Master points, the laws, the ACBL, that sort of thing...

[hrothgar]

Ran across an interesting thread on rec.games.bridge

 

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/rec.games.bridge/f5MV-Zc-Bqs

 

Apparently, there is a proposal in front of the ACBL BoD that would ban the ACBL from awarding ACBL masterpoints to bridge games that aren't run in accordance with the Laws...

 

I admit to being torn about this one:

 

On the one hand, the stickler in me thinks that the ACBL has a duty to promote "bridge", which means games that follow the laws.

Master Points are one of the primary services that the ACBL provides.

Withdrawing sanction is one of the organization big sticks...

 

At the same time, were this policy to be implemented, I'd expect it to generate enormous numbers of problems.

From a practical basis, ACBL sanctioned games violate the Laws constantly (think about local clubs that ban psyches or what have you, suggested defenses, or any number of other issues)

 

The whole thing has the makings of a cluster-$&(@#...

 

Moreover, I can't help but believe that this is a thinly veiled attempt to reopen issues involving sanctioning online games...

 

This issue was decided.

Get over it...

 

The best way to thread the needle is probably to shelve the whole thing until its possible to get a real set of online laws, however, lord knows if/when that's going to happen.

[Siegmund]

I was under the misapprehension they already weren't supposed to sanction games that aren't run in accordance with the Laws, and didn't think a new motion was needed to remind them of it. (In particular, I believed that a club policy to ban all psyching was grounds for losing their sanction, but apparently that hasn't been enforced for a long time either.)

 

Admittedly I have requested and received permission to award masterpoints for an odd game before -- an auction bridge game run in accordance with the 1920 Laws, as part of a pioneer-days type community festival -- and I would be sorry of the successor to the American Auction Bridge League was no longer able to carry on that organization's work. But I have a feeling that isn't what the legislators were taking aim at.

 

I am not 100% sure I would agree that the robot games are not in accordance with the laws, under the provision for non-random deals that is used for par contests. In a sense that is what robot games are, with all the contestants having the other three hands played for them in the "same" way.

[inquiry]

The robot gib acbl things are randomly dealt (the letter of the law). IT is true the hands are rotated so that south (the human player) gets the "strongest" hand (this isn't exactly right, it gets the hand with the most hcp.... i don't think in cases of ties there are any mechanism to give south the "best hand" by other evaluation methods).

 

IT is true that knowning, for instance if you have 12 hcp, nobody else will have 13 hcp makes play not consistent with the concept of random deals. It is a different, but totally fair game.... and the players like holding the stronger hands.

[Vampyr]

The robot gib acbl things are randomly dealt

 

Can you really get ACBL masterpoints playing with robots? LOL

[JLOGIC]

Can you really get ACBL masterpoints playing with robots? LOL

 

Why is this an LOL? You can get ACBL masterpoints in much less "fair" games playing against much weaker opposition than the robots. The truth is the robots play much much better than most humans. In robot tournaments you are playing at a table with and against robots, but you are competing against real humans who have your cards and face largely the same decisions (because the robots usually do the same things). There is a much higher skill:luck ratio than in a normal club game in these things.

[aguahombre]

Can you really get ACBL masterpoints playing with robots? LOL

Why is this an LOL?

As Jack N said in A Few Good Men, "It's not funny; it's tragic."

 

I could barely comprehend getting points playing against bots, not with one. Have we really degenerated the game so that one doesn't even need enough people skills to get a partner?

[pigpenz]

Thats the ACBLs business selling masterpoints.

How many times has someone asked you what you got for winning a tournament, and you say points and they say "what no money?"

It used to be in bridge where else could you compete against world champions, but once all the flighted,bracketed,stratified, and never ending KO's etc came along

so did the chance to compete often against the best players in the world.

[nigel_k]

There must be something wrong with my brain because I have never been motivated much by masterpoints and can't understand why so many other people seem to be.

[Vampyr]

Thats the ACBLs business selling masterpoints.

 

 

Yes, and I wonder if diluting their brand will come back to haunt them.

[barmar]

I could barely comprehend getting points playing against bots, not with one. Have we really degenerated the game so that one doesn't even need enough people skills to get a partner?

I prefer playing with people, but when I play online it's primarily with robots. When I play with humans I want to play with people I know -- the robot games have saved me from the crapshoot of playing with randoms.

[aguahombre]

Nothing wrong with choosing to have a robot partner, for whatever reason. My comment referred to getting credit in sanctioned games.

[pigpenz]

Nothing wrong with choosing to have a robot partner, for whatever reason. My comment referred to getting credit in sanctioned games.

could you imagine if you went to a regional and the room was full of computers

and you always got the best hand at the table and your partner and opps were GIBs.

[aguahombre]

No. Did I sound like I want that?

