To all F2f bridge players

[kenberg]

Since I play in the acbl tourneys I find this topic of interest. Like brothgar, I support what the HomeBase guys are trying to do, or perhaps it's what I am hoping they will do. They charge to play, they don't give masterpoints, they don't give cash prizes. They do giive nice hand records and some analysis (which of course I may or may not agree with). In theory, this might result in an event where folks are simply looking for a good game. In practice, they don't get many takers.

 

One way or another, I would like to see online tourneys, acbl or elsewhere, reach a higher standard. Having a few tourneys around that discouraged pick-up partnerships, or in some way made it clear that partnerships are expected (really expected, not just pro forma expectation) in this tourney to be on the same page as far as basic auctions go, might be a start. Crazy things can happen in any game, even in competition at the highest level. But it's more frequent in online tourneys. A lot more frequent.

 

Ken

[pbleighton]

"If nothing else I hope with all the worldwide online players in the next couple of years you guys will feel the ACBL online games reach at least an average club game level."

 

The issue isn't the lack of decent or better pairs (a majority of pairs in an onkine game are reasonable), it's the number of bad pairs, which is high relative to a good club game.

 

Peter

[bid_em_up]

"If nothing else I hope with all the worldwide online players in the next couple of years you guys will feel the ACBL online games reach at least an average club game level."

 

The issue isn't the lack of decent or better pairs (a majority of pairs in an onkine game are reasonable), it's the number of bad pairs, which is high relative to a good club game.

 

Peter

I think it is more akin to a one section club game where the beginners, intermdiates, advanced and experts are all tossed in together. And since the lower levels will almost always outnumber the upper levels, the game becomes disproportionately weighted.

 

Many club games will have beginner/intermediate games that are run seperately from the open games. In these games, the open game field be fairly decent, but once combined with the beginners and intermediates, the field becomes a monstrosity.

 

And, I dont believe that the majority of pairs in the online games are reasonable, nor are they decent. There are relatively few decent pairs actually playing from what I have experienced. There may be many good players playing together, but very few good pairs who have actually spent much time working on system agreements, carding agreements, etc.

[hrothgar]

"If nothing else I hope with all the worldwide online players in the next couple of years you guys will feel the ACBL online games reach at least an average club game level."

 

The issue isn't the lack of decent or better pairs (a majority of pairs in an onkine game are reasonable), it's the number of bad pairs, which is high relative to a good club game.

 

Peter

I think it is more akin to a one section club game where the beginners, intermdiates, advanced and experts are all tossed in together. And since the lower levels will almost always outnumber the upper levels, the game becomes disproportionately weighted.

 

Many club games will have beginner/intermediate games that are run seperately from the open games. In these games, the open game field be fairly decent, but once combined with the beginners and intermediates, the field becomes a monstrosity.

 

And, I dont believe that the majority of pairs in the online games are reasonable, nor are they decent. There are relatively few decent pairs actually playing from what I have experienced. There may be many good players playing together, but very few good pairs who have actually spent much time working on system agreements, carding agreements, etc.

I think that there are quite a few good pairs playing online...

 

However, the best players rarely play in open tournaments or pickup games in the main lobby. Rather, they arrange set games or team mathces against one another.

 

Gresham's Law in action...

[ArcLight]

>However, the best players rarely play in open tournaments or pickup games in the main lobby. Rather, they arrange set games or team mathces against one another.

 

 

So that explains why Benito Garozzo never sits at my table ...

[mike777]

You guys must play in different club games then I played in several states years ago. Back then there was almost always just one combined game and many pairs did not have established systems.

 

Heck I played in Nat rated events where I would guess this was true of more than 50% of the partnerships including mine. :)

[bid_em_up]

"If nothing else I hope with all the worldwide online players in the next couple of years you guys will feel the ACBL online games reach at least an average club game level."

 

The issue isn't the lack of decent or better pairs (a majority of pairs in an onkine game are reasonable), it's the number of bad pairs, which is high relative to a good club game.

 

Peter

I think it is more akin to a one section club game where the beginners, intermdiates, advanced and experts are all tossed in together. And since the lower levels will almost always outnumber the upper levels, the game becomes disproportionately weighted.

