[kenberg]

Hi to all.

The acbl runs indys, speedball pairs, and regular pairs. Many apparently prefer speedball to regular, and in fact the regular game often fails to run. I prefer the regular game.


I am hoping to scout up some enthusiasm for the regular game. My life is such that I do not want to promise in blood that I will be in any particular place regularly at any particular time, but I am hoping for something of an informal effort. For example, I plan to be at the regular pairs game today (Saturday) at 3pm edt (noon in Cal, 8, I think, in London). If there were some others who were up for declaring an intent to play in a particular time slot maybe there could be enough for a game.

Registering for a game would obviously show this intent as well, here is the difference: Partner and I could have decided to play at 1 or at 5. If we choose 3, and someone else chooses 1, and so on, there is a fine chance that none of us play. With open discussion, maybe at least one of the games can run.


Anyway, I hope to do something to keep the regular game alive and healthy.

Thanks,
Ken

[jtfanclub]

How did the ACBL Midchart games work?

I'd love to see the Slowball games be Michart. Let people play Polish Club and Multi there, and you'd have a lot more entries.

[kenberg]

jtfanclub, on Aug 2 2008, 10:26 AM, said:

How did the ACBL Midchart games work?

I'd love to see the Slowball games be Michart. Let people play Polish Club and Multi there, and you'd have a lot more entries.

I like this idea a lot. At least some of the games. I would support that effort.

[fred]

We have tried (twice) to introduce ACBL tourneys for ACBL Life Masters with the Midchart in effect, but there was not much interest in them - they were consistently either cancelled or very small. More strange to me is that our ACBL 299er games have not performed well. I would have expected that there would be a big demand for these tournaments, but that has never been the case.

From BBO's point of view, ACBL tourney scheduling is a supply and demand problem. Given that the supply is infinite, we try to schedule the tourneys that the market demands.

As for slowball, I have heard several similar comments from ACBL regulars and I can certainly sympathize. We will continue to run slowball games in time slots for which these tournaments remain viable, but apparently a significant majority opt for speedball when given the choice.

That being the case, I don't think there is much we can do for those of you who prefer slowball (unless perhaps if we are prepared to aggravate the much larger group of ACBL players who evidently prefer speedball).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

Fred, could non-LM players play in these tournaments?

Anyway, I think another try would not be very successful, because:

* Those who play ACBL tourneys care about masterpoints.
* Those who care about masterpoints are usually not the strong players.
* Those who care about masterpoints don't want to play a tough game like the LMP.

And for those who want serious competition and do NOT care about masterpoints, there are many FREE alternatives like Unibridge or team matches.

[kenberg]

It sort of depends on what is meant by serious competition. I would be happy to play against Fred and his team but I am assuming they have other plans. There is a big gap between playing against Fred and playing acbl speedball. I would like to play in a decent game where pause for thought is not a social gaffe.

Team games are a possibility but require more organizational time than I wish to put into it. Unibridge I have never heard of.

I promise I don't care about masterpoints. I also don't care much whether I win five bucks in the prize games either.

I'm still hoping that there can be some sort of collaborative effort to save the regular acbl pair games. There was one table today at the 3pm game, partner and I will try for the 8pm game.

If I hear from others that they might be interested in playing at, say, 3 tomorrow I will see if a partner is available. If no one says anything, then I will put less effort into finding a partner since the game probably won't run anyway.

Ken

[jkdood]

This may be slightly off-topic (sorry) but the idea of speed and thought is mentioned here. I enjoy the many mini's and organized play here, but unless it's a private table with opps (and specs) you may know, the rules seems to be:

Do not stop to think ever unless you want abuse.
Abuse is ???? zzzzz what? people leaving, commenting, etc.
This even happens in organized table play (non-tourney) with no clock running.
I have heard this thought from many others: it makes online bridge (for some) very unappealing. Sure there are other reasons but I think this might be the most major reason for a large number of experienced players to regularly eschew the wonderful online play available 24/7 without "setting up" a game (which is often a tedious or time-consuming bother.)

It would be nice to hop in to a tabe and play, and be able to "take your time" when appropriate, and not be abused.

I have no answers, just wonder if anyone agrees and is working on possible solutions; re: etiquette, special play areas, etc. (just trying to think out of the box.)

[kenberg]

One player has on his profile something along the lines of "We sometimes stop to think. If you prefer speedball go elsewhere". I like that.

People like what they like. I am hoping that the regular acbl game can continue. If people rush me there I ignore them or possibly explain that they should choose the speedball game. Of course many have, soo...

Somewhere between Worldclass play and "don't think, just click" there must be room for tourneys of decent but non-expert players wanting to do their best.

I don't have a solution either.

[jkdood]

"Somewhere between Worldclass play and "don't think, just click" there must be room for tourneys of decent but non-expert players wanting to do their best."

Here, here!

(Not in here on BBO but the English rally chant of course, LOL)

Of course, experts and world-class labels are uhh quite uhh well very VERY subjective!

[blackshoe]

Here.

[matmat]

blackshoe, on Aug 2 2008, 07:20 PM, said:

Here.

