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

[JLOGIC]

FWIW:

 

I agree that the whole "you have the best hand" thing is questionable at best whether it is "bridge" or not. It seems like you're sacrificing something about the game in order for people to have a better time (as fred said, there are random deal tournaments, and most people choose best hand ones instead, including me).

 

IMO it is minor enough to not matter, but of course there is the question of where to draw the line and that might be a slippery slope.

 

I do not agree at all that playing with/against robots is questionable as to whether you are still playing "bridge" or not. The robots play bridge. In fact, they play bridge much better than the average human. They count, they squeeze, they endplay, they play a system, they have idiosyncrasies, whatever. Artificial intelligence is real. Even if robots are not near the very top human players (yet) it doesn't matter, they are still playing bridge, and playing against them is no different than playing against humans imo.

 

So, if the ACBL were to implement a ban against rules that go against "bridge" I could understand if they forced BBO to run random hand tournaments rather than best hand tournaments. That would be a shame, but fine imo, I would get it. At the end of the day people would still have the same hands, and would still be competing in a duplicate bridge game against other humans, it just might be more boring to most people, which is not necessarily horrible (but bad imo).

 

If the ACBL were to implement a band against rules that go against bridge, and ban sanctioning of ROBOT games, I would have a huge problem with that, and would consider that just to be an anti technology/ignorant stance.

 

I would also be curious to see if they banned sanctioning of clubs that had no psyching or similar rules.

[Vampyr]

If the ACBL were to implement a band against rules that go against bridge, and ban sanctioning of ROBOT games, I would have a huge problem with that, and would consider that just to be an anti technology/ignorant stance.

 

Couldn't BBO still run "best hand" and random robot games without ACBL sanctioning? Do you think that this would decrease participation?

 

And if it did, what would the non-players be doing instead? Bridge (online or other) or something else? Maybe the former.

[JLOGIC]

Couldn't BBO still run "best hand" and random robot games without ACBL sanctioning? Do you think that this would decrease participation?

 

Yes, and yes. They do in fact run both of those, at a lower price than the ACBL ones I think, and they are much less popular. They also run 55 % and you get your money back ones at the same price as the ACBL ones, and those are also much less popular. Clearly people value the ACBL sanctioned ones which offer masterpoints.

 

I still do not see good arguments for the ACBL to refuse to sanction random robot duplicates. I see the arguments for not sanctioning the best hand ones, I don't think that it outweighs the fact that people prefer the best hand ones by a lot since I view best hand vs random as a very minor thing personally, but I at least get that.

 

IMO the agenda with this is more that some people are anti robots and anti online bridge, so they're trying to find a reason to shut this whole thing down, than people legitimately being worried about the difference in best hand and random (not saying that's true of the people in this thread).

 

I do not think this will pass because I'm sure the ACBL makes a lot of money from these ACBL sanctioned robot duplicates, and money is king.

 

Of course that is cynical and just my view, I do not have inside information about it. We are talking about the same people who kept trying to shut down junior funding when a team from our country won/medaled every year, and the same people want to leave the WBF, and the same people who want to stop junior discounts at nationals etc etc. Luckily they are a minority so those things do not pass either.

[Cthulhu D]

Yes, and yes. They do in fact run both of those, at a lower price than the ACBL ones I think, and they are much less popular. They also run 55 % and you get your money back ones at the same price as the ACBL ones, and those are also much less popular. Clearly people value the ACBL sanctioned ones which offer masterpoints.

 

I don't know why other bridge federations haven't got on board with this. At UK peak times, BBO player base (and thus BBO) might be keen to play EBU sanctioned events. It seems like money for jam from the EBU's perspective. It's obviously a much smaller winner if you're from a more obscure bridge federation (The ABF for example), it might not be worth the effort for BBO to engage with you.

 

However, I personally find the ACBL MP events fairly worthless as I'm not an ACBL member.

[barmar]

I agree that the whole "you have the best hand" thing is questionable at best whether it is "bridge" or not. It seems like you're sacrificing something about the game in order for people to have a better time (as fred said, there are random deal tournaments, and most people choose best hand ones instead, including me).

Me, too. However, the only type of tournament where we have this choice is Robot Reward, and I think best hand is really necessary to have a shot at winning. Having the robots bid a slam against you puts you in a really bad position.

 

We don't currently have a choice between best and random hand in ACBL robot tourneys. I don't remember if BBO offered a choice when these games were first created.

