[thie]

While in general I applaud the new policy with regard to booting and bailing, there is one exception: When I am playing with 3 bots it happens on a fairly regular basis that my bot pard screws up the (typically slam) bidding (strangely enough this seems to happen more frequently to our side than to the bot opps, or could this be psychological, hmm). Anyway, when that happens there is an easy way out, to avoid having insult added to the injury incurred, just abondon the table and restart. I am quite sure that the bots don't mind a bit, plus what is more important of course, if the table is on IMP scoring the field score is not screwed up.
So what is the deal here, does bailing a table with bots 'count' in terms of application of this new policy or not?

[Elianna]

thie, on Sep 6 2005, 12:32 AM, said:

While in general I applaud the new policy with regard to booting and bailing, there is one exception: When I am playing with 3 bots it happens on a fairly regular basis that my bot pard screws up the (typically slam) bidding (strangely enough this seems to happen more frequently to our side than to the bot opps, or could this be psychological, hmm). Anyway, when that happens there is an easy way out, to avoid having insult added to the injury incurred, just abondon the table and restart. I am quite sure that the bots don't mind a bit, plus what is more important of course, if the table is on IMP scoring the field score is not screwed up.
So what is the deal here, does bailing a table with bots 'count' in terms of application of this new policy or not?

Can't you just request a redeal? (That used to work with the bots, but maybe it was only in certain types of tables (I know I've only tried them out in rubber bridge--too scared of messing with the field).)

[shoeless]

You don't have to bail from the table - just hit redeal before hand is finished and no result is logged. The real issue is that many people play against/with the bots and dont consider the implications for field so allow bizarre results to come to fruition. My concern with this concern is that having played several hundreds hands with bots only - can safely say I don't think on average those hands skew the comparisons very much more than a weak pair might in the field or a psycho bidder (and we all know they are out there). I think this is getting overcooked. However, just in case,I select total points scoring anyway - as requested by the powers that be - 'go along to get along' - like holy cow - I really care about getting IMPs or MP results when playing with bots? NOT!!

[thie]

The redeal button is disabled when you have selected 'duplicate IMPs', the way of scoring that happens to be the default and also the one I like best. I know about the requests to NOT use IMP scoring when playing with the bots, however I think shoeless is right in claiming that it does not affect the field scoring as long as the humans at the table do not fool around, which I for one don't.
I guess the simplest way of fixing this would be if the redeal button is just enabled for all types of scoring (can someone explain why this is not the case in the first place, this also goes for the undo button).

[sceptic]

I do not like the thought of being suspended for booting players.

I have booted players for the following reasons.

unreasonable length of delay and no answer from them, despite efforts to contact them. (NO red dot) I am not talking about delays when the first card has been laid on the table and they could be thinking.

rudeness. (I do not see why I should leave my own table to play elsewhere when the other two players may be nice) I prefer to boot the offender and IMHO I think as host I should have that right.

I have also booted people, when I have asked them to leave the table to allow someones partner to join, when I have specifically stated that we need the seat when someones reg pard arrives.

I have booted red dotted players also (how long should we be expected to wait) ?

I have booted players that have said BRB and taken ages (an unreasonable length of time to wait, IMHO)


I agree with your policy of suspension of table hoppers mid hand (I like that a lot)

[inquiry]

sceptic, on Sep 6 2005, 06:42 AM, said:

I do not like the thought of being suspended for booting players.

I have booted players for the following reasons.

unreasonable length of delay and no answer from them, despite efforts to contact them. (NO red dot) I am not talking about delays when the first card has been laid on the table and they could be thinking.

rudeness. (I do not see why I should leave my own table to play elsewhere when the other two players may be nice) I prefer to boot the offender and IMHO I think as host I should have that right.

I have also booted people, when I have asked them to leave the table to allow someones partner to join, when I have specifically stated that we need the seat when someones reg pard arrives.

I have booted red dotted players also (how long should we be expected to wait) ?

