[fred]

jjbrr, on Jul 2 2009, 07:00 PM, said:

Just as an aside, and correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't they change the MP awards in KOs to reflect the average number of MP in the bracket, as opposed to the number of brackets?

Sorry but I have no idea. You could easily be right.

Quote

Does this not qualify as rewarding MP relative to the strength of the field?

If you assume that there is a correlation between # of masterpoints held and strength of play, then yes

Quote

"Ridiculous" sounds like a huge overbid.

Maybe but I wasn't thinking of knockout teams (because, for now at least, we don't run any ACBL-sanctioned team events). I realize I did not mention this point in my previous post.

Anyways, even if it "ridiculous" is too strong, I still think the notion is silly. It would seem less silly to me if there was a reliable way to measure the strength of the field. But even if a good method of measuring field-strength could be developed, my guess is that most ACBL members would not like such a method to contribute to computing masterpoint awards in the clubs and tournaments they play in. If I am right about my guess then, even if the notion in and of itself is not silly, it would still be silly from a PR point of view.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

Agree with those who are not eager to see sectional or regional tournaments online.

Aside from the cheating issue, it may be worth noting that a number of attempts have been made to run "more serious" games online. OKbridge used to run 24-board tournaments on a daily basis. The attendance at these was never very good, and when they offered the choice of 12 boards or 24 virtually everyone chose the 12. We can see a bit of the same effect on BBO. Note that the longer ACBL games are never well-attended (frequently don't even run) in favor of the speedballs. And the free tournaments (which presumably can run any number of boards based on the preference of the director and players) rarely run longer than 12 boards (in fact most are shorter).

I suspect that there just isn't a lot of demand for longer events played online. One of the big draws of the online game is that you can play for a short time and then stop to do something else. So unless the plan is to run 12-board "sectionals" at 5 minutes per board and then just award pigmented masterpoints for it, I don't see that online sectionals would really succeed.

It's also worth mentioning that the strength of field in online events is substantially worse than in real tournaments or even club games. The issue is not that the players themselves are weaker (at least not obviously so) -- it is that the face-to-face environment encourages established partnerships or at least spending 15-20 minutes before the game discussing methods, whereas a great number of online partnerships are of the "pickup" variety.

With all this said, I think software to allow a "Swiss teams tournament" to run smoothly would be a nice addition to BBO, and I would have no opposition to assigning the usual colorless online ACBL points for success in such an event.

[jjbrr]

I concede MPs don't always reflect relative strength. It seems like the ACBL is attempting to award MP based on strength, though. And for practicality this is the best way to do it. KOs are a non sequitur in this thread, I agree.

I wasn't arguing that they should award MPs based on field strength, I don't think. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the 12 board speedballs pay the same award as a full session at the club? My point is I'd hate to see this happen with silver points. 12 board speedball sectionals offering a full award would be a crime.

[barmar]

ACBL MP awards are based on a number of things: Size of field, entry fees, type of event (different tournament types, special games at clubs, etc.), and strength of field as estimated by masterpoint requirements. LM Pairs pays more MPs than NLM Pairs, and you get more MPs for winning a flight A than a flight C pair game (although flighted pair games are pretty much extinct, having been supplanted by stratified games).

[fred]

jjbrr, on Jul 2 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

I wasn't arguing that they should award MPs based on field strength, I don't think. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the 12 board speedballs pay the same award as a full session at the club? My point is I'd hate to see this happen with silver points. 12 board speedball sectionals offering a full award would be a crime.

I am not our resident expert on the ACBL masterpoint scheme as it pertains to clubs (online or offline). Uday knows more - maybe he will chime in.

I do know that masterpoint awards for games with 18+ boards are (sensibly of course) more for than those for our games with 12 boards. It would not surprise me if we were to try running 18 boards online tournaments one day (and continue running them if people want to play in them).

