ACBL/BBO online tourneys

[jjbrr]

Around here, a sectional draws the same quality of player as a local club. So, what's the point?

 

It would be my hope that online sectional and regional tournaments would mean longer, higher quality events. Also, through Swiss movements players can percolate to the level which they belong during an event, so for some the quality of bridge would end up being higher in these events.

I can sympathize with online sectionals if they're restricted to players in areas that make attending sectionals difficult or impractical for geographic reasons. A sectional for the state of Wyoming or Montana once or twice a year sounds like a pretty darn good idea.

 

Open sectionals online seem like a quick fix for those who enjoy cheap thrills and instant, short term satisfaction. Long term, they seem like a disaster for the game.

[TimG]

Open sectionals online seem like a quick fix for those who enjoy cheap thrills and instant, short term satisfaction. Long term, they seem like a disaster for the game.

Do you mean "for the game" or do you mean "for in-person ACBL sectionals"?

[JoAnneM]

The survey is being conducted by a company hired by ACBL that is why you don't see the logo. And not everyone was sent the survey, that's what a survey is. And, it is certainly true that people don't keep their email addresses current with ACBL, I have dealt with that problem for years in my various capacities.

 

I found some of the questions strange and some they needed to ask weren't there, and I certainly gave them an earful (pageful) in the comments section. I wonder if they will read it.....or care.

[jjbrr]

Open sectionals online seem like a quick fix for those who enjoy cheap thrills and instant, short term satisfaction. Long term, they seem like a disaster for the game.

Do you mean "for the game" or do you mean "for in-person ACBL sectionals"?

If one could get the same or comparable sectional MP awards without leaving his home against people who, in general, are intermediate at best for less money at any hour of the day AND he could cheat if he was having a bad round, I think this is bad for bridge in general for a plethora of reasons. I hope we also agree that online bridge and live bridge are two completely different animals with a different set of rules. The alert procedure is different, the directors have more pressure to make rulings (good luck getting a committee!), you lose important elements of the game like table feel, and then there is a set of issues concerning computers (I've never misclicked in real life, nor has my internet died while I was declaring a hand at a regional). I think these issues can't be overlooked.

 

If you feel the competition is generally good in online events, I apologize. I have only my experience to go on and I could easily be mistaken. Omit that part if you disagree with me, and I still think my argument holds some water. And the point about the Swiss eventually allowing you to play against people of your strength is perfectly valid. But for how many rounds? At least some sectionals have A/X or KOs or open pairs or what have you to allow you to play against comparable opponents all the time.

 

If they scaled the MP award down to like 5% the sectional award and charged more than a dollar per entry so that no one could amass gobs of the same silver points that others played in better events and paid more money to earn, I could be more tolerant of the idea. Or if they held them once or twice a year, it would make more sense. How often do you think they should have online sectionals? Sessions every day? Every weekend? Once a month?

 

I guess I fail to see the light. Is this about masterpoints at all? If it is, I don't think you can reasonably compare online points with points won in a live bridge game. They should be two completely different things, as mentioned above, I believe. Even if live sectionals wouldn't suffer from this, I still wouldn't support the idea if everything was equal.

 

If this isn't about MPs, then don't call them sectionals or regionals; call them serious tournaments for serious players or something. If this is only about convenience and money saving, then let's not be afraid to admit it.

[JoAnneM]

I am strongly against online Sectional and Regional tournaments. I am strongly against anything other than colorless online points. Until something changes to assure the security of the game I won't be changing my mind.

[eyhung]

As a young person I've heard my whole life "I hope bridge is still around in X years." Providing incentive not to attend live tournaments seems like a good step in the right direction to really killing it off. Not only will you not have young people attending tournaments, you won't have old people either.

While I'm not a fan of attaching prestige to online tournaments while they are not well-enforced, I do not see how providing an online alternative inhibits real-life play. Take poker. If anything, having access to poker tournaments online has helped poker, not hurt it. People still go to play in real-life poker tournaments despite having easy access to online ones -- if anything, attendance has gone UP since the "user base" is bigger. Maybe the percentage of players in real-life tournaments has gone down, but I think it's better to have more people playing than a higher percentage playing.

[fred]

If you feel the competition is generally good in online events, I apologize. I have only my experience to go on and I could easily be mistaken. Omit that part if you disagree with me, and I still think my argument holds some water. And the point about the Swiss eventually allowing you to play against people of your strength is perfectly valid. But for how many rounds? At least some sectionals have A/X or KOs or open pairs or what have you to allow you to play against comparable opponents all the time.

I have no idea if your "quality of field" suggestions are true or not, but I do think they are irrelevant.