I have booted players that have said BRB and taken ages (an unreasonable length of time to wait, IMHO)


I agree with your policy of suspension of table hoppers mid hand (I like that a lot).

Just so we are clear, you will not be in trouble is you occassionally boot someone (or abandon a table in mid-play).... the wording was...

"Players who lean on the BOOT key or who casually abandon hand after hand."

This means if you boot someone today, and maybe two people next Thursday, you will be ok. If we thought booting was always bad, the boot key would be removed. There are people who boot 10 to 20 people a day. They will now be dealt with. I am not privy to the what will trip the software for booting too frequently but I am sure whatever it is, it is adjustable.That is, if it bans too many members, it will be adjusted to ban fewer, if it isn't catching enough and ABUSE is still overwhelmed with people booting too often, it will be adjusted to catch more.

For table jumpers, the penalty will be more immediate and sensitive. So, please try to finish hands you start. :-) My feeling is that this will, and should, apply to those playing in IMP games and MP Games with BOTS. Why, when the BOTs don't CARE? Because we have people who will bail on every trick 12 if they think they are getting a bad result. They will doulbe and redouble every contract and leap to slam or grand slam on every hand that they even sniff a chance it might make. Turns out it doesn't make? Wipe slate clean and start again. The problem with this (the bots dont' care) is that the players at the OTHER TABLES DO CARE. If you only allow your "good scores" to be entered into the mix, you are hurting every other player who play "honest". The time will come, shortly I believe, where main room results using bots will be compared only with main room results with BOTS. But even then, the same rules should (imo) apply. If you want to just have fun with the bots, feel free to play at a teaching table, or at total points. You can do whatever you want there.. redeal, jump out jump back in, open 7NT every hand. we don't care. But when the results are compared to other tables, we most definetly do care.

[pigpenz]

how about applying to people who bail on tournaments
When I have run individuals especially people bail all the time and that is what is the biggest waste of a td's time getting people to fill in for people who bail in the middle of a tourney.

[inquiry]

pigpenz, on Sep 6 2005, 09:58 AM, said:

how about applying to people who bail on tournaments
When I have run individuals especially people bail all the time and that is what is the biggest waste of a td's time getting people to fill in for people who bail in the middle of a tourney.

Autobail for tourneys is around a year old... if someone bails on too many tourneys, they are automatically banned from future tourneys for 1 week. This works well....

[fred]

thie, on Sep 6 2005, 07:32 AM, said:

While in general I applaud the new policy with regard to booting and bailing, there is one exception: When I am playing with 3 bots it happens on a fairly regular basis that my bot pard screws up the (typically slam) bidding (strangely enough this seems to happen more frequently to our side than to the bot opps, or could this be psychological, hmm). Anyway, when that happens there is an easy way out, to avoid having insult added to the injury incurred, just abondon the table and restart. I am quite sure that the bots don't mind a bit, plus what is more important of course, if the table is on IMP scoring the field score is not screwed up.
So what is the deal here, does bailing a table with bots 'count' in terms of application of this new policy or not?

It is clear from your post that your intentions are honorable and that you care about fair play, but I don't think your practice of leaving a table in the middle of a hand is really fair to the rest of the field.

Of course you are right that the GIBs don't mind, but you could use this practice to ensure that only results that you want to count are actually counted. The people at the other tables who play the same hands as you have a right to compare their scores with your bad results too, not only with your good results.

That is the reason we disabled the REDEAL button at duplicate tables with 3 GIBs (or with 2 GIBs playing as partners). By leaving the table in the middle of a hand you are attempting to circumvent the inability to redeal.

So, in my opinion, it is right for the software to track people who leave tables in the middle of a hand even when the other players at the table are GIBs.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Al_U_Card]

As much as I like anarchy (the freedom to proceed without artificial rules and impediments) this is a good thing. Only ignoramuses (they do not know the implications of their actions) miscreants and low-lifes would spoil this fine site and game with their antics.

A philosophy of always complying with a reasonable request can only be good. Kudos to Fred and the gang for taking this action to allow us a better estimate of our efforts as well as improving, even more, the pleasure that we get from this site.

