[wyman]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-June-20, 13:32, said:

I do not understand why people feel entitled to play against bracket 1 players when they will just be cannon fodder. Sorry, we don't want to play against you, because you suck and its not fun for us. If you don't suck, prove it, and then you will be in bracket 1. Sometimes you will stop sucking and it will take a year or so to adjust itself. Everyone had to go through that.

Not disagreeing with you, but I get to play like 1-2 regional swisses and about 3 sectional swisses a year, and I might make it for 2-3 days to a national. And most of these events I don't get to play with a regular partner.

Now I show up to Fayetteville because I have 3 days off of work and because my hypothetical regular partner and our hypothetical regular teammates live there. We all have under 500 MP.

We want to play a KO, but we'd be in bracket 6.

Now I am definitely cannon fodder in bracket 1 (this isn't a general statement about me in regional bracket 1s, but I probably am not going to win against steve and gavin and the poles or against meckwell in a long match) , but do I really have to play in bracket 6 against the LOLs? Because usually when we ask to play up, these are the choices we get.

I understand the argument that we have to "level up" in order to play against the big boys, but it's not fun (hell, it's hardly bridge) to play in these total **** brackets, and I can't justify taking time off to do it.

So I'm stuck with trying to run good in all the open swisses I can for 10 gold a pop, so that maybe someday I can justify an entry into a bracketed KO. Just seems like a really long and arduous road when I could be very competitive right now in B2 or B3 of 6.

Just sort of stream-of-consciousness'ed this, so sorry if it's at all incoherent.

[JLOGIC]

You have a strong internet presence and are a good player. No doubt you have impressed some people with your posts. If you are going to a tournament, I'm sure you could parlay all that into arranging ahead of time to be on a team with someone who has some masterpoints. I think this can help solve the inefficiencies created in the masterpoint system (being good with few masterpoints, but someone will probably partner/team up with you who has a few thousand points).

Do you/have you networked while at these local tournaments? Just reach out to someone and say you are a good player who plays online a lot that doesnt get to play much in real life but would like to start playing against tougher opps. I bet you can do it.

[JLOGIC]

If your team is really made up of people with your amount of points that you don't know, odds are they are at about the level their points would suggest (ie much worse than you). It's not clear you could be competitive in bracket 2 with that team. Yes, a team of 4 wymans could be obviously, but to me it seems like the bigger problem is you don't know enough people in your area, and you don't have good enough teammates to get into the bracket you desire/that you are fit for. That is what I'd work on.

[ArtK78]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-June-20, 14:12, said:

You have a strong internet presence and are a good player. No doubt you have impressed some people with your posts. If you are going to a tournament, I'm sure you could parlay all that into arranging ahead of time to be on a team with someone who has some masterpoints. I think this can help solve the inefficiencies created in the masterpoint system (being good with few masterpoints, but someone will probably partner/team up with you who has a few thousand points).

Do you/have you networked while at these local tournaments? Just reach out to someone and say you are a good player who plays online a lot that doesnt get to play much in real life but would like to start playing against tougher opps. I bet you can do it.

He could ask me to play in Philly. Seriously, so far I am playing only in the Spingold, so I should be able to play in most of the rest of the tournament. Besides, Danny Sprung has been bugging me to work Sunday evening in the Casino night that the Philly unit is putting on after the evening session, and I am certainly not going to do that if I am not playing on Sunday.

What do you say, Wyman?

[wyman]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-June-20, 14:15, said:

If your team is really made up of people with your amount of points that you don't know, odds are they are at about the level their points would suggest (ie much worse than you). It's not clear you could be competitive in bracket 2 with that team. Yes, a team of 4 wymans could be obviously, but to me it seems like the bigger problem is you don't know enough people in your area, and you don't have good enough teammates to get into the bracket you desire/that you are fit for. That is what I'd work on.

No, mostly I meant like I have a team from back in Ann Arbor, where I'm pretty confident I'm not the best on the team, and our avg MP is < 500. And it's probably pretty close to a team of 4xMe on average. We'll try to meet up at a regional like once a year (say, Cleveland or Detroit), and here we end up playing in the B1 KO (in the bracket with like Bill Arlinghaus, Bert Newman, Chuck Berger, Zeke Jabbour, Howard Piltch, Jade Barrett, the Granovetters, the Kranyaks, etc). These are like my favorite games, but it makes me a little uncomfortable to think that there are teams that we are -EV against who scoff at the fact that we're playing in that bracket, and that's part of the point I was addressing. We're not there because we're arrogant, and we're not there to luckbox a win and claim we're better than all these really good players. And we don't like it if it pisses you guys off that we're playing up. We just think it's pointless to play against total droolers, and the only alternative we have from the directors is B1.

