The Future of Bridge?

[hrothgar]

WoW is called a MMORPG, where the last 3 letters stand for "role playing game", but the playing of roles in WoW is rare enough that Blizzard has provided specific servers for it — and there are significantly fewer "RP" servers than there are "normal" or "PvP" (Player vs. Player) servers.

And D+D evolved into "Munchkin"

[tim_delane]

lol thread.

 

Look around your club.  Seriously.  What portion of the players do expect to be willing or able to play with little screens and buttons, or technologies they don't understand or like.  What do you think your attendance will be at such games?

 

Bridge is a card game.  People come to club to play with cards.

People used to bid by voice; now the use bid boxes without a qualm. I don't expect my vision to happen next year.

[eyhung]

So, even if we don't need a graphic display of a bloodthirsty King capturing a shrieking Queen, there are still benefits.

Personally, I think playing a game with graphic displays of a bloodthirsty King capturing a shrieking Queen, or Jacks uppercutting Kings, would be fun marketing. Anyone remember Battle Chess in the 1980s, the computer program that had the chess pieces come alive and fight?

[NickRW]

So, even if we don't need a graphic display of a bloodthirsty King capturing a shrieking Queen, there are still benefits.

Personally, I think playing a game with graphic displays of a bloodthirsty King capturing a shrieking Queen, or Jacks uppercutting Kings, would be fun marketing. Anyone remember Battle Chess in the 1980s, the computer program that had the chess pieces come alive and fight?

It would maybe interest some of the younger generation. I remember battle chess and I was quite a bit younger then - but it already looked cheesy.

 

Nick

[eyhung]

I'd rather market to the younger generation than to the older generation. Longer retention. Even now we're still reaping the benefits of marketing to youth in the 1940s.

 

Put in tie-ins to popular media franchises like Lord of the Rings -- Orcs for Clubs with Saruman as the Ace, or Elves for Hearts, and then have the cards fight when they win, and you may get some more people to give it a try. Purists may howl, but if we don't try to capture more players, in 25 years there may not be enough people left playing.

[NickRW]

I'd rather market to the younger generation than to the older generation. Longer retention. Even now we're still reaping the benefits of marketing to youth in the 1940s.

 

Put in tie-ins to popular media franchises like Lord of the Rings -- Orcs for Clubs with Saruman as the Ace, or Elves for Hearts, and then have the cards fight when they win, and you may get some more people to give it a try. Purists may howl, but if we don't try to capture more players, in 25 years there may not be enough people left playing.

Yuh, I wasn't disagreeing with you - so longer as these extras graphics have a 'switch it off' option for those of us less attracted to that sort of stuff :)

[Gerben42]

And D+D evolved into "Munchkin"

 

I ♥ Munchkin!

 

Back to topic, what is the big advantage of not having cards? If any advancement is made to avoid the duplicating before the game, it will be electronic playing cards that can be reset to play the next board.

[TimG]

Back to topic, what is the big advantage of not having cards? If any advancement is made to avoid the duplicating before the game, it will be electronic playing cards that can be reset to play the next board.

One advantage is that all bidding and play would be recorded.

[sathyab]

My $0.02. After a fairly successful Spring Nationals in Reno I was totally buried in work the following four months. Being seriously rusty, I started playing some on-line Bridge a week before the New Orleans Nationals . Since time was at a premium, I played a lot against GIBs, I didn't care how they played, I just wanted to get back to the game. I discovered much to my chagrin that on-line Bridge is hopelessly inadequate to prepare you serious F2F bridge.

[benlessard]

Imo electronic poker machines are simply great yet most people dont like them because they dont feel real.

 

The future of games in general is the machine doing the menial work and still lets people having all what there used to.

 

4 touch screen on a table =

 

automatic shuffle and keeping score, self alert, being able to ask for the meaning of a bid without alerting the opps. more hands in an hour no revoke, insufficiant bid or card played out of turn.

 

Once people will get used to it real card will be a thing of the past.

[billw55]

Imo electronic poker machines are simply great yet most people dont like them because they dont feel real.

 

The future of games in general is the machine doing the menial work and still lets people having all what there used to.

 

4 touch screen on a table =

 

automatic shuffle and keeping score, self alert, being able to ask for the meaning of a bid without alerting the opps. more hands in an hour no revoke, insufficiant bid or card played out of turn.

 

Once people will get used to it real card will be a thing of the past.

ummm ... right ...