 

Do you also think the ACBL should award fewer points for an event at the Wasilla Regional than they would for an identical event at the New York City Regional?

 

The ACBL does not get involved in rating the strength of the field and deciding on how many masterpoints to offer as a result. IMO it would be ridiculous for them to even consider doing this.

 

I think the basic point is that the ACBL should allow sites like BBO to run occasional events that are recognized as "more important" than the "normal" games that we run. There are many 1000s of ACBL members who play online bridge (some by choice and some because health issues mean that online bridge is the only form of the game they can play).

 

IMO these people deserve the chance to play in "major online events" from time to time. Whether you call such events "Sectionals" or "Regionals" and how exactly the masterpoint scales work for such events is secondary concern.

 

I don't buy the arguments regarding cheating either, by the way. For sure "active cheating" is easier in an online environment, but pairs who are determined to actively cheat can easily do so in real life as well. It is also the case that the complete electronic records of all deals played in online bridge tournaments makes it much easier to investigate pairs that might be cheating than it would be in real life (where no such records exist).

 

Meanwhile, some forms of "passive cheating" which are widespread in live bridge (for example, taking advantage of partner's body language, intentionally or not) do not exist in online bridge.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mikeh]

Fred makes a number of points, and I agree with almost all of them. The exception is his view, if I understand him correctly, that the level of cheating will be comparable online to real life.. in that if one wants to cheat, it is easy to do in both arenas.

 

I disagree. I suspect, altho I have no data to back it up, that one reason that cheating either is or could be more prevalent online than in real life is that it is SO easy and virtually undetectable AT THE TIME when done online. One merely needs an online chat, which one runs in conjunction with the game... or one can be on the telephone, or in the same or adjacent room and discuss it aloud. And one can supply ALL of the details of the hand... not merely some limited information.

 

The cheats who have been caught in real life generally, altho not universally, seem to have been cheating on defence... using coughs or pencil positions, etc, to suggest the lead of a particular suit....or similar 'partial disclosure' cheats. And this requires a great deal of planning, and the overcoming of a 'fear' threshold... because this type of publicly visible conduct is more prone to observation. Compare this to being online and being able to tell partner exactly what you have... through a means of communication that is completely private!

 

Yes, if and when a pair is actually suspected, it would be possible to trawl the hand records, but such an exercise requires not only the voicing of suspicion but also a lot of work by the sponsoring organization... and a lot of data from which a safe inference can be drawn. Quite properly, in my view, the tendency appears to be that one should NOT readily draw inferences merely because some unusual plays happened to work... one need also consider all the other hands on which unusual plays met with the usual result... and I don't know if any computer program exists or can be expected that can bring to this huge task an appropriate level of bridge judgment.

 

So I do think that cheating could be a major issue online, well beyond real life.

 

Whether this outweighs the partial (or complete) elimination of the passive cheating is a value judgment. In my view, the passive cheating, which certainly goes on all the time, is less and less a factor as the level of the game improves, altho Fred has far more experience than do I in that aspect of the problem.

[TimG]

For me personally, it has nothing to do with masterpoints, or at least nothing to do with any desire on my part to amass masterpoints. I think most people long ago realized that masterpoints were a better measure of attendance than skill and it does not matter to me whether people earn their attendance points in person or online. I will not think that my masterpoints have been cheapened because it becomes easier for people to win masterpoints once the ACBL starts running larger online tournaments. The masterpoints I have now and win in the future will still be a good reflection of how much bridge I have played. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

If offering more masterpoints in more colors for online tournaments means that higher quality opponents are available more regularly in a greater variety of games, I'm all for it.

 

Your contention that online sectionals will be full of "intermediate at best" players does not really matter to me as far as awarding masterpoints goes. The field at a game in Augusta, Maine is not going to be as strong as the field in Boston, Massachusetts, but they pay ACBL masterpoints on the same scale. The ACBL also awards masterpoints differently for identical field depending upon whether the game is a at a sectional, regional, or club. Not all masterpoints are created equal. (Before you say "but, they're a different color" when was the last time an event was flighted or bracketed based upon gold points instead of total points?)

 

Pay less money and play at any hour of the day? GREAT! Playing bridge really shouldn't be a chore, if it is made more convenient by making more variety in starting times available, isn't that a good thing? Reduce travel (and thus make the overall time commitment less) that's great. Heck, maybe I can play MORE bridge in the limited time that I have available.

 

Cheating? I find it amusing that you suggest cheating would happen "if he was having a bad round". I imagine the cheater to be one who will cheat from the beginning, not to salvage something. I think it is less a factor relative to in-person bridge than most people imagine. But, I'm not real concerned about it. Perhaps a significant difference between online results and in-person results will act as a flag for online investigators.

