ACBL LM -- new new rules?

[kenrexford]

I had to laugh somewhat.

 

The ACBL is considering a motion in Boston where the requirements for LM will also include a requirement that (some? a percentage? all?) masterpoints of different pigments (platinum, gold, silver, black, red) be won at pairs events.

 

I understand the general idea, and it makes some sense. If a "life master" is an achievement worth having, then perhaps it should identify people who have a full spectrum of talents, with ability to score well in both IMP scoring and MP scoring formats.

 

However, we all know that this probably, like everything else, is motivated by (1) money and (2) politics. Money, because this forces people to play in a wider range of events. Politics, because it answers (pacifies?) the objections from some who object to masterpoint inflation or over-availability in KO formats.

 

What got me laughing the most was the idea of a "slippery slope." I could see adding requirements for these reasons, like...

 

1. You must have at least one gold point from a special gold point club event.

2. You must have some masterpoints also from Swiss Teams, and from BAM Teams.

3. You must have won at least one club championship or one unit championship.

4. You must have some points from online.

5. You must have some points from a master-novice game (playing as a "master"), or "community service points."

6. You must have some points from Edna's struggling afternoon game in Padukah, Kentucky.

7. You must have at least three signed attendance slips from the between-session lessons by an accredited bridge teacher.

8. You must provide ten (10) proofs of purchase from either the ACBL store, or Baron Barclay, for approved reading purchases.

9. You must demonstrate talent at playing bridge on one of the top three software finalists for the year, scoring at least 50% against the computer game.

10. You will be tested on your reading of George's World.

[TimG]

However, we all know that this probably, like everything else, is motivated by (1) money and (2) politics.  Money, because this forces people to play in a wider range of events.  Politics, because it answers (pacifies?) the objections from some who object to masterpoint inflation or over-availability in bracketed KO formats.

FYP

[awm]

I get the feeling that this is an attempt to address one or both of two issues. These are:

 

(1) There is a feeling among serious bridge players that life master is too easy to get. The part that potentially requires some skill is getting the gold points, but if you can get on a team with three good players they can easily "carry" you to large amounts of KO gold.

 

Personally I think this objection is somewhat silly. Master points in general are not a very good measure of skill, and the people for whom making LM is a big deal actually do have some difficulty getting it.

 

(2) Pairs games at regionals are dying out. This is actually a fairly serious problem, since pairs is the most common (duplicate) form of the game and the easiest for club players to transition to tournament play. Also, one of the supposed great things about bridge is that an intermediate player can play against a world champion -- unlikely to happen in tennis or chess or poker. But this can't really happen in a bracketed KO where the top players are segregated by their tens of thousands of masterpoints into a separate bracket the way it can happen in an open pairs game.

 

However, I don't think a very high percentage of the people at regionals are playing primarily to "get life master" so it's not clear that such a change would do all that much for pairs games. My recommendation would be more along the lines of increasing masterpoint awards for pairs (there are a fair number of people who are grubbing for masterpoints), having more two-day pairs events at regionals (these are fun and can give out more points plus the satisfaction of Q'ing for day two) and having occasional days where there are not multiple competing events (i.e. let the Saturday be "pairs day" and Sunday be "swiss teams day" instead of having a competing compact KO on the Saturday and a competing fast pairs on the Sunday). Maybe award special prizes for winning these "major events of the regional" on the last weekend.

[TimG]

However, I don't think a very high percentage of the people at regionals are playing primarily to "get life master" so it's not clear that such a change would do all that much for pairs games. My recommendation would be more along the lines of increasing masterpoint awards for pairs (there are a fair number of people who are grubbing for masterpoints), having more two-day pairs events at regionals (these are fun and can give out more points plus the satisfaction of Q'ing for day two) and having occasional days where there are not multiple competing events (i.e. let the Saturday be "pairs day" and Sunday be "swiss teams day" instead of having a competing compact KO on the Saturday and a competing fast pairs on the Sunday). Maybe award special prizes for winning these "major events of the regional" on the last weekend.

I believe it used to be that you could not have two gold point events starting the same session. So, you couldn't hold a compact KO and a MP Pairs concurrently.

