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

[hrothgar]

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 events 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.

 

I can't help but believe this is scheduled for April 1st

[pigpenz]

how about trying some acbl games where south doesnt always have the best hand at the table.

we have tried the 18 board games and they dont seem to draw the crowds that the speedballs do, why?(both bots and people)

or better yet have a full born bot sectional or regional 200 tables of bots with a sectional rating, big masterpoint prizes.

 

Try it maybe it will catch on.

[mgoetze]

Personally, I am very excited about the next series of Dancing With The Stars and would certainly consider playing an ACBL online speedball if conversation about it were mandatory.

[fred]

how about trying some acbl games where south doesnt always have the best hand at the table.

we have tried the 18 board games and they dont seem to draw the crowds that the speedballs do, why?(both bots and people)

or better yet have a full born bot sectional or regional 200 tables of bots with a sectional rating, big masterpoint prizes.

 

Try it maybe it will catch on.

There are other classes of robot tournaments on BBO in which the user has the choice between best hand or random hands. Close to 80% seem to prefer best hand (which is the main reason we have not introduced random hand robot tournaments in our ACBL schedule).

 

I am not really involved in this aspect of our operation, but I think it is fair to say that if we get enough requests for a new type of ACBL event, there is a good chance that we will at least try running such events. Best to e-mail acbl@bridgebase.com if you have any suggestions pertaining to our ACBL program.

 

We would love to be able to run the occasional ACBL Sectional or Regional, but so far ACBL has not been open to such possibilities. It is probably best to e-mail your ACBL District Director if you would like to see ACBL consider changing their policies in this area.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Vampyr]

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.

 

But it may be the sanctioned online games in general. It's good if online sites bring people to bridge, but the goal from the ACBL's point of view should be for them to eventually take the plunge and play live bridge. To "move on" as it were.

 

Obviously Fred has reasons to disagree with this goal.

[aguahombre]

Best to e-mail acbl@bridgebase.com if you have any suggestions pertaining to our ACBL program.

 

We would love to be able to run the occasional ACBL Sectional or Regional, but so far ACBL has not been open to such possibilities. It is probably best to e-mail your ACBL District Director if you would like to see ACBL consider changing their policies in this area.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

No, I will not bitch to ACBL about what you are doing or trying to do re: bots and sanctioned events. As with many things in life, if I don't like something I don't have to do it or spoil it for someone else.

 

That doesn't stop me from venting my feelings to you guys, of course :rolleyes:

[fred]

But it may be the sanctioned online games in general. It's good if online sites bring people to bridge, but the goal from the ACBL's point of view should be for them to eventually take the plunge and play live bridge. To "move on" as it were.

 

Obviously Fred has reasons to disagree with this goal.

Fred does not agree that this *should* be the ACBL's goal.

 

Fred believes that bridge is bridge.

 

Fred believes that it is good that bridge players have choices as to where they play their bridge.

 

Fred believes that individual bridge players will gravitate to events/venues/media that are best for them in terms of convenience, enjoyment, economics, social stimulus, mental challenge, strength of competition (or lack thereof), and/or whatever other factors they find to be important.

 

Fred believes that if the ACBL were to adopt the position that traditional events/venues/media are the only forms of "real bridge" then they might as well kiss the future goodbye.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mike777]

Good points raised by posters.

 

 

It may be that the future of bridge in the ACBL might someday be where most(over 50%) of tables will be online.

 

We have talked about this before if at some point computing power gets so cheap you have hologram bridge where we all sit down at a table. We feel the cards and the green felt, smell the scotch on LHO and admire how RHO is dressed.

 

 

I cant find it now but I think somewhere I posted how many acbl tables are played online out of total tables per acbl documents. The numbers should be somewhere on the acbl site of annual reports.

 

 

I do think this whole debate about best hand sanctioned robot acbl games is a heathly one.

I never have played one but many of my old old buddies love them.