 

The difference in rules is minor, in my opinion. There are different disclosure rules for in-person bridge depending upon whether or not screens are in use. It does not seem to me to matter whether I alert my own bids or my partners bids.

 

Losing table feel? That old Black Magic? Or, like when an opponent pays attention to the location of the card you remove from your hand? Sloppy dealing in Swiss matches (watch next time and I'm sure you will be able to see a few exposed card over half the time)?

 

No revoking possibly changes the game? Give me a break. Never misclicked in real life? You are lucky. Very lucky. I have pulled the wrong card, taken the wrong card out of the bidding box and seen opponents do both of these things. I've seen people drop cards on the floor and table. Never happens online. Sure the set of such problems is different online and in-person, but so what?

 

At least some sectionals have A/X or KOs or open pairs or what have you to allow you to play against comparable opponents all the time.

Who says there won't be such events at an online sectional or regional? I sure hope there will be. (Of course, I'd rather it be determined by a new fangled dynamic rating system, but that's another story.)

If they scaled the MP award down to like 5% the sectional award and charged more than a dollar per entry so that no one could amass gobs of the same silver points that others played in better events and paid more money to earn, I could be more tolerant of the idea.

Ah, so what it really comes down to for you is the value of the masterpoints you have "earned".

 

I don't care of they call them sectionals and regionals and award colored masterpoints as a way to promote the events and attract more players just as they do for in-person tournaments. I wouldn't care if they called them something totally different and awarded plasma points. I'd simply like to see the online tournament options (and quality) increase.

[barmar]

I think it would be a good idea for them to examine sociological research that has been done on cheating and petty theft. There's some discussion of it in Dan Ariely's "Predictably Irrational". The gist of his findings is that normally honest people will cheat a small bit when they think they can get away with it. Also, they're more willing to steal small things, but not big things or money; thus, people will take office supplies home, but they won't touch petty cash.

 

I think this is relevant to online bridge because I believe that people don't take online behavior as seriously as in-person behavior. Someone who will never cheat in f2f bridge will have fewer inhibitions online. Giving a serious name to the tournament might dissuade some, but I suspect most will see it as just another online game.

[jjbrr]

If you feel the competition is generally good in online events, I apologize. I have only my experience to go on and I could easily be mistaken. Omit that part if you disagree with me, and I still think my argument holds some water. And the point about the Swiss eventually allowing you to play against people of your strength is perfectly valid. But for how many rounds? At least some sectionals have A/X or KOs or open pairs or what have you to allow you to play against comparable opponents all the time.

I have no idea if your "quality of field" suggestions are true or not, but I do think they are irrelevant.

 

Do you also think the ACBL should award fewer points for an event at the Wasila Regional than they would for an identical event at the New York City Regional?

 

The ACBL does not get involved in rating the strength of the field and deciding on how many masterpoints to offer as a result. IMO it would be ridiculous for them to even consider doing this.

 

I think the basic point is that the ACBL should allow sites like BBO to run occasional events that are recognized as "more important" than the "normal" games that we run. There are many 1000s of ACBL members who play online bridge (some by choice and some because health issues mean that online bridge is the only form of the game they can play).

 

IMO these people deserve the chance to play in "major online events" from time to time. Whether you call such events "Sectionals" or "Regionals" and how exactly the masterpoint scales work for such events is secondary concern.

 

I don't buy the arguments regarding cheating either, by the way. For sure "active cheating" is easier in an online environment, but pairs who are determined to actively cheat can easily do so in real life as well. It is also the case that the complete electronic records of all deals played in online bridge tournaments makes it much easier to investigate pairs that might be cheating than it would be in real life (where no such records exist).

 

Meanwhile, some forms of "passive cheating" which are widespread in live bridge (for example, taking advantage of partner's body language, intentionally or not) do not exist in online bridge.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

"Occasional" and "time to time" I think are a great idea for serious online tournaments.

 

My first impression was that the potential to make a lot of money from online sects/regs would suggest having them more and more frequently to the point of making them like the hourly ACBL games.

 

As long as the sectionals are as similar to live sectionals as possible (26 boards, 7.5 minutes/board, only a few weekends of the year) then I will concede all your points regarding relative field strength, cheating, and people with health problems.

 

Once we get hourly speedball 12 board IMP sectional pairs offering ridiculous numbers of silver points to people in their pajamas, though, I question the point of awarding MPs at all.

