[uday]

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-30, 06:51, said:

Once again barmar, I would appreciate it if you refrain from any such future personal attacks. I will consider anything further along these lines from you or the other Yellows here as being representative of the views of BBO. If the BBO management disagree with this then I suggest they provide training to their staff members on what is and is not appropriate to write whilst acting as a representative of the company. Please take note.

Opinions in our forums don't usually ( ever?) reflect that of the poster's company regardless of who the poster happens to work for.

I don't think that you were attacked - however, if YOU think you were attacked, that's not good anyway. We'll have a word.


U

[barmar]

I'm sorry for the poor analogy I chose. I didn't intend it as an attack, but I see how it could have been interpreted as such.

[blackshoe]

What amazes me is how people are often so completely ready to assume any statement at all is a personal attack.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-30, 06:51, said:

In addition to that, it has become clear from reading various threads here that the ACBL use these MPs for seeding purposes. Do you not think that seeding should be based on performance playing Bridge and not various bridge-related games? I have already seen complaints that MP inflation means the goalposts are constantly shifting for those at the bottom trying to work their way up. It is difficult to see how this can make life any easier for them. Unless they give up the normal tournaments to play Best Hand anyway, but that is surely not the aim here.

Except for Leo Lasota, I don't think anyone manages to rack up enough points here to affect their seeding. And Leo did well enough in Philly that I believe his performance in our games reflects his bridge ability, not just his ability at robot bridge.

Also, except for the Spingold and Vanderbilt, I don't see masterpoints mentioned in the guidelines for seeding, which are here. It seems like seeding in pair events is done subjectively -- well known expert players get seeded. The formula for seeding the Spingold and Vanderbilt can be found here.

[lalldonn]

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-30, 06:51, said:

As I said previously, why do we not give out MP for Ghoulash? Why not for a bridge variant where NT scores 40 per trick? How about a Best Hand variant where the Human simply plays the par contract without bidding or defence being involved? How about Skat? Where do you draw the line on what is bridge and what is something else? I will say again that the only sensible way of doing that is to look to the Laws. Since you never answered any of the questions I set in this area I assume that you do not have a better way either.

We don't give out MP for those games because there isn't a demand for it. If there was one, someone would start giving out masterpoints for those games as long as they were allowed to do so.

Quote

The point here is this. Everyone knows that bridge has a problem. Numbers are considerably down in many countries. The pool of young players who are willing to invest the time to gain an interest in bridge is already limited. There is a danger that offering a bridge-like game that is simpler and avoids some of the issues the game has (misunderstandings, grumpy opps, TD rulings, etc) or, as Vampyr put it, is "more like a video game", will channel some of that pool away from getting interested in the full game.

Most people would think that is totally backwards, and that getting people interested in a game which is like bridge but simpler is in fact a great way to attract people to bridge. Didn't lots of people learn whist or something else like that before bridge? Besides, to receive their masterpoints these people have to join the ACBL. They have officially become members of a large bridge organization. That sounds pretty good for bridge!

Also, since you seem to feel this game is better than bridge as it's similar but lacking in misunderstandings, grumpy opps, and TD rulings, you should consider it a good thing that this game is becoming more popular.

Quote

In addition to that, it has become clear from reading various threads here that the ACBL use these MPs for seeding purposes. Do you not think that seeding should be based on performance playing Bridge and not various bridge-related games? I have already seen complaints that MP inflation means the goalposts are constantly shifting for those at the bottom trying to work their way up. It is difficult to see how this can make life any easier for them. Unless they give up the normal tournaments to play Best Hand anyway, but that is surely not the aim here.

I can assure you this is the least of what you should be worried about if you were concerned about the (in)accuracy of masterpoints and seeding done by the ACBL.

[Leo LaSota]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-23, 16:07, said:

Interesting. I guess getting people their masterpoints is more important than anything else.

Please, ACBL, credit me with the points I need. No, I haven't earned them, but apparently that doesn't matter.

What is more important to the ACBL than anything else is to continue to foster interest and participation and keep the game going strong in the future. Fred Gitelman and all of the workers for BBO deserve our continued praise and thanks for all that they do to promote the game of bridge.

The ACBL robot tournaments have seen a large number of members participating. This has meant great news for the ACBL by offering another way for gathering additional members, as well as increased participation in ACBL events from many of the members that choose to play in the ACBL robot tournaments. While it is true that there will always be disagreement as to whether these tournaments should be offered as another way for members to earn masterpoints, there is no argument against the fact that regular participation in these events will improve an individual's declarer play. The quote "Please, ACBL, credit me with the points I need. No, I haven't earned them, but apparently that doesn't matter" is very disrespectful.

