Internet Bridge

One of my ACBL committee assignments is the Internet Bridge Committee.

 

As I prepare for the meetings in DC this summer, I'm interested in your thoughts. 

 

1.  Should we establish an Ace of e-club race(s)?  Currently there are 13 categories of the Ace of Clubs (most masterpoints won in a year at clubs) and Mini McKenney races (most masterpoints won in a year).  Further, races are also broken down by Unit.

 

Also, the name is up for grabs.  Ace of e-Clubs is a choice, but if anyone has another name to consider, please mention it.

 

There are 13 categories.  We can suggest, for consistency, that there also be 13 categories in the Ace of e-Clubs races.  We could suggest less categories.  For example, six categories, namely, 0-100, 100-500 (new LM level), 500-1,000, 1,000-2,500, 2,500-5,000, 5,000+ .  Other possibilities could be considered.

 

2.  The committee discussed having one page in the Bridge Bulletin devoted to Internet activities.  This could include sanctioned play articles, online race results, online teaching, online instructive web sites, etc.  There might be an page editor with invited authors each month.  What are your thoughts on this?

 

3.  There is a wealth of information on the Internet and much bridge activity also.  Should the ACBL web site might have a visible link to an Internet page that contains this information, either in articles, discussions, links to interesting activities, more sanctioned play information including the Ace of e-Clubs races, etc.?

 

 

Comments

[Rich Newell]

1) I think there should be more recognition for online play. The ACBL already shows the year-end online results in the Bridge Bulletin. I think the internet side of bridge has grown rapidly and the ACBL cannot afford to ignore it.

400 of my nearly 1,200 points are from online play. The ACBL website tells me I have 77.47 points YTD. And another 22.23 online points that for some reason don't count toward masterpoint races. I can understand them not showing up in the Ace of Clubs total, but why not the Mckenney (or something else)?

I think that Ace of the internet or Ace of online bridge sounds a bit better.

2) I'm not sure how you would regularly feature online bridge in the magazine. It's not much different from face-to-face when put on paper. I think some space should be devoted to promoting the clubs are out there. BBO deserves even more attention for allowing us to follow major events on the vugraph. This mutual publicity can only help our game.

Maybe stories of people playing online and meeting in real life. I played the KO's in Omaha 2 years ago with teammates from BBO. There are some great online sites out there to mention also - Richard Pavlicek's is one of my favorites.

As for which categories, that is a tough call. I'm going to guess that only a small fraction of ACBL members - maybe 5% - have online points. So you may be better off with less categories until the day that more people are involved. The ACBL would need to weigh in on what those races would look like today.

I do think a tab with internet resources would be a big benefit. Bridge is not a game that is learned overnight. If you provide people with more tools for learning the game and improving, the result can only be more people willing to come out and play the game. Directing people to unit and district websites would also be fruitful. If I can't find out when and where the tournaments occur (I'm thinking smaller sectionals here) then I can't very well attend. Having an internet presence can only increase attendance.

[Paul Gutterman]

There is no doubt that internet bridge will continue to grow and is hugely important for people with limited mobility and those in locations where there are limited opportunities to play.

It is equally without doubt that there are myriad opportunities to cheat and that there are those that will take advantage of those opportunities.

I don't have any answers for you Sharon except to say that these two factors must be weighed. The more recognition and rewards you give for online playing the more likely there will be cheating.

[Doug Murphy]

Paul Gutterman stated it well when he wrote:

"There is no doubt that internet bridge will continue to grow and is hugely important for people with limited mobility and those in locations where there are limited opportunities to play. It is equally without doubt that there are myriad opportunities to cheat and that there are those that will take advantage of those opportunities."

As a manager of software developers who must develop applications in a way that they can't be abused like this, it is obvious that there are too many "holes" in BBO. (I assume in the others too, but don't have firsthand experience.) It is just too easy to cheat, and the biggest hole in my view is that partners could play double-dummy.

But having grown up west-river, 75 miles from the nearest bridge club, I see the other side too.

I do think it would be nice to highlight the online leaders each month, but giving more recognition to success in online play will increase the cheating. The low online entry fees also make it more accessible to cheaters.

If we do give more recognition, there are other steps that can be done. Maybe give full online points only for individual events, or for events where pairs are selected by random draw, rather than for events where you can select your own partner or team. (If you don't know your partner, it's much, much harder to cheat.)

Maybe limit the number of points you can earn online with the same partner per month, or the number of sessions per month you can earn points with the same ACBL number partner. (This could stop small-time cheaters, but wouldn't stop a large pool of conspirators.)

Maybe increase the per-session fees to be in line with those of brick-and-mortar clubs. This hurts those of limited means, I know, and I know that BBO doesn't have near as much overhead, but maybe the additional money could go to the ACBL to fund enforcement of cheating rules.

Just a few ideas...

[Dave Scharfbillig]

I play a lot of online bridge because it's much easier than getting to a club on a regular basis. I'm under the age of 35 and like the flexibility of one hour games because I can balance my time with my wife and still enjoy my playing, otherwise I would only get to one club game or sectional a month at the most (and even fewer in summer).

I haven't seen too much evidence of cheating in the ACBL tournaments I play in. However, I would support a slight increase in fees if it does something to improve the quality of the tournaments.

I think ACBL has it right in limiting the number of points you can earn in online play that count towards your ranking. I do not to be limited in the # of points with a specific partner because we play tournaments to further develop our partnership (he has about 90MPs and I have about 20.)

I'm frankly not concerned about a specific Ace of Clubs or Mini McKenney type thing for online play because I feel there are too many as it is. I would however like to see my online points allowed to count in the Mini McKenney. You could limit it the same way you do with the 1/3rd rule applying to ranking points.

I love the idea of a spot for online resources. I have a few bookmarks as I find sites I like but would find a lot of value in what others recommend as well. For I/N players I also think resources to help explain common bidding problems or "what if" kinds of scenarios and other helpful "standards" would be great as I know i would love having a central place to find that information.

I also like the idea of a page to Internet activities but I would be more interested in the "fun" internet deals and more about everything BBO and similar sites have to offer.