[hrothgar]

Hi All

Barmar (my team captain for the GNTs) forwarded me the following email from District 25

Quote

As Mark Aquino mentioned, I'm looking to do match reports for some or all three of these last matches. If you want to see what I have in mind, you or your teams can view last year's match reports by going to the District 25 website www.nebridge.org, clicking District News, scrolling down to back pages at the bottom, and bringing up March 2007 (the second half of which was last year's Flight A match report) or May 2007 (which was entirely given over to last year's Superflight final.) Indeed, since this year's Superflight final is between the same two teams, with the addition of Lloyd Arvedon, it might amuse those teams to look at last year's exciting match.

For those of you who don't know the drill, Here's what I do: If either team prefers NO match report, I don't come.

Scheduling GNT final matches is hard enough without worrying about me. Go ahead and schedule, and if you'd like me to report, notify me of time and place, and I'll try to be there. I come a bit early so I can say hi and take team photographs. I prefer you use my boards so I get full hand records. I try to station an observer at each table to record auctions and opening leads. If you're playing at a private home, I can bring any bridge supplies you suggest, including bid boxes, a rule book (I'm a certified club director), or even a bridge table.

At the conclusion of the match, I ask for the email addresses of any players who volunteer to fix errata. I take the boards and write my report, which takes a few days, and circulate a draft. I spend another couple of days fixing errata, and then I publish on the website.

Any questions, just ask. Hopefully I'll get to do at least one of 2008's matches.

I immediately countered with the following:

I recommend playing the Finals match on BBO using physical proctors.

Each of us will show up at the pre designated location with laptops in hand. We all log in to BBO and play a series of team matches.

By using BBO's facilities we will ensure much much better record keeping for the district. Plus, anyone who wants can swing by and heckle my defense.

The presence of physical proctors should eliminate any concerns about cheating.

We'll all be in the same place. If BBO crashes or we have connectivity problems we can always resort to playing with cardstock.

The final match isn't going to take place until April 19th, so we have plenty of time to work on logistics. For example, if someone doesn't have a laptop, there's plenty of time to scrounge one...

Personally, I see a lot of benefits to this proposal (I think that one of the biggest advantages is the ability to experiment with a new format).

I don't see any significant issues other than "We don't like change" which is always an enormous problem.

[FrancesHinden]

Did you consult with the opposing team before suggesting this?

Speaking personally, if I were involved in a significant match (and I assume the final of an event is significant for the players involved, whatever the event), I would not agree to this.

If I wanted to experiment with the format I might suggest an additional friendly match directly afterwards, say, or an event during the weekend that qualified for this final. I wouldn't want to do an experiment at the same time as playing the match - particularly if I expected my opponents were more familiar with BBO.

I have played a small amount on BBO and it is different to playing with real cards. It takes time to get used to, and to get the same amount of concentration. If the opposing team had practised and I hadn't, I would be at a disadvantage.

If you think the match might be worth seeing, why not suggest broadcasting it on BBO? Could the person who sent the email act as vugraph operator instead of taking manual notes? Being part of a vugraph broadcast is much less distracting than playing online.

[hrothgar]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 23 2008, 08:04 PM, said:

Did you consult with the opposing team before suggesting this?

Speaking personally, if I were involved in a significant match (and I assume the final of an event is significant for the players involved, whatever the event), I would not agree to this.

If I wanted to experiment with the format I might suggest an additional friendly match directly afterwards, say, or an event during the weekend that qualified for this final. I wouldn't want to do an experiment at the same time as playing the match - particularly if I expected my opponents were more familiar with BBO.

I have played a small amount on BBO and it is different to playing with real cards. It takes time to get used to, and to get the same amount of concentration. If the opposing team had practised and I hadn't, I would be at a disadvantage.

If you think the match might be worth seeing, why not suggest broadcasting it on BBO? Could the person who sent the email act as vugraph operator instead of taking manual notes? Being part of a vugraph broadcast is much less distracting than playing online.

I haven't made any proposal to the District as of yet.

I cc:ed the suggestion to my own team mates as well as members of the oppsoing team. If we are able to achieve consensus we can then make a formal proposal to the District. Alternatively, we can present the District with a fait complete and clue them in after the match is over and done with.

I didn't consider broadcasting this on BBO for a few reasons:

1. My primary interest is using BBO as an electronic playing environment. The ability to broadcast the match is a tertiary consideration.

2. Providing real time vugraph requires pre-generated hands... In turn, this imposes a burden on the local district. Its best to avoid this...