 

Many club games will have beginner/intermediate games that are run seperately from the open games. In these games, the open game field be fairly decent, but once combined with the beginners and intermediates, the field becomes a monstrosity.

 

And, I dont believe that the majority of pairs in the online games are reasonable, nor are they decent. There are relatively few decent pairs actually playing from what I have experienced. There may be many good players playing together, but very few good pairs who have actually spent much time working on system agreements, carding agreements, etc.

I think that there are quite a few good pairs playing online...

 

However, the best players rarely play in open tournaments or pickup games in the main lobby. Rather, they arrange set games or team mathces against one another.

 

Gresham's Law in action...

Isnt that what I said?

 

Oh, excuse me....rephrase

 

"And, I dont believe that the majority of pairs in the online TOURNAMENT games are reasonable, nor are they decent.

 

That better?

 

Sorry, in the context it was written, I thought it was apparent that I was referring specifically to tournament games without actually having to spell it out.

 

:P

[bid_em_up]

You guys must play in different club games then I played in several states years ago. Back then there was almost always just one combined game and many pairs did not have established systems.

 

Heck I played in Nat rated events where I would guess this was true of more than 50% of the partnerships including mine. :P

Mike,

 

This probably has to do with where you are located more than anything (and I do not know where you live, so it is a generic statement). Since I have lived mainly in major metropolitan areas, it has not been unusual for there to be split games (Novice and open) at the major bridge clubs in these areas.

 

Of course, there were other games also (like the one that my first teacher ran in her home, once a week) where the pairs were usually the same pairs every week; they may have had a convention card, but for the most part, were clueless regarding any 'system', if that makes sense.

 

And yes, these pairs would go to sectionals, regionals and even nationals.....still just as clueless, but having fun all the way. :)

[mike777]

Well alot of this was in Chicago, LA and SD. Please note the pair that won the World Mixed pairs played together for the first time and one partner was very unsure of the system. :P.

 

How many times have the Blue Ribbons or LM pairs been won by a first time pair that was unsure of the system...True they are great players but still.....:)

 

In any event you did respond to my inquiry about the quality of online acbl games so thanks...I was wondering....:)

[pbleighton]

"And, I dont believe that the majority of pairs in the online games are reasonable, nor are they decent. There are relatively few decent pairs actually playing from what I have experienced. There may be many good players playing together, but very few good pairs who have actually spent much time working on system agreements, carding agreements, etc."

 

I consider most LM/BLM (300-999 mps) pairs to be decent, though where I play most don't have much in the way of system agreements, carding agreements, etc., even those who have played together for a few years.

 

You obviously have higher standards than I do. Good for you :P

 

Peter

[kenberg]

As I logged on I got the bbo news bulletin. ACBL online games will now be stratified. They say "There is no downside to stratification". By this they mean, I suppose, that my masterpoint award will not be less. I can't say this strongly enough: I don't give a good %&^#$O))_&&^()^%& about my masterpoint award. The purpose of stratification is to encourage a greater number of weaker players to play. This is a significant downside. The online acbl games are not suffering from a dearth of weaker players. Now if they could find a way to bring in some stronger players....

 

Ken

[awm]

Do you seriously think that there are people who would be willing to pay $1 to play in an ACBL tournament, but decide not to because the field is too strong? I very much doubt this is the case, especially given the strength of field here on BBO.

 

I suspect the stratification is more due to complaints by players who participate anyway that they're not getting the masterpoints they want/deserve. I doubt it will have much impact on attendance or strength of field.

[Al_U_Card]

Interestingly, the purpose of stratification, as perceived by the f2f players, seems to be to be compared (it is matchpoints after all in clubs but not always online) with players at their own level. The value add was that they still got to play (and learn from) the better opponents but could feel good about a 48% game.....1st in "C".

[Rain]

lotsa MP for me potentially. :D

[pclayton]

I would still implore the league to have flighted (NOT strati-flighted) games. I think a LM game would really attract some good pairs.

 

I don't see why they can't; how many zillion games do they run during the week?

[awm]

They tried an LM game. It didn't take off. I think the problem is that most people don't schedule their day around the ACBL tourneys on BBO. The typical approach is something like:

 

(1) I'll play on BBO whenever I feel like it/have free time. This is sort of random.

