[tim_delane]

A while back, I made the (partially tongue in cheek) suggestion on RGB that the future of bridge lay in playing electronically. That is, actual cards would no longer be used. Each player would be equipped with a console, and all calls and plays would be entered electronically, much in the same way as online play, but with the opportunity to interact with the other three players face to face (between boards, of course)

Imagine a game without bids out of turn, revokes, etc. Well, of course we already have that on BBO. Tournament directors would have fewer rulings to make, but the rulings the would be faced with (UI, misinformation, etc) would demand actual bridge skills.

The possibilities boggle the mind. Club games could be set up via the web, and each board could be scored across the whole time zone, country or even the world. Of course, clubs would also retain the option of scoring locally, to avoid embarassing the members.

I can imagine software that enables partners to quickly fill out a convention card electronically before each game, or retrieve a previously filled out card via the internet.

I think the cost of such a system would be relatively modest. Capital cost? Maybe $3000 (USD) per table, perhaps less in significant quantity. Operating cost? Just about nil, probably around $2 (or less) per person per session. (electricity, internet access, maintenance)

A significant advantage would be pace of play. I'd guess that the average club could expect to play a 30 board session in three hours, complete with hospitality breaks. It would be trivial to time serious events to make sure all contestants played in the time allotted.

For major events, online viewing of every board would be possible, with no need of a VuGraph operator. Imagine being able to kibitz every board of the Bermuda Bowl in real time.

Heeeeyyyy Fred!

[jjbrr]

The topic has been discussed before. Gwnn is better at searching than I am, but this was somewhat recent: http://forums.bridge...showtopic=34876

It was in response to another thread about alleged cheaters or about how common cheating was in high-level events or something.

[NickRW]

tim_delane, on Aug 7 2010, 08:12 AM, said:

Operating cost? Just about nil, probably around $2 (or less) per person per session. (electricity, internet access, maintenance)

If you're talking about a club game, you don't even need the internet - a wireless LAN would do - and the server probably needs to be a laptop that you can take away so as to upload the results to the club's website later.

Not my cup of tea however - I like F2F bridge.

Nick

[Bbradley62]

NickRW, on Aug 7 2010, 12:40 PM, said:

Not my cup of tea however - I like F2F bridge.

Nick

I think that, as he describes this, it could/would be F2F bridge. You go your club, and instead of finding a few boards on each table, there would be 4 laptops.

[mrdct]

$3000 per table would not make economic sense for a bridge club or a major tournament convenor when the alternative traditional equipment costs less than 10% of that.

[tim_delane]

Bbradley62, on Aug 7 2010, 08:44 PM, said:

NickRW, on Aug 7 2010, 12:40 PM, said:

Not my cup of tea however - I like F2F bridge.

Nick

I think that, as he describes this, it could/would be F2F bridge. You go your club, and instead of finding a few boards on each table, there would be 4 laptops.

What I envision is this:

All players play at the same table, just as they do today. Before the auction period, and after the play period, they could interact just as players do today at a typical club.

Screens would go up when your hand is shown to you. You would enter your call or play via a device that is similar to a keyboard, not a laptop. Very cheap to produce. When you key in your action, it is displayed on a screen for your approval. A separate keypress is required to complete your action, much like the Windows query "Are you sure you want to ...?"

There is only one CPU at each table, and it has a simple task: Accept only legal actions from the player whose turn it is, keep track of the contract, the play and result. Report the result to a master CPU.

During the auction, each player can see both opponents, but not his partner. During the play period, Declarer could see both opponents, who could not see one another. The software for the console is trivial.

Quote

$3000 per table would not make economic sense for a bridge club or a major tournament convenor when the alternative traditional equipment costs less than 10% of that.

Let's say the console has an average lifetime of 3 years, and is used 5 times a week. This equates to $2.00 / session ($.50 / player) for a typical club that runs a game every day. I'd cheerfully pay that if I were club owner to get the obvious benefits.

[blackshoe]

The technology will come, and eventually at a reasonable price. In the meantime it's not feasible for many clubs. The one at which I direct, for example, meets only once a week, and then not every week (we've not met the last three, for example, due to most of our players being in New Orleans and then at a nearby Regional). And when we do meet, we feel lucky if we get five tables. Most often we get four, which is just about the minimum that will pay expenses — which don't include paying the TD anything.

[mrdct]

tim_delane, on Aug 8 2010, 09:15 AM, said:

What I envision is this:

All players play at the same table, just as they do today. Before the auction period, and after the play period, they could interact just as players do today at a typical club.

Screens would go up when your hand is shown to you. You would enter your call or play via a device that is similar to a keyboard, not a laptop. Very cheap to produce. When you key in your action, it is displayed on a screen for your approval. A separate keypress is required to complete your action, much like the Windows query "Are you sure you want to ...?"

There is only one CPU at each table, and it has a simple task: Accept only legal actions from the player whose turn it is, keep track of the contract, the play and result. Report the result to a master CPU.

During the auction, each player can see both opponents, but not his partner. During the play period, Declarer could see both opponents, who could not see one another. The software for the console is trivial.

This is belongs in Fantasyland.

