Masterpoints

[mr1303]

Some people out there care about finishing 19th or 20th in a Green Point event (EBU land) if they win a couple of matches and therefore green points. No doubt there is something similar in ACBL land and other parts of the world.

 

Do you care?

 

Please discuss.

[P_Marlowe]

Water cooler topic?

 

I think ot MP as kind of measure, how I did

in a year compared to the previous year,

but I dont care much, I dont know my MP

amount, so I dont care much, if at all,

maybe I will have look today.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[paulg]

Whether you care about your personal masterpoints, there is little doubt that the pursuit of masterpoints is a primary contributor to the funding of the (tournament and club) game.

 

So I do care about masterpoints.

 

Paul

[Guest Jlall]

Well, I have friendly rivalries with my friends regarding who wins more masterpoints in the year or in a specific tournament we both play, so it's fun for that reason (and I check the monthly standings). I also have a pretty good shot to become the youngest grand life master and I want to do that/care about that. And I think the player of the year/player of the decade races are meaningful (points won in nationally rated events). I want to do well in those.

 

Basically I am very competitive and you can be competitive about masterpoints with your peers and about setting records. I do not think they are a measure of skill, but I think they allow you to set attainable goals based on how often you play and then try to achieve them.

 

Also, and this is kind of silly, but whenever I meet a non bridge player and tell them about what I do they say "oh, so what's you're ranking?" I used to try to explain to them that there really isn't such a thing but they still ask so now I give them my rank on the Barry Crane list LOL.

[david_c]

Actually I do care. Not very much, but a little. It's nice to be rewarded for doing well. Particularly in all the swiss events that we have here in England, you can be out of contention near the end of the competition, and it's good to be actually playing for something, even if that something has only symbolic value.

 

And what Paul said - you should care about the masterpoint scheme, because for a lot of our opponents it's what keeps them coming back, and masterpoints are an important source of income for our NBOs.

[kenrexford]

When you play in a multiple-day event, qualifying means that you accomplished some goal.

 

When you play in an event, at least scratching does something.

 

In the olympics, getting a medal is the goal, but making the finals also is an accomplishment.

 

So, I kind of like the idea if masterpoints, in that it creates a little more redemption for the OK game. On the good day, I can win or hit a close second. On a so-so day, we rallied in the last round to land safely in the overalls. On a terrible day, after a lousy afternoon set, we won the section top for the evening, at least some cure for the embarassment. On a hopeless day, partner executed the squeeze right and my low-level double worked for at least a scratch. After beer all night on the last evening, the sunday swiss resulted in two match wins. In the joke of jokes tournament, I almost escaped any masterpoints (and almost could have claimed that I never went -- prove otherwise) except for that stupid .46 in the side game.

 

Eh, it's nice.

[JoAnneM]

Masterpoints are my prize for playing well, of course I care I about them. I am not going to say I don't believe those who say they don't care, but "some" people think they come across as very sophisticated when they say they don't care.

 

Also, masterpoints justify all the money I have spent on bridge, to my husband, a nonplayer. :rolleyes:

[nige1]

Some people out there care about finishing 19th or 20th in a Green Point event (EBU land) if they win a couple of matches and therefore green points. No doubt there is something similar in ACBL land and other parts of the world. Do you care? Please discuss.

However flawed, the master-points scheme confers many benefits ...

• Master-points are a source of revenue to Bridge organisations
  
• Members who want to collect master-points, encourage clubs to affiliate.
  
• Master-points provide a continuous cumulative memento of past achievement.
  
• Master-points provide interest for players who can rarely aspire to win an event.
  
• Master-points can form the basis for more meaningful rating systems (such as EBU Gold points).
  
• Without master-points, with little else to to aim for, good players, doing badly in an event, would be more tempted to take increasingly extreme actions in order to win. e.g. bidding grand-slams on two finesses. This can ruin an event by randomising the results for those in genuine contention.
  
• Without master-points, professional bridge players would have fewer clients.
  

[JoAnneM]

Bravo!

[jillybean]

Coming from the other end of the scale, I have very few MP’s and don’t take any notice of them. The first few times I won point something of a MP were a source of amusement but a hopeless measure of how well I played. MP's have no influence on where or why I play and I dont think its anything to do with feeling sophisticated but rather disinterest, Im sure some forum members have influenced my attitude here. Maybe if I played more live bridge and accumulated more of these points I would feel differently but I hope not.

 

I do see some not so hot players using their accumulation of these magic points to lord over ‘lesser’ players, I’d rather there was another method to identify the truly great players.

[pclayton]

Also, and this is kind of silly, but whenever I meet a non bridge player and tell them about what I do they say "oh, so what's you're ranking?" I used to try to explain to them that there really isn't such a thing but they still ask so now I give them my rank on the Barry Crane list LOL.