[Zelandakh]

Andy's and Justin's posts above effectively say what I was trying to even if they may draw their line in a different place to mine (or Fred's for that matter). I have no issues with games where robots are involved so long as they are played by the rules of bridge. My opinion is that "best hand" games are not played according to the rules of bridge and therefore you should not receive MPs for them. The same would be true for Minibridge, problem-solving competitions, bidding contests and, yes, also Farmville :blink: . Of course the ACBL could create new categories of MPs for these activities and that would be a way of promoting these games. But I think existing MPs should apply only to games that obey the rules of bridge. Bridge MPs for "bridge-like but non-bridge" activities is not something I can ever see myself agreeing with.

 

@fred: Thank you for apologising for the earlier comments, I am sure Stefanie appreciates that. Like it or not you are perceived as the boss around here so any time you post something that could be perceived as a personal attack it is going to be hurtful. I think your voice carries so much weight that your point will be made without needing to be overly abrupt. I can also say that I never found any of your posts to be "stupid", even those that I disagreed with.

[gnasher]

I still do not see good arguments for the ACBL to refuse to sanction random robot duplicates. I see the arguments for not sanctioning the best hand ones

The current proposal would affect only the "best hand" ones. There is a law that the deal should be random, but there's no law requiring the contestants to be human.

 

The argument for not sanctioning games involving robots would be simply "The ACBL exists to promote bridge played between humans, with a human occupying each seat. This is not such a game, therefore the ACBL does not promote it." I'm not saying that this is the ACBL's position, or that it should be, but it would be a perfectly reasonable position to take.

 

I think Fred's attitude is perfectly reasonable too. As I said, it depends on what you think is the ACBL's reason for existence.

Edited March 16, 2012 by gnasher

[mycroft]

The only problem I have with awarding monsterpoints for Robot games is that it makes it even harder for me to get into a competitive bracket at KOs - because I have no interest in these games, and don't play them. And since all these points count for KO seeding, now instead of needing to find teammates with 5000 MPs, I need to find teammates with 7000.

[Vampyr]

The only problem I have with awarding monsterpoints for Robot games is that it makes it even harder for me to get into a competitive bracket at KOs - because I have no interest in these games, and don't play them. And since all these points count for KO seeding, now instead of needing to find teammates with 5000 MPs, I need to find teammates with 7000.

 

That is really annoying.

 

Actually, I think that bracketed games are annoying in the first place.

 

In any case online points should be used for online purposes, not RL ones.

[pigpenz]

The ACBL is not GOD.

They are a business

they employ lots of people

alot of people rely on ACBL tournaments.

 

Who are the recipients of the ACBL business.

Hotels, directors, acbl staff.

players get masterpoints

professional players make money off of ACBL sanctioned events.

 

So I assume the ACBL will do whatever is in the best interests of them

keeping people employed and keeping players happy with masterpoints.

 

So next time you go to a regional and spend about $1000 for the week

ask yourself what you got for it?

 

it would probably be cheaper for most people to spend that same amount of money

on BBO ACBL games whether robot or not. The cost to the acbl is lower, but then

again you have to look at the people needed for a real live tournamanet. its comparable

to outsourcing I guess.

 

We could have all of our tournaments on line, no TD's no hotel bills no restaurant bills smaller acbl staff....its probably a better business plan for the future.

[Leo LaSota]

FWIW:

 

I agree that the whole "you have the best hand" thing is questionable at best whether it is "bridge" or not. It seems like you're sacrificing something about the game in order for people to have a better time (as fred said, there are random deal tournaments, and most people choose best hand ones instead, including me).

 

IMO it is minor enough to not matter, but of course there is the question of where to draw the line and that might be a slippery slope.

 

I do not agree at all that playing with/against robots is questionable as to whether you are still playing "bridge" or not. The robots play bridge. In fact, they play bridge much better than the average human. They count, they squeeze, they endplay, they play a system, they have idiosyncrasies, whatever. Artificial intelligence is real. Even if robots are not near the very top human players (yet) it doesn't matter, they are still playing bridge, and playing against them is no different than playing against humans imo.

 

So, if the ACBL were to implement a ban against rules that go against "bridge" I could understand if they forced BBO to run random hand tournaments rather than best hand tournaments. That would be a shame, but fine imo, I would get it. At the end of the day people would still have the same hands, and would still be competing in a duplicate bridge game against other humans, it just might be more boring to most people, which is not necessarily horrible (but bad imo).

 

If the ACBL were to implement a band against rules that go against bridge, and ban sanctioning of ROBOT games, I would have a huge problem with that, and would consider that just to be an anti technology/ignorant stance.

 

I would also be curious to see if they banned sanctioning of clubs that had no psyching or similar rules.

