[shyams]

What about the beneficial side effects of computer bridge?

No revokes, no leads out of turn, no insufficient bids, no hands with 12/14 cards after someone mis-sorted, no exposed/penalty cards etc.

Suddenly the Bridge Laws book becomes incredibly thin and easy to understand!! Isn't that alone a big enough benefit?

[cherdanno]

I am not sure I quite follow this discussion. Surely if we were to switch to a purely computer-based play, we could sit North and East at one table in one room, and South and West at another table in another room? So the change in the social aspect would not necessarily be so drastic, compared to playing with screens.

[iviehoff]

When I first heard of screens, I assumed it would be some obstacle in the middle that concealed just your partner from you, or else a cross shape that concealed all the other players from each other. I was very surprised to learn it was an asymmetric screen, asymmetric in the sense that N&S always play before their screenmate, whereas E&W play after their screenmate. Of course it evens out over the two halves of a team, but in general it seems undesirable to introduce even more asymmetries than already exist.

Playing behind screens, do you feel it is an advantage to be EW or NS? Or don't you think in practice it makes much difference?

[jeremy69]

Quote

Playing behind screens, do you feel it is an advantage to be EW or NS? Or don't you think in practice it makes much difference?

These days if you are North and have a partner who doesn't much like scoring you can end up with putting boards on the table (or waiting for ever), moving and removing the tray, scoring for your side, scoring on the official sheet or bridgemate also so I guess it depends on whether you are a control freak or like the easier life.

As far as moving to the electronic game at high level I confess I'm not all that keen but it maybe only because I'm a stick in the mud. It does have to be said that any significant change is usually met as the end of bridge as we know it including but not limited to Alerting, Announcing, Bidding Boxes, Screens and new sets of laws.

[nige1]

gnasher, on Oct 19 2009, 12:18 PM, said:

Cherdano's suggestion of automatically recording which cards were played and when is a much better one.  Combine that with a permanent video record of each player, and it would be very hard either to cheat undetectably or to make unfounded accusations.

Seems a good idea. Perhaps you should also jam wireless communication. If you have electronic monitoring of bidding and play, then you can prevent mechanical errors like revokes, insufficient bids, bids out of turn, and so on, as is done on-line.

[jdonn]

If the goal is to get the advantages of computers but not lose the social aspect or the person reading ability, you could easily put the 4 players around a single table with a computer each, and if you want also have screens so you can't see your partner.

[barmar]

I have a feeling this will happen eventually, but it will take a while, like Fred said. As the old guard dies out, younger players who have been playing online for much of their career will take over, and they'll be less resistant to this format. Almost all the people pushing for this are in their 20's to 40's, and in a decade or so this will be the majority of bridge players.

[jjbrr]

I don't have anything else to contribute to this, except for a fwiw I'm 22 and don't like this idea even a little bit.

Who is going to provide the capital to buy everyone in a major event a computer to play on for the duration of the event? Who is going to pay for the cost of renting at least double the room space than is currently necessary?

[jdonn]

jjbrr, on Oct 20 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

I don't have anything else to contribute to this, except for a fwiw I'm 22 and don't like this idea even a little bit.

Who is going to provide the capital to buy everyone in a major event a computer to play on for the duration of the event? Who is going to pay for the cost of renting at least double the room space than is currently necessary?

You don't like it because it's expensive? So you like the idea if it could be paid for?

[jjbrr]

jdonn, on Oct 20 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Oct 20 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

I don't have anything else to contribute to this, except for a fwiw I'm 22 and don't like this idea even a little bit.

Who is going to provide the capital to buy everyone in a major event a computer to play on for the duration of the event? Who is going to pay for the cost of renting at least double the room space than is currently necessary?

You don't like it because it's expensive? So you like the idea if it could be paid for?

No, I don't like it either way. Sorry for being unclear.

[mike777]

If we are talking about the next generation of players, a generation being 20 years, then I would expect some real wonder advances in terms of technology/cost. Heck can implants really be that far off?


You computer Science guys can speak better to this matter but I would not be surprised if thousands of people are walking around with personal hand held computers or dedicated table bridgemates in each seat that can play online bridge in the next few decades. As for internet implants who knows. I think implants will bring up a whole nother issue regarding cheatun.

[EricK]

It could probably be done now using mobile phones.

[A2003]

shyams, on Oct 19 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

What about the beneficial side effects of computer bridge?

No revokes, no leads out of turn, no insufficient bids, no hands with 12/14 cards after someone mis-sorted, no exposed/penalty cards etc.

Suddenly the Bridge Laws book becomes incredibly thin and easy to understand!! Isn't that alone a big enough benefit?

In addition, ALERTS will be gone.
Explanation of the bid will be on the screen and can be verified back, whenever required.
No complain about "This Bid Not alerted" to TD. This will be the big improvement.