Plus chicks dig it :)

 

There's always something satisfying with finishing well, or at least 'in the money'. So masterpoints matter to me too.

[gnasher]

Without master-points, with little else to to aim for, good players, doing badly in an event, would be more tempted to take increasingly extreme actions in order to win. e.g. bidding grand-slams on two finesses. This can ruin an event by randomising the results for those in genuine contention.

I can't think of a single good English player who cares enough about master points for this to be a factor. I agree with the rest of Nigel's points though.

 

A couple of other comments:

 

- In flighted events and when several events are run in parallel, generous masterpoint awards in the lesser flights/events encourage weak players to stay out of the open event, thereby making the main competition stronger. This seems to work better in the ACBL than in the EBU, perhaps because the ACBL is better at making people feel good about winning masterpoints.

 

- One's masterpoint rank looks good on a CV (resumé).

 

- Until recently, English clubs used to issue masterpoints on small slips of paper. These were quite useful for writing down phone numbers.

[CSGibson]

I find that I care if I scratch or not in an event, but the quantity of masterpoints earned is not important to me. I might feel differently if they were harder to get; the people who I've noticed that really seem to care have spent between $50 and $100 in club fees per masterpoint earned; my ratio is less than $10, so they do probably have intrinsically less value.

 

I am also young, so there's no urgency for me to reach the whatever rank. Some of the older people want to earn their rank before age makes them less effective bridge players. So be it.

[EricK]

I cared about masterpoints when I was young and improving. Now I know how good I am (better than the average club player, not in the same league as any "good" player) I don't really see the point. Looking back, I don't really see the point of caring when I did, but I can't change that!

[TimG]

I care about masterpoints, but I don't care about how many I "win".

[mr1303]

The trouble is (as I see it) is that master points seem to be available to either a) players with a lot of money or b ) players who have played for a very long period. Either way, they see themselves as superior (and certain competitions are based upon this) than those who are a) poor (like me) or b ) haven't played for very long (relatively)(like me).

 

I know of one person of authority in the EBU who made several statements along the line of "I'm a good player, I have the masterpoints to prove it!" which he used to belittle any argument I came up with against him.

[paulg]

The trouble is (as I see it) is that master points seem to be available to either a) players with a lot of money or b ) players who have played for a very long period. Either way, they see themselves as superior (and certain competitions are based upon this) than those who are a) poor (like me) or b ) haven't played for very long (relatively)(like me).

 

I know of one person of authority in the EBU who made several statements along the line of "I'm a good player, I have the masterpoints to prove it!" which he used to belittle any argument I came up with against him.

It is doubtful whether it is desirable, or even possible, to argue with such a person.

[matmat]

It is doubtful whether it is desirable, or even possible, to argue with such a person.

it is certainly both impossible and undesirable to engage a person like that.

 

i think this has been mentioned before numerous times, but some sort of a decaying masterpoint system might work better. (see platinum pairs?)

 

Also, I'd be in favor of a percentage merit award, where your ranking is computed based on the ratio of masterpoints won/masterpoints available in events played.

 

 

 

That would require some normalization/tweaking and a floor/quota for how much you played. Again, not ideal...

[jdonn]

When someone's profile says something like "bronze lm" or "12 blue ribbon Qs" or "second day of several national pairs events", that's the first sign to me that I will think they are terrible. In my view there is a strong correlation between lack of skill and desire to demonstrate high level of skill through lifetime of random achievements. This is partly personality related, but it also makes logical sense because someone will naturally brag about their most impressive achievements, meaning that for a player who has reached those achievements they would tend to be on the very low end of the range.

 

Of course when they do this based on masterpoint totals it's even worse, since not only does their bragging mean to me they are bad, but they are bragging based on an inaccurate measure.

[matmat]

When someone's profile says something like "bronze lm" or "12 blue ribbon Qs" or "second day of several national pairs events", that's the first sign to me that I will think they are terrible. In my view there is a strong correlation between lack of skill and desire to demonstrate high level of skill through lifetime of random achievements. This is partly personality related, but it also makes logical sense because someone will naturally brag about their most impressive achievements, meaning that for a player who has reached those achievements they would tend to be on the very low end of the range.

 

Of course when they do this based on masterpoint totals it's even worse, since not only does their bragging mean to me they are bad, but they are bragging based on an inaccurate measure.

hehe

 

that's like the first sign that you should boot someone from your table is them asking to clear score... you *know* they'll be bailing in a board or two.

[pclayton]

When someone's profile says something like "bronze lm" or "12 blue ribbon Qs" or "second day of several national pairs events", that's the first sign to me that I will think they are terrible. (snip)

LOL when I was just getting back into the game in 2000 - 2001 and I would need to go to the partnership desk (I can think of one time this happened), that's exactly what I would say. 400 masterpoints wasn't getting anyone's attention, but my 10-12 BRPs were worth something I thought.