 

I assure you cheating was not my main concern. Having just played in a serious event to decide junior teams to send to Turkey, I'm the first to admit a serious online tournament can be a huge success. (Wd Jan et al)

 

Just as an aside, and correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't they change the MP awards in KOs to reflect the average number of MP in the bracket, as opposed to the number of brackets? Does this not qualify as rewarding MP relative to the strength of the field? "Ridiculous" sounds like a huge overbid.

[jjbrr]

I don't care of they call them sectionals and regionals and award colored masterpoints as a way to promote the events and attract more players just as they do for in-person tournaments. I wouldn't care if they called them something totally different and awarded plasma points. I'd simply like to see the online tournament options (and quality) increase.

So you don't want sectionals and regionals at all; you just want higher quality tournaments? I understand they're not necessarily mutually exclusive... but... maybe we're discussing totally different things?

[TimG]

As long as the sectionals are as similar to live sectionals as possible (26 boards, 7.5 minutes/board, only a few weekends of the year) then I will concede all your points regarding relative field strength, cheating, and people with health problems.

I don't see why online events should be tied to 7.5 minutes/board. I find that quite slow for an online event, but not particularly slow for an in-person event. Online events should be more efficient.

 

I also do not think that online events should be tied to 26 boards (lots of regional events, even at an NABC are now 24 boards). If a 3 hour online session can reasonably be based upon 30 boards, then I'm all for more than the in-person norm of 24-27. I think rather than base the events strictly on number of boards, they should be based upon time and then how many boards can be played in that amount of time.

 

I agree with you that a sectional or regional online event should carry with it a time commitment of more than 60-90 minutes. I would expect more along the lines of twice that for a single session and would hope that most events would comprise two sessions of approximately three hours each.

[TimG]

I don't care if they call them sectionals and regionals and award colored masterpoints as a way to promote the events and attract more players just as they do for in-person tournaments.  I wouldn't care if they called them something totally different and awarded plasma points.  I'd simply like to see the online tournament options (and quality) increase.

So you don't want sectionals and regionals at all; you just want higher quality tournaments? I understand they're not necessarily mutually exclusive... but... maybe we're discussing totally different things?

I want higher quality tournaments. If they are called sectionals and regionals, that is fine with me; if they are called something else, that is also fine with me.

[jjbrr]

Agree. More than one session, non-trivial time commitment and this is a great idea.

 

7.5 minutes might not be too slow for everyone. I don't know what the best time/board should be.

[fred]

Just as an aside, and correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't they change the MP awards in KOs to reflect the average number of MP in the bracket, as opposed to the number of brackets?

Sorry but I have no idea. You could easily be right.

 

Does this not qualify as rewarding MP relative to the strength of the field?

 

If you assume that there is a correlation between # of masterpoints held and strength of play, then yes :)

 

"Ridiculous" sounds like a huge overbid.

 

Maybe but I wasn't thinking of knockout teams (because, for now at least, we don't run any ACBL-sanctioned team events). I realize I did not mention this point in my previous post.

 

Anyways, even if it "ridiculous" is too strong, I still think the notion is silly. It would seem less silly to me if there was a reliable way to measure the strength of the field. But even if a good method of measuring field-strength could be developed, my guess is that most ACBL members would not like such a method to contribute to computing masterpoint awards in the clubs and tournaments they play in. If I am right about my guess then, even if the notion in and of itself is not silly, it would still be silly from a PR point of view.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

Agree with those who are not eager to see sectional or regional tournaments online.

 

Aside from the cheating issue, it may be worth noting that a number of attempts have been made to run "more serious" games online. OKbridge used to run 24-board tournaments on a daily basis. The attendance at these was never very good, and when they offered the choice of 12 boards or 24 virtually everyone chose the 12. We can see a bit of the same effect on BBO. Note that the longer ACBL games are never well-attended (frequently don't even run) in favor of the speedballs. And the free tournaments (which presumably can run any number of boards based on the preference of the director and players) rarely run longer than 12 boards (in fact most are shorter).

 

I suspect that there just isn't a lot of demand for longer events played online. One of the big draws of the online game is that you can play for a short time and then stop to do something else. So unless the plan is to run 12-board "sectionals" at 5 minutes per board and then just award pigmented masterpoints for it, I don't see that online sectionals would really succeed.

 

It's also worth mentioning that the strength of field in online events is substantially worse than in real tournaments or even club games. The issue is not that the players themselves are weaker (at least not obviously so) -- it is that the face-to-face environment encourages established partnerships or at least spending 15-20 minutes before the game discussing methods, whereas a great number of online partnerships are of the "pickup" variety.

 

With all this said, I think software to allow a "Swiss teams tournament" to run smoothly would be a nice addition to BBO, and I would have no opposition to assigning the usual colorless online ACBL points for success in such an event.