 

What you seem to be suggesting, and I agree, is that there are just way too many gold point events. At the NABC level they have added Platinum points to distinguish the "real" events from the others. Maybe it would be a good idea to have one event at each regional be the premier event and award a different color point in that event. And then replace the gold point requirement with this new-color point requirement.

 

Trouble is, while ACBL may want to make it a bit harder to attain life master rank, they don't want to go too far -- the chase for life master is a HUGE marketing hook. We should realize that no changes that would significantly decrease the percentage of life masters will ever be made. (Fun as it is to grumble about.)

[kenrexford]

As a hijack of my own thread...

 

I find it somewhat curious that people often see the allure of KO's as matchpointitis. I'm not sure about others, but I see a large number of advantages to KO format that have nothing to do with matchpoint awards. My "top ten list:"

 

1. When you play KO's, you have a better ability to take a leisurely break every six rounds, rather than a flier whenever you get a chance. This is really nice for smokers, but also for restroom breaks.

 

2. KO scoring (IMP) is enjoyable.

 

3. Whether you win or lose, the KO match typically ends sooner. This gives you a longer dinner break, which is really nice.

 

4. If you have the misfortune of a disaster in the afternoon, you are not required to sit through a pointless exercise for the evening session. Sure, any bridge is fun. But, if you are in a nice location for the tournament, losing a KO gives you opportunities for exploring the city, an extended dinner with drinks, etc.

 

5. The team format is generally more social. It is fun to have a group of 4-6 friends to play together.

 

6. The team format can absolve sins, sort of. Your teammates can save you, or, if they do not but could have, you can internally think that they actually screwed up. Sure, you should have made the laydown game, but the remote slam was really quite biddable at the other table, you see. Even if subconscious, tell me this is not a factor. LOL

 

7. The ability to six-bag allows the sort of "extended break" that allows more scheduling flexibility.

 

8. Morning games that are real events, and not just dolt stumble-bunny turkey shoots, are more appealing when you don't have to get up at 9:00 A.M. the next day unless you are winning.

 

9. Bracketing not only frees the lower folks from the higher folks, it frees the higher folks from the lower folks.

 

and...

 

10. KO's are more of a bloodsport. Admit it. Doesn't the predator in you kick in with KO's? Which sounds more impressive? "We knocked out Meckwell" or "We scored a 58.66% for a section second in a session where Meckwell only scored 57.50% the other direction for a section third"?

[han]

Agree with all of Ken's points except 10.

[matmat]

heh.

 

As a hijack of my own thread...

 

I find it somewhat curious that people often see the allure of KO's as matchpointitis.  I'm not sure about others, but I see a large number of advantages to KO format that have nothing to do with matchpoint awards.  My "top ten list:"

 

1. When you play KO's, you have a better ability to take a leisurely break every six rounds, rather than a flier whenever you get a chance.  This is really nice for smokers, but also for restroom breaks.

 

I didn't pay to take breaks, I paid to play bridge, dammit.

 

2. KO scoring (IMP) is enjoyable.

Depends on how your team does. Scoring every six/seven boards can be absolutely abysmal if you keep losing. better to wait for the end of the session, and if you believe you did poorly, leave before final results are up.

 

3. Whether you win or lose, the KO match typically ends sooner.  This gives you a longer dinner break, which is really nice.

usually too hyper from the play to chew my food properly. 15 minute dinner break is sufficient as it is.

 

4. If you have the misfortune of a disaster in the afternoon, you are not required to sit through a pointless exercise for the evening session.  Sure, any bridge is fun.  But, if you are in a nice location for the tournament, losing a KO gives you opportunities for exploring the city, an extended dinner with drinks, etc.

 

if you screw up one board at matchpoints, the effect is likely to be smaller on your overall score than if you royally carve a board at imps, especially in a short match. besides, are you always mandated to play the evening session when you land a 30% in the afternoon one?

 

5. The team format is generally more social.  It is fun to have a group of 4-6 friends to play together.

if you screw up, you ruin the fun for 3-5 others, instead of just one.

 

6. The team format can absolve sins, sort of.  Your teammates can save you, or, if they do not but could have, you can internally think that they actually screwed up.  Sure, you should have made the laydown game, but the remote slam was really quite biddable at the other table, you see.  Even if subconscious, tell me this is not a factor.  LOL

you mean you enjoy three to five other people staring threateningly at you as if you are a moron more than you enjoy one other person doing so?

