[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2012-March-15, 09:38, said:

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]

barmar, on 2012-March-15, 09:52, said:

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]

Zelandakh, on 2012-March-15, 09:38, said:

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]

barmar, on 2012-March-15, 09:52, said:

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]

nigel_k, on 2012-March-15, 12:50, said:

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

Maybe the ACBL should start giving out masterpoints for quizzes.

[aguahombre]

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

We prefer "chronologically advanced".

[gnasher]

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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]

Zelandakh, on 2012-March-15, 09:16, said:

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.

[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]

JLOGIC, on 2012-March-15, 18:32, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-15, 19:08, said:

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]

JLOGIC, on 2012-March-15, 20:08, said:

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]

JLOGIC, on 2012-March-15, 18:32, said:

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 . 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]

JLOGIC, on 2012-March-15, 20:08, said:

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.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-March-16, 04:18

[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]

mycroft, on 2012-March-16, 10:46, said:

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.