[CSGibson]

I enjoy robot bridge. It's a new and interesting bridge problem, and I've probably played over 500 robot tourneys.

 

Some things are obvious to me about robot bridge:

 

Fred is right in saying that both humans and robots have weaknesses. I do not believe it is right to compare the two, however. The human weaknesses change over time, and are therefore never entirely predictable. The robot weaknesses, however, are very predictable. As a practical matter, there is never a room in a real bridge club where I understand the foibles of every opponent, but in the robot tournament I do have a very clear assessment of every individual. For example, I know that GIB hates aggressive leads, and can play accordingly.

 

The best hand aspect gives a significant advantage to a declarer/defender in placing high cards with laser-like precision.

 

My other impression is that it is difficult to give GIB information on defense which will make the defense easier. This weakness is camouflaged by the best hand thing, since we are nearly always declaring, but cooperative defensive efforts are part of "real" bridge, and is something that I have not witnessed from GIB.

 

I do believe that bridge (specifically declaring) skill is an important aspect of scoring well in a GIB tournament, but handling the robots is probably more important - its a war of attrition where the winners are frequently those that can best avoid having their partner fix them.

 

The clearest example of how the two games are different is in the Expected Variance for opening 1N light. In robot bridge, I estimate that opening 1N on any 14 has a positive EV on my score. I have a higher frequency of playing the hand and being able to apply my knowledge of robot "rules" to manipulate the defense. In real life, violating your NT range has a demonstrated negative EV (in a study done by the Bridge World or Inquiry, I can't remember which, I just remember the result).

[barmar]

While robot tourneys are not the same as playing against people, it's also true that IMP games aren't the same as MP games (e.g. the EV of bidding thin games). We have so many different forms of the game that ACBL sanctions, what's wrong with having one more? The rudiments of the game are the same for all of them, but they each emphasize slightly different specific skills and strategies.

 

I'll bet many players had similar feelings when Swiss Teams started to replace BAM as the usual format for team tournaments, and then when VP scoring replaced Win-Loss in Swiss Teams. Resistance against change is a constant in human society -- there's always disagreement over whether it's progress or corruption.

[CSGibson]

While robot tourneys are not the same as playing against people, it's also true that IMP games aren't the same as MP games (e.g. the EV of bidding thin games). We have so many different forms of the game that ACBL sanctions, what's wrong with having one more? The rudiments of the game are the same for all of them, but they each emphasize slightly different specific skills and strategies.

 

I'll bet many players had similar feelings when Swiss Teams started to replace BAM as the usual format for team tournaments, and then when VP scoring replaced Win-Loss in Swiss Teams. Resistance against change is a constant in human society -- there's always disagreement over whether it's progress or corruption.

 

Very well said. And for the record, I was not meaning to come out against sanctioning robot games, I was just trying to talk around some points I felt had been made disingenuously earlier in the thread.

[Vampyr]

Sorry my mistake.

 

LOL sorry I didn't mean to strike a nerve. You are justifiably proud of your product, and I didn't intend to give the impression that I was rubbishing it.

[Zelandakh]

I do not have any problem with awarding MPs for bridge games including robots. I do have a problem for awarding MPs for games where the human player is guaranteed to receive the most hcp, or indeed any other such condition which violates the rules of bridge such as removing vulnerability or whatever. The rotation is part of the randomness of the hand; removing it reduces the number of possible hands enormously. As a mathematician I feel I am smart enough to understand this. Suggesting that someone else is not smart simply because they disagree with you is the height of rudeness imho, even more so when it comes from the boss.

[barmar]

The rotation is part of the randomness of the hand; removing it reduces the number of possible hands enormously.

Why is that a problem? This isn't rubber bridge, it doesn't matter if the hands "run one way". It's duplicate, you're being judged on what you do with the hands.

[Zelandakh]

Why is that a problem? This isn't rubber bridge, it doesn't matter if the hands "run one way". It's duplicate, you're being judged on what you do with the hands.