 

7. The ability to six-bag allows the sort of "extended break" that allows more scheduling flexibility.

yes. perfect time to talk on my banned cell-phone. :) Wait... didn't I pay to play? why am i sitting out? what? huh?

 

8. Morning games that are real events, and not just dolt stumble-bunny turkey shoots, are more appealing when you don't have to get up at 9:00 A.M. the next day unless you are winning.

I actually don't understand what sort of morons schedule bridge events. the hours have never made sense to me.

 

9. Bracketing not only frees the lower folks from the higher folks, it frees the higher folks from the lower folks.

 

not always. some TDs are real dumb-asses and refuse an up-and-coming young team to play up and they are stuck with a bunch of LOLs in some mediocre bracket.

 

10. KO's are more of a bloodsport.  Admit it.  Doesn't the predator in you kick in with KO's?  Which sounds more impressive?  "We knocked out Meckwell" or "We scored a 58.66% for a section second in a session where Meckwell only scored 57.50% the other direction for a section third"?

 

hmm... how about: "we scored 3 tops against meckwell"

 

On a slightly more serious note, I do find the team format a little more disagreeable to me than pairs events. Some of the reasons why are related to what I wrote above. I especially dislike the BBO flavor that allows barometer.

[pclayton]

I think all of Ken's points are valid, but I would posit that masterpoints would still be at the top of anyone's list for playing KO's versus Pairs, especially if they have not reached LM status.

 

As far as the new LM requirement are concerned, and the politicizing of LM, I would be very curious what data the league has in regards to how much someone plays after they reach LM? Is LM a final, or just an intermediate goal? I wonder if the League actually thinks, "Mr. X spends $yyyy dollars" to reach LM at 300 points, so let's raise the bar so that he spends $yyyy x 1.67.

 

Life Master is still a very big deal to the rank-and-file, but for many of them, Bronze and Silver have very little meaning. How many people do you know that say, "I want to become a Silver LM".

 

After LM, bridge becomes social again.

[han]

I think all of Ken's points are valid, but I would posit that masterpoints would still be at the top of anyone's list for playing KO's versus Pairs, especially if they have not reached LM status.

anyone's? :)

[pclayton]

I think all of Ken's points are valid, but I would posit that masterpoints would still be at the top of anyone's list for playing KO's versus Pairs, especially if they have not reached LM status.

anyone's? :blink:

Well for a lot of us here, masterpoints aren't as important as just 'doing well'.

 

We would rather slug it out in the LM Pairs for a 30th place finish for 15 plats than to win a Bracket I KO for 50 golds, for sure.

 

Personally, winning 'platinum' points trumps any of Ken's other motivations.

[ArtK78]

Evelyn Levitt, the long-time partner of Dave Treadwell, died about 20 years ago. When discussing masterpoint goals, she had a favorite saying:

 

"It all goes towards 10,000."

 

Unfortunately, she did not make it to 10,000. Dave did - 2 1/2 times over.

 

She was a great player and a wonderful person, and is still missed by all who knew her.

[matmat]

Life Master is still a very big deal to the rank-and-file, but for many of them, Bronze and Silver have very little meaning. How many people do you know that say, "I want to become a Silver LM".

I found out this weekend that my brother has decided to learn to play bridge. He bought himself a book on the topic (in translation from English, even though he's as fluent in English as I am). We talked for a little bit about the game, discussed some basics (that were very poorly explained in this book, despite the implication of the title). I then asked him why he bought that one, rather than something else. Apparently he had read the blurb on the back about the author (someone I had not previously heard of). One of the enticing things, to my brother, about the writer was that he was a "life master." I explained to my brother the meaning of that title and the difficulty in attaining it. He was somewhat amused. Suffice to say, there will be several good bridge books under the family xmas tree this coming holiday season.

 

I managed to find some bridge results of this author from about a year before the first edition of this book was published. He was still magically sorted into flight C at the time. As a disclaimer I should note that I have not read the book (beyond excerpts of it in polish that i heard over the phone), so the writing clarity and quality, as well as bridge content may be much better in the original, though I doubt it.

[awm]

There are also a number of appealing things about matchpoints:

 

(1) You don't have to worry about finding good teammates.

 

(2) If you get stuck playing against a really unpleasant pair, they leave after a couple boards.