Your point about networking is well-taken.

[wyman]

 ArtK78, on 2012-June-20, 14:15, said:

He could ask me to play in Philly. Seriously, so far I am playing only in the Spingold, so I should be able to play in most of the rest of the tournament. Besides, Danny Sprung has been bugging me to work Sunday evening in the Casino night that the Philly unit is putting on after the evening session, and I am certainly not going to do that if I am not playing on Sunday.

What do you say, Wyman?

Already booked with bd71 for the LM Pairs and some of the Ann Arbor crew for the open Swiss, so my weekends are booked. But I definitely appreciate the offer, and I'd love to take you up on it at some point -- either a weekday evening game during the NABC or perhaps an upcoming regional/sectional if you are available. I'll PM you.

[JLOGIC]

Yes, that is the toughest spot if there are 4 wyman level players with no masterpoints. Masterpoints is a very bad system for that kind of team. Obv you wanna play on a team with your friends, fair enough, but an option would be to split into 2 teams and play with 2 other pairs who have more points.

If they let you play up, thats great, you probably were good enough to play up then.

It does not actually piss me off, it does piss me off that people think they are entitled to play whatever methods they want (when most people of their level don't want that), and also that if they are huge favorites against teams in their bracket, they are entitled to play in bracket 1 if they have the same chance of beating the best bracket 1 team as a team in their actual bracket does of beating them.

It does create an imbalance if there are some very weak teams in bracket 1 with the draws, but thats bridge, sometimes you get a lucky draw and sometimes an unlucky one. If you are allowed to move up then you are not bumping out a team that had a chance of winning the event anyways, so it doesn't matter. AFAIK directors won't let you move up if you were going to bump out a good team, so problem would be the same for me, not enough competitive teams in the event.

I was just trying to note that it is funny that people are all like "i don't wanna play vs awful teams, so I'll go to bracket 1 and lose" without thinking that maybe the bracket 1 teams don't like playing awful teams. That said, if they let someone move up, there was gonna be a team that was bad in the bracket anyways, so don't worry about it. But I don't think those people should be indignant if they're not allowed to move up.

In fact, I would expect your team to have a better chance than 4 local regs who have like 3000 points each and have played for 50 years, ldo.

[Vampyr]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-June-20, 13:28, said:

Put the bracket 2 people into that bracket 1 and see how they do!

I see what you're saying; I hadn't really thought about it that way.

When I lived in America there were no bracketed knockouts, or maybe they were just starting up (but were a little different; I played once in a "super-flight" (I don't know what that is or whether it exists anymore, but in any case I think there were other brackets of a sort). Now they seem to be the most popular event at regionals and nationals. So I guess people are not very concerned about the (maybe) catching-up problem, as obviously they have voted with their feet.

About the whole midchart issue -- are members polled about what conventions they want allowed at different levels? I understand that this forum does not represent the typical ACBL membership, but it seems that every time a discussion about bidding methods comes up, ACBL members are stymied and frustrated by the GCC.

[jeffford76]

 wyman, on 2012-June-20, 14:24, said:

We just think it's pointless to play against total droolers, and the only alternative we have from the directors is B1.

This definitely varies regionally. I know that the directors in the Seattle area have accommodated teams that wanted to play up a bracket without playing all the way up.

It also seems to be a big grey area whether it's ok to just "overestimate" your masterpoints. I actually think this would be a great solution if it were made explicitly legal. Just let teams write down whatever total they want (or TOP) as long as it's at least as many as they have.

[Phil]

Strangest thread drift ever.

[Vampyr]

I wonder about the effect of changing the format a bit -- have a first session of multiple teams, and use the results to divide people into brackets (perhaps of 8, to keep the event the same length). Then everyone would feel that they were in the bracket they "deserved" to be in, and people who didn't have the time and money to travel to win masterpoints, but were good players, could get a decent game.

[JLOGIC]

 Vampyr, on 2012-June-20, 14:44, said:

About the whole midchart issue -- are members polled about what conventions they want allowed at different levels? I understand that this forum does not represent the typical ACBL membership, but it seems that every time a discussion about bidding methods comes up, ACBL members are stymied and frustrated by the GCC.