If the paying club duplicate player wants to play in an online environment, they will do so from home on BBO.

And how is the screens-up and screens-down thing going to work? The way you describe it you would need two diagonal screens across the table and then be opening and closing windows to see your opponents. It sounds like something from Get Smart.

[tim_delane]

mrdct, on Aug 8 2010, 01:11 AM, said:

tim_delane, on Aug 8 2010, 09:15 AM, said:

What I envision is this:

All players play at the same table, just as they do today. Before the auction period, and after the play period, they could interact just as players do today at a typical club.

Screens would go up when your hand is shown to you. You would enter your call or play via a device that is similar to a keyboard, not a laptop. Very cheap to produce. When you key in your action, it is displayed on a screen for your approval. A separate keypress is required to complete your action, much like the Windows query "Are you sure you want to ...?"

There is only one CPU at each table, and it has a simple task: Accept only legal actions from the player whose turn it is, keep track of the contract, the play and result. Report the result to a master CPU.

During the auction, each player can see both opponents, but not his partner. During the play period, Declarer could see both opponents, who could not see one another. The software for the console is trivial.

This is belongs in Fantasyland.

If the paying club duplicate player wants to play in an online environment, they will do so from home on BBO.

And how is the screens-up and screens-down thing going to work? The way you describe it you would need two diagonal screens across the table and then be opening and closing windows to see your opponents. It sounds like something from Get Smart.

The screens are not diagonal, but rather they are orthogonal. Your view of partner is blocked, but you can see both opponents. Think of a "plus" sign, with one leg intersecting your nose.

This Idea is not the same as an online environment. You can interact with both opponents, but not with partner, during tha auction and play. You can interact with all players face to face between deals.

You cannot send messages to partner by your mannerisms, such as the way you make a call or play a card. But you can draw inferences from the mannerisms of your opponent.

IOW, there is no restriction on how you interact with any player at the table, except that you cannot send UI via body language during the auction and play.

Is that so bad?

[mr1303]

I think they day may come when this may be introduced, but that day is still a long way off. We need the current internet generation to become the bridge playing generation. Most of the people in my club haven't yet heard of the internet, let alone knowing how to use it....

[JoAnneM]

I am stewing over whether to afford $150 per table for my 7 table game for scoring machines, and now we are talking about $3,000+ per table to get rid of holding cards. Too funny.

[ArtK78]

I rarely play in club games, but last week I played in a NAP qualifying game at a club in Cherry Hill, NJ. The club had devices at each table to key in the results directly to the computer. I had only seen these at one other club - a big club in Wilmington, DE, which was holding a sectional.

Not only did the devices speed up getting the results for the game, but the hands, scores at each table (albeit without the actual contracts) and matchpoint results are posted on the ACBL website under club game results. This is a very nice feature, especially for those from outside the area who can't wait for the final results to be posted.

[blackshoe]

There is no question that Bridgemates or similar scoring devices are nice to have. The question is whether small club owners can afford them. It's different for big clubs. More income means more room to maneuver.

[jnichols]

tim_delane, on Aug 7 2010, 04:12 AM, said:

I think the cost of such a system would be relatively modest. Capital cost? Maybe $3000 (USD) per table, perhaps less in significant quantity. Operating cost? Just about nil, probably around $2 (or less) per person per session. (electricity, internet access, maintenance)

Your idea of modest is a bit different from mine. Outfitting our club at $3000 per table would require and expenditure of about 65% of our annual income. That would be about 20 years of our proffit. An operating cost of $2 per person per session would require a 50% increase in our card fees.

If someone is interested in building such a system you should be looking at an outlay of around $200 (USD) per table and an operating cost that is truly nill, or about $0.02 per person per session.

Our players took quite well to electronic scoring. It would be much more difficult for many of them to adapt to playing electronically. Many of thiem would probably never make such a transition.

[hrothgar]

jnichols, on Aug 8 2010, 07:28 PM, said:

tim_delane, on Aug 7 2010, 04:12 AM, said:

I think the cost of such a system would be relatively modest. Capital cost? Maybe $3000 (USD) per table, perhaps less in significant quantity. Operating cost? Just about nil, probably around $2 (or less) per person per session. (electricity, internet access, maintenance)

Your idea of modest is a bit different from mine. Outfitting our club at $3000 per table would require and expenditure of about 65% of our annual income. That would be about 20 years of our proffit. An operating cost of $2 per person per session would require a 50% increase in our card fees.

If someone is interested in building such a system you should be looking at an outlay of around $200 (USD) per table and an operating cost that is truly nill, or about $0.02 per person per session.

Our players took quite well to electronic scoring. It would be much more difficult for many of them to adapt to playing electronically. Many of thiem would probably never make such a transition.

I've always been strongly in favor of introducing an electronic playing environment; however, I don't think that local clubs is the right place to introduce this. I'd start at the top levels of the game. The Cavendish, the Bermuda Bowl, the Spingold, etc.

These are the events where there is the greatest need/desire to accommodate spectators. These are the events where there is the greatest incentive to cheat. These events are small enough that you don't need a prohibitive amount of computer equipment.