 

(3) You get hand records after the game.

 

(4) You can score up a good round against world champs (much easier than beating them in a KO).

 

(5) You don't have to sit around for up to an hour waiting for your teammates to finish.

 

(6) Your brilliant play on a partscore board actually counts for as much as that lucky slam opps bid.

 

(7) Opponents can't sominex you by taking half an hour to play one board.

 

(8) You can set goals for yourself if winning is out of reach (i.e. 50%, Q for day 2, overalls).

 

(9) You're not screwed if your masterpoints don't accurately reflect your skill level.

 

Despite all of these things, I think the masterpoint effect has a lot to do with the sizes of pair games these days.

[kenrexford]

From a personal perspective, the only reason I really care about masterpoint awards is shame reduction. I mean, most of the bridge world seems to be retired and playing non-stop. Every day, every tournament. When you only play on occasion, you might have 50% of your points as gold or platinum, but you still are forced to admit ability to play in the B event or the AX event or whatever. This is quite embarassing.

 

This is one reason why I hate pair events. I mean, if I play on a team with my "strong team," we are in the top bracket. However, if I play with my wife or with a local club friend in a regional pairs event that is stratified, I might accidentally win Flight B or AX. Even if I win A also, my shame is out there. If I come in eighth in A but 1st in B, then I cannot avoid the ridicule.

 

It's like winning the Bracket Two Morning Compact KO Consolation.

 

And they keep raising the damned bar! You need about 5000 points now to be "B-proof."

 

LOL

 

I'm joking, of course, in case any AXers or B-Flighters take offense.

[matmat]

If I come in eighth in A but 1st in B, then I cannot avoid the ridicule.

who's going to ridicule you? the flight A lols that finished 16th overall?

 

I really wish the ACBL (and other organizations) would offer memberships where masterpoints are not tallied...

[kenberg]

This tinkering with LM rules seems to me to be like attempting to adjust the air pressure in my tires to 30.573 psi. At some point, you say close enough for government work and let it go.

I have a flash for these tinkerers. No one I know ever reads your carefully designed rules.

[ArtK78]

Ken:

 

I was rather proud of my achievement when I won my first regional event.

 

On Saturday, my partner and I won the Qualifying and Final Open Pairs (and I do mean Open Pairs - this was 1977).

 

On Sunday, my partner and I, along with our teammates, were 3/4 in the Flight B Swiss Teams.

 

I saw no shame in that.

 

(By the way, in between the two events was the Midnight Swiss on Saturday night. I believe we finished second - lol).

[TimG]

I find it somewhat curious that people often see the allure of KO's as matchpointitis. I'm not sure about others, but I see a large number of advantages to KO format that have nothing to do with matchpoint awards. My "top ten list:"

Different strokes for different folks.

 

Personally, I disagree with your #9.

[kenrexford]

Ken:

 

I was rather proud of my achievement when I won my first regional event.

 

On Saturday, my partner and I won the Qualifying and Final Open Pairs (and I do mean Open Pairs - this was 1977).

 

On Sunday, my partner and I, along with our teammates, were 3/4 in the Flight B Swiss Teams.

 

I saw no shame in that.

 

(By the way, in between the two events was the Midnight Swiss on Saturday night. I believe we finished second - lol).

Art, I was joking.

 

But, to play along, I think there is a slight difference in winning your first regional event, which is quite a huge achievement (I immediately called home to mom from a pay phone). What I am talking about is when your peers and partners are all ranked by the ACBL at a specific level and then you enter an event at a much lower level but don't do so well. Your friends have a tendency to laugh at you, in good humor of course.

 

One of my favorite laughs from YEARS ago was kibitzing Michael Kitces and Kevin Bathurst (1994 Washington Regional) getting hammered by the novices in a morning side game. The two of them still qualified for the event by ACBL masterpoint standards, but their ability to play was already quite established.

 

On the flip side, one of my favorite results was scoring a 111 on a 156 average in a novice game, beating out a 110- and a 110. This was at a 1979 or 1980 sectional in Columbus, Ohio. My brother Brandon and I did not come in last, earning us a trip from our parents to play in the Detroit Nationals (in the novice game, of course). That's the only matchpoints score I can or probably ever will remember down to the exact score.

[JoAnneM]

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.

[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]

" 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]

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.