Play on PlayOK?

[James Dow Allen]

I played duplicate bridge very seriously 40-plus years ago but took a
LONG break. :-) But lately I've been playing at PlayOK.com. (I went
there for Go and Backgammon but eventually tried my hand at Bridge.)
However the bidding there is unbelievable.

Very few seem aware of takeout doubles. When I double an opening bid,
partner passes. When they double my opener they have five trumps.

Most outrageous of all was partner who held this hand:

-
Qx
AKJTx
AKQ9xx

In 2nd chair he opens 4C and writes "aces" in the chat box lest I be in
doubt -- this is opening Gerber! I responded 4H (one Ace), and now, not
even knowing if my Ace matches his void or not, he rebids 4S (his void),
but doesn't write "Kings" in the chat box.

I take full blame for this tragedy. Partner would have stabbed at 6C
(good result) or 5C (poor result) but playing 4 Spades was a disaster!

I was pretty good when I played long ago (made Life Master in two years)
and bidding was the best part of my game -- but only when playing a
system I understand.

I like the simple PlayOK interface; there are no fees or annoying ads or
anything like that. If anyone here cares to e-mail me their PlayOK
username and partner me from time to time I'll be very grateful.

James

[france...@googlemail.com]

If you want to play online at all seriously, the majority of online people play at bridgebase (www.bridgebase.com).

[James Dow Allen]

france...@googlemail.com might have writ, in news:c5d1d01e-cff9-4117-
aee0-6be...@googlegroups.com:

> If you want to play online at all seriously, the majority of online
people play at bridgebase (www.bridgebase.com).

I tried this site repeatedly, but could never get past an error message.
"Loading": or "Connection Lost."
Is it my location? (Thailand). That I have Ads or Java disabled?

From what little BridgeBase has let me see of their interface, I like
PlayOK's simple crisp approach better. Just wish I had a regular partner
or two there that had heard of takeout doubles, etc.

James

[Player]

I live in Lao and play on BBO. I have many friends and acquaintances who live in Thailand and play there. I suggest you try the old client rather than the horrible web based one.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <3ICtz.149463$yB.5...@fx37.am4>,
Brian <usenet...@meadows.pair.com> wrote:

>The problem with that is that BBO won't let new subscribers use the
>old client. I think you have to have been a member for three years to
>use the old one, but that's from memory, I've not checked.

It's not that per se, though the effect is the same. To be nitpickingly
precise about it, the problem is that IDs created after a certain date do
not work in the Windows client version.

It's weird - that they chose this method of implementation. Why not just
make the Windows client stop working completely? Just odd (to do it this
way), but good, since, obviously, the new version sucks. But why force
some people to use it but not everyone? Again, just weird...

>I share your opinion of the web client.

As do most people.

--
The plural of "anecdote" is _not_ "data".

[James Dow Allen]

gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) might have writ, in
news:np778e$o3g$1...@news.xmission.com:

> In article <3ICtz.149463$yB.5...@fx37.am4>,

>>I share your opinion of the web client.
>
> As do most people.
>

As I say, the web client, good or bad, won't load for me.

The PlayOK interface is very simple, smooth, elegant -- I like it.

Most of the PlayOK players are from Poland, Turkey or Bulgaria. They
mostly play "Nat-C." I'd be willing to get used to that system, but even
the higher-rated players are often inept at bidding. When I see "(en)"
(English) next to a player's name I get excited: "Do you play Acol or Std
American?" But often the "(en)" players also play Nat-c. :-(

James

[Barry Margolin]

In article <XnsA669AB288E3...@178.63.61.175>,

James Dow Allen <gm...@jamesdowallen.nospam> wrote:

> france...@googlemail.com might have writ, in news:c5d1d01e-cff9-4117-
> aee0-6be...@googlegroups.com:
> > If you want to play online at all seriously, the majority of online
> people play at bridgebase (www.bridgebase.com).
>
>
> I tried this site repeatedly, but could never get past an error message.
> "Loading": or "Connection Lost."
> Is it my location? (Thailand). That I have Ads or Java disabled?

Ad blocking shouldn't be a problem. It doesn't use Java, but it does
require JavaScript and Flash.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[Barry Margolin]

In article <np778e$o3g$1...@news.xmission.com>,

gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

> In article <3ICtz.149463$yB.5...@fx37.am4>,
> Brian <usenet...@meadows.pair.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 03:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Player
> ><ronfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I live in Lao and play on BBO. I have many friends and acquaintances who
> >>live in Thailand and play there. I suggest you try the old client rather
> >>than the horrible web based one.
> >
> >The problem with that is that BBO won't let new subscribers use the
> >old client. I think you have to have been a member for three years to
> >use the old one, but that's from memory, I've not checked.
>
> It's not that per se, though the effect is the same. To be nitpickingly
> precise about it, the problem is that IDs created after a certain date do
> not work in the Windows client version.
>
> It's weird - that they chose this method of implementation. Why not just

Because we still have thousands of users using it and they don't want to
switch. We didn't want to alienate them.

