[ajain456]

If the online point earned prior to 2011, will it be considered as 1/3 or full point towards ranking purpose?

[mike777]

 ajain456, on 2011-December-29, 08:56, said:

If the online point earned prior to 2011, will it be considered as 1/3 or full point towards ranking purpose?

full as of the middle of January acbl computers.

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2011-December-29, 08:09, said:

Speaking of which ... I agree with other posters that the ACBL has the right, and in fact the duty, to do everything it can to make tournaments more popular and increase attendance. But I think it is a shame that they introduced bracketed knockouts with inflated masterpoint awards. As a result these knockouts are extremely popular, and a new one starts every day. This steals some of the lustre from the main events.

Still...gotta please the majority of the punters.

Good point, here. BTW, the ACBL is us, the people who play in ACBL; it is not some private corporation we can blame for the World's woes.

We have created, allowed, acquiesced to what has happened. And I don't think we can unscrew it at this late date. Unscrew what? The mindset of the vast majority who like having no challenge, rather are content to "earn" their points by never having to play up.

Our situation should be laughable to Vamp and others who can look at us from afar. But maybe your jurisdiction has the same problem.

[gnasher]

 aguahombre, on 2011-December-29, 10:36, said:

Good point, here. BTW, the ACBL is us, the people who play in ACBL; it is not some private corporation we can blame for the World's woes.

We have created, allowed, acquiesced to what has happened. And I don't think we can unscrew it at this late date. Unscrew what? The mindset of the vast majority who like having no challenge, rather are content to "earn" their points by never having to play up.

Our situation should be laughable to Vamp and others who can look at us from afar. But maybe your jurisdiction has the same problem.

Personally I think that the ACBL masterpoint system works very well, because:
- It encourages people to attend tournaments.
- It encourages weaker players to play in secondary events, thereby making the main events more challenging and more enjoyable.
- It creates employment for bridge professionals.
- It makes people happy.

[ArtK78]

I used to look at events like the Non Life Master's Pairs at the North American Championships as laughable, in that the event awarded about 50 masterpoints - 1/3 of them gold - to the winner of an event in which there was not a single life master, let alone any high ranking player.

So, awarding gold points for overall finishes in bracketed KO events doesn't bother me that much.

[awm]

Hmm my interpretation was never that online points "counted only a third" as people seem to be suggesting. It was, rather, that only a third of your points can be online points.

To give an example, suppose I had 1000 points of which 300 were online. By my interpretation, I'd be a silver life master (requiring 1000 points, of which at most 333 can be online points). If online points actually counted a third I would not be a silver life master (because I have 700 offline points + a third of 300 online points is only 800). In fact I'm pretty sure my interpretation is correct by observing my own rank changes.

This change will therefore only effect the small number of players for whom more than 1/3 of their masterpoints are online points. The color requirements tend to cause problems for these people anyway.

[JLOGIC]

 ggwhiz, on 2011-December-28, 09:45, said:

Purely on-line poker players don't have the same status as face to face players either nor should they.

Not sure if serious.

[billw55]

 Vampyr, on 2011-December-29, 08:09, said:

I wonder whether the ACBL have tried to increase interest by offering a greater variety of events. Do they offer multiple teams events (apart from board-a-match)? Do they ever have Swiss Pairs?

Personally I would like to see more IMP pairs. I would think there are enough players out there who aren't fans of matchpoints. Plus pairs is more convenient for drop-in players, or singles hanging around the partnership desk, etc. Forming a team of four out of thin air on short notice can be tough.

Don't know if there is wider interest in that or not.

[Vampyr]

 billw55, on 2011-December-29, 12:43, said:

Personally I would like to see more IMP pairs. I would think there are enough players out there who aren't fans of matchpoints.

It seems like there are enough players at the nationals and many regionals to cater to all tastes. In the EBU we only ever have enough players for one event at a time, so most congresses offer one matchpoint ("ordinary" pairs or Swiss pairs) and one IMP (Swiss teams or (rarely) multiple teams (I think!)). Knockout events are (except at Brighton) not held because there would not be another event to play in once you got knocked out. The big Knockout events are played privately in the early rounds with a final played at a congress venue.

In the Brighton Congress we have, among other things, a "Play with the Experts" tournament (hands from a long-ago match where you score up against your "teammates"; a good way to play IMP pairs because at least you have experts at the other table!) and a Mixed Pivot Teams (a mixed [but you don't have to be 2+2] multiple teams event in which you play three rounds of three boards with each of your teammates).

Finals of pairs events are sometimes barometer scored. Certain team finals and invitational events use hybrid scoring.

I think that if the EBU had the ACBL's numbers, they would put together a really creative programme!

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2011-December-29, 14:04, said:

I think that if the EBU had the ACBL's numbers, they would put together a really creative programme!

Unfortunately (see earlier portion of this thread), our "numbers" might be less than those in the EBU ---number of pairs who want to play in a big prestigeous event against top players is the number I would worry about.

[Mbodell]

 billw55, on 2011-December-29, 12:43, said:

Personally I would like to see more IMP pairs. I would think there are enough players out there who aren't fans of matchpoints. Plus pairs is more convenient for drop-in players, or singles hanging around the partnership desk, etc. Forming a team of four out of thin air on short notice can be tough.

Don't know if there is wider interest in that or not.

