pigpenz, on 2012-March-29, 14:55, said:
But isnt that what we are trying to discuss here......is this real bridge in terms of what the ACBL calls bridge?
I am sure the ACBL has hardly any idea what goes on in the robot games, could be wrong but wouldnt bet my life on it.
ACBL is selling a product, Fred is selling a service. Is it anything different?
I am sure Fred could sell an ACBL product where the contract is the same at all tables and lead is the same, then everyone would be
rated on their declarer play....same could be said where there was a game and all you dot to do was be on opening lead against a
redetermined contract. I am sure we would all get better at declaring in one, and get better at leading in the other.....the only thing
that determines what works is wether or not it gets sold.
Probably you were not trying to suggest otherwise, but just to be clear neither I nor my partners see ourselves as "salesmen" as far as our relationship with either ACBL or BBO members are concerned.
Our job is to try to develop bridge-related products and services that we think bridge players will enjoy. We see ACBL as our most important business partner. It is not smart business (nor is it our style) to try to "trick" ACBL into giving away their masterpoints for events run on BBO that we secretly think are unworthy. We really believe that we are doing is good for bridge and we believe that the best way to get the ACBL to agree is to provide them with enough (accurate) information so that they can also see the light.
It is easy to try to sell a product you believe in.
Most of those in positions of power at ACBL know anywhere between a reasonable amount and a lot about our robot games (and some of these people play in them regularly). That is partly because we have made a serious effort to provide such people with information and also because many of them have made a serious effort to study the information that we have provided.
I think that the whole discussion about "real bridge" misses the point for a couple of reasons.
First, as I have mentioned before in this thread, marketing considerations should not be discounted especially at this time in history where bridge in America could really use a boost. It is fortunate that the powers-that-be at ACBL seem to be understanding this point in increasing numbers.
Second, "real bridge" is not a static entity. The game evolves in various ways and on occasion new forms of the game are developed that demonstrate the potential to challenge and entertain large numbers of bridge players. Sometimes old rules have to change or new rules have to be codified in order to support such forms of the game. Organizations like ACBL (not to mention clubs, online sites, etc.) that refuse to adapt to what the players want will not be successful.
Yes it is sometimes hard to know where to draw the line, but the same goes for other aspects of bridge (such as system regulation) and life in general. All we can do is hope that intelligent, well-informed, and well-meaning people are responsible for making these decisions.
Bridge Base Inc.