[csdenmark]

In the thread about forcing pass systems a proposal came up asking for ACBL to conduct a member survey about system regulation. The proposal looked to be going under after Fred declared it costly and not worth the effort.

I think it will be possible to create an internet survey which don't need to involve costs. Such a survey is not exactly the same but may still be fairly representative. I think it is worth giving it a try.

Do you think it is better to know nothing and continuing discussions in the dark or do you think we ought to try to be a little bit better informed?

[cherdano]

I don't think you could ever make it "fairly representative".

[matmat]

i think trying to have a "representative" survey online is ridiculous.

[inquiry]

matmat, on Dec 27 2008, 08:08 AM, said:

i think trying to have a "representative" survey online is ridiculous.

ditto

[fred]

csdenmark, on Dec 27 2008, 12:42 PM, said:

In the thread about forcing pass systems a proposal came up asking for ACBL to conduct a member survey about system regulation. The proposal looked to be going under after Fred declared it costly and not worth the effort.

I think it will be possible to create an internet survey which don't need to involve costs. Such a survey is not exactly the same but may still be fairly representative. I think it is worth giving it a try.

Do you think it is better to know nothing and continuing discussions in the dark or do you think we ought to try to be a little bit better informed?

Actually Claus, I did not "declare" anything at all. What I said was:

Quote

I am all for surveys, but it would not surprise me if it was expensive, complicated, or deemed by ACBL "not worth the cost/effort" to do periodic and effective surveys like you suggest.

I do agree with the others that if you tried to conduct such a survey on the web (especially on some site other than acbl.org) that many voices would not be heard.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

Fred my intensions was to ask you to display an announcement on BBO and a WEB-site link to a site with a multiple choice scheme for approx. 10 questions. In that way I hope it will be possible to reach persons will all kind of background.

I think the proposal which came up was worth more consideration than just to go under in a big thread. I read your comment as mostly based on economy. I think the economic issue do not need to be there if it is done on internet.

In my view it will be right to find ways to have a better knowledge about what we are talking about. The other thread was started, as always, with some sort of bashing ACBL. But the problem is not only for ACBL - it is for bridge in general.

I have raised the voice for other persons in bridge to post hoping for some information about how we have reached where we are today. 2 persons posted interesting information but much more is needed I think. For example I think it would be really interesting to have some polish information. Peter Gill has given some information from Australia - very balanced information about his worries about youth work.

Basically I think the persons in bridge organizations also will be interested to know if they are on right track or not. Costs are always a topic - so the doubt they may have, need to be weighted against other kind of tasks - and they have decided the way you argumented I think.

Is there a way to be wiser? I think and hope all will be interested to be wiser.

[mtvesuvius]

It's a nice thought, but it is certainly not a valid sample of ACBL players. Do the women who play SAYC without transfers, who only play at the clubs have BBO Membership? Not usually. To obtain a valid sample, these surveys would have to be available at all clubs, and all tournements (BBO too ). And obviously these people who play once a week for fun with their friends do not want to have to defend against some new system etc... If the survey was available everywhere, and it showed willingness to change regulations, I think that's fine. But right now, it's up to the ACBL to regulate this based on their commitee's opinions.

[fred]

csdenmark, on Dec 27 2008, 04:32 PM, said:

Fred my intensions was to ask you to display an announcement on BBO and a WEB-site link to a site with a multiple choice scheme for approx. 10 questions.

BBO does not have a problem with systems regulations.

The only games on BBO in which we impose any regulations are our ACBL games. I believe our decision to use the ACBL GCC for these games was a good one. If and when the time comes that we have reason to believe otherwise, we will revisit this decision (and maybe even do a survey of our ACBL players).

If you think that ACBL, WBF, or other organizations have problems in this area, then perhaps you should contact these groups yourself. If you really think that conducting a web-based survey might provide them with some useful information, then suggest it to them.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

Hm. Suppose I buy a building, furnish it nicely for the purpose, and name it "The Rochester Bridge Center". Then I tell all the local people who own games that I will rent them space for less than they're currently paying. Let's suppose further (just so that we can be reasonably sure this scheme will work) that the Center is more convenient for most players than other venues. So I have built it, and they will come. But I don't have anything at all to do with how the games are run - that's up to the club owners.

That's pretty much how I understand BBO - although apparently the ACBL sanction is BBO's and not some other entity. So BBO has decided that the "ACBL club" here will allow the GCC, and nothing else. Fair enough.

Fred says BBO doesn't have a system regulation problem - he's right. The problem, if there is one, belongs to the folks running their own games in BBO's "bridge center". I suppose they might be interested in their players' opinions on what should or should not be allowed. But I don't see that BBO needs to gather that information for them.

