[jdonn]

skaeran, on Mar 31 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

And don't even get me started on pairs games, where you can talk to any person and find out about a board you haven't yet played.

You really don't play barometer tournaments over there still?

I guess we've played barometer only (very few exceptions) for more than 50 years over here. I still remember duplicating by hand in the early 80's myself (for a couple of tournaments I TDed for my club).

I think the reason is logistical. You simply need so many more boards to play a full session.

[Mbodell]

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

skaeran, on Mar 31 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

And don't even get me started on pairs games, where you can talk to any person and find out about a board you haven't yet played.

You really don't play barometer tournaments over there still?

I guess we've played barometer only (very few exceptions) for more than 50 years over here. I still remember duplicating by hand in the early 80's myself (for a couple of tournaments I TDed for my club).

I think the reason is logistical. You simply need so many more boards to play a full session.

Now that dealing machines are starting to be more common around me, I hope we get more barometer style games. We have once a week a barometer game, and some of our unit games are run barometer style. Also some of our unit swiss games have hand records, which is also quite rare for swiss teams in ACBL.

But I agree that if cutting down on cheating is the primary motivation for cell phone ban that one can only consider it serious *after* the events have been turned into barometer style. I mean how much more is it really to do this for national events? The cost is already $20/player/session (or occasionally $17/player/session). With dealing machines the preparation ought not be ridiculously bad, and surely the ACBL can spring for enough cards and boards for the very top level national events.

[blackshoe]

Apollo81, on Mar 31 2009, 10:14 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 31 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

It is my impression that for some people, the number of people who would cheat if given the opportunity is easily computable: just pick any arbitrary number, and divide it by zero.

This doesn't make any sense. If I were Justin then I would be posting a 3-letter acronym right now.

There are X people alive today, so the number is somewhere between 0 and X, inclusive.

Look up "hyperbole" in your dictionary.

[jdonn]

Mbodell, on Mar 31 2009, 07:11 PM, said:

...and surely the ACBL can spring for enough cards and boards for the very top level national events.

Unfortunately, surely they can't (or at least surely they won't), and that's why it will not happen. I have been told by someone who knows that that is a fact.

There are other logistical problems as well. For example, after the round, instead of everyone passing the board down 1 table, the caddies/directors have to replace every board in the (very large) room.

[TimG]

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

Mbodell, on Mar 31 2009, 07:11 PM, said:

...and surely the ACBL can spring for enough cards and boards for the very top level national events.

Unfortunately, surely they can't (or at least surely they won't), and that's why it will not happen. I have been told by someone who knows that that is a fact.

There are other logistical problems as well. For example, after the round, instead of everyone passing the board down 1 table, the caddies/directors have to replace every board in the (very large) room.

I've never played in such an event, but isn't it the case that there is generally a complete set of boards at the table and north takes out the appropriate ones for the round to be played?

[jdonn]

TimG, on Mar 31 2009, 09:05 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

Mbodell, on Mar 31 2009, 07:11 PM, said:

...and surely the ACBL can spring for enough cards and boards for the very top level national events.

Unfortunately, surely they can't (or at least surely they won't), and that's why it will not happen. I have been told by someone who knows that that is a fact.

There are other logistical problems as well. For example, after the round, instead of everyone passing the board down 1 table, the caddies/directors have to replace every board in the (very large) room.

I've never played in such an event, but isn't it the case that there is generally a complete set of boards at the table and north takes out the appropriate ones for the round to be played?

Yes, but I don't understand what you are getting at. If you use barometer in a 13 table section, then instead of needing 26 boards to complete the movement (2 on each of the 13 tables at a time) you need 169 (13 of each board). Further, instead of the boards being on the correct starting table and the players (easily) moving them for each round, someone has to collect all the boards every round and bring a whole new set for the next round.

Barometer is definitely better for the players and the game, but it's much more expensive and a huge logistical hassle.

Edit: Now I see what you meant, that at least there isn't an extra workload. I don't think that's the case, in my experience they won't give you boards at your table for rounds you aren't currently playing. Rightfully so imo. But someone else may know better, like Harold.

[Mbodell]

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 06:20 PM, said:

Edit: Now I see what you meant, that at least there isn't an extra workload. I don't think that's the case, in my experience they won't give you boards at your table for rounds you aren't currently playing. Rightfully so imo. But someone else may know better, like Harold.

