[gnasher]

ArtK78, on Oct 21 2009, 03:25 PM, 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've played reasonably serious bridge matches online, and for me it doesn't feel the same. Like Elianna, I find that it feels like another computer game, and I have trouble taking it seriously.

[Phil]

I'm against it overall, but I suppose I liken it to baseball which could be improved by the aid of electronic enhancements.

For instance, putting transmitters on playing and bidding cards would settle many arguments on the 'he said / she said" issues about tempo, and would easily determine what pairs are at fault when a table is running behind.

Baseball needs instant replay and play review to avoid instances like:

WD McClelland

[Echognome]

What about separating the players into two rooms and having bar code scanners on the bidding and playing cards. All the Norths and Easts can sit together in one room and the Souths and Wests can sit together. Then the computer monitor can tell them what was played to each trick. You play with real cards, but the bidding and play is done by computer.

[MFA]

gnasher, on Oct 21 2009, 05:37 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Oct 21 2009, 03:25 PM, 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've played reasonably serious bridge matches online, and for me it doesn't feel the same. Like Elianna, I find that it feels like another computer game, and I have trouble taking it seriously.

I'm having the same problem. Part of this is due to sitting at home with lots of things to distract me, though, so the computer format might be better under other circumstances.

[barmar]

The upcoming generation is the one that has grown up with cell phones, online social networking, etc. To them, I suspect online interaction IS normal. That's why I think they'll be less likely to miss the social aspect of the game then the older generations, and will accept this form of the game.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on Oct 22 2009, 05:28 AM, said:

The upcoming generation is the one that has grown up with cell phones, online social networking, etc.  To them, I suspect online interaction IS normal.  That's why I think they'll be less likely to miss the social aspect of the game then the older generations, and will accept this form of the game.

This is probably true. It is very sad.

[jdonn]

Vampyr, on Oct 22 2009, 07:55 PM, said:

barmar, on Oct 22 2009, 05:28 AM, said:

The upcoming generation is the one that has grown up with cell phones, online social networking, etc.  To them, I suspect online interaction IS normal.  That's why I think they'll be less likely to miss the social aspect of the game then the older generations, and will accept this form of the game.

This is probably true. It is very sad.

Why?

[matmat]

Vampyr, on Oct 22 2009, 07:55 PM, said:

barmar, on Oct 22 2009, 05:28 AM, said:

The upcoming generation is the one that has grown up with cell phones, online social networking, etc.  To them, I suspect online interaction IS normal.  That's why I think they'll be less likely to miss the social aspect of the game then the older generations, and will accept this form of the game.

This is probably true. It is very sad.

you mean such lovely interactions as having to inhale someone's cigarette stink, overuse of perfume or, say, BO?

[blackshoe]

Clearly, one can find good and bad things about both approaches.

[cherdanno]

That reminds me of two friends of mine sitting next to each other in a club and sending text messages to each other. The music was loud enough to make talking to each other impossible.

[Elianna]

barmar, on Oct 21 2009, 08:28 PM, said:

The upcoming generation is the one that has grown up with cell phones, online social networking, etc. To them, I suspect online interaction IS normal. That's why I think they'll be less likely to miss the social aspect of the game then the older generations, and will accept this form of the game.

While I only had online stuff starting as a teenager, I would still say I "grew up" with online chat, etc.

I still can't get past the mindset that it doesn't feel REAL. I know for some people it does, but also for a lot of people it doesn't. Example: all the people that are much meaner online than in person. Yes some of it is anonymity, but a lot of it is not remembering that there's a person behind the words one is finding fault with.

To Josh (I believe it was) who said that I'm just being resistant because I haven't seriously tried it, I'm willing to admit that it might be true. I do hate change. I also know that I speak from some experience of trying to play games I enjoy in person online. My experiences:

1) Poker. I enjoy playing (friendly) home games, and I enjoy tournaments. I HATE playing online, even trying t gather friends in a room and chatting with them (simulating a home game, but online). And it's not just the social aspects that I don't like. Tournaments also feel really different, and I'm not just talking about eliminating the people reading aspect (which one would think would help me, since I do NOT have a poker face). You might say, well duh, poker is a much different game online vs. in person, it has a bluffing factor. That leads me to...

2) Backgammon. This is the other main game I used to play a lot. I used to be really into it in college, playing both tournaments and socially. I fell out of practice when I left Mudd, and also wasn't around my father as much. Playing online just wasn't the same (even against the same people I used to play against in person). And this is not a game where reading the other person helps at all (for those who know nothing about it).

With bridge, I have the evidence of what I already know. I know that I think differently about bridge hands with cards in front of me, then with a diagram of the hands. This may just be my problem, but I don't think that I'm the only one.

And for those that think that typing and talking are the same, that's just NOT true. It may be for some of you, but it's not true for many people. And that's not an age thing. Any educator can tell you that students have different processing for oral information vs. written, and different expressive abilities, and it's not related at all to ability (or age for that matter).