So no, our 12-board speedballs do not offer as many masterpoints as a full session at the club (which in my experience always consists of more than 18 boards). There may be other factors in play as well that go against the number of masterpoints BBO can award compared to those awarded in similar games in real life ACBL-sanctioned bridge clubs.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[JoAnneM]

This is a good discussion, interesting points on both sides of the fence. I have been aware of a number of pairs who have been banned from various bridge sites for cheating, and for the most part they are accomplished players. So, why do they do it? I think that would be an interesting study. Many years ago on an early site I briefly had a partner who wanted me to send my hand on whatever messenger program that was in use at the time. He was quite a good player but had an ego that wouldn't quit. I have no idea whatever happened to him. The point is that since it was online bridge he just thought it was "fun bridge" and didn't matter.

[fred]

JoAnneM, on Jul 2 2009, 08:14 PM, said:

Many years ago on an early site I briefly had a partner who wanted me to send my hand on whatever messenger program that was in use at the time. He was quite a good player but had an ego that wouldn't quit. I have no idea whatever happened to him. The point is that since it was online bridge he just thought it was "fun bridge" and didn't matter.

Did you think it mattered?

How did you react?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jjbrr]

fred, on Jul 2 2009, 02:56 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Jul 2 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

I wasn't arguing that they should award MPs based on field strength, I don't think. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the 12 board speedballs pay the same award as a full session at the club? My point is I'd hate to see this happen with silver points. 12 board speedball sectionals offering a full award would be a crime.

I am not our resident expert on the ACBL masterpoint scheme as it pertains to clubs (online or offline). Uday knows more - maybe he will chime in.

I do know that masterpoint awards for games with 18+ boards are (sensibly of course) more for than those for our games with 12 boards. It would not surprise me if we were to try running 18 boards online tournaments one day (and continue running them if people want to play in them).

So no, our 12-board speedballs do not offer as many masterpoints as a full session at the club (which in my experience always consists of more than 18 boards). There may be other factors in play as well that go against the number of masterpoints BBO can award compared to those awarded in similar games in real life ACBL-sanctioned bridge clubs.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I'd be interested to hear from Uday, then.

I just checked the winner of the "Pairs Thursday 3PM Speedball" and the winner won 2.00 Online points.

Name: batoo-nadine5 Score:77.28 Rank: A 1 B 1 C 1 Points: 2.00

"A. OPEN GAME AWARDS

Open games (SEE CHAPTER.4, Section Two-I.) award .10 MP per table for

first place in each group. The second place award is 70% of 1st, third

is 50% of 1st, fourth is 35%, fifth is 1/5 and sixth is 1/6, etc. This

applies to all open sections for pair, and individual games. Maximum

award is 1.50 masterpoints. (SEE Files MPPAIRS)"

From http://www.bridgehands.com/Laws/ACBL/Dupli...ook_Clubs_2.htm


This was what I was getting my info from, and I was wrong, it seems BBO offers more MPs to win. Or I just don't know what any of it means.

[jdonn]

He thinks bridge is more fun if you can see partner's hand?

[barmar]

I think he meant "just for fun", as opposed to "for real".

We used to have a lunchtime bridge game at my workplace. Except for me, they were all novices, and we played for fun, we didn't keep score.

I eventually stopped going, I didn't find it interesting or challenging, and felt out of place with them.

[uday]

The masterpoint award formula is complicated ( or so it seems to me, anyway )

As of early 2008 (IIRC), a new acbl rule permits a limited # of overalls to be awarded in any club game. The max award is 2.50, IIRC, but is 2.00 for us bec. of the smaller # of boards.

Our games issue fewer MP than equivalent games in real life clubs, since real-life games usually play 18 or more boards ( at which point you can issue more points ).

I'm guessing that most real-life games are far smaller than most online games, and this is what leads to the misperception that online games pay better than real-life games.