[thie]

fred, on Sep 6 2005, 09:31 AM, said:

Of course you are right that the GIBs don't mind, but you could use this practice to ensure that only results that you want to count are actually counted. The people at the other tables who play the same hands as you have a right to compare their scores with your bad results too, not only with your good results.

OK, I can appreciate your argument, if there are actually people out there - and you seem to think there are - who are trying to polish up their obviously microscopic self-esteem by employing these methods, I can only pity them.
It probably does not happen often enough for me to get bitten by the new policy anyway as ben explained.
I guess for me it is more psychological / frustration with the bidding and playing skills of the GIBs than anything else: here I am playing with this bot, whose behaviour I cannot influence, we bid to what I think is a very nice contract in which I will be declarer, but now instead of passing he (she?) has the impertinence to make another bid causing us to stumble into a completely unmakeable contract and convicting me to be dummy.
Now with the new policy I have to remain seated and watch the entire painfull process of my bot friend miserably failing to make the contract - and of course the contract I had in mind would have been just about perfect - while all them bots are burning MY cpu cycles. And of course his/her bot brother/sister opps get the credit. It just feels like a small cyber conspiracy on my account.
Also it is a minor pain in the neck that I just cannot undo my misclicks but maybe that is what I deserve for not cleaning my mouse on a more regular basis.
I guess I have to live with all of this or pick another type of scoring.

[Rain]

If you don't like what your table of bots are doing, close the table and start another one. Why leave and have it logged as a bail? ;--)

If a bot is stuck, and you boot it (frequently occuring bug ime), this doesn't count as a boot.

In general, just try your best to do the right thing and you won't be affected by any action taken...

[DrTodd13]

What is the cause of the initiation of this booting policy? Are people really capriciously kicking people for no reason? It is a private site and you can set whatever rules you like but I think a table host should have wide latitude to have the type of table he likes. Why should someone have to be stuck at a miserable table just because somebody they don't know sits down and then starts causing trouble. Just one day last week I had to kick several people because they saw the table note which requested "experts+" and so they changed their skill level to world class then joined the table and then they play like crap and I look at their stats and it now says novice. Also had to kick some people for open accusations of misconduct. Personally, I'd rather see an automated reputation system tried (ala E-Bay) before we go down the road to an authoritarian solution.

[uday]

Yesterday:

822 people chose to use the BOOT function. The average # of times the BOOT was used was 1.43, with std. dev 1.18

20 users had boots in the range that would get them suspended.. The number of boots are 20,12,8,7,7,7,7,6,6,6 ; the remaining 10 booted 5 times.

When people get booted, they get angry; they curse, they complain. (None of this happens when the person is booted bec. he has a network problem)

Yes, people are kicking people for insufficient reason.


Similarly, bail data shows excessive bailing (my judgement) i will post more detailed stats when i have a min.


Agree that ideally the system would present a more comprehensive picture of each player to each other.

[Elianna]

uday, on Sep 6 2005, 10:07 AM, said:

Yesterday:

822 people chose to use the BOOT function. The average # of times the BOOT was used was 1.43, with std. dev 1.18

20 users had boots in the range that would get them suspended.. The number of boots are 20,12,8,7,7,7,7,6,6,6 ; the remaining 10 booted 5 times.

When people get booted, they get angry; they curse, they complain. (None of this happens when the person is booted bec. he has a network problem)

Yes, people are kicking people for insufficient reason.


Similarly, bail data shows excessive bailing (my judgement) i will post more detailed stats when i have a min.


Agree that ideally the system would present a more comprehensive picture of each player to each other.

Do you keep statistics on booting by the player being booted?

For example, if Player X gets booted 20 times, that may also be a problem.

(I do agree that no one should have to boot 10+ players in one day.)