 

I agree with Justin that the GIB robots play bridge better than the average human, but they are not currently near the very top human players. I believe that it may not be possible to ever program the GIB robots to play as well as the very top human players. However, it does not matter that the robots are ever programmed to play at the highest level. The fact is that they are already programmed to play well enough that they can be a good test for many bridge skills. Although I am not anywhere near "the very top human players", declarer play has always been a relative strength of mine. I can say that playing the ACBL robot games has improved my declarer play and I believe that it can improve the declarer play of anyone, with the possible exception of "the very top human players". Also, it is correct what many others have already mentioned that the ACBL robot games are one of the truest measures of skill since everyone encounters the same "partner and opponents" on every hand.

[ddub47]

I have accumulated 3600 points or so playing off and on from 1969 until 1992 (pretty well retired since then). I must admit that it feels strange that Leo Lasota was able to accumulate that many points in one year playing with mainly robots. Looking at myhands for some of these robot tournaments, he plays something that is nothing like bridge as I know it, but obviously it is highly effective. I think this is the crux of the problem. Old line players like myself are seeing their hard earned matchpoints (aka bragging rights) being eroded by first matchpoint inflation and now online points explosion, and this is the group that most of the board of directors fall into. To me and a lot of my peers bridge is a game played with real people not some artificial intelligence bots. and we make up the vast majority of the ACBL membership. I have not yet tried and have no interest in robot duplicate but maybe I should. Perhaps Fred and BBO should give the Board of Directors some free plays to try out these tourneys. Probably this is the wave of the future but I am not sure if its time has arrived quite yet.

[Vampyr]

We could have all of our tournaments on line, no TD's no hotel bills no restaurant bills smaller acbl staff....its probably a better business plan for the future.

 

I think that the flaw in the business plan is how incredibly un-fun this would be.

[pigpenz]

I think that the flaw in the business plan is how incredibly un-fun this would be.

same thing my wife said, but there are a hell of alot op people who park on BBO ACBL games online

everyday for hours which is good for BBO and Fred and the ACBL.

 

Even a BBO announcement when logging on was touting the Fact that Savedirish was able to achieve

the rank of Platinum master by the 7000+ masterpoints he was won on BBO ACBL games.

 

When I was in my 20 and 30's I enjoyed the comradrie as much as the competition, but hated the

life of getting home late on sunday night, going to work on monday then starting over again on friday for the next sectional.

Now I prefer to spend my money on nice cabernets and meals.

 

So I myself wouldnt mind online ACBL regionals, sectionals, or nationals....even if they were robot related.

[Vampyr]

I must admit that it feels strange that Leo Lasota was able to accumulate that many points in one year playing with mainly robots. Looking at myhands for some of these robot tournaments, he plays something that is nothing like bridge as I know it, but obviously it is highly effective.

 

I think it would be interesting to find out whether these highly-rated robot players can hold their own against average humans. If not, it would be pretty strong evidence that playing with robots is not the same game.

[fred]

I think it would be interesting to find out whether these highly-rated robot players can hold their own against average humans. If not, it would be pretty strong evidence that playing with robots is not the same game.

And if yes would you consider it pretty strong evidence that playing with robots is (basically) the same game?

 

Leo LaSota, our most successful robot player and a recent contributor to this discussion, has won an ACBL NABC event - an accomplishment that only a tiny fraction of ACBL members have achieved. He is also well known among the very best players in the USA as a strong and highly dangerous opponent.

 

Leo can not only "hold his own against average humans" - his bridge skills are easily sufficient to completely dominate them.

 

And I have no doubt that it is not just Leo. It would be relatively easy to demonstrate the strong correlation that certainly exists between success in robot tournaments and success in live bridge.

 

I am not sure what your agenda is exactly, but it sounds to me like you have one. Have you ever actually played in one of our ACBL robot tournaments? If not then maybe you should give them a try (ideally with an open mind if that is possible). You might be surprised to learn how fun and challenging they are, even for experts.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[gnasher]

I am not sure what your agenda is exactly, but it sounds to me like you have one.

It sounds to me as though Vampyr merely has opinons that she considers worth sharing. Isn't that the point of an internet forum?

[Leo LaSota]

I think it would be interesting to find out whether these highly-rated robot players can hold their own against average humans. If not, it would be pretty strong evidence that playing with robots is not the same game.

 

Stefanie,

 

I am not sure how familiar you are with the ACBL nationals, but Hailong Ao (ao123 & hl123 on BBO) won the NABC IMP Pairs in the Memphis nationals that are currently going on. He is a player that I know from my area that has always been a fine card player, but I believe that his declarer play has improved since he began playing the robot tournaments. He is very successful when he plays in the ACBL robot duplicates and he is a very strong player in person. In addition to winning the IMP Pairs, he has reached the semi finals in prior years in both the Vanderbilt and the Spingold.