But new users don't have old habits, so forcing them to use the new
version isn't forcing them to switch.

Also, you still have to use the old version to be a Vugraph operator, as
we haven't added that feature to the new version yet.

[Player]

"WE". If you are involved at all please pass on the message that the web based client sucks. Many of us hate it. Why force people to use something the dislike?

[Mallocy]

Many of us like it. Many of us don't have access to MS Windows.
That being said, many of us are trying to ditch 'flash':
I only use it now for BBO and BBC.

The latest iOS app has problems with chat...

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <57b8082b$0$54648$b1db1813$7190...@news.astraweb.com>,

Mallocy <nu...@example.net> wrote:
>On 2016-08-19, Player <ronfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "WE". If you are involved at all please pass on the message
>> that the web based client sucks. Many of us hate it.
>> Why force people to use something the dislike?
>
>Many of us like it. Many of us don't have access to MS Windows.
>That being said, many of us are trying to ditch 'flash':
>I only use it now for BBO and BBC.

That's the real problem with it. The rest of the world has already ditched
flash; the US seems ot be the only real holdout (this is the case with lots
of things in our life, in fact).

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in
compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following web address:
http://www.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Windows

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <JSWtz.504565$AB.5...@fx41.am4>,
Brian <usenet...@meadows.pair.com> wrote:
...
>The 'old' BBO client doesn't require MS Windows, otherwise I'd be
>stuck with the browser version.
>
>The 'Windows' client runs just fine on a Linux box using WINE, for
>example. If anyone wants the details, here's a link to a write-up I
>did for Oliver Clarke's Precision group a few years ago.
>
>http://pigpen.org.uk/BBO/docs/BBO_under_Linux.pdf

Thank you for those notes, although I found it hard to read.

There really should be a "tl;dr" version which just tells you to edit that
one file (bbover.ini).

As it happens, I was just about to post a response saying, "No, it doesn't
work, despite the fact that lots of people over the years have claimed that
it does" (where by "it", I mean "running BBO under Wine"), since I've tried
to run BBO under Wine several times, and it never actually worked. And by
"never actually worked", I mean that it went through all the motions of
working - it would come up and everything, but you couldn't actually join a
table (or something, I may be mis-remembering the details - but the point is
that it went through all the motions of working, but didn't actually let
you play).

So, in a way, the "tl;dr" section that I alluded to above could, in fact,
be "If you've already tried it and it didn't work, just do this". I am
somewhat hopeful that making those two tweaks will actually make it work.

Incidentally, this all only works if you have an x86 based machine. Note
that all of my Linux machines now are ARM based; personally I don't really
see the point in running Linux on PC hardware - you might as well run
Windows. The point of Linux is be able to run on non-x86.

I do have an x86 based Mac, though. It might be worth the effort to install
Wine on it and give it a shot. It might actually work...

P.S. How did you find the magic incantations? Did you work it out by
trial-and-error, or is it actually documented somewhere?

--

"This ain't my first time at the rodeo"

is a line from the movie, Mommie Dearest, said by Joan Crawford at a board meeting.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <f5383814-7828-4c11...@googlegroups.com>,

Player <ronfr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "WE". If you are involved at all

I'm one of the programmers at BBO, although I don't work on the clients.

> please pass on the message that the web
> based client sucks. Many of us hate it.

Many people have posted that they don't like it in the BBO Forum. But
there's no going back. Development of the Windows client stopped many
years ago, and there are absolutely no plans to revive it.

> Why force people to use something the
> dislike?

We aren't. That's why we allow old users to continue to use the Windows
client. New users have never used the Windows client, so they don't if
they would have liked it better.

But when we add new features, we only add them to the web and mobile
clients. So you can't play Bridge Bingo, Instant Tournaments,
Challenges, Solitaire, or Bridge Master in the Windows client.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <npa8la$qre$1...@news.xmission.com>,

gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

> I do have an x86 based Mac, though. It might be worth the effort to install
> Wine on it and give it a shot. It might actually work...

I've run it in CrossOver Mac, a commercial version of WINE.