[pigpenz]

No. Did I sound like I want that?

no :)

 

but maybe they will add the other robot game everyone plays where you pass out the hands if you cant make game!

the one based on total points, what are they robot races? Maybe the ACBL will get into those too.

[JLOGIC]

Yes, and I wonder if diluting their brand will come back to haunt them.

 

Why is it diluted by playing in robot tournaments? You face tougher opposition than a normal game, in a more controlled environment where skill will equate to masterpoints more often than in normal games (less luck factor).

 

You anti robot people just seem like luddites!

[aguahombre]

I think there is a difference between not wanting ACBL sanction games to include robots and being anti-robot.

[pigpenz]

I think there is a difference between not wanting ACBL sanction games to include robots and being anti-robot.

almost all of my playing is with the robots...and what JLall says playing with the robots does become more a game of skill

than luck....but I myself would just as soon see robot play where you dont have the best hand at the table.

[Vampyr]

I think there is a difference between not wanting ACBL sanction games to include robots and being anti-robot.

 

Indeed; I am not anti-robot and I don't really care what the ACBL do; but they do serve a larger group of players than any other NGO, so what they do is of at least a little concern for the rest of us.

 

As their masterpoints have become easier and easier, over the years, to obtain, they have kept changing the goalposts (the goal, for many people, being to become a Life Master). First there was the introduction of ever-expanding varieties of pigmented point, recently there was the raising of the necessary total points -- what next?

 

So playing with robots, and playing online in general, may be a perfectly valid way of playing bridge; this is obviously a matter of opinion. But what is not a matter of opinion is that the ACBL are selling their chief commodity at a significantly lower rate of time, effort and money as before. Maybe they are receiving the same rate per point, or aren't but just reckon the extra income is pouring in "for free". I do not think that it is free.

 

There is a smaller question, though, which is whether learning to maneuver around the robots' foibles is a valuable bridge skill. Also knowing that you have the best hand and declaring on most hands. This is a lot of fun, but is it bridge?

[fred]

But what is not a matter of opinion is that the ACBL are selling their chief commodity at a significantly lower rate of time, effort and money as before.

You say this as if it is a bad thing.

 

Assume that everything else is equal, but you can get the same masterpoints for less money (for example, maybe clubs and tournaments drop their entry fees). Wouldn't that be good?

 

Assume that everything else is equal, but you can get the same masterpoitns in less time (for example, maybe really slow players pick up their pace). Wouldn't that be good?

 

As far as "less effort" goes, Justin is completely correct that our robots play at a significantly higher level than most club players in America are able to. It does not take "less effort" to score well against robot opponents than it would against average club level human opponents. Besides that, you are matchpointed against other humans - it is really them you have to beat.

 

There is a smaller question, though, which is whether learning to maneuver around the robots' foibles is a valuable bridge skill.

 

There is also the question as to whether learning to maneuver around humans who don't count out hands, who can't remember their own agreements, who don't understand that it is illegal to take advantage of partner's tempo and body language, etc. is a valuable bridge skill yet ACBL has been awarding masterpoints forever to clubs where such things are the norm.

 

The bottom line is that it is a valuable bridge skill to recognize your partners' and opponents' strengths and weaknesses and attempt to use such knowledge to your own benefit.

 

You also conveniently ignore the fact that our robot tournaments take the wonderful notion of "duplicate bridge" to a whole new level - not only do all competitors play the same deals, they also play them with the same partners and against the same opponents. That arguably makes these tournaments (by far) the purest contests of bridge skill ever devised.

 

You seem smart enough to understand that this is far more significant than the fact that the specific set of bridge skills being measured in robot tournaments is not exactly identical to those that are measured in a typical club game (which, as I pointed out above, are not exactly free from flaws). Furthermore, you recognize that these tournaments are "fun" and many young players seem to agree with you. That is extremely important at a time in which organizations like ACBL are in desperate need of attracting fresh blood.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Vampyr]

You say this as if it is a bad thing.

 

Assume that everything else is equal, but you can get the same masterpoints for less money (for example, maybe clubs and tournaments drop their entry fees). Wouldn't that be good?

 

Good for whom? It is good for the online players, but not for those who see attendance dropping at clubs and tournaments as a result. I think that these are the vast majority of ACBL players, therefore the ones that the ACBL should serve.

 

Assume that everything else is equal, but you can get the same masterpoitns in less time (for example, maybe really slow players pick up their pace). Wouldn't that be good?

 

I find that the pace at the games I play in is acceptable. "Less time" refers to the fact that one can play about a hundred times a day with or without robots, rather than once or a few times per week. Again, good for the online player, but bad for bridge in North America if it lets people earn lots of points online and reach their goal of Life Master or whatever sooner, and play (live bridge) seldom thereafter.

 

As far as "less effort" goes, Justin is completely correct that our robots play at a significantly higher level than most club players in America are able to. It does not take "less effort" to score well against robot opponents than it would against average club level human opponents. Besides that, you are matchpointed against other humans - it is really them you have to beat.