In our club games, which may not be appropriate for 100% security, but sure as heck beats the current status quo - each table has a complete stack of all the boards. And the table just rotates the boards in. This is not unlike what sometimes happens in normal pairs movements where sometimes for an all 14 tables play the same 26 boards there is a N/S who have a complete stack of boards, and in these cases the stack is there for the event. That isn't considered a problem currently in national events.

At the club, for ease of preparation also sometimes there is one stack of boards for every 2 tables. This works very well for 3 board rounds (every table group is a relay), and slightly less well for 2 board rounds. But still, even in this form, I'd argue it is better than the status quo.

As for cost, I believe you when you say someone said it is too much, but really it is a one time expense and a set of boards is less than $60 without any special discount at Baron Barclay. So even a full set of boards per table, from one set per section means we need 12 new sets for every 13 tables currently in play. Even if there are 13 sections in an NABC event and there is no bulk discount this is still a one time cost under $10K.

[jdonn]

I still think it's being underestimated, in fact I think you have underestimated by a gigantic amount. For one thing you need LOTS of extra sets in case of misdeals or misplaced boards or boards breaking or more sections or multiple events. Also I don't know what boards you are looking at, but I am looking right now and the boards they use at nationals look like $90 to $130 to me [Edit: I now see the $60 boards, it's only fair of me to mention (although those are just 32 board sets so they couldn't even be bought, the 36 board sets are $68).], which doesn't even include the $3 per deck for cards with scanners (yes you need tons of new decks of cards too), so the cards cost even more than the boards. I seriously doubt it would get nearly as low as $60 each even with a bulk discount. And you still haven't flown them to the playing site, driven them to the hotel, stored them at the hotel, moved half of them to and from each table for every session (yes they do all this now but it would be on a MUCH larger scale). You haven't dealt them. You haven't stored them at ACBL headquarters. You haven't replaced them over time as they break and wear. You haven't paid for the extra machinery and manpower to deal them all for every session. And let's not forget that, not even having undertaken this project, the ACBL STILL felt the need to raise session fees at nationals in a bad economy. And you think they are going to take that on? Who would even organize such a thing, the ACBL has enough trouble just getting a committee to meet.

Btw, what nation are you where the boards are kept at each table in national events?? Wow. The fact that is being risked just shows what a logistical task running barometer is.

[Mbodell]

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 11:51 PM, said:

I still think it's being underestimated, in fact I think you have underestimated by a gigantic amount. For one thing you need LOTS of extra sets in case of misdeals or misplaced boards or boards breaking or more sections or multiple events. Also I don't know what boards you are looking at, but I am looking right now and the boards they use at nationals look like $90 to $130 to me [Edit: I now see the $60 boards, it's only fair of me to mention (although those are just 32 board sets so they couldn't even be bought, the 36 board sets are $68).], which doesn't even include the $3 per deck for cards with scanners (yes you need tons of new decks of cards too), so the cards cost even more than the boards. I seriously doubt it would get nearly as low as $60 each even with a bulk discount. And you still haven't flown them to the playing site, driven them to the hotel, stored them at the hotel, moved half of them to and from each table for every session (yes they do all this now but it would be on a MUCH larger scale). You haven't dealt them. You haven't stored them at ACBL headquarters. You haven't replaced them over time as they break and wear. You haven't paid for the extra machinery and manpower to deal them all for every session. And let's not forget that, not even having undertaken this project, the ACBL STILL felt the need to raise session fees at nationals in a bad economy. And you think they are going to take that on? Who would even organize such a thing, the ACBL has enough trouble just getting a committee to meet.

Btw, what nation are you where the boards are kept at each table in national events?? Wow. The fact that is being risked just shows what a logistical task running barometer is.

You don't need special cards for the dealing machines (at least if you use the type that were being shown in Houston that multiple clubs in d21 also have and use), just normal cards.

I guess I hadn't realized that the 32 board sets wouldn't work, but for many of the events wouldn't only 32 boards be enough when you are playing barometer style (I.e., you don't need more boards than are going to be played by any given person. Aren't most sessions somewhere between 26 and 32 boards depending on event).

You are right that I wasn't counting the extra manpower of preparing the deals. Given that I see people doing this for local weekly club games (which is not to discount my excellent local directors - just to show the bar isn't huge), and given people familiar with dealing machines can deal a set of boards very, very quickly, I didn't think this expense was really worth counting for super prestigious national events that only occur 3 times a year. Maybe it is the real cost that would stop people from doing this, but I think that is a pretty poor reflection of the event organizers - and once again in the context of a world where cell phone bans are needed to prevent cheating, represents an obvious huge improvement to prevent cheating that could be done and isn't.

