Help
Is there any reason this cannot be made into a table option?
1) It would make it more convenient/u] to backup and play the same hand for educational purposes
2) A few of us only play robots and the robots play their last trick fast regardless
3) A few of us like to control the rules at [u]our own table as much as reasonable
4) The time truly saved is probably pretty much negligible in most circumstances
Page 1 of 1
automatic play of last trick
#2
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,014
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted Yesterday, 09:42
5. It would cause tables to lock out when someone leaves "early" to stop the next hand from coming out.
6. People bail on the -1700 their partner was clearly the entire fault on (but they had to play) so it doesn't show up in their results.
7. It enables yet-another-dominance-tactic of not playing to trick 13 until I am finished complaining about whatever lunacy partner committed *this time* (or secondarily, rail on what the opponents did that was "totally not fair"/"really suspicious"/"misinformation").
Your points do make sense. In an ideal world, it would be a good option.
With 2, though, pause at 12 if you want to pause. How often do you not know what's going to happen on 13, especially playing with robots?
3. really is the problem; many (not you, I'm sure, but many!) who "like to control the rules" actually "like to control the table". I have written much about the Lords of the Table who are this in face-to-face play; and while my focus is usually on "and as a result, they're slow, and they complain to the director that they shouldn't be being hassled about catching up all the time" (because they really think they are Lords of the Entire Game), that's because I'm a director and usually think in terms of how it affects the entire game. The effects on the other three players at the table are magnified, and shouldn't be ignored.
And the reason this is not only an option, but "default play" is because originally it wasn't, and BBO has years of experience with what happens (deliberately and accidentally) when it doesn't happen.
6. People bail on the -1700 their partner was clearly the entire fault on (but they had to play) so it doesn't show up in their results.
7. It enables yet-another-dominance-tactic of not playing to trick 13 until I am finished complaining about whatever lunacy partner committed *this time* (or secondarily, rail on what the opponents did that was "totally not fair"/"really suspicious"/"misinformation").
Your points do make sense. In an ideal world, it would be a good option.
With 2, though, pause at 12 if you want to pause. How often do you not know what's going to happen on 13, especially playing with robots?
3. really is the problem; many (not you, I'm sure, but many!) who "like to control the rules" actually "like to control the table". I have written much about the Lords of the Table who are this in face-to-face play; and while my focus is usually on "and as a result, they're slow, and they complain to the director that they shouldn't be being hassled about catching up all the time" (because they really think they are Lords of the Entire Game), that's because I'm a director and usually think in terms of how it affects the entire game. The effects on the other three players at the table are magnified, and shouldn't be ignored.
And the reason this is not only an option, but "default play" is because originally it wasn't, and BBO has years of experience with what happens (deliberately and accidentally) when it doesn't happen.
Long live the Republic-k. -- Major General J. Golding Frederick (tSCoSI)
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,700
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted Yesterday, 10:13
I think they could have just imposed it less obtrusively: auto-play after (say) 5 seconds (less for robots) would go un-noticed to almost all players and still avoid your issues 5-6-7.
Page 1 of 1