 

By "less effort" I mean not having to arrange a partner and arrange to be free the evening or afternoon that the game is held, then get dressed, get into the car or bus, get to the club...

 

There is also the question as to whether learning to maneuver around humans who don't count out hands, who can't remember their own agreements, who don't understand that it is illegal to take advantage of partner's tempo and body language, etc. is a valuable bridge skill yet ACBL has been awarding masterpoints forever to clubs where such things are the norm.

 

Well, I am talking more about learning to capitalise on the robots' weaknesses by doing things that are inferior in the bridge sense but prevent the robots from making their characteristic mistakes.

 

The bottom line is that it is a valuable bridge skill to recognize your partners' and opponents' strengths and weaknesses and attempt to use such knowledge to your own benefit.

 

Maybe. See above.

 

You also conveniently ignore the fact that our robot tournaments take the wonderful notion of "duplicate bridge" to a whole new level - not only do all competitors play the same deals, they also play them with the same partners and against the same opponents. That arguably makes these tournaments (by far) the purest contests of bridge skill ever devised.

 

Ignore? No. But's it's true that I don't agree, based on the reason given above.

 

You seem smart enough to understand that this is far more significant than the fact that the specific set of bridge skills being measured in robot tournaments is not exactly identical to those that are measured in a typical club game (which, as I pointed out above, are not exactly free from flaws).

 

What is more significant? The "super-duplicate" effect? No.

 

Furthermore, you recognize that these tournaments are "fun" and many young players seem to agree with you. That is extremely important at a time in which organizations like ACBL are in desperate need of attracting fresh blood.

 

But it's no good to the ACBL membership if this "fresh blood" do all their bridge playing in front of the television instead of in ACBL events. Also there is even the danger that these young players will become too used to the best hand and 90% (or whatever) rate of declarer play and will become bored when confronted with the realities of actual bridge.

Edited March 13, 2012 by inquiry
whoops i down voted this by mistake... i didn't mean to vote for it one way or the other.... and I didn't know downvoting was activated....

[fred]

You seem smart enough to understand...

Sorry my mistake.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

Good for whom? It is good for the online players, but not for those who see attendance dropping at clubs and tournaments as a result. I think that these are the vast majority of ACBL players, therefore the ones that the ACBL should serve.

While online bridge may be causing f2f bridge attendance to drop (and I'm not even sure it is -- f2f bridge has been dwindling since long before online bridge exploded), I doubt it's the robot games that are the primary cause of it.

[aguahombre]

While online bridge may be causing f2f bridge attendance to drop (and I'm not even sure it is -- f2f bridge has been dwindling since long before online bridge exploded), I doubt it's the robot games that are the primary cause of it.

On-line bridge in theory should be a boost to real Bridge. Robots are a good thing for people to practice on line.

 

Allowing a robot partner for a sanctioned game is where I draw the line. If, because of that, Fred believes I am also not smart enough to understand, so be it.

[fred]

On-line bridge in theory should be a boost to real Bridge. Robots are a good thing for people to practice on line.

 

Allowing a robot partner for a sanctioned game is where I draw the line. If, because of that, Fred believes I am also not smart enough to understand, so be it.

Actually I am really surprised at where you draw the line. Care to share your reasons?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Phil]

Fred, if you look at the Memphis agenda, I believe that the District 11 Director, Mr. Wesley Mouch, is proposing the following ACBL legislation:

 

A Bridge to Peace

 

Preamble

 

Bridge in its purist form is a social game meant to be played by humans against humans for the advancement of human understanding. Winning does not mean defeating other people, but rather winning means those persons that exemplify the true spirit of the game.

 

With this in mind, the following changes are made, effective immediately:

 

A. All sanctions for games involving mechanical devices such as robots, toasters and hedge-trimmers are hereby cancelled.

 

B. Bridge is a game meant to be played at a leisurely pace. Part of its enjoyment is the social aspect. Therefore, all Speedball games must have a minimum of 12, and a maximum of 18 minutes for a two-board round. This gives the participants ample time to catch up with each other with their views of "Dancing with the Stars", gives the participants enough time to read the paper travelers, and a quick tinkle.

 

C. An exemption shall be made to Item "B" above for any vugraph events of ACBL tournaments such as the Vanderbilt and the Spingold. Vugraph is community theater, and is for the benefit of the vugraph audience, not the players. A pace of five minutes per board shall be strictly enforced, and unplayed boards will be played out by GIB like those funny money bridge online contests.

 

Furthermore, then there is an 'obvious' claim (i.e., GIB says that at least 70% of the cards left will result in making the contract), the DIC shall step in and deem the hand complete. This especially applies to those slow foreign players such as the Dutch with their funny shoes, and to those surly Polish players who were mean to us last year in the regional swiss teams at Paducah.