(2) If I'm playing on BBO and there's an ACBL tournament about to start, then I'll play in it.

(3) If I have the choice of ACBL tourneys starting at around the same time, I'd rather play in a particular flight.

 

Because of these priorities, the people who participate in the flighted game will be exactly those who were going to participate in the regular game anyway, and prefer the particular flight. So the attendance won't be all that good. I suspect that most people's priorities tend to look somewhat like the ones above. In order to get a well-attended game for a particular flight, you need people in that flight to make a special effort to be online when the game starts. I don't think this is all that likely.

[pclayton]

How long has it been? Did they try the LM game when before the ACBL games took hold?

[kenberg]

Do you seriously think that there are people who would be willing to pay $1 to play in an ACBL tournament, but decide not to because the field is too strong? I very much doubt this is the case, especially given the strength of field here on BBO.

 

I suspect the stratification is more due to complaints by players who participate anyway that they're not getting the masterpoints they want/deserve. I doubt it will have much impact on attendance or strength of field.

Yes, I seriously do believe this. I think the acbl seriously believes this. I don't spend a lot of time knocking the acbl but I think that a lot of their decisions are based on how to get more people to fork over a buck. Realistically, this may be necessary. But it has effects, not all of them good.

 

I fully realize that it's easy to be idealistic when I don't have to balance the books. I still would like to see then think at least some about attracting better players rather than more players. I don't expect Rodwell, Zia, whoever to think it would be great fun to play bridge with me for an afternoon. The acbl game could become considerably stronger without having to bring in such notables however.

 

I have run across some quite good players in the pairs game, and even occasionally in the indys. No names, or I'll have to defend their honor when someone says they aren't any good. I would like them to bring their friends.

 

I like to think I am realistic about my place in the bridge world and that I am not a snob. But I do like a good game. That's all I am saying.

 

Ken

[Vilgan]

flighted would rule IF they let people play up. Not enough people at some games, but others could probably support separate flights. It would, however, take a bit more from the software to automatically build the sections instead of just randomly making them at the game start time.

 

Stratified is kinda bleh. Good for those hunting for MP's, but tends to bring in more weak pairs (imo) and it'd get even more random than it already is imo. Stratified is a good business choice probably, but 1 or 2 flighted games would rule.

[mike777]

If you accept that there are 25 million worldwide people who play bridge, can we accept that all but a few thousand(hundreds?) and your buddies are not going to be that good. :D

 

I hope with all the demand for flighted online ACBL posted here the game is given a try. It would be nice if the ACBL or people who run the online club respond.

[keylime]

What are the strats, for curiosity's sake.

[kenberg]

The news bulletin said (I think) that the strats would shift. I suppose that means they will have some sort of software that will take the group that signs up and divide them into three or four subgroups for the purpose of awards. The playing assignments are, as now, to be random.

 

I suppose we can, if interested, look at data to see what the effects are. If over the next six weeks or so the numbers substantially pick up in the acbl tournaments we can figure this is a. coincidence, b. due to a lot of strong players thrilled at the opportunity to play in stratified events, or c. due to a substantial influx of weaker players. I think the acbl is betting on c. So am I.

 

We will see how this goes, but organizing friends to play in set games is starting to look very attractive. Sort of like the beginning, where we got together at someone's house, tossed the kids in a room and told them to shut up and play, and cracked a deck.

[Al_U_Card]

Another important aspect is that the ACBL never puts the "barometer" on. Those other tourneys where the cream rises to the top are a lot more fun. Your last several rounds are against good opps. In the acbl when there are 80 pairs and you play 3 in a row that are "random" it can be pretty sad.

[jillybean]

We will see how this goes, but organizing friends to play in set games is starting to look very attractive. Sort of like the beginning, where we got together at someone's house, tossed the kids in a room and told them to shut up and play, and cracked a deck.

I have given up on free pairs tournaments, Im trying to give up indys and I would love to get some teams, table games organized with other forum members - best times for me are random times during the day or after 9pm(pst). :)

[jocdelevat]

Are the life masters players wearing a life jacket too?:) I thought so after reading this post that a whole army of BBO intermediates is ready to kill the ACBL online games. By the way I played in ACBL online tournaments and every time I tried to play in the pair one I couldn’t find an intermediate partner most was advanced or higher.