Changes

[onoway]

For a while I've noticed a "clumping" of people into groups to play and most people rarely seem to stray far out of their friend's group to play bridge, which seems a change from how BBO was a few years back, for whatever reason. Tonight I noticed that out of 900 odd tables said to be playing throughout BBO nearly 300 of them were people playing with 3 GIBS. That was in Main alone, and doesn't include tables randomly sprinkled about elsewhere, nor tables where a pair was playing with GIBS. That's nearly 1 in 3 not playing with even one human. This may be good for business atm but is it good for bridge in the long run?

[diana_eva]

For a while I've noticed a "clumping" of people into groups to play and most people rarely seem to stray far out of their friend's group to play bridge, which seems a change from how BBO was a few years back, for whatever reason. Tonight I noticed that out of 900 odd tables said to be playing throughout BBO nearly 300 of them were people playing with 3 GIBS. That was in Main alone, and doesn't include tables randomly sprinkled about elsewhere, nor tables where a pair was playing with GIBS. That's nearly 1 in 3 not playing with even one human. This may be good for business atm but is it good for bridge in the long run?

 

Instant Tournament tables are listed as MBC tables, so you shd probably not consider those real tables. Instant Tourneys are quite popular, but they are tourneys, not pickup games.

[barmar]

Does this really belong in the WC?

[barmar]

Instant Tournament tables are listed as MBC tables, so you shd probably not consider those real tables. Instant Tourneys are quite popular, but they are tourneys, not pickup games.

What difference does that make? His point is that a very significant proportion of people are engaging in bridge masturbation, not playing socially like they used to. It's probably even worse if you also count the people playing in Robot Duplicate, Robot Reward/Race, Bridge Bingo, and all the solitaire games.

 

And I count myself among the masturbators. Although I enjoy the social environment of f2f bridge, I gave up on playing online with randoms many years ago.

[diana_eva]

What difference does that make? His point is that a very significant proportion of people are engaging in bridge masturbation, not playing socially like they used to. It's probably even worse if you also count the people playing in Robot Duplicate, Robot Reward/Race, Bridge Bingo, and all the solitaire games.

 

And I count myself among the masturbators. Although I enjoy the social environment of f2f bridge, I gave up on playing online with randoms many years ago.

 

It makes a difference IMO because I wouldn't put instant tourney players in the same category with main club players who choose to play with bots.

[PhilG007]

To each their own says I. If a person prefers to consort with nuts and bolts

instead of flesh and blood,that is entirely their choice. They will quickly

discover that you can't hold a discourse with a GIB (!) ;)

[1eyedjack]

I do not consider robot tourneys as masturbation. I have three robots at my table, for sure, but my opponents are all very human.

[Zelandakh]

To each their own says I. If a person prefers to consort with nuts and bolts

instead of flesh and blood,that is entirely their choice. They will quickly

discover that you can't hold a discourse with a GIB (!) ;)

When the human is talking complete rubbish, it is often better to have an opponent that does not offer such "conversation".

[kenberg]

There does seem to be a decreasing sense of community. Or maybe it is just me.

 

I don't much care to play with robots. I suppose it is bigotry, but I prefer my own species.

 

Pick up games have limitations, and they get tiring or frustrating or something. I will give an example from f2f yesterday to illustrate where it would be good to do better in online games:

 

Dealer on my right opened 1D. I bid 2D Michaels, lho bid 3C. She had a good hand with clubs but they ended in a part score. Afterward, I brought this up with partner: "If you open 1D and there is 2D on my right, can I bid 2H to show a good hand with clubs and bid 3C to show clubs but no great values?". Some do play this, some don't, we agreed that we would. In pick up, you never have any such agreement, and next time you play in a different pick up game. The problem is not necessarily that partner is a terrible player, it is just that you never know what your or his bids mean beyond the most basic. Sure, you can agree that conversation about meanings is acceptable at the table, but that gets to be like kitchen bridge.

 

I play maybe three times a month with my f2f partner of yesterday, we are never going to have 40 pages of system notes. But as we go along we will develop, sometimes after the fact, a few agreements. We grow. Often online you really have close to no agreements. "2 over 1 pard?" "Sure" Lots of luck with that. I have thought some about this, but not deeply enough that I want to put forth any concrete proposal. It really is a lot easier developing agreements f2f.

 

NB The agreement above was for purposes of illustration, contrasting f2f with online. This is not the place to debate the merits of this specific agreement.

[PhilG007]

When the human is talking complete rubbish, it is often better to have an opponent that does not offer such "conversation".

Actually I can take liberties when playing with a Gib that I would never do with a human partner

secure in the knowledge there will be no comeback or acrimonious post mortems :)

[Vampyr]

Often online you really have close to no agreements. "2 over 1 pard?" "Sure" Lots of luck with that. I have thought some about this, but not deeply enough that I want to put forth any concrete proposal. It really is a lot easier developing agreements f2f.

 

There is a solution, but it would be a lot of work:

 

Include MUCH more information on the stock convention cards. You (BBO) don't have to clutter the card up, rather include the information about continuations, defences etc interactively. Then just agree to play the card as written (and don't play with someone who is not willing).

[barmar]

I do not consider robot tourneys as masturbation. I have three robots at my table, for sure, but my opponents are all very human.