There would be replacement costs and storage costs and transportation costs, but I was concentrating with more the initial cost as I had thought that was where the cost concern was.

As for where I've seen the boards next to the table for the duration of the session, the finals of NAP and Red Ribbon last year and this year both featured this. Maybe since these were limited national events they don't really count from your perspective, but really I think concern on this front is not a big deal - especially when there are cameras in the room and where the comparison is to the status quo situation.

[TimG]

jdonn, on Apr 1 2009, 02:51 AM, said:

You haven't replaced them over time as they break and wear.

In theory. replacement costs shouldn't be more than they are now, should they? If you have to replace a deck of cards after 1000 uses, that something like 75 sessions if the board is played 13 times each session. But, it is about 1000 sessions if it is only played once each session. So, while you need 13 times as many decks, they are used 1/13 as often.

This is not meant to suggest that the other costs you list don't make this prohibitively expensive in ACBL.

[hrothgar]

If I were running the ACBL, I'd strongly consider something like the following:

1. Identify the locations of the next "X" Nationals starting two years hence
2. Identify the local bridge clubs in those locations
3. Cut a deal with the local bridge clubs as such

Announce that the ACBL will need "Y" dealing machines on such and such a date
Tell local club owners that the ACBL will agree to lease their machines
Prepay the lease

The ACBL gets machines when it needs them without needing to worry about transport.

The local club owners can use the prepaided lease to subsidize their capital investment.

This type of system could actually be rolled out on a trial basis before implementing it on a national scale. Chose 2-3 districts as test cases. Work a similar deal in which:

The district contracts with the clubs owner for the necessary equipment to run regionals/sectionals and the like.

If the system works, roll this out on a borader scale, targetting locations where Nationals are scheduled. If the system doesn't work, you haven't lost that much money.

Personally, I think that the major problem is with the admistrative staff. Most of the TDs are too old and set in their way to cope with a new brand of bagels. I don't think any of them would ever be willing to consider shaking things up this much.

[blackshoe]

We certainly have TDs here who aren't interested in "new fangled" ways. We also have the other sort (me, for instance ).

The local bridge association (RABA) owns a duplimate machine and I don't know how many board sets. Last weekend there was a barometer session at our sectional. The TD (young guy from Ohio, didn't look old enough to be out on his own ) put a board set between each pair of tables. Each round, we shared boards (3 board rounds) between two tables. The TD swapped the boards between rounds. It seemed to go well. We had a dozen or so tables, maybe more.

I like Hrothgar's idea. Not sure anyone short of Eli Culbertson could sell it to the ACBL, though.

[jdonn]

TimG, on Apr 1 2009, 08:05 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 1 2009, 02:51 AM, said:

You haven't replaced them over time as they break and wear.

In theory. replacement costs shouldn't be more than they are now, should they? If you have to replace a deck of cards after 1000 uses, that something like 75 sessions if the board is played 13 times each session. But, it is about 1000 sessions if it is only played once each session. So, while you need 13 times as many decks, they are used 1/13 as often.

This is not meant to suggest that the other costs you list don't make this prohibitively expensive in ACBL.

I think it's a false assumption that the depreciation of the cards comes purely from playing with them. But you have a point, maybe you'd have to replace them 1/5 as often or something like that.

Anyway I'm far from an expert in all this, but it's very easy to underestimate the costs of something like this. I'm also shocked to hear boards were kept at the tables at an NABC even in limited events. But I wasn't there so I certainly can't dispute that it happened.

[hrothgar]

Question for those you you in Europe, Oz, etc...

The first time that I ran into dealing machines, etc. was at the Icelandaire Open 10+ years ago. To me, one of the most surprising things was that the "boards" were all made of cloth rather than plastic / metal.

You had a cloth square with four little pockets that the cards fit into. The whole shebang folded up into something the size of a wallet.

Anyone else seen these?

In theory, you might even be able to dispense with board numbers.

You start by playing the Green wallet
You then play the Yellow wallet
You move to the Red wallet

Next round, you start by playing the White wallet
You then play the Grey wallet
You move to the Black wallet

The third round, you start by playing the checkered wallet
You then play the stipped wallet
You finish with the paisley wallet

The advantage of color coding is that this allows you to implement a just in time duplication system. At any given time,

One set of wallets is being dealt
A second set of boards is being played
A third set of boards is being distributed

This type of system (should) allow you to decrease the total physical inventories of wallets, cards etcs....