[babalu1997]

mtvesuvius, on Dec 27 2008, 11:34 AM, said:

It's a nice thought, but it is certainly not a valid sample of ACBL players. Do the women who play SAYC without transfers, who only play at the clubs have BBO Membership? Not usually. To obtain a valid sample, these surveys would have to be available at all clubs, and all tournements (BBO too ). And obviously these people who play once a week for fun with their friends do not want to have to defend against some new system etc... If the survey was available everywhere, and it showed willingness to change regulations, I think that's fine. But right now, it's up to the ACBL to regulate this based on their commitee's opinions.

Right

Are these same folks worried or even interested in regulating wilkosz and ekrens?

BBO is not ACBL . hallelujah.

and ACBL IS NOT ALL THERE IS TO BRIDGE !!!

I could care less what the WCs play in expert team matches. They ain`t playing against me, and should one chance to appear as my opp with a student, i take the zero and move on. Tho i am glad to take the hundred when the student forgets.

And to quote SJ Simon, you cannot deprive a palooka of his birthright, i just bid my hand when I have to.

[TimG]

csdenmark, on Dec 27 2008, 07:42 AM, said:

Do you think it is better to know nothing and continuing discussions in the dark or do you think we ought to try to be a little bit better informed?

This question seems more than a little leading. I will add mine to the chorus of voices that thinks an internet survey, especially one conducted on BBO forums would in no way be representative of general membership in the ACBL (or likely any other national bridge organization).

[csdenmark]

TimG, on Dec 27 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 27 2008, 07:42 AM, said:

Do you think it is better to know nothing and continuing discussions in the dark or do you think we ought to try to be a little bit better informed?

This question seems more than a little leading. I will add mine to the chorus of voices that thinks an internet survey, especially one conducted on BBO forums would in no way be representative of general membership in the ACBL (or likely any other national bridge organization).

I wouldn't dream of such Tim. Has nothing to do with BBO Forum members.

The intension was to ask Fred to add a link to an external web-site on his login-announcement wheel. In this way there would be a fairly good chance to reach 25.000 - 50.000 persons within a period of 14 days I think. 20% of those are likely to be members of ACBL.

According to Fred's last information this is no option. The case is closed - at least unless somebody else come up with proposals.

[matmat]

csdenmark, on Dec 27 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 27 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 27 2008, 07:42 AM, said:

Do you think it is better to know nothing and continuing discussions in the dark or do you think we ought to try to be a little bit better informed?

This question seems more than a little leading. I will add mine to the chorus of voices that thinks an internet survey, especially one conducted on BBO forums would in no way be representative of general membership in the ACBL (or likely any other national bridge organization).

I wouldn't dream of such Tim. Has nothing to do with BBO Forum members.

The intension was to ask Fred to add a link to an external web-site on his login-announcement wheel. In this way there would be a fairly good chance to reach 25.000 - 50.000 persons within a period of 14 days I think. 20% of those are likely to be members of ACBL.

According to Fred's last information this is no option. The case is closed - at least unless somebody else come up with proposals.

fred (uday?). I am curious, do you happen to know how many distinct logins you get over a 14 day period onto bbo?

[fred]

matmat, on Dec 27 2008, 07:00 PM, said:

fred (uday?). I am curious, do you happen to know how many distinct logins you get over a 14 day period onto bbo?

We do not actively keep track of such things, but it is easy enough for us (or for Uday at least) to extract information like this from log files, etc. We can find out exactly how many distinct user IDs logged in during a given period, but we don't know exactly how many distinct people own these IDs.

These numbers have 6 digits.

Fred Gtielman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[nickf]

csdenmark, on Dec 28 2008, 04:45 AM, said:

The intension was to ask Fred to add a link to an external web-site on his login-announcement wheel. In this way there would be a fairly good chance to reach 25.000 - 50.000 persons within a period of 14 days I think. 20% of those are likely to be members of ACBL.

Is it just gut feel that makes you think "there would be a fairly good chance to reach 25.000 - 50.000" or did the tarot cards predict that?

What about the "20% of those are likely to be members of ACBL". What is that based upon?

I doubt you'd get even 1000 unique respondents in 14 days. A few years ago I helped BBO with another BBO-linked survey, on general BBO matters, and from memory the sample size was robust but something in the magnitude of a few hundred. And that was based on a topic that probably had more interest to general BBO membership than system regulations in a country most will likely never set foot in let alone play duplicate bridge.

nickf
sydney