[Echognome]

I largely ran these two contests as experiments. My impressions are that people enjoyed the bidding aspect much more than the play problem. I also felt that certain hands worked better than others in generating discussion.

I am curious whether people would like to see more bidding contests or would prefer to try a different format? The alternative I had in mind is to have more pairs participate and have NS and EW pairs and make the hands basically into matches. The problem with that format is that although it is closer to real play, it is less controlled in terms of comparisons. However, it does make a common set of hands that people can discuss.

Any thoughts on the format or future formats? Are people still interested in participating or has the novelty worn off?

[hrothgar]

I'd prefer to see a format based on a team game using unconstrained hands...

[Echognome]

hrothgar, on Dec 14 2005, 08:20 PM, said:

I'd prefer to see a format based on a team game using unconstrained hands...

I think this is very different from what these contests are for. If you would like a team game, then that is just a matter of organisation. Team games are played all the time. Perhaps having a ladder or more formal system of team games might be fun. However, that is not exactly what we are doing here.

What might be fun is to start an online team bridge league. Those that play in leagues in England will probably know how I would propose one run it. You basically form teams of four and have different divisions. Then you schedule your league matches where you play each team twice. You VP the results and then at the end of the year there is relegation and promotion. It's a lot of fun and would be great fun to do online. However, it would take a LOT of organisation. Still, I think it could be done if people were willing to put in some time. Again, I find this discussion to be separate from what I am proposing above.

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Dec 14 2005, 03:20 PM, said:

I'd prefer to see a format based on a team game using unconstrained hands...

I agree with MATT this is off topic. If you prefer team games, fine... (I do too, we might take a poll of people why they prefer team games)....

As for the contest. I like 8 to 10 hands. They should not be textbook hands, but there is no reason an auction couldn't go 1N-3N for instance.... The first contest was just about right. The second contest was fairly butal. Of course, it has been a long time since I was passed in a game-forcing cue-bidding (our auction,

(1S)-2C-(P)-2H
(P) - 2S! (P) - Pass!!!

Oh well... like I said, brutal hands.

[hrothgar]

Echognome, on Dec 14 2005, 11:50 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 14 2005, 08:20 PM, said:

I'd prefer to see a format based on a team game using unconstrained hands...

I think this is very different from what these contests are for. If you would like a team game, then that is just a matter of organisation. Team games are played all the time. Perhaps having a ladder or more formal system of team games might be fun. However, that is not exactly what we are doing here.

My interest in this exercise has always been based on allowing players to discuss their reasoning in choosing different bids and plays. I fail to understand how this is incompatible with a team game format.

My reasons for preferring a team game using unconstrained hands are fairly simple:

1. A team game only requires 4 pairs, while still permitting direct comparisons and "live" competition. Its unclear whether we have sufficient participants to consider other formats

2. I believe that constrained hands impact players decisions. Its "easier" to be brilliant if you know that the finesse is going to be off...

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Dec 14 2005, 04:01 PM, said:

Echognome, on Dec 14 2005, 11:50 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 14 2005, 08:20 PM, said:

I'd prefer to see a format based on a team game using unconstrained hands...

I think this is very different from what these contests are for. If you would like a team game, then that is just a matter of organisation. Team games are played all the time. Perhaps having a ladder or more formal system of team games might be fun. However, that is not exactly what we are doing here.

My interest in this exercise has always been based on allowing players to discuss their reasoning in choosing different bids and plays. I fail to understand how this is incompatible with a team game format.

My reasons for preferring a team game using unconstrained hands are fairly simple:

1. A team game only requires 4 pairs, while still permitting direct comparisons and "live" competition. Its unclear whether we have sufficient participants to consider other formats

2. I believe that constrained hands impact players decisions. Its "easier" to be brilliant if you know that the finesse is going to be off...

The reason is you are limited to only two views of the auction.. the one that happened at table one, and the one that happened at table two. Even then, since there are other pairs at the table, the auction may not be the same, so you are limited to one view.

In a bidding contest, you get many different systems, many different views on hand evaluation (those that think their hand is weak, those that find "Reasons" to hope it is strong)... And you are not slowed down by silly peripheral issues like the play. There are thousands of team game hands played on the BBO everyday.. how many have lead to intresting discussions here on the forum about bidding issues? MAtt has held 18 bidding hands or so, and all ahve lead to at least some interesting discussions. Quite a difference.

[mike777]

Echognome, on Dec 14 2005, 03:06 PM, said:

I largely ran these two contests as experiments.  My impressions are that people enjoyed the bidding aspect much more than the play problem.  I also felt that certain hands worked better than others in generating discussion. 

I am curious whether people would like to see more bidding contests or would prefer to try a different format?  The alternative I had in mind is to have more pairs participate and have NS and EW pairs and make the hands basically into matches.  The problem with that format is that although it is closer to real play, it is less controlled in terms of comparisons.  However, it does make a common set of hands that people can discuss.