A poll might be useful. But I agree, we just don't see a representative sample on the forums.

I agree with something you said earlier, choice would be good. But people already have choice of teams or pairs, then there are different brackets and flights. If you then segment some of that into people who want to play a GCC vs people who want a midchart event, there might not be enough players to have reasonable sized events for all of these things. And some people would still be unhappy. There is no perfect solution, and I think continuing to try and figure out what people want while also keeping the integrity of the game and making the most people happy is all good, but it's going to leave some people upset no matter what. I do not envy the jobs of people who have to do all of those things.

[Mbodell]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-June-20, 13:28, said:

This is the opposite of what is true. Basically every teams masterpoint EV would be higher in a low bracket. I just pulled up this regional (which I didn't go to to avoid cherry picking).

http://web2.acbl.org.../05/1205001.htm

This is very likely true at the top. But at the bottom it can very much not be true. I see you did somewhat acknowledged lower in the thread that when you have a team of friends with fewer MP you can be in a tough place, but I think since that is where a lot of people spend much of their time (the typical ACBL member is a NLM!), that this can be a real issue too.

I mean take the winners of bracket 7 from that link. They get 6 MP. 3/4 in bracket 5 gets almost as much and 3/4 in bracket 4 gets more. If you have a team of people who have much greater skill than MP (typically young people who haven't played as many masterpoint granting tournaments) they can be like strong favorites in any of the bottom half brackets, while likely still being cannon fodder for bracket 1. So the EV of a bracket 6 team might well be higher in bracket 6 than if they played in bracket 7, and there certainly can be teams in bracket 7 that would have a much higher EV if they played up some number of brackets (but not all the way to bracket 1, most likely).

As for wanting to play a midchart system. I agree you get little sympathy if you seek a protected field and want to play your system, but in some situations your only choice is to play the bracketed event (I.e., there is no other simultaneous even going on) and in others the only other events are also GCC (open pairs are always GCC, unless they are strati-flighted [and even then some time, at the Seattle national they had gold rush pairs where the lower flight was <750 so the "open" flight stayed GCC]). I agree that people need to follow the rules and shouldn't flout them intentionally playing their midchart system where it is illegal, but you have my sympathies if you are trying to play the best event you can and still told no.

[Mbodell]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-June-20, 19:14, said:

A poll might be useful. But I agree, we just don't see a representative sample on the forums.

I agree with something you said earlier, choice would be good. But people already have choice of teams or pairs, then there are different brackets and flights. If you then segment some of that into people who want to play a GCC vs people who want a midchart event, there might not be enough players to have reasonable sized events for all of these things. And some people would still be unhappy. There is no perfect solution, and I think continuing to try and figure out what people want while also keeping the integrity of the game and making the most people happy is all good, but it's going to leave some people upset no matter what. I do not envy the jobs of people who have to do all of those things.

They (the ACBL) does poll the players periodically on various issues, I've been polled at least twice. I think the general consensus is that the majority of players wish there were less conventions allowed and more protection of the field and more flighting, but that the unrepresentative minority (which you see much more of amongst this forum and much more of amongst the smaller younger people crowd) wishes there was more conventions allowed and that we had some way to measure skill or current performance rankings that was less a participation award and more a reflection of quality of play (like an elo rating for chess). I don't know if people have polled enough to verify that this general consensus is actually the true state of the world.

[blackshoe]

When I played with a local expert a few years ago, we had what he called "Reese 4NT" openings on our card: a good five level preempt in either minor, non forcing. We played for a year or two, and it never came up. Later on, I looked at the convention charts trying to find authority to play this convention. I couldn't find it, so I wrote to HQ asking about it. I never got an answer, but a little while later, the Mid-Chart was amended to allow "Opening 4NT to show a strong minor suit" in two board or longer segments. In the defense database this is called "Minor Suit Namyats", and the 4NT opening is described as forcing.

I think this is a useful bid, forcing or no, and I was surprised to see it appear on the Mid-Chart.

Two other Mid-Chart bids I might like to use: 2♥ as "Precision 2♦" (2 board segments) (so that I can use 2♦ as Mexican) and 2NT as a weak preempt in either minor (6 board segments). Both of these seem useful, and neither seems all that complex, to me. And they're all part of the current full, two card Romex system - regular Romex when vulnerable (MPs) or at unfavorable or equal vulnerability (IMPs), Romex Forcing Club otherwise. Except for these three conventions, the system is GCC legal, and I'd like to give it a try.