2. I have no illusions about my skill level. Any match in which I am playing has a certain (perverse) amusement value. However, absent this sort of comedy, its unclear whether anyone would care about a Fight B GNT match.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Jan 23 2008, 12:14 PM, said:

I didn't consider broadcasting this on BBO for a few reasons:

1. My primary interest is using BBO as an electronic playing environment. The ability to broadcast the match is a tertiary consideration.

2. Providing real time vugraph requires pre-generated hands... In turn, this imposes a burden on the local district. Its best to avoid this...

2. I have no illusions about my skill level.

Richard counts at the bridge table about as well as he counts in his lists!

I agree with Frances, I would be reluctant to play on BBO, and I have plenty of experience playing online. Especially if I had to trade in my desktop for a laptop.

Now, if you'd let me play from the comfort of my den, with music, food and attire of my choice, and my 21" monitor, I might sacrifice the real cards and in person experience.

[ArtK78]

I would never agree to contest the match on BBO. And I have considerable experience playing on BBO.

So many players do not have experience playing online, let alone playing on BBO. It would be a tremendous advantage to those who do have the experience of playing online over those who do not. District GNT finals matches (at any level) are stressful enough without adding the additional element of an unfamiliar playing platform.

How would you handle misclicks? There are bound to be misclicks with players who are new to online play or play on BBO's platform. I have a partner who plays on this site frequently and he misclicks about once every 25 boards (of course, he once pulled the wrong card from a bidding box and, not knowing that he could correct it, left it out - this cost us a Vanderbilt match).

[pclayton]

I would LOVE our GNTs to be played online - any level, except the NABC's. The GNTs are the original grass-roots event and whats more grass-roots than playing at home? Logistics are a helluva lot easier than in person and scheduling is a breeze.

You don't have screens at the District level. Playing online is better than screens, since there is nothing that can be heard.

Things like misclicks are no different than a card that has been misplayed.

Quote

(art78 said:) I have a partner who plays on this site frequently and he misclicks about once every 25 boards (of course, he once pulled the wrong card from a bidding box and, not knowing that he could correct it, left it out - this cost us a Vanderbilt match).

Right - misclicks / bidding box errors happen in person or online. So?

[ArtK78]

Misclicks happen much more frequently than pulling a wrong card or pulling the wrong bid from a bidding box.

Also, online play would be a significant disadvantage to those players who are not familiar with online play or computers in general.

I made these points earlier. But they bear repeating. While most of us are completely used to online play to the point of preferring it to live play (I find live play to be annoyingly slow), most of the bridge world has yet to be exposed to online play. I would hate to see a significant event compromised because a player was not used to using a computer.

[hrothgar]

ArtK78, on Jan 23 2008, 10:52 PM, said:

Misclicks happen much more frequently than pulling a wrong card or pulling the wrong bid from a bidding box.

Also, online play would be a significant disadvantage to those players who are not familiar with online play or computers in general.

I made these points earlier. But they bear repeating. While most of us are completely used to online play to the point of preferring it to live play (I find live play to be annoyingly slow), most of the bridge world has yet to be exposed to online play. I would hate to see a significant event compromised because a player was not used to using a computer.

One quick point:

All of my team mates are BBO users...
I know that at least two of the four players on the other team are BBO users...

I don't think that there is any chance that we'd play the match on BBO if there wasn't clear consensus to do so...

[pclayton]

ArtK78, on Jan 23 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

Misclicks happen much more frequently than pulling a wrong card or pulling the wrong bid from a bidding box.

Also, online play would be a significant disadvantage to those players who are not familiar with online play or computers in general.

I made these points earlier. But they bear repeating. While most of us are completely used to online play to the point of preferring it to live play (I find live play to be annoyingly slow), most of the bridge world has yet to be exposed to online play. I would hate to see a significant event compromised because a player was not used to using a computer.

Art I don't disagree with any of these points.

I think an online format is the wave of the future however. Other than unfamiliarity, I can't see a valid reason not to run this online.

[jillybean]

Hi Richard. Fantastic idea, I hope you do play this on BBO and if not you will have opened up some peoples minds to the possibility.

[ArtK78]

pclayton, on Jan 23 2008, 03:18 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jan 23 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

Misclicks happen much more frequently than pulling a wrong card or pulling the wrong bid from a bidding box.

Also, online play would be a significant disadvantage to those players who are not familiar with online play or computers in general.

I made these points earlier.  But they bear repeating.  While most of us are completely used to online play to the point of preferring it to live play (I find live play to be annoyingly slow), most of the bridge world has yet to be exposed to online play.  I would hate to see a significant event compromised because a player was not used to using a computer.

Art I don't disagree with any of these points.

I think an online format is the wave of the future however. Other than unfamiliarity, I can't see a valid reason not to run this online.

