[mike777]

It appears that starting Jan 01 2012 online pts count 100% not 33% towards rank changes in acbl.
You will also need a certain number and various types of colored pts for higher ranks.

for higher ranks check out page 11.



http://web2.acbl.org...ard_minutes.pdf


Item 113-28: Requirement for Achieving Additional Life Master Rankings
For Rank advancements higher than Life Master, the requirements are changed as follows:
•
Silver Life Master: Replace "A Life Master with 1000" with "A Life Master with (a) over 1000 masterpoints, including (b) no fewer than a combination of 200 silver, red, gold, or platinum points"
•
Gold Life Master: Replace "A Life Master with 2500" with "A Life Master with (a) over 2500 masterpoints including (b) no fewer than a combination of 500 silver, red, gold, or platinum points"
•
Diamond Life Master: Replace "A Life Master with 5000" with "A Life Master with (a) over 5000 masterpoints, including (b) no fewer than a combination of 250 gold or platinum points and © no fewer than a combination of 1000 silver, red, gold or platinum points."
•
Emerald Life Master: Replace "A Life Master with 7500" with "A Life Master with (a) over 7500 masterpoints, including (b) no fewer than a combination of 500 gold or platinum points and © no fewer than a combination of 1500 silver, red, gold or platinum points."
Seattle, WA Fall

[rduran1216]

I think the rank requirement shuffling is the worst thing on there. I mean the competition level at the tourney level is important to attaining certain ranks I think, but this is a move born of the money made by bridge pros more than anything I think. It seems like a cunning way to keep people travelling to tourneys and hoping to attain their status upgrades.

If you wanna make a change that helps deal with the inflation of rankings, just do away with stratifications and these ludicrous payouts in KO's. Honestly the field in a bracket 3 KO at a regional isn't any better than lots of solid club game fields. The online points thing is ridiculous also btw, sorry for the tangent.

[billw55]

rduran1216, on 2011-December-27, 23:55, said:

It seems like a cunning way to keep people travelling to tourneys and hoping to attain their status upgrades.

I agree, but I'm not against it. IMO if it increases participation, it is good for the game. Players in general, and good players in particular, are quite capable of reaching their own conclusions about who is a strong player and who isn't; point-based titles or lack thereof won't stop them.

[ArtK78]

These new requirements don't take away anything. If anything, they make achieving the ranks above Life Master easier. Online points count, but you need some face-to-face points to qualify. I don't know of anyone who could achieve the various point requirements without attending regionals and nationals, and you can't avoid making the pigmented point requirements if you do that.

The only players it might affect would be those who make huge amounts of points online but never attend face-to-face tournaments. And they would not have qualified for the higher ranks under the old standards in any event.

[JLOGIC]

This is the bridge pros fault too? Man we get blamed for everything. If it is a money grab, why wouldn't it be assumed that it is a money grab for the ACBL, the people who make these decisions, and who directly benefit from them?

[ggwhiz]

Those coloured point requirements are REALLY easy and shouldn't hold anyone back unless they are under house arrest.

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

[mycroft]

I think that having points that "count for one thing, but not for another" is insane, and this fixes that problem.

I don't mind the extra coloured requirements - as people are saying, it shouldn't be a big issue (maybe the 100 PP, for Platinum LM, but oh well), but I think the GrandLM requirement (of an open NABC+ or equivalent win) trumps all that MP and colours stuff. If someone manages to win the Open two-day Swiss some year and gets her 120 PP, I really don't care if that's the only coloured points she ever got in her 10K (because, of course, it wouldn't be).

But, you know, not a big deal.

[jillybean]

rduran1216, on 2011-December-27, 23:55, said:

If you wanna make a change that helps deal with the inflation of rankings, just do away with stratifications and these ludicrous payouts in KO's. Honestly the field in a bracket 3 KO at a regional isn't any better than lots of solid club game fields.

I agree 100%. If you say bracket 3 isn't any better than a solid club,you can imagine what the game is like in bracket 6 or 7.

[kenberg]

In response to this thread, I looked up my points:


Lifetime Totals Points
Total Points 2349.18

Gold 257.44
Red 276.78
Silver 462.28
Black 1202.45
Online 150.23


Is there anyone out there who has at all changed their view, up down or sideways, of my ability based on this information? No normal human being pays the slightest attention to these numbers. I see I am near to a change in rank. This will do what for me?

As to being good/bad for the game, more open events would be a fine idea. Bridge is bridge, gimmicks are gimmicks.

[daveharty]

It has been said many times before: no matter how the ACBL tinkers with the masterpoint structure or the requirements for each "rank", masterpoints are little more than an attendance award for many people. Of course it is possible to find some correlation between masterpoints and skill--if someone racks up, say, 1500 points in a year, it's likely they are a pretty good player--but knowing someone's masterpoint total tells us very little about their actual strength as a player. Unfortunately, unless and until the ACBL implements something more like the Elo ratings used in chess and soccer, it's the only metric we have, aside from reputation.

jillybean: Are your regional KOs really 6 or 7 brackets? We're lucky to get four...