It matters because it gives you a count on the hand that is not there. If I have 10hcp I know 100% that the points are distributed 10:10:10:10 around the table. Similarly if I have 15 hcp and LHO has shown up with 13 I know for certain that RHO has the king. I have no problems with this as a card game contest, after all it is the same for everyone, but do not insult my intelligence by saying it is the same as normal bridge.

[barmar]

It matters because it gives you a count on the hand that is not there. If I have 10hcp I know 100% that the points are distributed 10:10:10:10 around the table. Similarly if I have 15 hcp and LHO has shown up with 13 I know for certain that RHO has the king. I have no problems with this as a card game contest, after all it is the same for everyone, but do not insult my intelligence by saying it is the same as normal bridge.

The point of duplicate bridge is to test your ability to bid and play against other people with the same cards. This skill is tested just as well when you know the point distribution. You all have the same information, it's what you do with it that counts.

 

Someone used to rubber bridge might claim that duplicate isn't "normal bridge". And vice versa -- a duplicate player might consider it unfair that they can play their best at rubber bridge, but still lose because the other players got most of the good cards.

 

Yes, we bid differently in best hand games than random deals -- if my partner opens and I have around 13 HCP and support, I just jump to game. But so do Precision players.

[aguahombre]

You all have the same information, it's what you do with it that counts.

Just out of curiosity, are the bots programmed to have the same information (about the high-card distribution not being random) and to act on that information?

[barmar]

No, the robots don't know South always has the best hand.

[fred]

It matters because it gives you a count on the hand that is not there. If I have 10hcp I know 100% that the points are distributed 10:10:10:10 around the table. Similarly if I have 15 hcp and LHO has shown up with 13 I know for certain that RHO has the king. I have no problems with this as a card game contest, after all it is the same for everyone, but do not insult my intelligence by saying it is the same as normal bridge.

So what?

 

These events are clearly contests in which bridge skill is required in order to succeed. Other skills that in general do not come into play in "normal bridge" (as you call it) also happen to be useful (as your examples illustrate).

 

While it is true that some "normal bridge skills" tend not to receive much of a test in best hand tournaments, the same is certainly true of, for example, any event scored by MPs (where bridge skills such as "ensuring you make your contract" are secondary) or, for example, in most ACBL-sanctioned events (where bridge skills such as "defending against unfamiliar artificial 2-level openings" do not come into play).

 

My contention is that it is more than reasonable for organizations such as ACBL to recongize and reward success in contests of bridge skill even if such contests have features that diffentiate them from "normal bridge".

 

This is especially true if large numbers of members of such organizations have said "this is a form of bridge that we really like to play". For the ACBL or similar organizations to deny their members recognition for success in their bridge events of choice would not be smart, especially at a time in which many of these oganizations are facing most uncertain futures.

 

Several years ago the WBF ran a par contest at the World Championships. The problems that the players faced were extremely difficult. In order to be successful, one had to exhibit a massive amount of bridge skill.

 

This contest violated the Laws of bridge in a number of areas (including those that mandate random deals), but IMO it was great that the WBF ran this contest and it was entirely appropriate that the successful participants were awarded medals, masterpoints, fame, and glory - they deserved it!

 

News Flash: Bridge is not as popular as it used to be in America and a large percentage of those Americans who play happen to be elderly.

 

If new forms of the game demonstrate potential to make our game more popular, the powers that be would be most foolish (bordering on suicial) to dismiss such initiatives because they are not "normal bridge".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[nigel_k]

The point of duplicate bridge is to test your ability to bid and play against other people with the same cards. This skill is tested just as well when you know the point distribution. You all have the same information, it's what you do with it that counts.

Taken to an extreme you could have a game with where GIB is programmed to only use deals where your side can take at least 12 tricks. At some point it stops being bridge.