[barmar]

I wonder what people who object to masterpoints for best-hand games think of Bridge Plus, which also awards masterpoints. These are games for beginners (less than 5 masterpoints), run by a teacher, and where the players are encouraged to ask the teacher for advice during the game. The teacher is allowed to cook the deals, such as to exercise what was taught in a lesson or avoid tough bidding problems that they're not ready for, and can even purchase special "newcomer hands" from ACBL (I don't know if these are actually cooked, they just come with analyses).

[nige1]

Barmar is right that BBO and other Bridge sites are the last tenuous hope for the future of Bridge:

• Exciting tournaments (where you dealt you the best hand and can practice with and against patient and polite robots) are just one attraction.
• On-line teaching libraries and facilities like the Begiiners and Intermediate Lounge
• Free view-graph where you can watch world-class play with live expert commentary.
• Tools for dealing practice hands and double-dummy analysis.
• Above all simplified rules that the beginner can learn relatively quickly: mediating a friendly milieu, reducing the opportunity for mechanical error, minimizing unauthorized information, immensely improving disclosure, and encouraging claims and quicker play.

A game is its rules, so the purists are trivially correct -- On-line bridge it is not traditional Bridge. But on-line Bridge points the way to the future of Bridge -- unless our legal dinosaurs manage to immolate bridge-players in an extinction event.

[barmar]

Suppose we decided to follow the laws for the masterpoint tourneys. So we offered random-hand tournaments for masterpoints, and best-hand tournaments just for fun.

If the best-hand tourneys got better attendance, that should be a signal to the lawmakers that players really want this style of robot bridge, since they're willing to forego masterpoints to play it, and it should be allowed in the next version of the laws. That's one way for things to evolve.

But suppose the random-hand tourneys do better. That doesn't mean there isn't a strong desire for revising the laws, it might be because players want masterpoints even more. But is it really best to force players to make this choice, when the laws could be revised to allow the best of both worlds?

And in either scenario, we reduce players' enjoyment until the next law revision. Are we and ACBL serving our constituency best with slavish adherence to laws that we consider outdated?

[mycroft]

Well, when it impacts the games I choose to play in (BKOs, and my attempt to beat MP inflation enough to ever get out of flight C), then maybe.

What if it turned out (I realize this is facetious) that bridge computers could play at the level of chess computers (i.e. better than all but the best humans, or possibly better than all humans)? What if owners and makers of bridge computer software found it more fun to enter games where they were allowed computer assist? Should we still be awarding masterpoints, because it's still the "best of all worlds"?

I don't believe that the ACBL is *not* serving its constituency by carefully (albeit perhaps glacially) reviewing whether bridge-and games are "bridge" enough to be rated the same way that 4-people sitting around a table bridge is rated - and even saying "no, this is too far". While I'm sure that robot games for monsterpoints are popular, and you have the statistics I don't have, I still bet that less than 10% of ACBL membership (I'll even go as far as to say < 10% of *active* ACBL membership) has ever played one.

It's a measure of skill, sure. It has correlation - perhaps even close correlation - with bridge skill. It might be even harder than an equivalent game of bridge. Should the ACBL be awarding monsterpoints for success in this game? Not necessarily. Maybe they should set up a separate ladder/rating, like the chess world does with separate blitz chess and real chess rankings. Frankly, I'd rather they pay attention to the long-term, well-known issues that exist in GCC FtF bridge than anything doing with games that don't involve 4 humans at a table; but I'm just as biased as everybody else here to my own preferred fun levels.

As far as Bridge Plus goes, I wouldn't have a problem with Robot-assisted ACBL masterpoints if they were limited to 5, either. Frankly, as long as it helps 4-humans-at-a-table bridge, I don't care if you award 5 MPs for playing poker well :-).

[Leo LaSota]

mycroft, on 2012-July-31, 16:23, said:

Well, when it impacts the games I choose to play in (BKOs, and my attempt to beat MP inflation enough to ever get out of flight C), then maybe.

What if it turned out (I realize this is facetious) that bridge computers could play at the level of chess computers (i.e. better than all but the best humans, or possibly better than all humans)? What if owners and makers of bridge computer software found it more fun to enter games where they were allowed computer assist? Should we still be awarding masterpoints, because it's still the "best of all worlds"?