[rduran1216]

JLOGIC, on 2011-December-28, 09:03, said:

This is the bridge pros fault too? Man we get blamed for everything. If it is a money grab, why wouldn't it be assumed that it is a money grab for the ACBL, the people who make these decisions, and who directly benefit from them?

Not blaming the pros at all, sorry I worded that poorly. Look this kinda stuff is great news for me, as im starting to take in clients looking to make life master/other rankings. Of course its a ploy by the ACBL brass to take in more $$ by getting ppl to go to tourneys. The idea that this kinda thing will deal with the inflated titles/etc is just false though. I haven't been in the game long enough to know when strats were implemented, but thats the real problem.

[billw55]

rduran1216, on 2011-December-28, 12:42, said:

Not blaming the pros at all, sorry I worded that poorly. Look this kinda stuff is great news for me, as im starting to take in clients looking to make life master/other rankings. Of course its a ploy by the ACBL brass to take in more $ by getting ppl to go to tourneys. The idea that this kinda thing will deal with the inflated titles/etc is just false though. I haven't been in the game long enough to know when strats were implemented, but thats the real problem.

"ploy to take in more $$" makes it sound bad, which I suppose you think it is. But why is ACBL the enemy?

I rather think of it as "incentives to increase attendance at tournaments", which is good for the membership as well as the administration. Everybody wins, except a few grumpy players who fear that their hard-earned ranks from decades ago will lose their luster.

[rduran1216]

billw55, on 2011-December-28, 12:55, said:

"ploy to take in more $$" makes it sound bad, which I suppose you think it is. But why is ACBL the enemy?

I rather think of it as "incentives to increase attendance at tournaments", which is good for the membership as well as the administration. Everybody wins, except a few grumpy players who fear that their hard-earned ranks from decades ago will lose their luster.

Well I understand that most bridge players are rich white people. I however, am just shy of the poverty line personally. travelling to tourneys sounds great for people who can, who don't have 8-5 jobs/cant toss away 2K a year to keep up at the regionals/nationals. I just started in this game. Look everyone knows who the good players are and aren't. This is really just a way for the ACBL to take in more $$ at the expense of its players, which I suppose is fine.

[cherdano]

I can't believe he ACBL is trying to make more money by inducing people to participate in tournaments!
Where will this end? They might end up trying to convince more people to start playing bridge (again, just to make more money of course)!!!

[billw55]

rduran1216, on 2011-December-28, 13:15, said:

Well I understand that most bridge players are rich white people. I however, am just shy of the poverty line personally. travelling to tourneys sounds great for people who can, who don't have 8-5 jobs/cant toss away 2K a year to keep up at the regionals/nationals. I just started in this game. Look everyone knows who the good players are and aren't. This is really just a way for the ACBL to take in more $ at the expense of its players, which I suppose is fine.

I really don't agree with this at all. If they just wanted to take in more $ at the expense of their players, they could do something unrelated to attendance, say triple the annual membership dues. All those rich white people could afford it right? Instead, what they have done is closely tied to attendance, one of the main purposes of the organization - which is, after all, composed of players.

ACBL can't please everyone either way - some complain that the requirements for LM are too low, tarnishing past achievments; while others complain when they raise the requirements. So they might as well resolve the situation in a way that tends to enlarge tournament fields.

[mike777]

BTW

165,332 members, basically the same as 2010.

Reg and Sec table counts down 1%

online table count up about 10%

about 1700 members only won mp online
about 56,000 members only won mp at local f2f clubs.


Most members are not Life Masters.

[han]

Not enough colors, too few ranks.

[barmar]

The whole reason there are pigmented points is to get people to attend different types of tournaments.

But before this change, once you reached LM, you no longer cared much about the colors, and might reduce your tourney attendance. So the point of this change is to keep players interested in the tourneys.

BTW, there's some grandfathering in the new requirements. For current players, it doesn't affect the next rank milestone, it goes into effect for the milestones after that. So if you're close to Silver LM, but don't meet all the color requirements, you'll still become Silver. But you'll need to get all the right colors to become Gold.

[Bbradley62]

I haven't earned an ACBL masterpoint in a decade, so maybe my view is skewed, but does anyone other than Helen Shanbrom meet those total point requirements without having at least 20% colored points?

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2011-December-28, 22:38, said:

I haven't earned an ACBL masterpoint in a decade, so maybe my view is skewed, but does anyone other than Helen Shanbrom meet those total point requirements without having at least 20% colored points?

I believe that it is even less likely than when you (or I) was earning masterpoints -- if I am not mistaken, you can earn gold points even in the lower brackets of a bracketed knockout.

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.

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?