[jdonn]

barmar, on Nov 4 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

Fred, if the motion were amended to only prohibit games where the hands were dealt non-randomly, would that be acceptable?

Almost no one would want to play.

[barmar]

jdonn, on Nov 4 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

barmar, on Nov 4 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

Fred, if the motion were amended to only prohibit games where the hands were dealt non-randomly, would that be acceptable?

Almost no one would want to play.

Perhaps.

In the case of Robot Rewards, both types of games are offered, and I almost never enter the Random Hands type (I think the only time was when I clicked on the wrong game by mistake). Given a choice, I expect most prefer the cooked version.

But if there were no choice, would people really avoid the random game? People enter regular bridge tournaments with no expectation that they'll always get the best hand. I guess the difference is that with a human partner, you still have the opportunity to berate or praise your partner after the hand/session -- the social aspect replaces the expectation of playing most of the hands.

[eyhung]

I think you could do one of two things:

1) Change the "cooking" so that the "best hand" is the hand with the greatest distribution (longest two suits) + HCP. That makes it harder to draw inferences about the other hands, and I believe it would also make it more enjoyable for the human player.

2) Don't cook the deals at all, but allow the human player to switch seats and declare when they are supposed to be dummy. This means that the human would declare approximately 50% of hands, which would alleviate the "boredom" that Josh mentioned.

[barmar]

While it's certainly boring to be dummy when all the other players are bots, there's still some enjoyment in defending. The bots are actually pretty good at bidding weak, distributional hands, so it's nice to be challenged occasionally to defend when they bid games. If the human gets the best HCP *and* distribution, you'll practically never defend. That's a very different game.

[jdonn]

I don't think it was a bad idea to always give the human 10+ points but choose randomly among such hands instead of always giving the best hand. The threshhold can't be higher though since all four players might have 10.

[eyhung]

barmar, on Nov 4 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

While it's certainly boring to be dummy when all the other players are bots, there's still some enjoyment in defending. The bots are actually pretty good at bidding weak, distributional hands, so it's nice to be challenged occasionally to defend when they bid games. If the human gets the best HCP *and* distribution, you'll practically never defend. That's a very different game.

True, I suppose that was in response to the "robot reward" tournaments, where there is a significant luck factor on how many distributionally strong hands GIB gets to play against you. In Robot Duplicates that should be ok.

[Keeper1]

Oddly, I won one yesterday and realized that I only declared three hands (which might of course have had something to do with the result...)

[Elianna]

This is not directly related to BBO, but related to the topic of ACBL motions for fall.

According to our District Director (newsletter at: http://acbldistrict2...ews/current.pdf )

Quote

Finally, management has requested a statement that “the playing conditions at all tournaments shall be substantially equal for all players in one event insofar as possible given space and other considerations.” These last two requests will assist management in dealing with a relatively few players who felt they had special rights and will also put into writing how tournament directors are to deal with players having special needs.

How would you interpret this? For example, as not allowing people to bring special lights anymore? Or not allowing those who have problems with those lights to avoid them?

Or nothing to do with that and related to something else?

[barmar]

The link mike777 posted earlier doesn't work any more (now it goes to minutes from a BOD meeting in 2006). Here's the correct link to the motions for Fall 2009:

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/about...ego_Motions.pdf

See item 093-062, sections 2 and 6 for the motion relevant to Elianna's question. Section 6 specifically says that they should try to accomodate players with special needs. Section 2 contains the wording that Elianna quoted, and there's no implication that this is intended to deny such accomodation.

[Vampyr]

jdonn, on Nov 4 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

barmar, on Nov 4 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

Fred, if the motion were amended to only prohibit games where the hands were dealt non-randomly, would that be acceptable?

Almost no one would want to play.

L6 indicates that the cards must be dealt randomly unless hands from past events are purposely used. It is slightly unclear, but if randomisation really is the law, then no NBO can sanction a game in which the hands are switched for any purpose.

[Mbodell]

Interesting that I see one motion (item 093-32) is the mini-spingold events are moving to just another bracketed KO. As if we don't have enough of those! Although day 1 of the mini-spingold 0-1500 is a pretty quick day for many of the teams. Interesting also that they would give platinum awards to some of the brackets even though they aren't open events (so bracket 2 of the mini-spingold might have platinum awards).

Also, item 093-55 would raise the masterpoint limit on flight B NAP which means someone might be too high to play flight B in 2010-2011 but back in for 2011-2012. I guess this means I get an extra year or 2 of flight B eligibility. And if 093-141 goes through it will be even longer until I'm in the "open" flight.