 

I am not saying that best hand takes it so far away from being bridge that there should be no masterpoints. But certainly some skills that are important for success in 'normal' bridge are much less useful playing best hand. The main point is that a line must be drawn somewhere, probably arbitrarily, but just asking whether it tests your bidding and play cannot be the standard.

[Vampyr]

just asking whether it tests your bidding and play cannot be the standard.

 

Maybe the ACBL should start giving out masterpoints for quizzes. B-)

[aguahombre]

"a large percentage of those Americans who play happen to be elderly."

 

We prefer "chronologically advanced".

[gnasher]

These events are clearly contests in which bridge skill is required in order to succeed. Other skills that in general do not come into play in "normal bridge" (as you call it) also happen to be useful (as your examples illustrate).

Doesn't that also apply to playing pass-on bridge (where you pass your cards to your LHO at the end of the auction), solving Bridgemaster deals, or reading the Bridge World? Obviously the robot-games are closer to real bridge than any of these, but that doesn't mean that they're sufficiently close.

 

The ACBL exists to promote something called "bridge". It's perfectly reasonable to define that as including games like BBO's robot-games, but it also seems reasonable to say that it requires randomly dealt hands and/or a human in each seat, and that without these it is merely another game which happens to bear some resemblance to bridge.

 

This is especially true if large numbers of members of such organizations have said "this is a form of bridge that we really like to play". For the ACBL or similar organizations to deny their members recognition for success in their bridge events of choice would not be smart, especially at a time in which many of these oganizations are facing most uncertain futures.

I agree that a member-funded organisation should be receptive to the views of its members, but it also has to consider the reasons for its existence. The fact that lots of ACBL members do something doesn't make it "bridge" for the purposes of the ACBL - many of the ACBL's members play Farmville (whatever that is) but I don't suppose that you want them to be given masterpoints for it.

 

If new forms of the game demonstrate potential to make our game more popular, the powers that be would be most foolish (bordering on suicial) to dismiss such initiatives because they are not "normal bridge".

Equally, if a new game that was not bridge had the potential to discourage people from playing bridge, the powers-that-be would be very foolish to encourage it.

 

I don't really have any opinion about the actual decision - what the ACBL does with its masterpoints is of not much concern to me - but it seems to me that the key question is about the purpose of the ACBL's existence. It may well make sense, from the ACBL's perspective, to withdraw its support for robot games, even if that entails a loss of members, because that's the best way to encourage what it perceives to be bridge.

[fred]

I do not have any problem with awarding MPs for bridge games including robots. I do have a problem for awarding MPs for games where the human player is guaranteed to receive the most hcp, or indeed any other such condition which violates the rules of bridge such as removing vulnerability or whatever. The rotation is part of the randomness of the hand; removing it reduces the number of possible hands enormously. As a mathematician I feel I am smart enough to understand this. Suggesting that someone else is not smart simply because they disagree with you is the height of rudeness imho, even more so when it comes from the boss.

Yes I can be rude at times though I try not to be the one who starts it. It appears that Vampyr was more amused than offended by my sarcasm, but if not then I apologize.

 

But in terms of being "the boss" (which I am not by the way), I very much prefer to try to be as normal a person as possible and say what I think (sometimes to the displeasure of my business partners). My sense is that most Forums regulars appreciate this even if they find some of my posts to be stupid or rude as a result.

 

I must say, however, that I don't think this is just about "disagreeing with me". IMO if you disagree with me on the basis of mathematics or bridge Laws then you have completely missed the point. The point is not something you can arrive at via math smarts (apparently yours are stronger than mine) or smarts in the realm of bridge Laws (where no doubt compared to Vampyr I am a complete idiot).

 

This is mostly about marketing bridge.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[aguahombre]

"This is mostly about marketing bridge."

 

And, that is why I mostly backed off this thread. Free enterprise is a good thing. I will stay with the demand-side of the economic mix, and vote with my feet.