Poor attendance at LM game

[runewell]

I would enjoy the chance to play a longer tournament, 16 or 20 or 24 boards. But the 12-board format is very convenient, it's nice to be done in 90 minutes and it's enough time to sort out some winners and losers. It's not uncommon to see 80 pairs = 40 tables, tournament size. It would be nice if the ACBL sanctioned some 24-board online club championships maybe twice a month and dole out some real overall awards - maybe 5 points or so - and charge some $$.

 

The tourneys as they are now remain an incredible value. I pay 20% of the club rate, play 50% of the boards and get 80% of the award. I do enjoy the game too, not just the points or the economics of the situation.

 

I think that the level of play is pretty good. Once in awhile you will get someone not as good - but that happens at the club too.

[hrothgar]

Hi Uday:

 

Here are a few thoughts regarding mechanism that might make the ACBL/WBF more accepting of Online Bride.

 

From my perspective, there are a couple different approach vectors that BBO should consider for penetrating the Face-to-Face bridge market. The first involves the introduction of an electronic playing environment for major events like the Cavendish or the Bermuda Bowl. This is a "top-down" model. The technologies and services involved may or may not diffuse down to event like the ACBL Nationals. (We've hashed this one out in the past. I'll simply mention that my opinion hasn't changed much over time)

 

A second approach vector would be to attempt to increase the size/scope of the online tournaments currently offered on BBO and attempt to create a true "Sectional". Here's my own - somewhat radical - recommendation regarding the best way to create Online sectionals. Eliminate the concept of "Duplicate". You'll increase variance to some extent, but dramatically improve security. (Please note: When I discuss "Online sectionals" I'm talking about a system in whiih all players are competing in their own living rooms without any kind of physical protoring. This is a VERY different scenario from one in which the Cavendish was been held in Las Vegas using BBO software rather than playing cards).

 

There two major obstacles to running Sectional rated tournaments on BBO. The first is institutional/political. As Machiavelli stated "And let it be noted that there is no more delicate matter to take in hand, nor more dangerous to conduct, nor more doubtful in its success, than to set up as the leader in the introduction of changes. For he who innovates will have for his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of things, and only lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new.'' Enough said about that. I'm no good at office politics. I'll leave you all to sort this one out for yourself.

 

The second obstacle is more mundane: No matter how you slice it, cheating is going to be a big problem. There are going to be all sorts of issues involving hidden communication between players. Even if you can eliminate this, theres no way of knowing who is actually sitting behind that keyboard. In theory, I could hire a unscrupulous bridge pro to pretend to be "Hrothgar" and improve my chances of winning masterpoints. While cheating is going to be a problem, this is something that you can (to some extent) control.

 

Here is my proposal for designing a highly secure online tournament.

 

Create a large individual tournament. You want a LOT of people playing. Everyone competes as an individual using "anonymous" names like "North" or "East".

 

Partition the tournament into groups of eight players. Each group of 8 players is randomly partitioned into two teams. Each team plays an N board round using BAM scoring. Each 8 player BAM uses a different set of hands from any other team. At the end of N boards, randomly reassign players to a new pool of eight players. Repeat as necessary. (If you want to be especially tricky, you can using a Time Division Multiplexing scheme. My table play the boards in round 1 but the other table doesn't play them until round 6)

 

From my perspective, this system would make it extremely difficult for players to cheat. Players have no mechanism to indentify their partner/team mates. Players might want to collude with another friend who is competing in the same event, however, the odds that two individuals would be playing the same boards at the same time are slim to none. Balanced against this, you have the obvious problem that you are introducing a bit more noise into the system. My score on any given hand depends both on the results at my table as well as the skill of my "virtual team-mates". Even so, as much as we like to pretend that bridge is a game of skill, an awful lot of the game boils down to luck...

 

I suspect that the trade off is worth it. One could even make a reasonable argument that Masterpoint allocations should be weighted based on the confidence intervals associated with torunament format....

[mike777]

If you are suggesting anonymous humans as partners with almost no social interaction why not just have GIB as our partner. If we assume 25 million bridge players in the world it seems the current version of GIB is in the top 1%(250,000) now. Can a GIB in the top 25,000 or 2,500 be that far off in time? Heck why not just a random playing GIB, at some tables we get one in the top 1million at another table one in the top 2,500? Heck can a GIB with some social graces be that far off?

[luke warm]

social graces? what's that?

[mike777]

social graces? what's that?

Now that BBO talks we can have GIB say

1) hi

2) how are you?

3) glp

4) typ

5) you idiot

6) partner you have no conception of how to play bridge

7) you belong at the novice table

 

 

I think that covers most of the conversations my partners have with me :P.

[pigpenz]

social graces? what's that?

Now that BBO talks we can have GIB say

1) hi

2) how are you?

3) glp

4) typ

5) you idiot

6) partner you have no conception of how to play bridge

7) you belong at the novice table

 

 

I think that covers most of the conversations my partners have with me <_<.

can you report GIB to abuse@???

[bid_em_up]

fwiw, another online bridge site ran 16 and 24 board ACBL sanctioned tournies that were open games (along with 12 board tournies at approximately the same times).

 

They were finally discontinued due to lack of interest. Nobody was willing to commit 3 hours to playing 1 tourny, when they could play two 12 board tournies in the same period of time (or play one and then go on to do other things).

[awm]

I think the problem with the LM game is that most people don't really base their schedules around playing in BBO tourneys. The usual strategy is that if I'm online with a suitable partner, and we can't get a team game together, we look for available tourneys to play in. With all else being equal, we might choose an ACBL or HomeBase tourney over some other tourney, or an LM tourney over an open tourney. But usually we're fairly restricted on the basis of what happens to be available.

 

So the LM game draws that subset of those people who would happen to be playing anyway, who are LMs. This is not very high. People are not scheduling their log-in time specifically to play in the LM game (or any other tourney) most likely.

[barmar]

fwiw, another online bridge site ran 16 and 24 board ACBL sanctioned tournies that were open games (along with 12 board tournies at approximately the same times).

 

They were finally discontinued due to lack of interest. Nobody was willing to commit 3 hours to playing 1 tourny, when they could play two 12 board tournies in the same period of time (or play one and then go on to do other things).

What they do on OKbridge is link pairs of 12-board tourneys into a "combo". A second set of rankings are then computed for all the pairs that played in both tourneys.

 

IMHO, short IMP Pair tourneys are horrible -- it's way too easy for one disaster to totally dominate your final score.

[pigpenz]

IMHO, short IMP Pair tourneys are horrible -- it's way too easy for one disaster to totally dominate your final score.

yes, and sometimes you get distorted results on the last round.

 

Originally this life master gamae came about cause some of us asked Gweny about running a full 26 board game, but in evolved into a LifeMasters Only game.

Then since is was opposite a open game and it was restricted the event was docked 30% of Masterpoint awards since it was restricted. So people didnt seem to flock to it.

 

I keep saying i will run a 26board tourney just to see what results are like, oh it would be great if it could be done on autopilot ;)