Any thoughts on the format or future formats?  Are people still interested in participating or has the novelty worn off?

I did not even realize these hands were contests until your title.


I do enjoy reading about the different styles and over the shoulder thinking going on against active opponents. All the hands have been great and very entertaining and educational.


I get a real chuckle when I sweat over a bid and afterwards my partner's comment is, "well that was an easy one to bid" or " the play is easy even for a beginner player"

[awm]

I like the two-handed aspect with "programmed" opposition bidding. Admittedly this is fairly similar to what we see on biddingquest.com so perhaps that makes it less interesting.

The problem with having all four players bid, is that you don't get much of a comparison between methods, systems, or judgement anymore. People will face a very different auction at different tables. It seems like once you allow both sides to bid however they want, you may as well make the hands a play problem too and just go all the way and play a team game. I also believe that the vast majority of auctions are not "interesting" in that there are relatively few choices to be made. Part of the point of bidding "competitions" is to restrict to hands where there is some interesting decision. Perhaps this makes it easier to somehow game the system by assuming "it cannot be a boring hand" but people who have tried this in (for example) challenge the champs, have almost always done poorly.

A "league" for team games is certainly interesting, and I'd be happy to participate, but I can't imagine having the free time to really run such a thing.

[Echognome]

OK. I've asked around and have had pretty positive feedback on the idea of a league. Here's my proposal.

I will help get the league off the ground and rally people to participate. I hope to get it started sometime early in the new year. The number of divisions and teams in each division will, of course, be dictated by demand. The idea is going to be as follows:

Each team will consist of 4-6 players. I will recommend that teams have 6 players in order to facilitate scheduling. Each team will nominate a captain and come up with a team name.

Each division will consist of 6-8 teams.

Each team will play every other team in its division twice.

Teams will be expected to play a match once a week. A league schedule will be put out, but captains are to arrange a time for individual matches.

A set of suggested times for matches will be allocated as to facilitate scheduling and benefit kibitzers wanting to watch the matches.

Each match will consist of 24 boards to be played in two 12 board halves so that each pair plays 12 boards against the other teams pairs.

The IMP scores from each match will be converted to VPs that will be used to determine the overall ranks of the teams.

The season will thus be from 10-14 weeks depending on the number of teams.

At the end of each season, the top two teams in a division will be promoted into the next higher division and the bottom two teams will be relegated to the next lowest division. (Assuming we have enough teams for more than one division.)

For more details about how it might be run, see how our local league is run at the following website:

http://www.covleague.freeserve.co.uk/

So for now, I want you to all think about forming teams. It would be great if you could let me know who your team is, the team name, the team captain, and your team's level (expert, advanced, intermediate, beginner). I will try to accomodate as many teams as I can.

It would be very helpful if someone could help me co-organise the league. I would be especially appreciative if someone could manage a website for the league where we can put league tables and schedules. Also, if people are interested, if they could put the word out for potential teams.

Matt

[Blofeld]

I like the idea, but I strongly feel that more than six people on a team should be permitted. The more people on a team, the easier it should be to field 4 at a given time, and so the less likely things are to fall apart because people can't agree times.

[han]

I like the idea but I think that you start to big. Try to set it up first for at most 6 teams, see if it is possible. I would be surprised if all the teams could play eachother without major difficulties.

[inquiry]

The approach for "league play" is wrong. The dynamics are horrible. The solution is to set up two or three "time-windows." And have lots and lots of teams that know these windows exist. Then, they show up for that window to play. The idea is that any team must win three events out of four to be bumped up a league level, or lose three out of four to be bounced down. You can't play the same team twice in this time period.

After time, good teams will move up, bad teams will sink down. The problem is you need lots and lots of potential teams. If there is only four teams on a given level, well, it will not work. If there were 10 teams on each, it might work, if there were 40 on each level, it probably would work. Problem would be record keeping I guess.

Alterntive is to have three times weekly a team tournament with a mitchell type movement. Show up with three teammates and register for the tournament. Of course, this later option isn't available, but hopefully, someday.

[Echognome]

I think Owen's point is fair. If teams want to be more than 6, I am not opposed to it. I was more suggesting a number.

I take Hannie's point that we should start small. I don't see this as a problem because I don't think there will be too many teams to start. I don't think organisation will be too tough in the off chance that lots of teams do show interest.

I don't understand Ben's point. This system does work and it works quite well. I agree that online the logistics are slightly different, but the conditions of contest are going to state that teams must commit to playing a match a week. I'm sure there are alternative ways to run this, but unless someone else wants to organise, I'm going to do it this way.

I didn't want to get into details, but how I foresaw the rules on scheduling was as follows. Each team plays Home and Away matches. The home team captain checks with his players and comes up with 3 possible times for the match and they have to be offered on different days of the week and differing times. (the details of that can be worked out) Then the Away team must make one of the times else it forfeits. Of course, ideally the two captains can just talk and agree to a time, but you have to have rules in place for all eventualities.

[mike777]

Echognome, on Dec 15 2005, 12:16 AM, said:

I think Owen's point is fair.  If teams want to be more than 6, I am not opposed to it.  I was more suggesting a number.

I take Hannie's point that we should start small.  I don't see this as a problem because I don't think there will be too many teams to start.  I don't think organisation will be too tough in the off chance that lots of teams do show interest.

I don't understand Ben's point.  This system does work and it works quite well.  I agree that online the logistics are slightly different, but the conditions of contest are going to state that teams must commit to playing a match a week.  I'm sure there are alternative ways to run this, but unless someone else wants to organise, I'm going to do it this way.

I didn't want to get into details, but how I foresaw the rules on scheduling was as follows.  Each team plays Home and Away matches.  The home team captain checks with his players and comes up with 3 possible times for the match and they have to be offered on different days of the week and differing times. (the details of that can be worked out)  Then the Away team must make one of the times else it forfeits.  Of course, ideally the two captains can just talk and agree to a time, but you have to have rules in place for all eventualities.

auto losing is a good idea...when 36 players cannot get together to form 2-4 person teams...this can be a real issue. Would not be surprised to see some 4 and zero or 6 and zero auto winners. .

[pclayton]

I think I like the league idea better than the ladder idea that OKB has (much as I like Riko).

I had a few ladder teams and setting up a match for 8 players around the globe took an act of congress.

I few ideas you can borrow however: teams don't have to be 4 or even 6 players. This can help when finding a 'quorum' can be difficult.

Several players frequently played on several teams (obviously not simultaneously ). Makes it easier to get a game together.

[inquiry]

Echognome, on Dec 15 2005, 12:16 AM, said:

I don't understand Ben's point.  This system does work and it works quite well.  I agree that online the logistics are slightly different, but the conditions of contest are going to state that teams must commit to playing a match a week.  I'm sure there are alternative ways to run this, but unless someone else wants to organise, I'm going to do it this way.

I can assure you that the BBO Poland experience with leagues does not suggest that the captains contact each other and arrange events works. A couple of problems...

Delays in email contacting members around the world. People agreeing to show up and not. Trying to find a time suitable for players from all parts of the globe. As others ahve said, the BBO poland league had 8 member teams, with several alterantes, and often these teams had to use multiple subs. I actually saw one team that had THREE subs playing in an event. That is right, only one of the origianl "team" was there. Two of the three subs where from other teams in the same event.

I don't mean to discourage you. I would surely try to join a team and play in your league should you start it. I will be a huge supporter... but I think you underestimate the problem of online league play. I suggest you contact BBO yellow Libido and ask him about the BBO poland experience.

ben

BTW, my team in the poland event had eight "regular" members and three "subs" we would contact if we had trouble scheduling a match with eight people. Even with 11 players on our "list" (three unofficial) we ahd trouble scheduling times satistactory with our opponents.

[hrothgar]

I'd go so far as to say that i'm unwilling to particpate in a league that doesn't use some kind of fixed start times...

Each and every time I particpated in one of these leagues, the logitics involved made the whole thing a nightmare. I'd regularly spend more time trying to coordinate the time of a match than I did playing.

Not a worthwhile activity

[Echognome]

I think I understand Ben's point now. Remember that this league is still a new idea for me and I'm doing my best to make it work. However, helpful ideas from those that participated in one before might make it more successful this time.

So, one thing that is different with the f2f league is that if we do play on a night, it ALWAYS starts sometime between 7pm and 7.30pm. So perhaps you are right. Maybe the divisions will have to be times that people can play rather than skill levels. So we find out all of the teams that are interested and depending on the number of teams I discuss with all of the captains a couple of times and captains must sign up their team for one timeslot in a week and that's the timeslot they play in. That is probably also nice for coordinating with team members that we always play on day X at time Y.

I'll be gathering support and information over the next couple of weeks. I would appreciate feedback on here over any other issues/concerns. If we all brainstorm then perhaps we can make this league work. Anyway willing to host a website?

Matt

[cherdano]

Maybe it would be easiest if the league was done weekly at a fixed game. Those who don't show up lose, period. Those who don't show up twice are thrown out.

In my experience with a go league it is a lot easier to ask "Who can play next thursday 7pm" then to ask "who could play when next week, so I could offer the other team some options" and then everybody has to keep every evening he mentioned free until a date is agreed...

Arend

[Fluffy]

Weekly at a determined hour seems the best, but you will probably pick then American/European (most BBO users I believe) time leaving Aussies, Asians and the like almost out :/.


Also posibble is making groups with different days and zones, the final times can be arranged by them (If you have played a full league you can be trusted not to miss the play offs).