BBO Discussion Forums: Hamman int - BBO Discussion Forums

hrothgar, on 2012-May-15, 14:36, said:

http://webutil.bridg...tch.php?id=1116

Posted in BBO News at the moment.

Hamman's exact words, copy/paste from his original mail were:

Quote

diana_eva, on 2012-May-15, 14:38, said:

thanks

makes a lot more sense now

mike777, on 2012-May-15, 01:35, said:

TV coverage of major events such as the Bermuda Bowl. I know we can watch it on VuGraph, but that won't be getting more people interested in playing. With TV coverage will come prize money. It seems to have worked for poker.

mike777, on 2012-May-15, 01:35, said:

billw55, on 2012-May-15, 07:08, said:

The director's ruling doesn't necessarily occur in-game, sometimes it's "I've noted the hesitation, and will rule at the end of the hand." How about having 3 directors instead of just one? Or the appeal committee present and available at the event? Obviously this won't be workable for all events, but the issue I see is that the director can ascertain all the necessary information at the time, which the AC may not be able to.

Statto, on 2012-May-15, 15:42, said:

Poker had significant dumb down the game before it became accessible for TV viewers

Hold Em is significant simpler than draw or stud.
Psychological aspects of the game become much more important than technical considerations.

I like bridge a lot. However, I can ever imagine a significant market for broadcast bridge on conventional television channels.

Moreover, I'd argue that environments like BBO are technical superior for broadcasting the game than television.

Statto, on 2012-May-15, 15:42, said:

In any event of consequence this is effectively what happens. Directors make their rulings after consultation with other directors.

I guess Hamman wants openings on 3 card minor suits banned? Everyone should play Acol.

For "any event of consequence", at least where I direct, that includes "club games". We are directed to *never* make judgement rulings by ourselves, and so, SB TD that I am, I don't.

It's lucky that I have several directors and better players (and sometimes both) available to me, such that I can almost always reach at least one or two with no notice, true - but I've sort of planned that.

Ideas: 1) Why an individual? Why not a pairs game? Because that way we get 3) for free? Or is it for potential "more accessibility" issues?
2) I have no clue what that would mean. It would be nice if we could work on, first, getting bids and plays down to a reasonable tempo - no more 2x6-hour Spingold sessions, for example. But if, say, with computer bidding and play, all calls are smoothed out to 3 seconds +/- 10% (at least for partner), with the obvious exceptions, and a big flag made available when that can't be done because the player took too long, maybe. Possible? possibly. Acceptable? Not a chance.
3) I've found almost always that when I hear "limiting conventions", it means "I want to play *my* useful tools, but I don't see why I have to defend against *their* crazy bidding." Usually, but not always, it comes from people whose strength is in the play part of the game; of course they think that what they're good at is the "soul" of bridge, and that other part is just the leadup to the "real" game.
4) I find all the appeals nonsense more sound and fury than anything else. I've had two decisions appealed in 12 years of (granted, very part-time) directing, and have had one ruling that was bad enough that we were going to appeal (until we heard what the ruling actually *was*, which was nowhere near what was said at the table. *That* ruling we disagreed with, but it wasn't *wrong*, so we weren't going to appeal it). So, I don't particularly care, one way or the other. But, you know, I don't make my living playing bridge, so it Just Isn't As Important to me.

jeffford76, on 2012-May-15, 17:06, said:

Thanks for clarification, I was hoping someone would say that

However, for some teams knock-out events of some consequence, such as the EBU Gold Cup, the director may only be available at the end of a telephone line, and in these cases I doubt they would consult with others before making a ruling, whilst advising of the right to appeal...

hrothgar, on 2012-May-15, 15:48, said:

I'm inclined to agree in the modern age. But I really would like live audio commentaries rather than text.

My main point was about getting a wider audience for the game, and encouraging new players. This is what I think should happen in bridge.

Statto, on 2012-May-15, 18:35, said:

Then use the Client version and listen to the voice commentaries (when they do that, on the really big events). If you prefer the non-client graphics, you can watch on that one and listen on the other one.

I think there is a fantasy held by some bridge players that somehow bridge will become a popular televised spectator affair with big cash prizes. While they recognize some of the problems with this (the game is too complicated, the pace is too slow, etc) they seem to believe that stricter time regulations or restricted bidding methods or an individual format will somehow make it possible.