Isn't that also the case when you play with robots in MBC? Your opponents are other people playing the same hand at other tables in MBC.

 

The only real difference between tourneys and MBC play is that there's a set number of boards whose results are combined to produce a final result and ranking. But there's little difference at the level of individual boards.

[kenberg]

There is a solution, but it would be a lot of work:

 

Include MUCH more information on the stock convention cards. You (BBO) don't have to clutter the card up, rather include the information about continuations, defences etc interactively. Then just agree to play the card as written (and don't play with someone who is not willing).

 

I have been thinking along these lines, but instead maybe putting up some general stuff I like on googledocs with an explicit permission for others to copy it and modify it as their own. That is, maybe I like one version of drury, someone else likes a different version, but there is a large overlap between conventions I like and what they like. So they could just copy what I have and make adjustments. And of course I could do similar things with what they then put up. The idea would be not to write a book about how the game should be played, but rather a fairly short blurb about the choices I prefer. Others could do the same, and those who basically agree could smooth out the edges and then play. If someone is unwilling to smooth out edges then the other person could either say what the hell, I'll do it your way, or they could find someone who is more flexible.

 

The idea is to land in some comfortable spot between, on the one hand, having no idea what much of any bid means, and on the other hand having extensive notes.

 

Just as a side, I note that in the semi-finals yesterday a partnership was playing Meckwell over 1NT and had different understandings of a very simple auction: (1NT)-X (showing clubs or diamonds or a major)-(Pass)-2D. Explained, as I understand it, by the 2D bidder as showing diamonds to play, and by the partner of the diamond bidder as some sort of pass/correct call. The latter makes more sense to me, but I have never played Meckwell (and I have never played in the USBC, to put it mildly!). Anyway, it was another demonstration that even at the highest levels they don't always have their ducks in a row.

[barmar]

There is a solution, but it would be a lot of work:

 

Include MUCH more information on the stock convention cards. You (BBO) don't have to clutter the card up, rather include the information about continuations, defences etc interactively. Then just agree to play the card as written (and don't play with someone who is not willing).

You can insist on that as much as you like, it's just not going to happen. People play what they know, they're not going to study some arbitrary CC that they had no part in creating.

 

And describing all those details in a compact, understandable format would be quite a challenge. it seems like you're talking about something with the level of detail of Bridge World Standard. I just went to the web site, and the "pocket guide" is a 72-page book. The next version may get a little easier, since they're getting rid of the "default+leaf" design.

[diana_eva]

I find it really easy to choose a default CC closest to what I like to play, edit it a bit to add/remove my stuff and then share it with some partner, be it a random one - inviting them to edit the CC where they prefer a different treatment. Usually takes just a couple mins. I was also invited to edit someone else's CC when registering for a tourney so there are more than one persons on BBO doing this lol

 

I do this for tourneys or serious matches only though. In Main Club I'll be pleased with a simple 2/1 ok? then agree as we go on.

[Vampyr]

You can insist on that as much as you like, it's just not going to happen. People play what they know, they're not going to study some arbitrary CC that they had no part in creating.

 

I'm certainly not going to insist; I don't care at all.

 

And describing all those details in a compact, understandable format would be quite a challenge. it seems like you're talking about something with the level of detail of Bridge World Standard. I just went to the web site, and the "pocket guide" is a 72-page book. The next version may get a little easier, since they're getting rid of the "default+leaf" design.

 

No, when I said interactive I meant that you could click or hover on a basic item to get more details.

[barmar]

No, when I said interactive I meant that you could click or hover on a basic item to get more details.

So like when playing in robot tourneys, where you can hover over a bid and it will tell you what the robot thinks it means?

[barmar]

In fact, we could probably make use of the code that's used to show the meaning of your bids in robot tournaments. So if we used the robot system as the system everyone plays, it wouldn't be too hard to do what you suggest.

 

But if we want to do it for other stock convention cards, it would be an enormous amount of work, probably about a man-year per card, because we'd have to program all the differences into a robot bidding rules file. And since the person most qualified to do this is also the programmer who does all the improvements to GIB, doing this would mean putting off other GIB improvements.

[Vampyr]

So like when playing in robot tourneys, where you can hover over a bid and it will tell you what the robot thinks it means?

 

Like that, except that you can hover over the card to inform your own bids.

[Zelandakh]

Like that, except that you can hover over the card to inform your own bids.

It sounds like you want an amalgamation of the functionality from GIB and FD. I suspect this would be a very simple development from the FD side if BBO wanted to do it but their strategic direction is unfortunately away from it. If they had continued with FD development, I am fairly sure it would already have this functionality available.

[Vampyr]

It sounds like you want an amalgamation of the functionality from GIB and FD. I suspect this would be a very simple development from the FD side if BBO wanted to do it but their strategic direction is unfortunately away from it. If they had continued with FD development, I am fairly sure it would already have this functionality available.

 

Barmar suggests that something like this might be done with the robot system. This would be good enough, I should think. It doesn't really matter how good a pair's bidding system is, compared to having one at all.

 

The problem, of course, is that GIB often goes haywire, giving partner 15 cards, adding 10 points halfway through the bidding, etc. So people might be forced to make inferior bids. Unless, when wishing to make a bid that GIB doesn't understand, they could make a quick edit on the card. Naturally, though, this capability could be badly abused. But does that matter?