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Apr 1 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

This type of system (should) allow you to decrease the total physical inventories of wallets, cards etcs....

Perhaps, but at the cost of requiring the boards to be properly duplicated in specific time periods. I would imagine that most duplicating should go on prior to the event. Just imagine the annoyance of a 15 minute delay in the Just In Time duplicating compared to the problem of a 15 minute delay in boards that were prepared hours ahead of time.

Besides, we all deal with playing boards in odd orders and/or playing the same number board multiple times during an ACBL Swiss event. I think it would be far harder to get used to the color coding than to get used to playing 1-16 followed by playing 1-16 again in a barometer pair event. Heck, the board could even be numbered 1-17, 2-18, 3-19, etc.

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on Apr 1 2009, 03:20 AM, said:

TimG, on Mar 31 2009, 09:05 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

Mbodell, on Mar 31 2009, 07:11 PM, said:

...and surely the ACBL can spring for enough cards and boards for the very top level national events.

Unfortunately, surely they can't (or at least surely they won't), and that's why it will not happen. I have been told by someone who knows that that is a fact.

There are other logistical problems as well. For example, after the round, instead of everyone passing the board down 1 table, the caddies/directors have to replace every board in the (very large) room.

I've never played in such an event, but isn't it the case that there is generally a complete set of boards at the table and north takes out the appropriate ones for the round to be played?

Yes, but I don't understand what you are getting at. If you use barometer in a 13 table section, then instead of needing 26 boards to complete the movement (2 on each of the 13 tables at a time) you need 169 (13 of each board). Further, instead of the boards being on the correct starting table and the players (easily) moving them for each round, someone has to collect all the boards every round and bring a whole new set for the next round.

Barometer is definitely better for the players and the game, but it's much more expensive and a huge logistical hassle.

Edit: Now I see what you meant, that at least there isn't an extra workload. I don't think that's the case, in my experience they won't give you boards at your table for rounds you aren't currently playing. Rightfully so imo. But someone else may know better, like Harold.

On our annual festival, we did give out all the boards for a session at the start. But we had too many instances of players taking the wrong boards that we abandoned this practice.

For the last few years we've had caddies changing boards each round.

[Phil]

In Orange County, I know of one dealing machine, and its currently in Colorado.

Barometer games are a serious headache to run. Its work to put together one set of pre-duplicated hands, much less # of tables x 26 / 27 / 28 boards.

Sharing boards for two tables just slows things down considerably.

If you want to improve security, hire several plain-clothes security that also monitor bathroom conversations.

[skjaeran]

TimG, on Apr 1 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Apr 1 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

This type of system (should) allow you to decrease the total physical inventories of wallets, cards etcs....

Perhaps, but at the cost of requiring the boards to be properly duplicated in specific time periods. I would imagine that most duplicating should go on prior to the event. Just imagine the annoyance of a 15 minute delay in the Just In Time duplicating compared to the problem of a 15 minute delay in boards that were prepared hours ahead of time.

Besides, we all deal with playing boards in odd orders and/or playing the same number board multiple times during an ACBL Swiss event. I think it would be far harder to get used to the color coding than to get used to playing 1-16 followed by playing 1-16 again in a barometer pair event. Heck, the board could even be numbered 1-17, 2-18, 3-19, etc.

At our annual festival I think we use something like 60,000 boards in total.
Half of these are preduplicated. After a session, the boards used go straight back to duplicating. We've got four duplimates running, and normally always duplicate boards two days ahead of when they're scheduled to be played.

All events are barometer tournaments. Bridgemates are used all over. We have big screens showing standings and a grid with all the tables - colour coded, so TDs always can look up and see which tables are slow/haven't entered all the scores etc.

[JLOL]

Norway > USA obv

[gnasher]

If it can be done, I think barometer scoring makes a more interesting event. The only time I've played in the Norwegian event that Skaeran describes, it seemed to go very smoothly, with the next set of boards always being ready at the start of a new round.

It's probably helped by the format: using a Swiss system means it's reasonable to routinely play three-board rounds. The Norwegians also seemed to have plenty of caddies, and enough space between the tables for them to distribute the boards quickly. Those factors, and the larger size of ACBL events, might make it problematic to do this routinely in ACBL events, but it ought to be possible in the finals of the major pairs events.