[fred]

DrTodd13, on Sep 6 2005, 04:53 PM, said:

What is the cause of the initiation of this booting policy?  Are people really capriciously kicking people for no reason?  It is a private site and you can set whatever rules you like but I think a table host should have wide latitude to have the type of table he likes.  Why should someone have to be stuck at a miserable table just because somebody they don't know sits down and then starts causing trouble.  Just one day last week I had to kick several people because they saw the table note which requested "experts+" and so they changed their skill level to world class then joined the table and then they play like crap and I look at their stats and it now says novice.  Also had to kick some people for open accusations of misconduct.  Personally, I'd rather see an automated reputation system tried (ala E-Bay) before we go down the road to an authoritarian solution.

Some people frequently boot partners in the middle of a hand (if they don't like way the bidding sounds for example). That is what we are trying to stop. We understand that there are legitimate reasons booting people. We have to define a threshold for how much booting is acceptable, and I suspect we will err on the side of caution.

If you follow the rules you will have to be very very unlucky with the people who sit at your table in order to get into trouble.

According to the rules, an "expert" is someone who has enjoyed success in major national tournaments. When I wrote the definitions, I imagined a person who had, say, come 6th in the Life Master Pairs (one of the premier yearly events in America). I am sure there are 1000s of these people in our membership, but to expect to get 4 of them to randomly sit down without waiting a long time (especially if you add the "+" qualifier to "expert") is asking a lot.

There are many non-experts who think they are experts as well as many who know that they are not but intentionally overrate themselves. It is not up to you (or anyone else) to pass judgment against these people by violating our rules concerning the use of the boot function.

How would you feel if you sat down at an "expert + only" table and the host booted you because he thought you were a terrible player? Assume the host is some well known BBO player with a reputation for being "real expert ++". Wouldn't that bother you? If no, could you imagine how it might upset some of our other members?

I realize that the underlying problem is the abuse of self-ratings, but abusing the boot facility is not an acceptable way to deal with it.

If everyone followed the rules (which I admit is unlikely ever to happen), I would expect the distribution of skill levels to be something like this:

1% World Class
5% Expert
20% Advanced
40% Intermediate
20% Beginner
14% Novice

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Al_U_Card]

Pehaps it is at fault, but only from the getting similar players together and not from the stopping crazies from playing with anybody. Personally, I have won an open regional event and consider myself a "good" club player. I rate myself "expert" in the hopes of finding good playing pards.

When you had a ratings site, I was rated Advanced with the occasional foray into Intermediate or Expert ratings. My imp score over a month tends to float around +.5 Imps for 100 hands or so. The differences caused by playing against or with crazies (or rank beginners etc.) tends to even out as I politely leave the table when appropriate. I, too, have been unceremoniously booted by an expert who didn't like my bid or play......

An automatic rating (scoring) method certainly would seem to be a means of reducing the incidences of unhappiness at the table.

[fred]

Al_U_Card, on Sep 6 2005, 06:19 PM, said:

An automatic rating (scoring) method certainly would seem to be a means of reducing the incidences of unhappiness at the table.

It would change the nature of these incidents, but it is hard to know how it would effect the number and severity of such incidents.

Automatic ratings systems give people a whole new set of excuses to be rude to each other.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Al_U_Card]

lol, like we need another reason......

[EarlPurple]

The original post though was talking about booting bots, not people. I have been booting them in games with me vs 3 bots because I never thought there was any harm in it - it felt like a private game to me, I even hid the table. I didn't even know the scores were going in for comparison, and there was certainly nothing contrived in the scores - they were all achieved with normal bidding, play and defence with no player attempting to throw a bad result.

And if you're so concerned about the scores for other people, what about a pair who sit at a table with 2 bots, lock the table from kibs and then tell each other what they have, i.e. cheating against the bots, so they will always get good scores? Maybe they are sitting for bidding practice, so they don't even want to play out the hands, particularly if it's gone wrong.

Perhaps you should give warnings to players who are booting, and suggest they play in practise mode (I think it exists) whereby they get comparisons but their scores don't count on the travellers so effectively you can do what you like / skip hands at the end of the bidding or undo and boot bots without getting into any trouble. This should continue to be the case even after the bots are no longer free.