 

I ended up in Bracket I and we lost in the finals after beating two good teams along the way. My random pard still calls me for games :blink:

 

I do tend to agree online that people that feel the need to specify their BLM / SLM usually aren't world class, but I don't think this is any less of an achievement than being a star player from a small country.

[SoTired]

Unfortunately, bridge is different than almost any other game/sport. If you are an expert bowler, chess player, baseball player, tennis player, sudoku player, or whatever, and you walk into a game with strangers, it will not take long for them to recognize your abilities. Not so with bridge.

 

A top expert could play at a local game for weeks and except for a pattern of success (which may not even occur), no one would recognize his expertise. I can just imagine overhearing this conversation: "He seems to play the cards well, but I saw him open a weak 2 on Qxxxxx, so he is missing some basic bidding skills." "Yes, I know what you mean. I played with him last week and he dbled an opening 4S bid with only 3 sure tricks and no spades. They made it easily for a bottom for us."

 

Self-rating does not work. A person learns bridge, plays for a while and assumes intermediate. He plays with another intermediate who fouls up the declarer play on a hand, so he figures, "What a louse. If he is intermediate, I must be advanced." Then he plays with a few advanced players and they don't signal properly, so "I must be an expert."

 

Alternatively, if you mark yourself honestly as intermediate, you will never get any decent partners.

 

Now I read that everyone claims masterpoints are no good; Ratings are a disaster; And someone said that even good accomplishments are not a good measure either.

 

I'll paraphrase an old saying, "Everybody sucks except for you and me... and I am not so sure about you."

[Finch]

I know of one person of authority in the EBU who made several statements along the line of "I'm a good player, I have the masterpoints to prove it!" which he used to belittle any argument I came up with against him.

Do remember that in general, to become a "person of authority in the EBU" it is not required that the person have any bridge ability whatsoever. For most of the committee positions - which are voluntary and unremunerated - what is required is

 

- enthusiasm

- preparedness to turn up to meetings

 

In theory, you also have to win an election, but there are rarely more people standing than there are vacancies. And even then, bridge ability is quite often not required or necessary. Do you need to be good at bridge to (e.g.) chair the tournament committee? No (although I can think of a number of other useful skills). To take an example totally at random, I would prefer that the selection committee were worse at bridge and better at producing the system regulations for the trials rather sooner than a week before the event.

 

Anyway, you should know well enough that people whose response to genuine discussions or questions if of the form

"I'm a good player (for whatever reason) therefore I am right" are generally not worth bothering with. Real good players (polite ones, anyway) will explain why they are right.

[fred]

I don't think it is very nice to belittle other people's proudest bridge (or non-bridge) accomplishments.

 

Maybe becoming a Bronze Life Master or earning a bunch of Blue Ribbon qualifications are not meaningful accomplishments for some of the best players among the regular Forums contributors, but there are many ACBL members for whom such things represent the culmination of many years of hard work. I don't see anything wrong with people being sufficiently proud of their greatest bridge achievements that they want to let other BBO members know. And it is not just players in the Bronze Life Master class who do this - some stars include statements like "multiple NABC championships" in their profiles.

 

Considering that the average ACBL member has something like 50 masterpoints, perhaps becoming a Bronze Life Master or earning a dozen Blue Ribbons qualifications is more significant than some of you think.

 

But even if you disagree with this, reading these posts leaves a really bad taste in my mouth - to me they sound like examples of "making myself feel big by making others feel small". I am sure this was not the intention of the posters in question, but how do you think you would feel if you had spent your bridge lifetime in pursuit of a goal only to hear players you admire proclaim that your achievement has no meaning?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Sorry Fred I'm not with you this time. Firstly I think you are too focused on the examples I used, when I would make the same statements about people whose profile say "Bermuda bowl 6th place 1997" or whatever (although I have never come across such a profile). It doesn't have anything to do with the particular level of accomplishment. I just used the type of examples I have tended to run across.

 

I also think if you read my post, I was not belittling these people as bad people or something. I was stating my observation, which has held quite strongly among those I have come across, that people whose profiles say such things generally do not play as well as they would have you think (and that group is hardly alone on BBO in this regard, as overstating skill level is very common). This is also backed up by logic, as I perhaps badly stated. I'll try it again.

 

Naturally, the worse a player is, the more proud they would be of a particular accomplishment and thus the more likely to want to show it off. It makes perfect sense that the people who would list a particular accomplishment in their profile are at the lowest skill level among those who have reached that accomplishment. Of course this is not a perfect indicator, but my experience tells me it's a very good one. This is not an attack on anyone's character, and doesn't belittle their accomplishments in my opinion. It simply stands to reason.

 

It was careless of me to say they were "terrible" so I shouldn't have said that (noting that I meant bridgewise, not person-wise). But I wouldn't back down from (nor think it's a bad thing to say) that they would tend to be worse than expected for having reached that skill level.