I don't believe that the ACBL is *not* serving its constituency by carefully (albeit perhaps glacially) reviewing whether bridge-and games are "bridge" enough to be rated the same way that 4-people sitting around a table bridge is rated - and even saying "no, this is too far". While I'm sure that robot games for monsterpoints are popular, and you have the statistics I don't have, I still bet that less than 10% of ACBL membership (I'll even go as far as to say < 10% of *active* ACBL membership) has ever played one.

It's a measure of skill, sure. It has correlation - perhaps even close correlation - with bridge skill. It might be even harder than an equivalent game of bridge. Should the ACBL be awarding monsterpoints for success in this game? Not necessarily. Maybe they should set up a separate ladder/rating, like the chess world does with separate blitz chess and real chess rankings. Frankly, I'd rather they pay attention to the long-term, well-known issues that exist in GCC FtF bridge than anything doing with games that don't involve 4 humans at a table; but I'm just as biased as everybody else here to my own preferred fun levels.

As far as Bridge Plus goes, I wouldn't have a problem with Robot-assisted ACBL masterpoints if they were limited to 5, either. Frankly, as long as it helps 4-humans-at-a-table bridge, I don't care if you award 5 MPs for playing poker well :-).

ACBL does setup a "separate ladder/rating" by disallowing any online "monsterpoints" earned from counting in certain trophy races (Mini-McKenney, Barry Crane Top 500 for example).

[Leo LaSota]

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-30, 06:51, said:

In addition to that, it has become clear from reading various threads here that the ACBL use these MPs for seeding purposes. Do you not think that seeding should be based on performance playing Bridge and not various bridge-related games?

The ACBL does not use these MPs for seeding purposes, with the exception of the miniscule impact potential on a team entering into a Vanderbilt or Spingold of being seeded higher because a member of the team has alot of MPs from ACBL best hand robot tournaments.

In pairs events in which seeding is based on another individual's relative rankings of various expert partnerships entering into the event, an individual that earns a large number of masterpoints through robot tournaments is given a lower relative seed as a result.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2012-July-31, 16:23, said:

What if it turned out (I realize this is facetious) that bridge computers could play at the level of chess computers (i.e. better than all but the best humans, or possibly better than all humans)? What if owners and makers of bridge computer software found it more fun to enter games where they were allowed computer assist? Should we still be awarding masterpoints, because it's still the "best of all worlds"?

Since none of those things is even close to happening, we don't have to worry about it.

The "slippery slope" argument doesn't hold water -- allowing best-hand robot games doesn't mean we open the floodgates to all bastardizations of the game.

[mycroft]

Leo: it also applies to bracketing in KOs, and stratification in other games. Which means that the creep from "strat C 0-500, then 0-750, then 0-1000, then 'by average'" is affected. In other words, in the games I want to play.

barmar: no slippery slope, just a "clearly, obviously, on the other end of the 'should this be allowed'" spectrum. Many people - obviously by the discussions in the BoD over the last three years - think we've gone past that point already; it's clear you don't think so (personally or professionally); I don't know where I land (except, of course, for my own selfish issues about "I don't like the idea or the game; I don't feel I should have to play in these just to keep my count ticking over to get into real brackets, or to avoid winning strat C (and denying the points to real C players) with a crappy game").

It's just that "best of worlds" in terms of the players wanting to play it is orthogonal to whether the ACBL should be awarding points for it.

[jeffford76]

mycroft, on 2012-August-01, 11:39, said:

or to avoid winning strat C (and denying the points to real C players) with a crappy game").

It would be interesting if you were allowed to declare your flight in a stratified event (obviously not to lower it) so you could just remove yourself from flight C if you wished. I suppose that would just lead to people declaring high to avoid winning points to stay in flight C for the things that award money.

[Bbradley62]

mycroft, on 2012-August-01, 11:39, said:

Which means that the creep from "strat C 0-500, then 0-750, then 0-1000..."

Is there really any such thing as 0-500 any more?

Edit: Haven't played ACBL events in 14 years. Just curious.

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2012-August-01, 20:10

[Leo LaSota]

mycroft, on 2012-August-01, 11:39, said:

Leo: it also applies to bracketing in KOs, and stratification in other games. Which means that the creep from "strat C 0-500, then 0-750, then 0-1000, then 'by average'" is affected. In other words, in the games I want to play.

barmar: no slippery slope, just a "clearly, obviously, on the other end of the 'should this be allowed'" spectrum. Many people - obviously by the discussions in the BoD over the last three years - think we've gone past that point already; it's clear you don't think so (personally or professionally); I don't know where I land (except, of course, for my own selfish issues about "I don't like the idea or the game; I don't feel I should have to play in these just to keep my count ticking over to get into real brackets, or to avoid winning strat C (and denying the points to real C players) with a crappy game").

