you keep making statements like this, sooner or later, the users will start to get antsy for details "

A quote from bid em up's initial post. That's why I used "demand" (quotation marks, mind you). I am not antsy, Justin is not antsy either. bid em up is perhaps antsy, but that should not put any pressure on Fred.

Roland

This is absolute nonsense. Sorry. And as the saying goes, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one, and most of them stink.

I am fairly certain that original reference to a revised/rewritten version of the software statement was made almost 6 months ago, I just can't find the specific quote. Two months is a reasonable amount of time to wait before asking a further question. Impatience is asking the same day or the next or the next week, not two months later.

And the only reason I asked it, was because two months ago, we (I) were told "soon". In another post today, Freds response again indicated "soon".

I was simply asking for a clarification of when "soon" might be. And I said, "users" (not me) might get antsy.....

Try reading and comprehending next time instead of automatically assuming there is some "sinister" motive behind my questions. I will leave it at that, cause the rest of what I want to say will get me banned.

[Walddk]

bid_em_up, on May 30 2007, 09:19 PM, said:

You also stated something to this effect back in mid- March, and I believe even earlier than that as well. Of course, you should realize that if you keep making statements like this, sooner or later, the users will start to get antsy for details.

Where exactly did you use might? I read it as "will". And if the opposite of antsy is relaxed, I suggest that you relax.

Roland

[bid_em_up]

fred, on May 30 2007, 03:34 PM, said:

You are totally off base as far as Microsoft is concerned. Bill Gates is indeed a BBO member. He is also my friend. Over the years Bill has given me a lot of advice about business and software. He seems to really like the work we do.

But Bill does not get involved in micromanaging small divisons of Micrsoft (like the Zone). Even if he thought it might be smart for Microsoft to try to buy BBO or get involved in some kind of joint venture with us (I have no idea if has even thought about this), it would not be his style to order the managers who run the Zone to make this happen.

And even if I wanted something like this to happen (I am not saying whether I would or not) it is not my style to ask my friend Bill for a "favor" like this.

Thank you for your response. It certainly clarifies some issues. At least now we know that it is a complete rewrite of the current BBO software, and is detailed enough to prevent any changes being made to the current version of BBO. If I am reading your replies correctly, you are stating that once this new version is released on a wide basis, subsequent enhancement request (when approved) are likely to be implemented quickly. Am I reading that right?

I apologize. I did not mean to infer that you would ask Mr. Gates to do this as a favor to a friend. (I don't think I did).

But from a business and personal perspective, I simply believe that if he is serious about promoting the game of bridge, then either buying or supporting BBO for his site would be a logical alternative than trying to implement his (meaning Microsofts) own version of bridge software. Why reinvent when the best already exists?

This is the only reason the possibility existed in my mind. Sorry if you took it differently.

Again, thanks for your response, and hopefully we will hear something "soon" about the new version.

[bid_em_up]

Walddk, on May 30 2007, 04:11 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on May 30 2007, 09:19 PM, said:

You also stated something to this effect back in mid- March, and I believe even earlier than that as well.  Of course, you should realize that if you keep making statements like this, sooner or later, the users will start to get antsy for details. 

Where exactly did you use might? I read it as "will". And if the opposite of antsy is relaxed, I suggest that you relax.

Roland

"Users will start to get antsy for details.. "

Sorry Roland, I am a good ole southern boy. When I use the word antsy, I mean it as in, you keep telling me this and telling me this, but when am I going to find something out. Now you can call this impatience all you want to, but to me, waiting two months from the original statement before questioning it again, when "soon" is said again, is not impatience to me. It is simply asking for a clarification.

I have that now, from Fred, the person that was originally being addressed. But thank you for your valued input. It was worth what I paid for it.

[mgoetze]

fred, on May 30 2007, 09:34 PM, said:

As for what we are planning exactly, it is a much "bigger picture" thing than introducing new features like knockout teams (for example). In particular, the current BBO design suffers from the following serious problems that we are hoping to address:

1) There are millions of bridge players out there (seriously) who can't deal with the process of downloading and installing our software, configuring their firewalls, etc. If these people are even able to get to the point that they can log in for the first time (many are not), the software itself overwhelms a lot of them and they never get to the point that they can actually play bridge.

Sounds rather like there's a web interface in the works. I personally prefer a dedicated client for this sort of thing, but having only a Windows client sucks, of course. So I hope that quite a bit of regard will be given to standards and compatibility. If it works with Firefox, IE, Opera and Safari, I will be happy. If it also works with Galeon, Epiphany, Konqueror, Camino and OmniWeb, I will be impressed.

But if it only works with IE 7.0 and/or Flash, I will be sorely disappointed.

[Mike_P]

mgoetze, on May 31 2007, 06:13 AM, said:

Sounds rather like there's a web interface in the works. I personally prefer a dedicated client for this sort of thing, but having only a Windows client sucks, of course. So I hope that quite a bit of regard will be given to standards and compatibility. If it works with Firefox, IE, Opera and Safari, I will be happy. If it also works with Galeon, Epiphany, Konqueror, Camino and OmniWeb, I will be impressed.

But if it only works with IE 7.0 and/or Flash, I will be sorely disappointed

Agreed. Maybe this can be a portal into BBO for the PDA/Smartphone folks. As a Treo/Palm user my browser is Blazer but can run Opera. But don't need no steenkin' Java.