[ArtK78]

I have not played in an ACBL pari game on BBO in a while. My recollection is that a section top in the A and B strata is worth 1.20 masterpoints (if there are enough tables in the section). 2nd in a section gets 75% of the 1st place award, 3rd in a section gets 75% of the second place award, etc; provided, however, that the minimum award for any position is no less than the reciprocal of the place multiplied by the award for 1st (i.e., 6th place can get no less than 1/6 of the award for 1st place). I believe that the top 40% of the section gets a masterpoint award, but it might be less than that.

In addition, there are awards for overall finish in the ACBL pair games on BBO. 1st overall in the A and B strats gets 2.00 points, second overall gets 1.50 (75% of 1st), 3rd overall gets 1.13 (75% of 2nd), etc.

Of course, a pair gets only the greater of their section award or their overall award.

[jjbrr]

uday, on Jul 2 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

The masterpoint award formula is complicated ( or so it seems to me, anyway )

As of early 2008 (IIRC), a new acbl rule permits a limited # of overalls to be awarded in any club game. The max award is 2.50, IIRC, but is 2.00 for us bec. of the smaller # of boards.

Our games issue fewer MP than equivalent games in real life clubs, since real-life games usually play 18 or more boards ( at which point you can issue more points ).

I'm guessing that most real-life games are far smaller than most online games, and this is what leads to the misperception that online games pay better than real-life games.

Thanks. Wasn't aware of the new overall award change. That makes it much clearer.

[Phil]

fred, on Jul 2 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

(Fred said)

Quote

Do you also think the ACBL should award fewer points for an event at the Wasilla Regional than they would for an identical event at the New York City Regional?

Depends what you mean by identical. I'm guessing the NYC regional is bigger than Wasilla, so that will get you more points. Furthermore, masterpoints in the KOs are based on the actual numbers of points for the team, and can vary greatly. So, yes, I would expect the 'quality of field' to be different in NYC, and the masterpoints awarded will vary too.

On-line opponents can vary from horrible, to outstanding. In my experience, a random open pairs at a regional, or even a random club game is a better field than an acbl online tournament, especially on the low end. In fairness, part of this has to do with split games in real life, with a side-section for the beginners.

Quote

  I think the basic point is that the ACBL should allow sites like BBO to run occasional events that are recognized as "more important" than the "normal" games that we run. There are many 1000s of ACBL members who play online bridge (some by choice and some because health issues mean that online bridge is the only form of the game they can play).

I think for a lot of these players that can only play online, they don't care about the number of points they get, however, it already feels weird that people are racking up 500-600 points a year online. How would you feel if the Barry Crane Top 500 winner never left their home?

Whatever you do, I think the league should clamp down on the significance of online awards.

Quote

IMO these people deserve the chance to play in "major online events" from time to time. Whether you call such events "Sectionals" or "Regionals" and how exactly the masterpoint scales work for such events is secondary concern.

This is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? 10 years ago, people would have laughed at the idea of masterpoints online, and now its being suggested to have major tournaments? Maybe we should have an online NABC?

The masterpoint scales should be a primary concern. What differentiates a typical online pairs game from an online regional? The cost? Regionals are still significant because of, a) the frequency, and b ) the higher awards.

Quote

I don't buy the arguments regarding cheating either, by the way. For sure "active cheating" is easier in an online environment, but pairs who are determined to actively cheat can easily do so in real life as well. It is also the case that the complete electronic records of all deals played in online bridge tournaments makes it much easier to investigate pairs that might be cheating than it would be in real life (where no such records exist).

A lot of the cheating concerns you have in real life are also evident online, mostly quick and slow bids. But I agree in person bridge brings another dimension of sensory inputs you can pick up on.

On line cheating compared to cheating in real life is a far cry from being 'easier' than online. Cheating is as easy as IM or a phone call away. Information is easily transferable, whereas in real life it is not.

Furthermore, cheating in real life is taken very seriously. While I'm not impugning BBO's or the ACBL efforts regarding online cheating, has there been an instance of a rampant cheating pair that has been barred from the ACBL as a result of online cheating?

