[ggwhiz]

I'm with the crowd. Any retort to this pair would be condescending (and richly deserved) but playing up and leaving that world behind is much more rewarding.

[Cascade]

Trinidad, on 2013-November-13, 00:58, said:

I suppose replying:

We play duplicate mainly for the competitive aspect and wish it to be a pleasant experience. It would be appreciated if you would lighten up about people asking for convention cards and just provide them -in accordance with the rules- so we can have this pleasant experience instead of you creating a fuss to mask your own laziness.
I have played in hundreds of tournament games, you are only the second player to make such a fuss.

doesn't really work.

Rik

Best post I have read for a long while!!!!

[Zelandakh]

Cascade, on 2013-November-13, 17:35, said:

Best post I have read for a long while!!!!

Don't forget to nominate it for POTY then!

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-13, 12:43, said:

Some events are "strati-flighted" in which case Flight A would be stratified into A and X (X being basically everybody who plays up).

There's also usually a gap between the top of BCD and the top of X. E.g. BCD might be limited to 2,000 MP, and X is 0-3000 MP. So X contains the players who are eligible for BCD but choose to play up, plus everyone in the 2000-3000 range. Looks like ACBL has increased the size of that gap at NABCs; the Phoenix schedule says that X is 0-5000.

[wyman]

barmar, on 2013-November-14, 11:32, said:

There's also usually a gap between the top of BCD and the top of X. E.g. BCD might be limited to 2,000 MP, and X is 0-3000 MP. So X contains the players who are eligible for BCD but choose to play up, plus everyone in the 2000-3000 range. Looks like ACBL has increased the size of that gap at NABCs; the Phoenix schedule says that X is 0-5000.

This increases attendance awards for poor A-flight players and fails to incentivize BCD-ers playing against good players. Probably the right business move, but I think it sends the wrong message.

[Vampyr]

wyman, on 2013-November-14, 12:06, said:

This increases attendance awards for poor A-flight players and fails to incentivize BCD-ers playing against good players. Probably the right business move, but I think it sends the wrong message.

But is it all about winning or does it matter to have a good game and improve your own play in the process?

[wyman]

Vampyr, on 2013-November-14, 12:39, said:

But is it all about winning or does it matter to have a good game and improve your own play in the process?

Of course improving and playing good competition is its own reward. And the people who are there for the points are precisely the poor flight A players for whom this MP limit move makes the most difference. That's why I said it was probably the right business move by the ACBL.

But the ACBL should -- imo -- take the position that MPs somehow are a measuring stick (else, why award them), and it's sad that a change is being made that
(a) rewards (in the sense of stature via MPs) poor flight A players, and
(b) gives more incentive for BCD players to play down, rather than up.

There are BCD players who play BCD -- and win -- until they are no longer legally able. These players then complain when they get to flight A that the X bracket doesn't have a high enough MP total. My claim is that the solution to this problem is not to raise the MP limit of the X strat.

[akwoo]

wyman, on 2013-November-14, 12:06, said:

This increases attendance awards for poor A-flight players and fails to incentivize BCD-ers playing against good players. Probably the right business move, but I think it sends the wrong message.

Making X 0-5000 also means (assuming stratification by average MPs) that almost all pros won't take their clients into A.

Remember all except the top pros are making their living by getting their clients gold points to make Life Master. It's already hard enough for them when they cross 2000 (or 3000) and force their clients to play in the A game. If they had to place in the A overalls with idiots for teammates (or, even harder, as a partner) they might not be able to make a living playing bridge anymore.

[billw55]

Trinidad, on 2013-November-13, 14:30, said:

My partner and I were playing the 499-ers, straight out of the bridge class. After winning a few of those, we had "amassed" about 1.98 master points.

Trying to figure out how that happened. Seems like it should be more than that for just one win?

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2013-November-14, 11:32, said:

There's also usually a gap between the top of BCD and the top of X. E.g. BCD might be limited to 2,000 MP, and X is 0-3000 MP.

s/usually/always/. ACBL regulations require such a gap; B can *not* be within 500 MPs of X at sectionals or regionals.

Quote

Looks like ACBL has increased the size of that gap at NABCs; the Phoenix schedule says that X is 0-5000.

That's been that way for a long time - Reno 2004 was the game my (NAP C qualifier) pair were "oh, very X" in a flighted pairs game.

Flighting breaks are limited to certain values (so you can't set it at 1514 to keep your favourite griper in B, for instance); but apart from that they are agreed on by the tournament sponsor and set for good breaks in the local community. Gory details in the ACBL Codification, Chapter 13, Section F, "Events".

[Trinidad]

billw55, on 2013-November-14, 15:14, said:

Trying to figure out how that happened. Seems like it should be more than that for just one win?

It may be that they were actually 99-er games. IIRC, you got about 0.48 or so for a win.

We still have some of the trophies (we threw a couple around our moves).

Rik

[Vampyr]

wyman, on 2013-November-14, 13:17, said:

Of course improving and playing good competition is its own reward. And the people who are there for the points are precisely the poor flight A players for whom this MP limit move makes the most difference. That's why I said it was probably the right business move by the ACBL.

If it's about masterpoints, maybe another good business move would be for the ACBL to award masterpoints to all participants.

[blackshoe]

It has occasionally occurred to me that the clubs around here should put a big bowl in the room. When you finish the game, you pick a random slip of paper out of the bowl. On it is written your masterpoint award for the day. Maybe you should draw at the beginning of the session. That way you don't need to worry about whether you do well on any particular board.