[Travis Crump]

On 08/20/2016 07:08 AM, Brian wrote:

> The 'old' BBO client doesn't require MS Windows, otherwise I'd be
> stuck with the browser version.
>
> The 'Windows' client runs just fine on a Linux box using WINE, for
> example. If anyone wants the details, here's a link to a write-up I
> did for Oliver Clarke's Precision group a few years ago.
>
> http://pigpen.org.uk/BBO/docs/BBO_under_Linux.pdf
>
>

> Brian.
>
>

It 'works' for me, but not well. Part of this is my WM doesn't play well
with wine in general. I tried gnome's WM, and it worked better though
for one problem, the auction covering dummy when declarer, I didn't
manage to actually be declarer for 5 hands and didn't feel like keeping
trying. The other problem that remained was that I couldn't resize the
window other than making it full screen, and I couldn't resize the
sections within the window. It also just wasn't as visually pleasant as
the web client. I honestly find it hard to believe that people prefer it
to the web client even if I could fix the resizing and dummy hiding
problems.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <npb9b4$fdm$1...@dont-email.me>,
Travis Crump <pret...@techhouse.org> wrote:
...

>It 'works' for me, but not well. Part of this is my WM doesn't play
>well with wine in general. I tried gnome's WM, and it worked better
>though for one problem, the auction covering dummy when declarer, I
>didn't manage to actually be declarer for 5 hands and didn't feel like
>keeping trying. The other problem that remained was that I couldn't
>resize the window other than making it full screen, and I couldn't
>resize the sections within the window. It also just wasn't as visually
>pleasant as the web client. I honestly find it hard to believe that
>people prefer it to the web client even if I could fix the resizing and
>dummy hiding problems.

Right. That sounds a lot like the sort of problems I was having.
I.e., it almost, sort of works. But it doesn't actually work.

Note, BTW, that this whole question is (or should be) moot anyway, since it
runs just fine in a virtual machine. So, if you can beg, steal, or borrow
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo8SKvqHdQI)
a copy of Windows XP (or even 98 or 95) and use the free "VirtualBox"
program, you can just do it that way. This has always worked OK for me.

There's really no need to run it under Wine, and, TBH, Wine has always been
a bit of a stinker in my experience. It's a really cool idea, to be sure,
but it just doesn't work right. It doesn't work as well as a virtual
machine does.

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in
compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following web address:

http://www.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Aspergers

[James Dow Allen]

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 10:54:49 PM UTC+7, James Dow Allen wrote:
> As I say, the web client, good or bad, won't load for me.
>
> The PlayOK interface is very simple, smooth, elegant -- I like it.

I finally succeeded in getting BBO to load (problem was bugs
in the login procedure?)
Playing one hand confirmed that PlayOK's user interface is Much MUCH better.

Interfaces are a matter of taste, I'm sure. I would appreciate
it if folks would log in to PlayOK bridge and try a hand
or two just to compare the interface. Is my taste so unusual?

The PlayOK frame isn't cluttered with disparent colors.
They present what you need in a simple minimalist way.

Unfortunately the bidding is atrocious; half the players don't
know Take-Out Double. Opening 4 Clubs (for aces) is common.
But you can kibitz a table and get a feel for everything
(except the well-designed bid-clicker presented when
it's your turn to bid.) BBO animates the moving of cards from
one place to another. Do users appreciate that?

It seems that BBO waits for trick-winner to get tired of looking
a the trick. PlayOK displays the last trick in a corner until
the following trick completes.

Comments? Are there other sites that use PlayOK's excellent
interface?

James Dow Allen

[Player]

I really could not be bothered to play against beginners. Even on Bbo finding an expert game is hard unless you tee it up yourself. Turkish and Indian eggspurts are the worst.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <d8667034-7dbb-40ae...@googlegroups.com>,

James Dow Allen <jdall...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> BBO animates the moving of cards from
> one place to another. Do users appreciate that?

You can turn it off in Options. You can also switch to hand diagram
mode, instead of pictures of cards.

[patmp...@gmail.com]

Aha. I played on that site a lot because BBO has such an ugly interface. I'm sorry to hear that it has gotten even worse.

Bidding in Poland is different. Nat is VERY primitive. Not only that but everyone has different ideas about it. The worst thing is there is very little agreement about what bids are forcing. 1C 1H pass is not unusual. The strangest is where a 1NT response shows 16-19 HCP. That is SO weird, and you never know when it is coming.

If you want to get serious about Polish bidding learn WJ2000 or WJ2005. There is a document available online. Practically no one conforms to the document completely, usually they use the most commonly used 25%, but it's better than nat. It least they use takeout doubles.

