[hrothgar]

Personally, I'd prefer to see a system in which the allocation of masterpoints is proportional to the degree of luck in the event.

Its fairly easy to develop monte carlo simulations that model the degree to which luck and skill factor into an event. These systems can be used to evaluate the efficiency of various tournament formats in identifying pairs (or teams) that are playing well.

Use these types of results to allocate masterpoints. If you are using a format that does a great job in identifying the best pair, but a relatively poor job ranking pairs 2-n, the tournament should allocate the vast majority of the MPs to the winner, and have a fairly flat allocation for the rest of the teams...

[Sadie3]

" Where does this come from anyway? I thought it was all done at Las Vegas. On the agenda for Boston it says it was "moved and seconded" that it be reconsidered. Who "moved and seconded"? The Life Master committee? I need to learn all this stuff, quick. "

I believe it is the Board of Governors that reviews the discisions made and recommends that certain items be reviewed again.

[JoAnneM]

Sadie3, on Oct 31 2008, 01:37 AM, said:

" Where does this come from anyway? I thought it was all done at Las Vegas. On the agenda for Boston it says it was "moved and seconded" that it be reconsidered. Who "moved and seconded"? The Life Master committee? I need to learn all this stuff, quick. "

I believe it is the Board of Governors that reviews the discisions made and recommends that certain items be reviewed again.

Yes, I know that the Board of Governors does that kind of thing but the timing seems off. Don't they meet immediately after the BOD, and isn't their agenda set? I start attending those meetings soon so it should be interesting.

I just can't imagine enough people actually wanting this to even get a motion seconded.

[pigpenz]

JoAnneM, on Oct 29 2008, 10:19 PM, said:

I think it is silly. If they want people to play pairs they should make the masterpoints in the pairs events more equitable with the KO events, then more people would play them. It seems very simple.

Where does this come from anyway? I thought it was all done at Las Vegas. On the agenda for Boston it says it was "moved and seconded" that it be reconsidered. Who "moved and seconded"? The Life Master committee? I need to learn all this stuff, quick.

at one time the pairs events did pay 40+ per event until the acbl bracketed the flighted ko's, now the pairs events cant get a field together to pay off 20 points.

[JoAnneM]

Okay, just taking a recent Regional in my District - a two-day KO Bracket 1 paid 49 points for 1st place. The Open Pairs for those two days paid 20 and 22 points respectively for 1st place Flight A. So, there was a 7 point difference between the two events for essentially the same number of boards.

ACBL in the last year has adjusted the masterpoint awards between KO and Open Pairs, but they still have a ways to go. One of the things they are doing is changing Open Pair events to 24 board rounds to match KO events. I think that will allow people more choices in choosing events when there is a little more time between sessions.

[TimG]

JoAnneM, on Nov 2 2008, 04:42 PM, said:

Okay, just taking a recent Regional in my District - a two-day KO Bracket 1 paid 49 points for 1st place. The Open Pairs for those two days paid 20 and 22 points respectively for 1st place Flight A. So, there was a 7 point difference between the two events for essentially the same number of boards.

ACBL in the last year has adjusted the masterpoint awards between KO and Open Pairs, but they still have a ways to go. One of the things they are doing is changing Open Pair events to 24 board rounds to match KO events. I think that will allow people more choices in choosing events when there is a little more time between sessions.

I don't think the ACBL mandates how many boards are to be played in a regional KO -- I'm quite sure new England (District 25) has their own set of CoC that specify the number of boards to be played in KO matches, for instance. And, I don't think that equalizing the number of boards per event in pair and KO events will necessarily equalize the session length; I find pair games exceptionally slow mostly because of two boards and wait, two boards and wait, two boards and wait extra long for a smoking (oops, hospitality) break.

A straight comparison between number of masterpoints available in the two pair events and in the top bracket of the KO is not sufficient. You'd have to also compare size of the fields and the total masterpoints won in each event (and by that I mean in all the brackets for the KO event). For improved ratings, you'd also want to take into account the strength of the field and, as Richard has pointed out, the reliability of the event in ordering the participant in a way related to the skill exhibited in the event. (Pairs events may be more random than team events, and two day events might be more reliable than one day events, for instance.)

[JoAnneM]

Regular KO's (not Compact or Zip) are 24 board matches according to ACBL, but sponsors may make them longer - I don't think many do.

Sponsors have a great deal of "say" in how their Regionals are run and good Tournament Managers and DIC's can make a huge difference.

I was just using Bracket 1 as an example, and of course only one pair of that team would have to win both days of the Open Pairs to get those points. I was really just trying to point out that the two days of play almost equalled the same number of points available.

[TimG]

JoAnneM, on Nov 3 2008, 01:18 AM, said:

Regular KO's (not Compact or Zip) are 24 board matches according to ACBL, but sponsors may make them longer - I don't think many do.

From the District 25 KO CoC: "Matches will generally be 28 boards per session. Events scheduled with morning or midnight sessions will generally have 24 board matches. Events scheduled to play three sessions in one day will generally have 24 board matches. Matches in events restricted to players with fewer than 300 master points will generally be 24 boards."

I don't have much experience outside of New England, so I have no reason to doubt that District 25 is unusual.

[benlessard]

I think the problem is that people are starting to realize that MP make only sense in a strong field. When you just look at the scores of LMP winners and you often see that its more luck than good bridge.

Also people play MP in clubs all year long so it make sense that for tournament they play teams. Here in Montreal LMP has no credits/ compared to KOs or sunday swiss.