Once you've introduced computers at this level of play, I'd expect to see them filter down into lower level events. However, I'd expect that individuals would have the responsibility to provide their own terminal (a netbook or some such)

[foo]

JoAnneM, on Aug 8 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

I am stewing over whether to afford $150 per table for my 7 table game for scoring machines, and now we are talking about $3,000+ per table to get rid of holding cards.  Too funny.

Actually, if the folks I know in the Electronics Industry are accurate, $3000/table is an outrageous "overbid" on the costs involved.

The 1st generation of Bridgemates are priced at ~$150 US MSRP.
Let's assume that said price is mostly due to materials costs. Most of it in as of now expensive components like a CPU, a transceiver, a circuit board, RAM and ROM, etc

The way things are said to work in electronics, if sales volumes are high enough, within 3 generations (~6-8 years depending on tech used and sales volume) the total cost to build a Bridgemate will most likely bottom out to the cost of the plastics used to make it since the electronics will be probably cost less.

Which means $150 Bridgemates become $40, or less, Bridgemates.

The same goes for any other consumer electronics device that does the same thing the same way for a large population over multiple generations of IC development.

Right now, with no changes in technology, we could give each table the equivalent of a dumbed down PDA or tablet PC to do everything being talked about here for about $150 per table. Heck, we could probably upgrade the present Bridgmate HW and SW to have the capabililties discussed at ~ $300 per table.
Not $3000. and that's now.

In 10 or 20 years, it will very likely be cheaper to buy dedicated "Bridge Appliances" for the tables than it will be to buy bidding boxes, card decks, boards, etc etc.

[JoAnneM]

Both Bridgepad and Bridgemate now have Swiss Team scoring so I imagine interest will grow. Our District voted in February to purchase machines for our Regionals and make them available to Sectionals for a small fee.

As to the posting of game results on the ACBL website, this is a wonderful addition to ACBL services. I know, many clubs have their own websites, but when you post at ACBL these results are available to everyone, it is very easy to post the games, and easy to access for the players.

However, as has been mentioned not everyone is computer savvy, and several clubs around me just have not been able to read the instructions for posting games, nor understand the extra instructions I sent, so I am going to set up a special sessions for the managers of four clubs in two weeks and get their clubs set up. (sigh)

[NickRW]

Actually, though I'm not a hardware engineer, I would imagine that the existing Bridgemates/Pads primarily require extra programming - as opposed to much in the way of extra physical components. Thus costs not much in excess of $600 per table (you'd need 4 per table) would seem to be achievable.

Indeed, since it would 4x the sales of terminals compared to simply using these devices for scoring, possibly the unit cost might even be able to come down a little. Still quite a bit of outlay, but it might be in the range of what is possible for large tournaments and big clubs.

Not sure I want a screen edge on in my face though so that I can see both opps but not partner - think I'd be happier with screen crossways as now.

Nick

[tim_delane]

foo, on Aug 8 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on Aug 8 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

I am stewing over whether to afford $150 per table for my 7 table game for scoring machines, and now we are talking about $3,000+ per table to get rid of holding cards.  Too funny.

Actually, if the folks I know in the Electronics Industry are accurate, $3000/table is an outrageous "overbid" on the costs involved.

The 1st generation of Bridgemates are priced at ~$150 US MSRP.
Let's assume that said price is mostly due to materials costs. Most of it in as of now expensive components like a CPU, a transceiver, a circuit board, RAM and ROM, etc

The way things are said to work in electronics, if sales volumes are high enough, within 3 generations (~6-8 years depending on tech used and sales volume) the total cost to build a Bridgemate will most likely bottom out to the cost of the plastics used to make it since the electronics will be probably cost less.

Which means $150 Bridgemates become $40, or less, Bridgemates.

The same goes for any other consumer electronics device that does the same thing the same way for a large population over multiple generations of IC development.

Right now, with no changes in technology, we could give each table the equivalent of a dumbed down PDA or tablet PC to do everything being talked about here for about $150 per table. Heck, we could probably upgrade the present Bridgmate HW and SW to have the capabililties discussed at ~ $300 per table.
Not $3000. and that's now.

In 10 or 20 years, it will very likely be cheaper to buy dedicated "Bridge Appliances" for the tables than it will be to buy bidding boxes, card decks, boards, etc etc.

I agree that $3000 is a gross overbid. I picked a number out of the air that I thought was probably within the means of any serious bridge club -- i.e. one that owns or leases their facility, and holds games at least 5 days a week.

I think the key is to maintain the F2F feel of a bridge club. If players were relegated to a booth for 3 hours without any other human contact, they might well be able to play more quickly and efficiently, but I suspect they would just stay home instead and play online rather than do this. A system suitable for a club--at least for the forseeable future--will have to maintain the model of E-W pairs moving from table to table and saying: "Hi Brenda, nice to see you."

[hotShot]

If you don't worry to much about cheating in your small local club, sooner or later you will be able to replace the scoring devices with a smartphone app. If one player at each table has a iPhone or Android device.

Perhaps one day everybody will bring his/her iPad equivalent to the club and the only needs to provide screens.