I agree. But I don't believe that we have reached that point yet.

I have toyed with the idea of playing one of our local round-robin matches online. It would save me about 2 hours of travel time, as I live about an hour away from the place where we hold our matches. But too few of the players involved in the matches play online, and there might be objections since we could not have the players proctored.

[bid_em_up]

What do you do if everyone doesn't have a laptop?

[Vilgan]

Man.. I would fight hard against it being played on BBO if I was involved in this. I like the things online bridge offers. Its great being able to play from lots of locations at just about any time. However, it just doesn't feel the "same" to me. Maybe this is the wrong board, but for me online play is practice only and serious play is done f2f.

There are obvious gameplay differences, such as misclicks... self alerts, etc. However, the main thing is that for me f2f bridge just feels like the "real thing" and I'd hate to give that up just so people could feel more 21st century.

Heck, I sound like an old fogey and I'm one of 3 players in my district under 30

Eric

[barmar]

I was the first one who broached the idea of playing our match online. However, while I might like to envision a day when online play of serious events would be more common, I had no such motive in mind when I suggested it. I only brought it up because one of the members of the opposing team is spending most of the next few months in Chicago for work (we're all in the Boston area). And although we have until the end of May to play the match, I was hoping to be able to play it sooner. So I thought that playing online would allow us to get around the scheduling difficulties more easily. I don't really see much point in doing it if we're all going to be in the same location -- yeah, there are some interesting things you can do with this format, such as automatically saving records of the play, but I don't see this as a significant reason to do it. I only suggested it as a way to get around the difficulty of getting us in the same location in the first place.

I fully agree that it should only happen if both teams are comfortable with the format. We could probably even do without the proctors -- except for Richard, we've all been regulars at the same club for several years, and know each other well (I'm pretty sure I've partnered with everyone on both teams at one time or another). I wouldn't have brought up the idea if I didn't trust them not to take advantage of the cheating possibilities, and I hope they trust us similarly. I wouldn't have been so eager if I were playing a team I wasn't so friendly with.

I also thought that the coordinator of the event might have been OK with the idea, since the finals are often played like a "home teams" event, with no TD physically present. So active monitoring of the play doesn't seem to be an issue. His response was that while he trusted our teams, he didn't want to set a precedent, and he felt that the 4 months we have to play the final were sufficient to not require this. If the requirement to schedule the event before Feb 13 was causing too much of a problem, he was willing to relax that.

[jdonn]

I think the main problem with doing this is that even if it works this time, next time someone might not trust an opponent, and then they are forced to admit so. That is a terrible road to start down.

[TimG]

Vilgan, on Jan 23 2008, 05:30 PM, said:

There are obvious gameplay differences, such as misclicks... self alerts, etc.

There is no requirement that online bridge has to be played with self-alerts.

But, I would also note that when bridge is played behind screens, there is some self-alerting going on.

[Codo]

Reading this threat, I found two reasons against online matches:

1. People are not common with it. This is surely true. And had been true for bidding boxes, screens, bridgemates, computer dealt hands, some bidding systems and signalling methods. This is no reason to avoid an improvement. But it is a reason to make the improvement really slowly and careful.

2. It is much easier to cheat while playing online. Sadly, this is true. You can have your script at the table, or Full disclosure, you can install messengers, you may have a pro sitting beside you, phone someone, name it.

But if you can handle these problems, you have a much fairer game. No reading in pds face, no aaaahs and uuhhs. No hand signs.

So in my opinion there is still some work to do, to make online matches as reasonable as f2f matches.

But if you start with a match (like this one) where the participants knows and trust each other, it will be an experience to start with.

And if you find a way to handle the possible cheating, you can enjoy all the advantages:

1. No revokes, no insufficent bids, no leads out of turn.
2. Self alerts
3. No looking in the cards from an opoonent.
4. Possibility to explain bids to the opps without having it heard or seen by the partner.
5. Easy monitoring. You can check the played hands quite easy. So if someone
says: No agreement about leads, but always leads his 4. highest, you can find this out much easier then IRL.
6. If there is a trusted player in Chicago but you happen to be in Boston, you can still play a match.
7. There are always people who want to see such a match. You can broadcast it very easy.
8. You can analysze the hands much easier after the match and find out how your stupid partner spoiled your briliant ideas.

Okay this is a two edged sword. MAYBE he can find out that you just spoiled the match. But this -of course- is a remote possibility.

So I would like to have big matches online and I believe that this will happen in the next five years and be standard in ten years.

[mike777]

so?

we know all of this 100 years ago..so?

we know 99%+ is true but so..what
we know about 1 % is not ..so what?