[jjbrr]

I concede MPs don't always reflect relative strength. It seems like the ACBL is attempting to award MP based on strength, though. And for practicality this is the best way to do it. KOs are a non sequitur in this thread, I agree.

 

I wasn't arguing that they should award MPs based on field strength, I don't think. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the 12 board speedballs pay the same award as a full session at the club? My point is I'd hate to see this happen with silver points. 12 board speedball sectionals offering a full award would be a crime.

[barmar]

ACBL MP awards are based on a number of things: Size of field, entry fees, type of event (different tournament types, special games at clubs, etc.), and strength of field as estimated by masterpoint requirements. LM Pairs pays more MPs than NLM Pairs, and you get more MPs for winning a flight A than a flight C pair game (although flighted pair games are pretty much extinct, having been supplanted by stratified games).

[fred]

I wasn't arguing that they should award MPs based on field strength, I don't think. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the 12 board speedballs pay the same award as a full session at the club? My point is I'd hate to see this happen with silver points. 12 board speedball sectionals offering a full award would be a crime.

I am not our resident expert on the ACBL masterpoint scheme as it pertains to clubs (online or offline). Uday knows more - maybe he will chime in.

 

I do know that masterpoint awards for games with 18+ boards are (sensibly of course) more for than those for our games with 12 boards. It would not surprise me if we were to try running 18 boards online tournaments one day (and continue running them if people want to play in them).

 

So no, our 12-board speedballs do not offer as many masterpoints as a full session at the club (which in my experience always consists of more than 18 boards). There may be other factors in play as well that go against the number of masterpoints BBO can award compared to those awarded in similar games in real life ACBL-sanctioned bridge clubs.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[JoAnneM]

This is a good discussion, interesting points on both sides of the fence. I have been aware of a number of pairs who have been banned from various bridge sites for cheating, and for the most part they are accomplished players. So, why do they do it? I think that would be an interesting study. Many years ago on an early site I briefly had a partner who wanted me to send my hand on whatever messenger program that was in use at the time. He was quite a good player but had an ego that wouldn't quit. I have no idea whatever happened to him. The point is that since it was online bridge he just thought it was "fun bridge" and didn't matter.

[fred]

Many years ago on an early site I briefly had a partner who wanted me to send my hand on whatever messenger program that was in use at the time. He was quite a good player but had an ego that wouldn't quit. I have no idea whatever happened to him. The point is that since it was online bridge he just thought it was "fun bridge" and didn't matter.

Did you think it mattered?

 

How did you react?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jjbrr]

I wasn't arguing that they should award MPs based on field strength, I don't think. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the 12 board speedballs pay the same award as a full session at the club? My point is I'd hate to see this happen with silver points. 12 board speedball sectionals offering a full award would be a crime.

I am not our resident expert on the ACBL masterpoint scheme as it pertains to clubs (online or offline). Uday knows more - maybe he will chime in.

 

I do know that masterpoint awards for games with 18+ boards are (sensibly of course) more for than those for our games with 12 boards. It would not surprise me if we were to try running 18 boards online tournaments one day (and continue running them if people want to play in them).

 

So no, our 12-board speedballs do not offer as many masterpoints as a full session at the club (which in my experience always consists of more than 18 boards). There may be other factors in play as well that go against the number of masterpoints BBO can award compared to those awarded in similar games in real life ACBL-sanctioned bridge clubs.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I'd be interested to hear from Uday, then.

 

I just checked the winner of the "Pairs Thursday 3PM Speedball" and the winner won 2.00 Online points.

 

Name: batoo-nadine5 Score:77.28 Rank: A 1 B 1 C 1 Points: 2.00

 

"A. OPEN GAME AWARDS

 

Open games (SEE CHAPTER.4, Section Two-I.) award .10 MP per table for

 

first place in each group. The second place award is 70% of 1st, third

 

is 50% of 1st, fourth is 35%, fifth is 1/5 and sixth is 1/6, etc. This

 

applies to all open sections for pair, and individual games. Maximum

 

award is 1.50 masterpoints. (SEE Files MPPAIRS)"

 

From http://www.bridgehands.com/Laws/ACBL/Dupli...ook_Clubs_2.htm

 

 

This was what I was getting my info from, and I was wrong, it seems BBO offers more MPs to win. Or I just don't know what any of it means.

[jdonn]

He thinks bridge is more fun if you can see partner's hand?

[barmar]

I think he meant "just for fun", as opposed to "for real".

 

We used to have a lunchtime bridge game at my workplace. Except for me, they were all novices, and we played for fun, we didn't keep score.

 

I eventually stopped going, I didn't find it interesting or challenging, and felt out of place with them.