[pran]

pran, on 2019-December-25, 03:06, said:

We have an (unwritten) "law" among directors that the Director shall never directly be involved in actually playing the cards for a player, his job is to judge the play suggested by the player.
The same rule should apply to any computerized bridge-law.

pescetom, on 2019-December-26, 05:50, said:

Under this proposal the Director is not even involved in play-out situations, let alone involved in the actual play. Note that the player when he hit the "trivial play" button wilfully chose to surrender his right to play further and entrusted the system do to so on the basis that the remaining play was trivial and time wasting. This is of course different from current Law, but not I think in contradiction with it's spirit or objectives. Claims were born to save time by eliminating pointless playing out, not to showcase Declarer's analytical skills, to take advantage of trustful opponents or to create interesting dilemmas for Directors.

That would be perfectly OK and in accordance with the (current) laws if the algorithm (as shall the Director) in any case of reasonable doubt chooses the alternative least favourable to the claimer.

[stanmaz]

hrothgar, on 2019-December-19, 10:29, said:

Sorry if this is a silly question, but I was reading some stuff on github and ran across the following:



What if the meaning of my bids change by seat?

For example, a 2♠ opening in first seat means foo, but a 2!S opening in 4th seat means bar?
Is this supported?

New version has been released resolving the problem of seat dependent openings. Example of MOSCITO code for 1D and 2S openings :

Default code for all seats
, 1D, 9-14 HCP; 4+ hearts
, 2S, weak twosuiter (Muiderberg)
overriden by 3rd seat code
---- , 1D, 10-16 HCP; 11-13 balanced OR a Precision 1D
---- , 2S, 6-10 HCP in third position (fivecard possible)
and by 4th seat code
------, 1D, 10-16 HCP; 11-13 balanced OR a Precision 1D
------, 2S, 10-12 HCP with sixcard in fourth position

Other new features :
- wildcards in the bidding context
- Alt-key shortcuts
- on-the-fly selectable optional code blocks for defensive bidding depending on conventions used by opponents
- support for touch screen

[pescetom]

This Bridgewinners discussion stirs debate about the possible strategies of time management in bridge. A lot of the discussion is dedicated to face to face bridge but the OP and some other posters discuss the way ahead for online bridge too. In particular, if you scroll down far enough you will find the post that I quote below (sure Peter won't mind) - an appropriate reminder that all this is already feasible and just waiting to be wisely regulated.

Peter Talyigas on Bridgewinners said:

Hi all,

The participants of the Hungarian top championships have not met this problem for more than a year.

Many of you already know that in Hungary we have played every major events on tablets with the LoveBridge system since the fall of 2018.

We measure everything what you need, we provide extremely detailed statistics, and we literally erased every issue regarding slow play.

More than just that. The TD can set a certain timeframe in the system (say 2 or 3 minutes) and the system automatically bans the next board if you don’t finish the previous board(s) in time. (Of course you can switch this feature off if you don’t like it.)

I have to share, that among the many statistics we already have (check https://stats.lovebridge.com/ ), the very first one was about the speed of the players. The two data was very simple: average time needed for the next bid, average time needed for a card to be played. Everyone received their own data confidentially. Of course we had our slow pairs. We all knew them. But when those pairs who frequently could not finish in time, and were not allowed to play the second board, finally understood that this is because of them: they ALL started to play faster. This is easy: you measure reliably, give consequent feedback and you get great improvement.

When the system takes a board away, the TD is automatically called. TDs arriving to the table, get all the data on their own tablets: showing the consumed time by NS and EW. TD can see whether the players finished the previous round in time, whether they arrived to the table in time, whether the table itself was free or not and if not, how long was the delay (at each of the previous questions). Having all these data TDs have no problem to decide who to penalize.

(Just to mention: it is not only about slow play, but the proof of the BIT is also there, perfectly.)