Maybe I'm biting off more than I can chew (I certainly wouldn't propose to play this with any of my current partners) but I'd still like to try it out. I'd have to "play up" to do it, though. I am willing to do that, if I can find an interested partner, but so far I've had no luck with that locally.

Just for the record, I've played Precision, and enjoyed it, and I've played Romex (without the Mid-Chart stuff or the "two card" bit) and enjoyed that too. Well, except for the part where we got told we couldn't play it because, as it turned out, a former bridge teacher complained that some folks in the club (none of whom had expressed any kind of problem with it) might not be able to handle the Dynamic Notrump. She, of course, wasn't one of them.

There's more esoteric stuff on the mid-chart, of course, but I'm not inclined to go there - not yet, anyway. I'm not worried about facing such things when the opponents play them, though.

No way would I play a Mid-Chart convention in a GCC only event.

[Vampyr]

Maybe a good solution would be, in "ordinary", ie not bracketed, events, the top flight could always allow Mid-Chart conventions, and people who didn't want to play against them could put themselves in Flight B.

[CSGibson]

 blackshoe, on 2012-June-20, 21:32, said:

...a little while later, the Mid-Chart was amended to allow "Opening 4NT to show a strong minor suit" in two board or longer segments. In the defense database this is called "Minor Suit Namyats", and the 4NT opening is described as forcing.

My teammates in the GNTs this year, Marc Zwerling & Mark Tolliver, were the people who got that convention & defense approved, it's fun for me to see it referenced here.

[Mbodell]

 Vampyr, on 2012-June-20, 21:44, said:

Maybe a good solution would be, in "ordinary", ie not bracketed, events, the top flight could always allow Mid-Chart conventions, and people who didn't want to play against them could put themselves in Flight B.

That is almost what they do, except the priority is not on "this is the highest flight, so it is legal" but instead on "there is a lower flight, so it can be allowed". So in an A/X pairs with a BCD where the B cut off is above the 1500 midchart cut off (I did think there was talk of lifting the 1500 number to 2000 or 2500 soon though, similar to the rising B and C flights), then A/X is allowed to play midchart, generally. But if it is A/B/C where the pairs aren't separated, or if the lower flight is too low (like the lower flight is just for non-life masters) then the higher one isn't high enough to allow the midchart.

[gnasher]

Usually these discussions about ACBL masterpoints leave me wondering whether the whole of North America has lost its marbles, but I'm starting to see why so many of you are concerned about them.

If the number of masterpoints you have determines whether you get a good game of bridge or not, that seems a good reason to care about them. Likewise, if giving lots of masterpoints to bad players will lead to pollution of the strong events, that's also a cause for concern.

But the problem is that the ACBL is using masterpoints for purposes that are incompatible. If your objectives are to encourage people to play, make them happy, give ordinary players a sense of achievement, and encourage weak players to stay in the appropriate flight, you have to make the awards significant in all flights and brackets of all events. If you do that, it's absurd to also use them for seeding or bracketing.


Regarding the problem of people wanting to play Midchart conventions in lower brackets, here's a suggestion: in any knockout match, the teams can agree to permit midchart conventions. If they do, the masterpoint award for the match is increased by 10%.

[Zelandakh]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-June-20, 13:34, said:

Also, when a large majority of bracket 2 players don't want to play against midchart stuff, then they make stuff like GCC. I don't know why people feel like they are so special that their desire to play midchart is more important than the vast majority of players at their level who do not want to play against it.

In your previous post you mentioned there being (at least) 4 brackets at this competition. Perhaps this is a silly question but if the brackets were arranged such that

B1 = Midchart or perhaps even more open (Superchart?)
B2 = Midchart
B3 and B4 = GCC

would this not provide everyone with a form of competition where they could be happy? From what you wrote it does appear that B2 is awarding more points than B3 so dividing these by system, or at least willingness to play against less usual things, might be one way of allowing pairs who would be bunnies in B1 to be able to nonetheless play the same (non-GCC) system at most events. Of course this may have been tried and it discovered that not enough players were willing to play in a Midchart B2. In that case, fair enough. But I am not sure it is asking for "special treatment" that one of the 3+ brackets outside of the shark pool cater to players more open-minded to getting experience with alternative methods.