 

And the same for chess? No illegal moves, no touch move controversy, no clock errors, full record for draw claims, etc .. perfect right? And maybe we can say the same for Go: no pesky stone drops that disturb the board. Oh and don't forget Scrabble and Monopoly. Pinochle and euchre too, and throw in Uno for good measure. Yes I can see it, eventually all games will be video games and everyone will love it! No need for boards or cards or dice ever again. How could anyone possibly prefer real equipment when they can have nice little screens and buttons?

 

mehhhh

[benlessard]

The difference is that in ,go,scrabble shogi, there is no big time upside for the electronic version. While for poker and bridge the upside (time) is really there. For poker we are talking 80 hands per hours instead of 20 + lower cost wich should translate in lower rake (but rarely does).

 

For bridge we are reducing possible cheating and playing more in the spirit of the laws of bridge (less UI, self explanation of the bids).

 

Ive played a lot of boardgames in my life and many of them are available on the web at

BSW brettspiel. Sure some of the boardgames are better live because seeing your opponnent is fun but many of the games are already more popular on the web because of greatly increased speed, rules that are easiers to learn, no game preparation , no sorting of pieces etc.

 

In the future we can assume that people will have IPAD like device that will allow them to play FTF games will all the fun of FTF but without the inconvenience of menial work

[billw55]

For poker we are talking 80 hands per hours instead of 20 + lower cost wich should translate in lower rake (but rarely does).

80 hands per hour? That's 45 seconds per hand, which is hard to believe even without shuffling and dealing. All the players can evaluate their hands, make all their decisions, all their bets, over 4 rounds of betting, in 45 seconds per hand on average? If they are, they must be speed gamblers, playing for a fast fix and not focusing on skill at all. Much like slot machines.

 

Ive played a lot of boardgames in my life and many of them are available on the web at BSW brettspiel. Sure some of the boardgames are better live because seeing your opponnent is fun but many of the games are already more popular on the web because of greatly increased speed, rules that are easiers to learn, no game preparation , no sorting of pieces etc.

I disagree. The primary reason people play their favorite games online is not for improved mechanics, but for ease of finding opponents. Pretty much everyone I know or talk to prefers a live game with real people given the choice. How many people stay at home on club night to play on BBO for 3-4 hours, because they just can't stand shuffling or the occasional revoke? I bet none. Rather, people play on BBO for the convenience of getting an hour or so of hands in at odd times, or maybe for longer sessions when a club game/tournament is not available within reasonable travel. BBO is not a substitute for real clubs, and will not ever be in my opinion.

 

In the future we can assume that people will have IPAD like device that will allow them to play FTF games will all the fun of FTF but without the inconvenience of menial work

I think we will find that people just plain like playing with cards, and just plain don't like playing everything with ipads. And I think this will continue to be true for the forseeable future. Am I wrong? Only time will tell :D

[TimG]

How many people stay at home on club night to play on BBO for 3-4 hours, because they just can't stand shuffling or the occasional revoke? I bet none. Rather, people play on BBO for the convenience of getting an hour or so of hands in at odd times, or maybe for longer sessions when a club game/tournament is not available within reasonable travel. BBO is not a substitute for real clubs, and will not ever be in my opinion.

There are lots of factors which go into the choice between BBO and live clubs.

 

If I could walk across the street to play a club game so that convenience was negligible (I'll ignore the benefits of pajamas, music and food and beverages of my choice), I would often choose to play online because of the quicker pace of play. I can play 3 speedballs (36 boards) in the time it takes to complete a normal live club game (24-27 boards). And, it even costs less.

 

Now, if I could take the few bucks I saved by playing online and use if for a post-game drink or two (or better yet, a snack) at the bar while discussing hands with friends...

 

There is a social difference between live clubs and online games. But, just as people have gotten used to computer scoring, bidding boxes and duplimates, people would get used to playing their cards on an iPad type device while they are sitting at a table with their partner and opponents.

[billw55]

There are lots of factors which go into the choice between BBO and live clubs.

 

If I could walk across the street to play a club game so that convenience was negligible (I'll ignore the benefits of pajamas, music and food and beverages of my choice), I would often choose to play online because of the quicker pace of play.  I can play 3 speedballs (36 boards) in the time it takes to complete a normal live club game (24-27 boards).  And, it even costs less.

 

Now, if I could take the few bucks I saved by playing online and use if for a post-game drink or two (or better yet, a snack) at the bar while discussing hands with friends...