I also wish we had more different kind of events. Swiss MP Pairs would be nice to see. For that matter it would be nice to see hand records for our Swiss teams and KO.

I think one reason the KO are popular is not just the bracketed part, but also just the different format. In the KO you get:

1. Play at your own pace (more or less) since there is not wasted time waiting for a 2 or 3 board pairs movement.
2. IMP scoring as opposed to the MP scoring you commonly see in the club. This is both good for variety and good in that it is often lower stress (don't sweat the overtricks/partscores so much).
3. 50% odds of winning. In a typical pairs section, if everyone is equally good, you only win 1/12 or so times. In the KO match you win 1/2 (or sometimes 2/3).

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2011-December-29, 16:09, said:

Unfortunately (see earlier portion of this thread), our "numbers" might be less than those in the EBU ---number of pairs who want to play in a big prestigeous event against top players is the number I would worry about.

Well, with a lot of players there could be Flight B, C etc. Here there is sometimes a Flight B, but take-up is always low, since it is the case that most people do want to play against the best.

We will soon have a ranking system and stratified games. This brings up an interesting question -- many of our events have a qualifier followed by final/consolation. I wonder how qualification will work in a stratified game?

[mike777]

by definiton qualification should work 100% of the time ....
if not redefine.

[mycroft]

No idea, but in the ACBL, if you run a qualifier game, it must be open (you can stratify the consolation for the non-qualifiers)...for exactly the reason you asked the question.

This is almost certainly the reason that open qualifier-and-final games have all but disappeared from the calendar in the ACBL.

I find this a pity - it used to be the standard Saturday game at our sectionals, and my first "step up" bridge memory was the first time I qualified for the final. In next-to-last place, and we got hammered in the evening, but just qualifying was an achievement. I think a lot of people miss out on that kind of low-level achievement (it's just not the same as "first in C" or "first in B" or whatever). I try to play in it whenever I see it (and am not working the game), because I want to keep it around!

[Mbodell]

 mycroft, on 2011-December-30, 10:45, said:

No idea, but in the ACBL, if you run a qualifier game, it must be open (you can stratify the consolation for the non-qualifiers)...for exactly the reason you asked the question.

This is almost certainly the reason that open qualifier-and-final games have all but disappeared from the calendar in the ACBL.

I find this a pity - it used to be the standard Saturday game at our sectionals, and my first "step up" bridge memory was the first time I qualified for the final. In next-to-last place, and we got hammered in the evening, but just qualifying was an achievement. I think a lot of people miss out on that kind of low-level achievement (it's just not the same as "first in C" or "first in B" or whatever). I try to play in it whenever I see it (and am not working the game), because I want to keep it around!

Obviously this format is common for the National events. You can also play it in the Summer Regional in District 21 where we have the 2-day Western Pairs (2 session to qualify, 2 final sessions).

In theory you could still run it stratified and only qualify based on the A results, but give awards for A/B/C.

[FrancesHinden]

 Vampyr, on 2011-December-30, 04:35, said:

Well, with a lot of players there could be Flight B, C etc. Here there is sometimes a Flight B, but take-up is always low, since it is the case that most people do want to play against the best.

We will soon have a ranking system and stratified games. This brings up an interesting question -- many of our events have a qualifier followed by final/consolation. I wonder how qualification will work in a stratified game?

Will we? I thought the so-called 'national grading system' was only going to be used for club events, and stratification is at least at present only offered in club events.

[FrancesHinden]

 Mbodell, on 2011-December-29, 17:01, said:

I also wish we had more different kind of events. Swiss MP Pairs would be nice to see. For that matter it would be nice to see hand records for our Swiss teams and KO.

It's weird, because anything other than Swiss MP Pairs is almost dying out in England. Nationally there still a few events left (the National Pairs & the Corwen are both qualifier + all-play-all-2-day-final, and the Bank Holiday congress and Easter Festival are qualifier+final events) but county one-day events are absolutely always one day Swiss Pairs + one day Swiss Teams.

Most people love these as the format for a one-day event, because
(i) you get green points for winning matches, not just final ranking
(ii) they are much more random than most alternative possible formats, so more people have a chance of winning something.

[FrancesHinden]

 Vampyr, on 2011-December-29, 14:04, said:

Knockout events are (except at Brighton) not held because there would not be another event to play in once you got knocked out.

...you might include the Spring Foursomes, which is the longest single congress event that the EBU runs, and has two consolation events to go with it.

[gnasher]

 FrancesHinden, on 2011-December-31, 11:09, said:

Will we? I thought the so-called 'national grading system' was only going to be used for club events, and stratification is at least at present only offered in club events.

According to the NGS Overview, initially it will be based on
- All club duplicate pairs events (both Match Point and IMP scored)
- All congress pairs events (All Play All and Swiss Pairs) organised at any level.
- Club multiple Team-of-Four events.

The Swiss teams that I played in yesterday was stratified.

[FrancesHinden]

 gnasher, on 2011-December-31, 11:40, said:

According to the NGS Overview, initially it will be based on
- All club duplicate pairs events (both Match Point and IMP scored)
- All congress pairs events (All Play All and Swiss Pairs) organised at any level.
- Club multiple Team-of-Four events.

The Swiss teams that I played in yesterday was stratified.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that the rankings that came out of the NGS were not going to be used for anything, other than potentially by clubs, so it's not exactly a real 'national grading scheme'.