[Geno4B]

I noticed many BBO players don't show any profile...and many (now including me) include a statement in their profile that a partner must have a profile --No Profile, No Play-- kind of statement. It would seem to make some sense(though maybe not practical) for BBO to require a "legitimate" (to be defined) profile before allowing anyone to play on BBO so one's partner and opponents have some idea of what system(s) each player is familiar with and/or uses. Thoughts???

[bd71]

Geno4B, on 2011-September-23, 07:34, said:

I noticed many BBO players don't show any profile...and many (now including me) include a statement in their profile that a partner must have a profile --No Profile, No Play-- kind of statement. It would seem to make some sense(though maybe not practical) for BBO to require a "legitimate" (to be defined) profile before allowing anyone to play on BBO so one's partner and opponents have some idea of what system(s) each player is familiar with and/or uses. Thoughts???

I do not think this is a good idea. While I agree that it's much better if people have profiles, the worst-case scenario if they don't is that you randomly get paired with someone who doesn't, you play one board with them, and you leave. That is close to, if not quite, cost-free.

Weigh that against a new rule and the confusion and controversy that will ensue: many will not be aware of the rule no matter how well it is publicized, people will disagree over what constitutes a "sufficient" profile to pass muster, the new users we shoudl want to attract will be the most likely violators and may never return to BBO after they've been accused of "breaking the rules", etc., etc. Just doesn't make sense to try to put this type of rule in place.

Solution: establish your own rule and don't play with anyone lacking a profile, but don't impose that rule and the resulting chaos on others.

[helene_t]

Hi Geno4B,

welcome to the forum!

I think it would be a good idea to guide new users through some steps where they are encouraged to select options and fill in their profile.

But as for the idea of requiring a profile I will have to agree with bd71 but will add one further thing: most people don't know any formalized system and if you force them to specify which system they play, they will pick some weasel word like "Acol" or "SAYC" which means nothing but may give other players the impression that they do play a system with that name. This already happens to a large extend but mandatory profile info would probably make it worse.

[diana_eva]

If by "profile" you mean system notes, the user profile menu does not include a section specifically designed for this purpose.

People use the field named "Other" to list their favorite conventions and system, but "Other" can be anything they want to add there.

There are Convention Cards for system, so a new rule might be to force everyone to fill in a favorite CC, and if they don't - to have a "default CC" assigned to them automatically. However this would not work out either, because even if there will be a default CC for everyone, people will still play like they do now and disregard it, or maybe not even know it exists. The Express tourneys are an example of how this works in practice.

One step toward the direction you suggest is that the web version has friendlier tools for filling in convention cards and accessing them easily. But people still don't use them ...

If you mean real name, flag, email address or personal data like this I don't think it's likely to happen anytime soon.

[barmar]

Not everyone plays with random partners. Many people on BBO just play with their friends or robots. Why should they be required to have a profile?

[Bernie000]

Bridge language as determined by partners is critical to successful playing. Personally I find it almost useless to play with anyone who does not have a profile.

Now the question is: Should the administrators of the site make it mandatory that all members have a profile?

They have managed quite successfully in having a pop up message if a player is taking too long to play. Something similar should be in place to remind people they need a profile. If the member does not co-operate after receiving said message then their login should be suspended until they do. Is this too harsh?

Your opinion would be appreciated.

[diana_eva]

Bernie000, on 2013-February-24, 01:38, said:

Bridge language as determined by partners is critical to successful playing. Personally I find it almost useless to play with anyone who does not have a profile.

Now the question is: Should the administrators of the site make it mandatory that all members have a profile?

They have managed quite successfully in having a pop up message if a player is taking too long to play. Something similar should be in place to remind people they need a profile. If the member does not co-operate after receiving said message then their login should be suspended until they do. Is this too harsh?

Your opinion would be appreciated.

Hi Bernie,

Welcome to the forums. This suggestion keeps popping up and has been answered several times in the past. Here's another thread for reference:
http://www.bridgebas...ile-be-required

[JLOGIC]

You are not required to play with someone who has no profile.