While this would obviously be good for the popularity of bridge, I don't think it's particularly realistic. Even with radically simplified bidding, bridge is still a complicated game that won't lend itself to being televised... and radically simplifying the bidding would make bridge a less interesting game to those who love it. I just don't see it happening.

I completely disagree with the "dumbing down" evaluation made above by hrothgar. There's a lot more skill even in Texas Hold'Em than there is in most draw variants.
As for televised Bridge, you could edit out the "boring" parts (ranging from routine push boards to tanks before bidding), just like they do in poker. Similarly, if they superimpose par scores and maybe even possible lines of play, their chance of winning in general and whether or not they work on this deal, it might be easier to follow. Not that I think it would work, but it's not as hopeless as you put it.

Statto, on 2012-May-15, 18:32, said:

Last time I asked for a telephone ruling that required judgement, the director consulted another director before ruling. I don't see why you think they'd behave differently than when directing in person - if it merits consultation and they can find someone to consult with, they'll do so.

kevperk, on 2012-May-15, 11:26, said:

I agree that I read his answer as saying ban any bid that requires a written defense. I'd agree with that if, and only if, it was achieved by eliminating the practice of written defenses. Let people play what they want. Let other folks develop meta-agreements to handle the unexpected. Pages of written defense aren't needed once folks are used to playing against things that were once unfamiliar.

the hog, on 2012-May-15, 17:56, said:

They asked Hamman a couple of questions. The level of the questions was right above "What is your favorite color?". Hamman is nice enough to answer the questions and he also answers a question about what he would like to see in bridge.

So, let's put it in perspective. They asked Hamman, he answered. He didn't write a letter to the ACBL, WBF or the editor of the Bridge World. He didn't state a "vision", he didn't say that "this should happen to bridge or else..". He didn't even say whether it was important to him that these things would happen, nor did he say that they were feasible. He was asked what he would like and he answered.

I would say that is nice to know what Bob Hamman would like for bridge. At least, I am more interested in that than what his favorite color is.

Rik

Statto, on 2012-May-15, 18:32, said:

You would be surprised by what goes on then.

Certainly amongst the top directors, if we get rung up for a judgment ruling during a match then we invariably ring at least one other national tournament director, even if we think the ruling is obvious. We might also ring an EBU referee (or a household with more that one) to consult, in the way that we might consult a player. The whole process takes some time, which is why the TD may appear slow in getting back with a ruling.

We also do this if we are the only director (or even one of two) at an event.

Mbodell, on 2012-May-16, 02:34, said:

I agree with this so strongly that I had to quote it in addition to repping it.

And about television, this is just a total fail idea for bridge, it will never work. To draw a large audience you need a product that (a) a lot of people are interested in, and (b) that they can understand. Bridge may have the numbers if you count home players. But many of those players just won't sufficiently grasp what is going on in a world class level game. It is very different from say, golf, where the legions of hackers can have a reasonable idea of what is going on at the Masters. They just can't do it. But in bridge, understanding it and doing it are very closely related, because there is no burden of physical execution.

Cash prizes are a different matter. Chess easily supports big tournaments with meaningful cash prizes supported by entry fees; perhaps bridge can too. The main hurdle in this case is cheating.

Trinidad, on 2012-May-16, 03:07, said:

Maybe 20 years ago, Hamman was part of a Blue Ribbon Committee set up by ACBL to work on saving bridge's popularity. One of the things that the committee proposed was events where only basic systems were allowed. It was not so strict as Yellow Card where everyone played the same system, it allowed for more options like choosing between limit and forcing raises, but it was much more simple than the GCC. I seem to think that there was some discussion about whether 4-card majors would be allowed in such events. There is at least one member of that committee that occasionally posts here.

Anyway, Hamman has long held the opinion that bidding systems should be simplified. And, I don't think it is an opinion that he has kept to himself except when asked.

TimG, on 2012-May-16, 06:59, said:

That may be true (well... err... it is true), but do we really need to react as if bitten by a snake as soon as Bob Hamman answers a question where we disagree with his answer?

Rik

Trinidad, on 2012-May-16, 08:44, said:

I don't think anyone was doing that, they were just expressing their disagreement. Isn't that the point of this thread -- to discuss what we think of Hamman's ideas? Some expressed their opinions sarcastically, is that a problem?