[Elianna]

jjbrr, on Oct 20 2009, 12:09 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 20 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Oct 20 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

I don't have anything else to contribute to this, except for a fwiw I'm 22 and don't like this idea even a little bit.

Who is going to provide the capital to buy everyone in a major event a computer to play on for the duration of the event? Who is going to pay for the cost of renting at least double the room space than is currently necessary?

You don't like it because it's expensive? So you like the idea if it could be paid for?

No, I don't like it either way. Sorry for being unclear.

I'm way older than you, but still in that age range, and I agree, I don't like this at all.

Besides the social aspect, I LIKE having cards in my hand. I am a tactile person, and playing on the computer just doesn't feel like bridge to me. It makes bridge just another computer game, and I don't really take computer games seriously. I play on BBO occasionally (usually I just kibbitz and chat), but I don't enjoy playing online. It's just not the same.

I know that I am not explaining myself well, but I can't help it. I just feel that bridge won't FEEL the same, I know I would play worse, and I would not participate anymore.

Of course, if this is only a proposal for things like high-level trials, etc., then what does it matter how I feel since I won't be playing in those. But I can't imagine that there aren't a few people who play in those events who feel like me.

[andy_h]

Elianna said:

  It makes bridge just another computer game

I whole heartedly agree with this. If each player is segragated into their own rooms then you totally lose the psychological aspects of the game as others have mentioned and it just doesn't seem as a social game anymore. It would just be like playing a complex version of windows hearts at home.

[ArtK78]

I don't understand a lot of what I am reading in this thread.

Anyone who has played in any serious bridge match online knows that the game is the same, and you can converse with your partner and opponents if you wish.

There are a lot of advantages to playing the game in an online environment as opposed to face-to-face. There are some obvious drawbacks in an unmonitored online environment, but that can be dealt with in a serious event.

[jjbrr]

ArtK78, on Oct 21 2009, 09:25 AM, said:

Anyone who has played in any serious bridge match online knows that the game is the same, and you can converse with your partner and opponents if you wish.

I would contend that having lots of frills like chat capabilities and such that BBO offers would not be practical in these events. That would require a lot of elderly people to learn stuff they're not inherently good at learning. You would have endless cases of people talking to the table instead of in private and what not.

And it would distract them from playing bridge, which would not be fair.

Rather, the program would have to be as simple and straightforward as possible. Many experts I've kibitzed on BBO haven't figured out how to alert properly or simply choose not to.

I just don't think any of this is practical at all.

[jdonn]

Elianna, on Oct 21 2009, 08:34 AM, said:

Besides the social aspect, I LIKE having cards in my hand.  I am a tactile person, and playing on the computer just doesn't feel like bridge to me.  It makes bridge just another computer game, and I don't really take computer games seriously.  I play on BBO occasionally (usually I just kibbitz and chat), but I don't enjoy playing online.  It's just not the same.

I know that I am not explaining myself well, but I can't help it.  I just feel that bridge won't FEEL the same, I know I would play worse, and I would not participate anymore.

Of course, if this is only a proposal for things like high-level trials, etc., then what does it matter how I feel since I won't be playing in those.  But I can't imagine that there aren't a few people who play in those events who feel like me.

Actually I think you explained yourself well, and it's very reasonable. A few comments about the points you made:

- Being a tactile person and having to switch from cards to a computer screen is something I would consider rub of the green. Everyone has incidental strengths and weaknesses and those things tend to even out. For example, there are also very nervous players who fumble their cards a little when trying to smoothly duck an ace (un-tactile people). It would be a little unfortunate for you and people like you, and a little fortunate for other people, and that's just how things would go.

- Regarding it turning bridge into 'just another computer game' that you wouldn't be able to take seriously, I am very surprised. I don't think people consider bridge 'just another card game', since after all few card games are taken seriously either. Besides that I don't really know how to respond, unless you could elaborate on why you feel that way.

- The last major point you made is that bridge just won't feel the same. I think this is a textbook example of human nature regarding resistance to change. I don't mean that as a criticism, it's inherent in how humans feel about things. But I bet if bridge had always been played on computers and people were considering making the switch to playing cards, that exact same criticism would be used. Perhaps players from 50 years ago would not think our game with bidding boxes, bridgemates, barometer events, and computer scoring 'feels' like what they consider bridge. The bottom line is it can just be hard to swallow doing something very differently than before, but over time people tend to get used to it and not miss the old way of doing things.

[mike777]

Hopefully not straying too far off topic, there are holograms now where one can feel textures. Give it another ten to twenty years and I think the next generation may feel comfortable playing in a virtual world.

In any event I would expect technology to take unexpected leaps and bounds and not simply be a linear projection of what computers are now.

I mean if computing, broadband, memory power will keep doubling every 18 months a 500$ "computer" will do some big stuff. How expensive can 50 dedicated "bridge computers" be at our local club.

[gwnn]

Neurological holograms like Al!