It's just that "best of worlds" in terms of the players wanting to play it is orthogonal to whether the ACBL should be awarding points for it.

No idea why you seem to be getting angry at me in your follow up response. I was simply responding to Zelandakh's statement, "In addition to that, it has become clear from reading various threads here that the ACBL use these MPs for seeding purposes. Do you not think that seeding should be based on performance playing Bridge and not various bridge-related games?"

Seeding is a term used when top level expert teams/partnerships are essentially pre ranked at the beginning of an event in order to fairly distribute the top teams/pairs.

[Vampyr]

lalldonn, on 2012-July-30, 15:46, said:

Also, since you seem to feel this game is better than bridge as it's similar but lacking in misunderstandings, grumpy opps, and TD rulings, you should consider it a good thing that this game is becoming more popular.

I'm not sure anyone has suggested that this game is "better than bridge". It is certainly easier to participate in, but while it lacks some of the challenges of bridge it also lacks most of the rewards. The same could be said about reading a good bridge book, and the same arguments could be made about certain bridge skills improving as a result. I await the day when completion of books (combined, perhaps, with a quiz on the contents) can earn masterpoints.

[mycroft]

Leo LaSota, on 2012-August-01, 17:37, said:

No idea why you seem to be getting angry at me in your follow up response. I was simply responding to Zelandakh's statement, "In addition to that, it has become clear from reading various threads here that the ACBL use these MPs for seeding purposes. Do you not think that seeding should be based on performance playing Bridge and not various bridge-related games?"

Seeding is a term used when top level expert teams/partnerships are essentially pre ranked at the beginning of an event in order to fairly distribute the top teams/pairs.

I'm not getting angry at you. I apologize if it comes across that way.

Yes, Zelendakh was talking about seeding, and technically, you are correct about what seeding means. But less technically, bracketing is "seeding", and sure and that matters to me and not just the big events. And in real life, never mind seeding, it matters for flighting, too. And I'm guessing that Zelendakh meant my expansion when he said "seeding".

If I'm annoyed at you, it's about your response to me that online points don't count for certain races - which (you probably don't realize, but could probably guess) I also don't care much about. My concern is that unlike say a blitz chess rating, which doesn't affect *anything* involved with regular chess rating, online points do affect almost all regular tournament events, in flighting/stratifying/bracketing the event (and let's not get into the "bracketed round-robin 'Swiss' teams" abomination). But of course, that's something I should apologize to you for sounding upset at you about, as well.

But that's where this issue with "bridge-related games" that I have no interest in playing affects me. I'm sure it's fascinating, and I'm sure I'd love it eventually, but some people love gold farming, too. As it is, it doesn't much matter; but should this get to a 40, 50% level of participation, rather than a 10% level, I would almost have to join it just to keep up, otherwise I end up back in the games that I'm embarrassed to win, and even more embarrassed if I don't.

[Leo LaSota]

mycroft, on 2012-August-02, 15:08, said:

I'm not getting angry at you. I apologize if it comes across that way.

Yes, Zelendakh was talking about seeding, and technically, you are correct about what seeding means. But less technically, bracketing is "seeding", and sure and that matters to me and not just the big events. And in real life, never mind seeding, it matters for flighting, too. And I'm guessing that Zelendakh meant my expansion when he said "seeding".

If I'm annoyed at you, it's about your response to me that online points don't count for certain races - which (you probably don't realize, but could probably guess) I also don't care much about. My concern is that unlike say a blitz chess rating, which doesn't affect *anything* involved with regular chess rating, online points do affect almost all regular tournament events, in flighting/stratifying/bracketing the event (and let's not get into the "bracketed round-robin 'Swiss' teams" abomination). But of course, that's something I should apologize to you for sounding upset at you about, as well.

But that's where this issue with "bridge-related games" that I have no interest in playing affects me. I'm sure it's fascinating, and I'm sure I'd love it eventually, but some people love gold farming, too. As it is, it doesn't much matter; but should this get to a 40, 50% level of participation, rather than a 10% level, I would almost have to join it just to keep up, otherwise I end up back in the games that I'm embarrassed to win, and even more embarrassed if I don't.

The total number of points won by participation in this "bridge-related game" cannot possibly have a large effect on stratifying or bracketing since you state that this has such a low level of participation.