 

There is a social difference between live clubs and online games.  But, just as people have gotten used to computer scoring, bidding boxes and duplimates, people would get used to playing their cards on an iPad type device while they are sitting at a table with their partner and opponents.

I understand what you are saying. And yes, there are other reasons people play on BBO.

 

But the last bit in green - I simply don't believe it. And like I said, only time will tell.

[Vilgan]

As one of the younger generation referred to in this post, a few comments:

 

I have no interest in ever playing bridge in a completely electronic fashion. Do I enjoy BBO? Sure, for the convenience factor. Its a great place to get a game without travel or waiting, and I think its a great place to practice with people. I (personally) don't have much respect for "online tournaments" however because it doesn't feel like real bridge to me. If the ACBL switched to an all online model, I would stop playing bridge.

 

The idea of driving to a club and then using electronic devices instead of cards similarly repels me. I want to play a card game. If I wanted to play an electronic game, I could play dozens such games from home that are going to be a lot more involving than bridge. I would like to see a lot of stuff involving scoring/dealing simplified via electronics, but the instant we switch from real cards to devices bridge loses its appeal imo.

 

Looking at poker which has dealt with this more than bridge: My girlfriend's brother is a professional poker player. He makes most of his money playing online instead of in person. However, he FAR prefers in person and only does the online stuff because it is easier to take care of his kid while he does it. Probably 90% of his poker playing is done online but the 10% in person is the part he really enjoys while the online stuff he sees as a grind to make a living.

 

I personally see the evolution of bridge being the electronic form becoming more and more like F2F rather than F2F becoming more like BBO. 50-100 years from now maybe we will meet in holographic form, deal the cards, and sit around the virtual table similarly to how we do at clubs, but from the convenience of our own home. Until that time though, I can think of no better way to kill the game off than to make it yet another video game. It will not be able to compete in that arena.

[billw55]

If the ACBL switched to an all online model, I would stop playing bridge.

 

The idea of driving to a club and then using electronic devices instead of cards similarly repels me

 

the instant we switch from real cards to devices bridge loses its appeal imo.

 

I can think of no better way to kill the game off than to make it yet another video game.

Agree all around.

 

For what it's worth I probably also count as the younger generation - I'm 38, and have far more bridge ahead of me than behind me. And I am quite comfortable and competent with computers and electronics. But as a replacement for real cards - no thanks.

[pdmunro]

What if you had a club that you could drop into for an hour, or so, 24/7? Electronic screens took the place of cards. Haven't got a 4th? No worries, the 4th player was someone on BBO.

[jillybean]

What if you had a club that you could drop into for an hour, or so, 24/7? Electronic screens took the place of cards. Haven't got a 4th? No worries, the 4th player was someone on BBO.

The MBC

[Vampyr]

I think we will find that people just plain like playing with cards, and just plain don't like playing everything with ipads.  And I think this will continue to be true for the forseeable future.  Am I wrong?  Only time will tell  ;)

I sincerely hope that you are not wrong.

[Vampyr]

I can play 3 speedballs (36 boards) in the time it takes to complete a normal live club game (24-27 boards).  And, it even costs less.

Yes, it's cheaper, in fact if you play on BBO it is free. But is it really more enjoyable? I have never evaluated a session of bridge by how many hands per hour we managed to fit in. Although I agree that the time factor in rubber bridge is important, since time really is money there.

[Free]

The true future of bridge is when everyone gets a device to bend space and time, so you can think all you want without anyone else noticing it. :(

[helene_t]

At some point in time, cyberspace will fuse with the real world. You will be able to play bridge on Second Life, using data gloves and stereo cameras to interact with avatars that may or may not look identical to the people behind them. Or you can play bridge in real life, using e-ink cards that are reprogrammed instead of shuffled and transmit the play to the computer so you don't need a bridgemate. You will hardly notice the difference between the two.

 

If you want to simulate the smell of your opponents' sweat and perfume, or the accidental kicking under the table, it's just a minor upgrade of you computer.

[gerry]

In FTF bridge my enemies (I have quite a few-surprise surprise) always seem to get a free hand at needling me until I tear them up and get huge DPs from directors who like everyone to play nice...

 

so online is huge, i get to abuse the crap out of these morons with no repercussions :)

[glen]

... so online is huge, i get to abuse the crap out of these morons with no repercussions :)

Osbourne Cox: ... You are part of a league of morons.

Ted Treffon: No. No.

Osbourne Cox: Oh, yes. You see, you're one of the morons I've been fighting my whole life. My whole f'ing life. But guess what... Today, I win.