[Zelandakh]

wyman, on 2013-November-14, 13:17, said:

But the ACBL should -- imo -- take the position that MPs somehow are a measuring stick (else, why award them)

MPs are purely a marketing ploy designed to encourage people to pay to play a game that can be, and traditionally was, enjoyed at home. You can see how much more advanced America is in such ploys by the array of different MP types where most other countries just have one or two flavours.

[GreenMan]

Zelandakh, on 2013-November-15, 03:23, said:

MPs are purely a marketing ploy designed to encourage people to pay to play a game that can be, and traditionally was, enjoyed at home.

Us eggheads sometimes call this "gamification," which is odd since bridge was already a game, but "playing at the club or a tournament" is sort of a meta-game. It's the same principle as badges or level-ups in other endeavors.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2013-November-14, 15:48, said:

s/usually/always/. ACBL regulations require such a gap; B can *not* be within 500 MPs of X at sectionals or regionals.That's been that way for a long time - Reno 2004 was the game my (NAP C qualifier) pair were "oh, very X" in a flighted pairs game.

Maybe I was confusing NABC strat breaks with Sectional breaks. I think we usually use 3000 here. There probably aren't enough local players over 5,000 to make that a useful strat, but at a National they're all over the place (although you probably won't see many of them playing in the stratified games on the first day of national events).

[barmar]

wyman, on 2013-November-14, 12:06, said:

This increases attendance awards for poor A-flight players and fails to incentivize BCD-ers playing against good players. Probably the right business move, but I think it sends the wrong message.

ACBL has in general been raising the limits of various flights over the years. For instance, earlier this year they decided to raise the limit for Flight B North American Pairs (and GNT, too?) from 2,000 to 2,500. I think it's generally attributed to masterpoint inflation -- bracketed KOs and online games have made it easier to win masterpoints, so reaching 2,000 MP now doesn't require the same expertise as it did a decade ago.

[bixby]

I prefer to play A/X even though I would be well within the limits for B, but I find it annoying that ACBL keeps raising the limits for the B game. B used to be limited to 1500 in my area; it was raised to 2000 some years ago and recently the B limit for NAPs was upped to 2500, which might lead to a general change in the B limit for other games. The latest trend is to run games for those with up to 10,000 MPs simultaneously with the open events at National tournaments. I suppose this makes people who like to play against their peers happy but I think it's bad for those of us who like to take advantage of the unique opportunity that bridge presents to play against top-flight players. It means that you have to be prepared to face very stiff competition. It's one thing to play in an open event with everybody; it's another thing to play in an open event where almost everybody has more than 10,000 MPs because the under-10,000s have the option of playing in a separate event.

[ArtK78]

One of my regular partners is the Tournament Chair for the Philadelphia unit of the ACBL. He told me that, in our sectional tournaments, the "X" flight is based on a certain percentage of the entries in the open game regardless of masterpoint holding. I believe that about the lowest 35% or 40% of the field in the open game based on average masterpoints is considered to be in the "X" flight. So, the actual masterpoint limit of the "X" flight will vary from event to event.

By the way, it is based on the average masterpoint holding of the pair or team (in the case of 5 or 6 person teams, I believe the top 4 are used in this computation).

This should not matter to anyone in the open game. The players in the "A" flight are playing for the championship of the open game, as are the players in the "X" flight. The players in the "X" flight just have an added consolation prize if they earn more points for their finish in the "X" flight than in the open game. I have never heard of anyone bragging that they won the "X" flight.

EDIT: I just checked the results of our last Sectional Swiss. There were 13 teams in the Open Swiss (A/X). 6 of those teams were in the "X" flight. That would be consistent with 40% rounded up (5.2). So, it may be that the rule is that 40% of the open flight is considered to be in the "X" flight. For what it is worth, the top finisher in the "X" flight tied for 5th in the Open Flight and the second place finisher in the "X" flight finished in 7th place in the Open Flight.

We did not have an "X" flight in our last Regional Swiss. But the Regional Swiss was bracketed. There were 14 teams in the Open Swiss, and 8 teams in each of Brackets 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. AND there was a Golden Opportunity Swiss Teams for players with no more than 750 masterpoints. The Golden Opportunity Swiss had 20 teams. The main event is actually not a Swiss Teams (except for the top bracket), and it is referred to as the Bracketed Round-Robin Teams.

For those unfamiliar with Bracketed Teams (and I wish I were one of them, as I think they are an abomination), the teams in each of the 8 team brackets play a complete round-robin against the other 7 teams. The top 3 teams in each bracket win overall awards within their bracket.

Apparently, the TD staff took the entire field not playing in the Golden Opportunity Swiss (and I think that the Golden Opportunity idea is another abomination, but apparently a very popular one) and divided the field into brackets from the bottom up, 8 at a time. The top 14 teams became the field in the Open Swiss.I believe that anyone who would have been eligible to play in one of the various lower brackets had the option of "playing up" and playing in the Open Swiss, but I cannot be sure of that as I did not ask.I can only say that of the 7 teams that we played on Sunday, only one of them played as if they were eligible to play in one of the lower brackets, and that team finished tied for 5th! And, having reviewed who was on the team, I know that they were not eligible for a lower bracket. In fact, none of the 14 teams in the top flight belonged in a lower bracket. All of them had very experienced players. One of the worst results in the Sunday Swiss was a pro team consisting of a client playing with a substitute and a pro pair. The substitute was needed because the pro who was supposed to play with the client managed to get himself suspended from the tournament the previous day.

[jillybean]

Ugh. The Golden Opportunity sounds like it is a relative of Gold Rush Pairs, a horrid game to play in.