[barmar]

Mbodell, on Nov 5 2009, 10:29 PM, said:

Interesting that I see one motion (item 093-32) is the mini-spingold events are moving to just another bracketed KO. As if we don't have enough of those!

The difference is that the brackets will be 32 teams, instead of the more typical 16 teams, and each round will be a full day of 48 or 56 boards (depending on the masterpoint range of the bracket) instead of 1 session. So the winner of a bracket will have to play for 5 full days, much like the current mini-Spingold.

[mike777]

my guess is you are guys are talking at a too confusing level.

Too put it in simple terms we have no idea what you are talking about but you want us dues paying members to vote....


My suggestion is too back up and define all of your terms. in a novice level...your basic terms.

[barmar]

mike777, on Nov 6 2009, 03:16 AM, said:

my guess is you are guys are talking at a too confusing level.

Too put it in simple terms we have no idea what you are talking about but you want us dues paying members to vote....


My suggestion is too back up and define all of your terms. in a novice level...your basic terms.

Who are "you guys"? The people voting on these motions are members of the ACBL Board of Directors, not all the members of the League.

If you have an opinion about any of the motions, you should send it to your district's representative to the board.

[JoAnneM]

If worst case happens and we lose the ACBL masterpoints for the robot games I would still play IF the change is made so that I would always play the hand for our side.

[Elianna]

barmar, on Nov 5 2009, 11:40 PM, said:

Mbodell, on Nov 5 2009, 10:29 PM, said:

Interesting that I see one motion (item 093-32) is the mini-spingold events are moving to just another bracketed KO.  As if we don't have enough of those!

The difference is that the brackets will be 32 teams, instead of the more typical 16 teams, and each round will be a full day of 48 or 56 boards (depending on the masterpoint range of the bracket) instead of 1 session. So the winner of a bracket will have to play for 5 full days, much like the current mini-Spingold.

But it still pretty much sucks. Especially since they seem to want to put a proviso that teams can only move up one bracket. And that's only if a team is willing to move down. Like that's going to happen.

Plus, this thing about capping it at 36,000 points to discourage pro teams? Yea right! There's the SPINGOLD going on. That's enough to discourage pro teams that have 4 pros with more than 9,000 points. There are plenty of pros that have less.

[barmar]

Last summer there were 59 teams entered in the 0-5000 Mini-Spingold, and 61 in the 0-1500. So the new approach would replace these two events with one event with 4 brackets.

If they changed it to brackets close to 64, it would be similar to the current event, but without having to decide the matchpoint limit of the lower event ahead of time. It sounds like they want to shorten the event by a day -- I wonder why?

[mike777]

barmar, on Nov 8 2009, 01:39 AM, said:

Last summer there were 59 teams entered in the 0-5000 Mini-Spingold, and 61 in the 0-1500.  So the new approach would replace these two events with one event with 4 brackets.

If they changed it to brackets close to 64, it would be similar to the current event, but without having to decide the matchpoint limit of the lower event ahead of time.  It sounds like they want to shorten the event by a day -- I wonder why?

Yes...I missed the main point...it seems the mini spingold, as is, is ok for the members.


What problem are we trying to correct?

[Mbodell]

barmar, on Nov 7 2009, 10:39 PM, said:

Last summer there were 59 teams entered in the 0-5000 Mini-Spingold, and 61 in the 0-1500. So the new approach would replace these two events with one event with 4 brackets.

If they changed it to brackets close to 64, it would be similar to the current event, but without having to decide the matchpoint limit of the lower event ahead of time. It sounds like they want to shorten the event by a day -- I wonder why?

It is true that the first day in the 0-1500 is very fast as they cut to 16. But it is only cutting a day off the 0-5000. But it does mean people can't play up as easily. I would have been in the bottom bracket of 4 last year, but finished 5/8 in 0-1500. In the year before I would have again been in the bottom bracket, but instead got to play in the 0-5000 against a good team.

Nationals already have a bunch of KO that are bracketed, I like having the two mini-spingolds.

[JanM]

barmar, on Nov 7 2009, 11:39 PM, said:

It sounds like they want to shorten the event by a day -- I wonder why?

They want people to finish in time to play in the weekend Swiss? At least, if I have my summer schedule right . The Spingold & mini-Spingolds start on Monday. With 64 teams (or the equivalent), the event takes 6 days (the Spingold of course takes 7 or usually 8). That runs through Saturday and there's nothing to play in on Sunday, except an early start, rushed Regional Swiss, so the people in the finals are likely to go home, not what ACBL wants.