[fred]

It sounds to me as though Vampyr merely has opinons that she considers worth sharing. Isn't that the point of an internet forum?

Sure but informed opinions in which the poster makes an effort to understand the subject tend to have more value than ignorant opinions (especially those that are driven by an agenda).

 

My suspicions is that Vampyr's opinions fall into the latter category. If I am wrong about that then she can speak up - I will then take her opinions more seriously.

 

If I am right, however, it might be appropriate for her to educate herself before (maybe) continuing to trash a form of bridge that she may have never tried or speculating about the lack of bridge skills that are required to be successful at that form of the game.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Vampyr]

Agenda LOL -- sounds pretty paranoid to me!

[fred]

Agenda LOL -- sounds pretty paranoid to me!

How about answering my questions:

 

1. And if yes (ie highly-rated robot players can hold their own against average humans) would you consider it pretty strong evidence that playing with robots is (basically) the same game?

 

2. Have you ever actually played in one of our ACBL robot tournaments?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Vampyr]

1. And if yes (ie highly-rated robot players can hold their own against average humans) would you consider it pretty strong evidence that playing with robots is (basically) the same game?

 

A positive proof would require that robot players play against live players with the same sort of ranking -- top robot players v top live players, average robot players v average live players, and the like.

 

 

2. Have you ever actually played in one of our ACBL robot tournaments?

 

I have played in a few Robot races. They were fun for a video game.

[fred]

I have played in a few Robot races. They were fun for a video game.

ACBL Robot Duplicates are not the same as Robot Races.

 

I will request again that you try playing in a few ACBL Robot Duplicates before expressing such strong negative opinions about them or casting doubt on the skills of the many 1000s of bridge players (including a lot of true experts) who enjoy playing in these events on a regular basis.

 

If you find Robot Races fun then you will almost certainly find ACBL Robot Duplicates to be fun as well. If you can do this with an open mind and if you are a halfway decent bridge player (I have no idea how well you play) you will almost certainly agree with me that ACBL Robot Duplicates are indeed an excellent and worthy test of bridge skill.

 

And no, I am not paranoid (at least I don't think I am!).

 

The fact of the matter is that unfortunately there are a lot false perceptions about various aspects of online bridge out there. These perceptions largely come from outspoken people who have made little effort to educate themselves. Some of these people really do have an agenda.

 

Life would be easier if I were to just stop feeding the trolls, but my partners and I have learned the hard way that such people are capable of causing a lot of damage to our site and its members.

 

Encouraging such people to try something before they criticize it and attempting to present reasonable counter-arguments to their false claims have sometimes proven to be effective strategies in terms of minimizing the amount of time we have to waste doing damage control.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

I have accumulated 3600 points or so playing off and on from 1969 until 1992 (pretty well retired since then). I must admit that it feels strange that Leo Lasota was able to accumulate that many points in one year playing with mainly robots. Looking at myhands for some of these robot tournaments, he plays something that is nothing like bridge as I know it, but obviously it is highly effective. I think this is the crux of the problem. Old line players like myself are seeing their hard earned matchpoints (aka bragging rights) being eroded by first matchpoint inflation and now online points explosion, and this is the group that most of the board of directors fall into. To me and a lot of my peers bridge is a game played with real people not some artificial intelligence bots. and we make up the vast majority of the ACBL membership. I have not yet tried and have no interest in robot duplicate but maybe I should. Perhaps Fred and BBO should give the Board of Directors some free plays to try out these tourneys. Probably this is the wave of the future but I am not sure if its time has arrived quite yet.

 

These comments very much remind me of the discussions regarding online poker players and whether or not they would ever be able to compete successfully in the real world.

 

Online poker allowed players to dramatically increase the number of boards that they played in a given period of time.

As such, these players were able to ramp up their skills levels much quicker than traditional players.

They were also able to develop some non traditional playing styles that proved very successful, both online and in the real world.

 

My own take on things is the following:

 

Playing against robots feels somewhat different than playing against humans.

There are some strategies that seem to work better against the bots.

There are certain bidding sequences that you learn to avoid...

 

With this said and done, the core techniques that you need to succeed (concentration, planning, counting, etc.) are completely the same...

 

Lets assume that we had a hypothetical player who had only played versus the Bots on BBO.

I suspect that it would be trivial for such a player to transition to playing in real tournaments.

 

I suspect that the major challenges would be adjusting to a broader range of bidding systems and learning how to deal with irregularities...

[gnasher]

Sure but informed opinions in which the poster makes an effort to understand the subject tend to have more value than ignorant opinions (especially those that are driven by an agenda).

If by "driven by an agenda" you mean that you think Vampyr's posts in this thread have some concealed purpose, I am quite sure that you're wrong.