[TimG]

Phil, on Jul 2 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

10 years ago, people would have laughed at the idea of masterpoints online, and now its being suggested to have major tournaments? Maybe we should have an online NABC?

I don't think regionals, and especially sectionals, qualify as "major tournaments".

[fred]

TimG, on Jul 2 2009, 11:05 PM, said:

Phil, on Jul 2 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

10 years ago, people would have laughed at the idea of masterpoints online, and now its being suggested to have major tournaments? Maybe we should have an online NABC?

I don't think regionals, and especially sectionals, qualify as "major tournaments".

It is all relative.

If you play almost all your bridge in the Wasilla Bridge Club then the yearly Wasilla Sectional is a "major tournament" and the bi-yearly Regional in nearby (by Alaska standards) Anchorage is a "very major tournament".

Similarly, I suspect that many of our ACBL players would consider an occasional BBO ACBL tournament that consisted of (say) 48 boards, awarded (say) 10 masterpoints to the winners whose names would be inscribed on the (say) Tim Goodwin Trophy, to be a "major online tournament".

And they would be right - such a tournament would certainly be considerably more "major" than the ACBL tournaments that are part of our normal daily schedule.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mike777]

Lots of interesting and passion filled posts.

I think Phil brought up a key point who thought there would be ACBL online masterpoints ten or twenty years ago.


Who doubts are lives will be even more digital ten or twenty years from now or sooner. Access to the digital world is becoming cheaper, and part of our daily lives with devices becoming smaller and smaller and much more common.

[JoAnneM]

I think any tournament where a player can earn over 100 masterpoints is a major tournment and certainly many Regionals qualify for that. I don't know you if you mean major according to the 50 or 60 "name" players who only play in the big multi day events at the NABC's or if you mean major according to the thousands of players who flock religiously each year to the same Regionals, which are marked on their calendars as their major tournaments. I sometimes wonder which is the real ACBL, I guess it is a combination of both. I know there are snide comments on this forum occasionally that it isn't real bridge unless you are playing in the first group I mentioned. I am proud to belong to the second group.

[JoAnneM]

fred, on Jul 2 2009, 08:20 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on Jul 2 2009, 08:14 PM, said:

Many years ago on an early site I briefly had a partner who wanted me to send my hand on whatever messenger program that was in use at the time.  He was quite a good player but had an ego that wouldn't quit.  I have no idea whatever happened to him.  The point is that since it was online bridge he just thought it was "fun bridge" and didn't matter.

Did you think it mattered?

How did you react?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Well, I immediately stopped playing with him. He was also an abusive partner.

Of course it mattered. But then even though I know online bridge is flawed I still play it to win, honestly. That is my character, and I think that is sometimes what comes out in these situations.

[fred]

Phil, on Jul 2 2009, 09:23 PM, said:

fred, on Jul 2 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

(Fred said)

Quote

Do you also think the ACBL should award fewer points for an event at the Wasilla Regional than they would for an identical event at the New York City Regional?

Depends what you mean by identical. I'm guessing the NYC regional is bigger than Wasilla, so that will get you more points.

By "identical" I meant "the same"

The same # of pairs, the same number of sessions, the same flighting/stratifying, etc...

In other words, the same everything that has an impact on masterpoints.

Someone's guesstimate of the strength of the pairs is not one of these factors.

Quote

Furthermore, cheating in real life is taken very seriously. While I'm not impugning BBO's or the ACBL efforts regarding online cheating, has there been an instance of a rampant cheating pair that has been barred from the ACBL as a result of online cheating?

All I can tell you is that we have barred more than a few people for suspected cheating in our ACBL games and ACBL regulations demand that we send them reports of such cases. I have no idea what ACBL does when they receive these reports. Probably they do whatever it is they do when they receive similar reports from real life clubs.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com