Jay was just clicking, he wasn't thinking

[jkdood]

OK, so it's not a "Rally Cheer" (Not sure what that is, anyway)

But M-M is right, I do a lot of "without-thinking" clicking

[kenberg]

I learn some really interesting useless stuff on bbo.

Here here.

I always thought they were calling their dogs.

[jtfanclub]

fred, on Aug 2 2008, 01:43 PM, said:

We have tried (twice) to introduce ACBL tourneys for ACBL Life Masters with the Midchart in effect, but there was not much interest in them - they were consistently either cancelled or very small.

But, but but...

The people would be most interest in Slowball Midchart tourneys would be Brits, Poles, Turks, Chinese...people who want to play in a formal tournament with actual rules, but they aren't going to be Life Masters!

Sure, some people who play in ACBL games actually care about the ACBL. Others want well-organized tournaments with good TDs that actually had to pass a test, and others still just want to have a nice number next to their name. Not all of them are Americans or Canadians. Life Master games pretty much exclude all non-North Americans, at least all non-Americans who haven't played in North America.

Can we try a Midchart game with no ACBL membership requirements?

[NickRW]

jtfanclub, on Aug 3 2008, 02:13 AM, said:

Can we try a Midchart game with no ACBL membership requirements?

That sounds like something vaguely sensible.

I'm not interested in masterpoints - not even English ones, never mind those from some other nation.

I'm not a member of any NBO (as it seems to me that the only thing they do for ordinary players that amounts to a hill of beans is supply masterpoints - which I don't want).

I'm not interested in a mutant version of bridge called speedball. Indeed some local face to face clubs running 3 board rounds every 20 to 21 minutes is plenty fast enough for me and, for one, perhaps two, of my partners, more like 23 or 24 minutes would be better - sure sometimes (often) you finish a round early - go get a cup of tea - or, if every one has finished the round, call the move a minute or two early. Life doesn't have to be a race.

I am interested in a decent game of bridge with others who want a similar experience. I am really very tolerant of people with little experience and, as long as I get similar treatment out of those who consider themselves experts, only too happy to get a trouncing in exchange for learning something the hard way.

Not sure that I go with "midchart" or indeed, any of the EBU levels. If you want to attract a truly international field, probably the international enviroment needs to either evolve their own list of what is and is not considered ok - or go with WBF rules.

While I like "free" of course, a fee that covers BBO's expenses and the services of a decent director who can cope with a mixed ability field is understandable and acceptable.

Nick

[TimG]

kenberg, on Aug 2 2008, 03:26 PM, said:

Unibridge I have never heard of.

Unibridge is a sloooooooooooow game. 1 PM eastern time, every day, if I recall correctly.

[pigpenz]

about the only hope is that some one will run free games that are full 15 min rounds and maybe more that 12 boards per match.

main problem with free games is that players tend to leave the game after several bad boards. that is the main problem for TD's next to people being late at tables.

[jillybean]

My 2p

Re Freds post;
Comment Ive heard from intermediate players at the club is that they do not play speedball because they need time to think. I don’t understand the attraction of 299 games when you can play up in an open tournament.

6min boards, 3 boards per round seems to fit most people nicely.

[hrothgar]

For what it’s worth, I’ve spent a fair amount of time speculating about tournament formats. I would love to see some “serious” tournaments develop. Sadly, I don’t expect to see this happen any time soon. The BBO tournament system looks to be a perverse example of Gresham’s Law (“Bad money will drive out the good”). In this case, the high variance crap shoots that dominate BBO actively discourage serious players from competing.

TDs should have the option to set a “bond” for their tournaments. Anyone who wants to play in one of my tournaments needs to post a bond of $3.00 Players who successfully complete the tournament will have the bond refunded to them. Players who leave early forfeit the money. (I don’t really why players need to bail out on a given tournament. I don’t care whether you have a family emergency, a bad network connection, what-have-you. Quitting a tournament in progress imposes significant costs on the TD and other participants. I want a system where the player who quits shares the pain).

Associated with this…

1. Players who are disconnected through a network outage but are able to re-join the event in progress shouldn’t forfeit their bond.

2. Neither the TD nor BBO should benefit if a player forfeits a bond. (The best course of action would be to automatically apply the bond to reduce the entry fee for all the other participants)

Next: Implement real “balanced” movements. Balanced movements decrease the element of lucky by ensuring that everyone gets their chance to get a top from the bunnies. There will still be some luck in the system. You might be unlucky enough to have a perfectly flat hand against a very weak pair. However, balanced movements are much better than nothing. (I understand that using real movements presents a significant problem in an environment where players drop in and drop out at will. However, I like to think that the bond structure will address that problem. If not, it’s probably a sign that the bond wasn’t high enough)

Last but not least: By reducing the variance built into the system you will (hopefully) attract more serious players who will be willing to be play a real number of boards. Increasing the number of boards is one of the best ways to force players to focus on skill rather than luck.

[helene_t]

I think Richard's proposal is very constructive. However, to get rid of those high-variance shots. it would be necessary to prolong the tourneys substantially. Say if ACBL masterpoints where awarded on the basis of a total of 100 boards or so instead of on the basis of a single session.