[helene_t]

There are many sites that require me to provide a phone number, email address, name, comments, memory-aid for password, whatnot. If I don't want to provide that info, I just fill in some random garbage. Forcing people to supply data is a recipe for bad data.

[1eyedjack]

If someone does not display any system information you will not go far wrong to assume that they play a natural system with a strong notrump and 5 card majors.

If you assume that they open weak 2s in suits other than Clubs you will have guessed right well over half the time, and if in doubt you can open 1 with a strong 2 and pass with a weak 2 and no great disaster will befall you. If partner opens 2 you may be able to guess from context again with high hit rate.

If you assume that they play transfers into majors over 1N then you will be right well over half of the time, and in most social games no-one would object to your clarifying the point when it arises.

In short, if you assume that they play Standard American, or Bridge Base Standard which is effectively the same, you will be no worse off than many who put considerable detail in their profile.

And then, what of players who are quite happy to play any of a wide variety of popular methods without a marked preference? If they put in their profiles all the methods that they are prepared to play (hypotheically, because space probably would not permit) how are you any better off than if they put nothing up? You would still have to discuss what you are playing, if you want to have an express agreement.

And what if one partner puts up "RKCB1430" while the other shows "RKCB0314"? I submit that if you are going to attempt to rely on profiles without discussion then you would be more likely to run into problems than a pair of whom only one has expressed a preference, the other blank (who one would assume is capable of playing either way, whatever personal preference, if capable of one).

I generally feel that if you want to force someone to do something, the case for it needs to be compelling, and I have not yet seen a compelling case for compulsory profiles.

[Vampyr]

BBO no doubt has several standard CCs loaded? It might be a good idea for people to just indicate which ones they are prepared to play. And playing a card exactly as written will be a lot less disaster-prone than adhering to a list of one partners pet methods.

This could be made easier -- for instance, perhaps when a player who has not indicated any CCs logs in, a checklist of pre-loaded cards could come up, and the player could, if he wanted, check which ones he is happy to use.

[PhilG007]

Geno4B, on 2011-September-23, 07:34, said:

I noticed many BBO players don't show any profile...and many (now including me) include a statement in their profile that a partner must have a profile --No Profile, No Play-- kind of statement. It would seem to make some sense(though maybe not practical) for BBO to require a "legitimate" (to be defined) profile before allowing anyone to play on BBO so one's partner and opponents have some idea of what system(s) each player is familiar with and/or uses. Thoughts???

I think profiles ahould be mandatory for tournament play. They are complusory in real life tournaments
so why not in on line ones?The Laws of Bridge for Tournaments are quite strict about this,
"Both members of both partnerships must provide clear and accurate information of their
chosen bidding system and this be fully and freely available to the opponents.
Both partners must play the same agreed system. All conventional/cypher
bids/carding methods must be alerted when they are made and explained if opponents request at their turn to bid."

[hrothgar]

PhilG007, on 2013-February-24, 10:43, said:

"Both members of both partnerships must provide clear and accurate information of their
chosen bidding system and this be fully and freely available to the opponents.
Both partners must play the same agreed system. All conventional/cypher
bids/carding methods must be alerted when they are made and explained if opponents request at their turn to bid."

You seem to be assuming that the partnership actually understand their chosen bidding system.

In traditional F2F tournaments, most partnerships will last for 18 or 21 boards (this presumes a fairly short tournament).
Moreover, the participants will typically be drawn from a rather limited geography.

In contrast, online play often consists of 2-3 boards with some random schmoo from who knows where.
Even if said player claims that he plays Bridge World Standard or WJ2005 or what have, the odds that their understanding of said system matches yours is near nil.

[helene_t]

PhilG007, on 2013-February-24, 10:43, said:

I think profiles ahould be mandatory for tournament play. They are complusory in real life tournaments
so why not in on line ones?

Convention cards are mandatory in some tornaments. Or the TD anounces that pairs that don't have a CC will be assumed to play SAYC.

This is sensible. Mandatory profiles are not. Don't confuse profiles with convention cards.