[patmp...@gmail.com]

The reason they open 4C is that with a strong hand that is the only forcing bid. Opening 2 of a suit shows 18+ points, but there's no agreement as to whether it is forcing. So why take a chance?

A nat player opening with a minimum hand might pass ANY response. (Then again, maybe not.) So, how do you find your fit? You don't. You guess. Responder doesn't have any forcing bids except 4C or 4NT, so if you want to "explore" slam, bid those.

That 4C bid followed by the king-ask relay (Hoyt) is one of the few bids that everyone agrees on, so you'll see a lot of it.

Natura isn't meant to be a winning system. The idea is that it is simple to learn. That's all that matters. Get the bidding with over quick, bang bang, then get to the play, which appears to be what really interests them.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <6e300ca8-33c6-42f6...@googlegroups.com>,
<patmp...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
Nice description, leading up to:

>Natura isn't meant to be a winning system. The idea is that it is simple to
>learn. That's all that matters. Get the bidding with over quick, bang bang,
>then get to the play, which appears to be what really interests them.

IOW, same as on BBO.

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in
compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following web address:

http://www.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Mandela

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <yp5uz.566305$sC.3...@fx42.am4>,
Brian <usenet...@meadows.pair.com> wrote:
...

>>P.S. How did you find the magic incantations? Did you work it out by
>>trial-and-error, or is it actually documented somewhere?
>

>I was told about the tweaks to bbover.ini by Gerardo, one of the BBO
>Yellows, who is also a Linux user. The rest of the setup notes are my
>own work, but I don't think there's anything too obscure in there.

Do you, by any chance, know what these 2 tweaks (to bbover.ini) actually
do?

I ask, because in my experience, it works the same with or without the
tweaks.

--
This is the GOP's problem. When you're at the beginning of the year
and you've got nine Democrats running for the nomination, maybe one or
two of them are Dennis Kucinich. When you have nine Republicans, seven
or eight of them are Michelle Bachmann.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <jejBz.113170$6G.3...@fx42.am4>,
Brian <usenet...@meadows.pair.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:46:27 +0000 (UTC), gaz...@shell.xmission.com
> (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>
> Sorry, I didn't notice the late follow-up until now...

>
> >In article <yp5uz.566305$sC.3...@fx42.am4>,
> >Brian <usenet...@meadows.pair.com> wrote:
> >...
> >>>P.S. How did you find the magic incantations? Did you work it out by
> >>>trial-and-error, or is it actually documented somewhere?
> >>
> >>I was told about the tweaks to bbover.ini by Gerardo, one of the BBO
> >>Yellows, who is also a Linux user. The rest of the setup notes are my
> >>own work, but I don't think there's anything too obscure in there.
> >
> >Do you, by any chance, know what these 2 tweaks (to bbover.ini) actually
> >do?
> >
> >I ask, because in my experience, it works the same with or without the
> >tweaks.
>

> Cut and pasted from my write up...
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [SYSTEM]
> LINUX_WINE=N
> BROWSER_TYPE=C
>
> Using the text editor of your choice (not a word processor, I use joe,
> a clone of the old Wordstar editor) you need to change =N to =Y and =C
> to =E (Y and N are self-explanatory, I think the E stands for
> 'external', I have no idea what the 'C' stands for)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> For anything more than that, I suspect that you'll have to ask one of
> the people who worked on the old Windows client, most likely Fred or
> Uday.

There's also an old thread in the BBO Forum about running BBO under WINE
on Linux.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/3152-bbo-for-linux

E = External, it uses your default browser
C = COM, it uses Windows' embedded browser control. It doesn't work in
WINE, although the thread mentions a Mozilla ActiveX control that will
make it open Firefox.
A = ATL.DLL, a Windows library that probably also doesn't exist in WINE

The message that mentioned the ActiveX control is over a decade old, so
who knows if it would work in a current Linux/Firefox/WINE.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <jejBz.113170$6G.3...@fx42.am4>,
Brian <usenet...@meadows.pair.com> repeated text from a PDF file thusly:
...

>Cut and pasted from my write up...
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>[SYSTEM]
>LINUX_WINE=N
>BROWSER_TYPE=C
>
>Using the text editor of your choice (not a word processor, I use joe,
>a clone of the old Wordstar editor) you need to change =N to =Y and =C
>to =E (Y and N are self-explanatory, I think the E stands for
>'external', I have no idea what the 'C' stands for)

>>Do you, by any chance, know what these 2 tweaks (to bbover.ini) actually
>>do?

You could have just said "no".

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
in the real world."

- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden -