[y66]

Here in the DC area, the "big game" is on Thursday night. Actually, there are two big games, one a few miles south of town in Alexandria, Virginia and one just north of town in Silver Spring, Maryland. A lot of good players show up for these games, so the competition is usually pretty good.

Is there a "big game" on BBO or, say, a time slot or type of game (speedball?), when competition tends to be stronger than average? Have there been any attempts to promote a weekly or monthly "big game" on BBO? Would happily pay more to play in such a game and even more if expert level commentary were provided on selected hands afterwards.

I'm an intermediate level player. I like to get a good score as much as anyone. I'm not likely to do this in a tough field but I am likely to learn more and, for me, nothing beats playing a few hands well against really good players (playing many hands well would be better, of course, but this has not happened ... yet ).

[mike777]

the speedballs in the evening through midnight eastern time are huge. May be 90 pairs or more. 50 pairs plus often....


http://web04.bridgebase.com/tourneyhistory...h&h=acbl&d=ACBL

[JanM]

I think that the OP's question had to do more with quality than quantity. Assuming I'm right, I'm very interested in whether there are a significant number of BBO'ers who feel the same way. The reason it interests me is that the USBF has discussed the possibility of sponsoring a weekly or monthly tournament on BBO, with higher entry fees than for normal tournaments, and a guarantee that some number of USBF members would play in each tournament and that one expert would provide commentary afterward. How many of you would be willing to pay an extra fee for a game that would have participation by experts and expert commentary? Which of the following would be most attractive to you (you can see we've actually given this some thought):

A team event in which two world class pairs play the hands against each other and everyone else gets one of those two pairs as teammates.

An individual with a promise that each player gets to play at least one round (either one or two hands depending on how many players there are) with a world class player.

A normal MP game in which world class players compete and are spread through the field in such a way that each pair gets to play one round against a world class pair.

A normal MP game with commentary on some number of interesting hands by a world class player posted after the game.

[karlson]

a) I would definitely pay the extra dollar or two to play in such a game

I think of the options, the third one seems most attractive. The team game is going to suffer from more people wanting to play than there is room for, though it would obviously be great if it works (presumably more expensive). Individuals in my experience never work as well as one hopes. The last option (no experts in the field, just commentary) is, in my opinion, definitely worse than having experts playing also, but also worth the dollar. The commentary would be definitely more entertaining if it was based on bidding and play from the tournament, btw.

Edit. PS. it occurred to me that these fees might be higher than the typical bbo $1 increments. I think the $5-10 range would be my cutoff, assuming it was a more normal number of boards.

[mike777]

JanM, on Nov 9 2007, 03:29 PM, said:

I think that the OP's question had to do more with quality than quantity. Assuming I'm right, I'm very interested in whether there are a significant number of BBO'ers who feel the same way. The reason it interests me is that the USBF has discussed the possibility of sponsoring a weekly or monthly tournament on BBO, with higher entry fees than for normal tournaments, and a guarantee that some number of USBF members would play in each tournament and that one expert would provide commentary afterward. How many of you would be willing to pay an extra fee for a game that would have participation by experts and expert commentary? Which of the following would be most attractive to you (you can see we've actually given this some thought):

A team event in which two world class pairs play the hands against each other and everyone else gets one of those two pairs as teammates.

An individual with a promise that each player gets to play at least one round (either one or two hands depending on how many players there are) with a world class player.

A normal MP game in which world class players compete and are spread through the field in such a way that each pair gets to play one round against a world class pair.

A normal MP game with commentary on some number of interesting hands by a world class player posted after the game.

I can only hope there is demand for something like this. I have my doubts but well worth trying.

I note I got zero response when I asked how many are interested in an ACBL online tg which bbo is allowed to hold. I also note that the non speedball ACBL online games in many cases are dying out.

[JanM]

karlson, on Nov 9 2007, 03:43 PM, said:

a) I would definitely pay the extra dollar or two to play in such a game

I think of the options, the third one seems most attractive. The team game is going to suffer from more people wanting to play than there is room for, though it would obviously be great if it works (presumably more expensive). Individuals in my experience never work as well as one hopes. The last option (no experts in the field, just commentary) is, in my opinion, definitely worse than having experts playing also, but also worth the dollar. The commentary would be definitely more entertaining if it was based on bidding and play from the tournament, btw.

Edit. PS. it occurred to me that these fees might be higher than the typical bbo $1 increments. I think the $5-10 range would be my cutoff, assuming it was a more normal number of boards.

I may not have been clear in describing the team game idea. It would allow unlimited entries, since the experts are essentially providing a datum to be used to compute the scores for all of the entrants. The two expert pairs play all of the boards against each other. The other entrants play all of the boards against each other - either in long matches or short ones with changing opponents - and then arrive at their score on each board by comparing with the expert pair who sat in the opposite direction. It's actually more like an IMP pair game, but instead of the field as your "teammates" you get one of the expert pairs. I hope that makes sense .

[FrancesHinden]

It's a format used twice a year in English f2f games (once at Brighton, and once during the Lederer) usually known as 'play with the experts'. Generally considered fun sometimes but not serious bridge (in that the 'winning' pair is rarely the best pair in the field).

[y66]

Jan, if USBF sets up a normal MP game (or one of the other types of games you proposed) that draws a fairly strong field and provides expert commentary on selected hands posted after the game, I promise to support it.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Nov 9 2007, 11:29 PM, said:

I think that the OP's question had to do more with quality than quantity. Assuming I'm right, I'm very interested in whether there are a significant number of BBO'ers who feel the same way. The reason it interests me is that the USBF has discussed the possibility of sponsoring a weekly or monthly tournament on BBO, with higher entry fees than for normal tournaments, and a guarantee that some number of USBF members would play in each tournament and that one expert would provide commentary afterward. How many of you would be willing to pay an extra fee for a game that would have participation by experts and expert commentary? Which of the following would be most attractive to you (you can see we've actually given this some thought):

A team event in which two world class pairs play the hands against each other and everyone else gets one of those two pairs as teammates.

An individual with a promise that each player gets to play at least one round (either one or two hands depending on how many players there are) with a world class player.

A normal MP game in which world class players compete and are spread through the field in such a way that each pair gets to play one round against a world class pair.

A normal MP game with commentary on some number of interesting hands by a world class player posted after the game.

Hi Jan:

I don't think that the choices that you provided are mutually exclusive:

Here's my preferred format (I'd be willing to pay "real" money - say $10-16 a pair - for this type of event so long as the money was going to the International fund)

1. Qualified directors

2. Enough boards that the event doesn't degenerate into a crap shoot: 24 -27 would be ideal

2. A full meshed Howell type movement (multiple sections would be required)

3. Pre-dealt hands with records, par contracts, and analysis

4. Two pairs of "experts" play all the hands prior to the event. Their auctions (along commentary) is made available electronically after the event. I'm not so much interested in having those pairs as team mates as I am in in seeing the specific choices that said players made with the hands in question.

5. A smattering of USBF "experts" included in the mix.

In addition, I think that you could make some serious bucks if you ran a USBF "Pro-Am". Every pair consists of a pro and an amateur. Use either a raffle type mechanism or an auction to match pros with amateurs.

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Nov 9 2007, 05:41 PM, said:

I'd be willing to pay "real" money - say $10-16 a pair - for this type of event so long as the money was going to the International fund

I'll bet you don't exactly mean that . The International Fund is administered by the ACBL. The money is distributed to the USBF to be used to pay expenses of our International teams, so long as we do it as the ACBL wants us to. So I think (hope?) that what you really mean is "so long as the money is used to support our International teams." And I suppose I'd then ask whether you really mean to limit it to that degree. What if the USBF chose to use the money it raised to help support the Buffett Cup? To provide even more Vugraph coverage of the USBC? To pay for practice sessions for our International teams? To develop the software for computer scoring of the USBC? To pay recorders to write down the bidding and play at USBC tables that aren't on Vugraph? I'm sure I could think of some more possibilities if I actually had the money!

[zman102]

The team event sounds interesting. Not sure I could pay much over $5.00.

Would want to play more than 12 hands.

Exciting concept.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Nov 10 2007, 05:02 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 9 2007, 05:41 PM, said:

I'd be willing to pay "real" money - say $10-16 a pair - for this type of event so long as the money was going to the International fund

I'll bet you don't exactly mean that . The International Fund is administered by the ACBL. The money is distributed to the USBF to be used to pay expenses of our International teams, so long as we do it as the ACBL wants us to. So I think (hope?) that what you really mean is "so long as the money is used to support our International teams." And I suppose I'd then ask whether you really mean to limit it to that degree. What if the USBF chose to use the money it raised to help support the Buffett Cup? To provide even more Vugraph coverage of the USBC? To pay for practice sessions for our International teams? To develop the software for computer scoring of the USBC? To pay recorders to write down the bidding and play at USBC tables that aren't on Vugraph? I'm sure I could think of some more possibilities if I actually had the money!

Sorry about that. Ignore the comment about the International Fund and substitute the International Teams.

It might sound surprising, but I'm not overly concerned where inside the USBF the money goes. Dollars are fungible. Its far too easy to play accounting games and shift them from one account to another.

I obviously have my own agenda where I'd prefer to see bridge dollars invested... Personally, I'd like to see money invested in better infrastructure, with a long term goal of creating an electronic playing environment for major events. However, I also recognize that I'm not the one in charge... As long as the money doesn't seem to be squandered, I'm probably not overly concerned...

Any of the options that you mention would be more than acceptable, though spending money on physical recorders doesn't really rock my world. (I'd much rather invest money in a more comprehensive solution)

[bassaidai]

JanM, on Nov 9 2007, 09:29 PM, said:

A team event in which two world class pairs play the hands against each other and everyone else gets one of those two pairs as teammates.

A normal MP game with commentary on some number of interesting hands by a world class player posted after the game.

These two options seems attractive.

I'd surely play, but with 16 boards at least.