Platinum Pairs

[Rodney26]

I'm curious if anyone is playing in this event and if so what your thoughts are on it. Is it a welcome adddition to the schedule? How many pairs do you think will enter the event? How will it impact the IMP pairs field compared to prior years?

[rogerclee]

Nobody knows, but I have the impression that most people think the Platinum Pairs will become the toughest pairs event. I don't know what percent of ACBL members qualify to play in the event, but my guess is that it is somewhere between 2% and 4%.

 

There is already an analogous situation on the calendar between the Reisinger and the NA Swiss, where the Reisinger is more difficult by far. In reality, the difference between the Platinum and IMP Pairs will be substantially larger; almost all "very strong" pairs will be playing the Platinum Pairs.

[jdonn]

I also heard people expect this to be the toughest pairs event on the ACBL calendar, even more than the Blue Ribbon pairs. I will be there but playing in something else :o

[fred]

Nobody knows, but I have the impression that most people think the Platinum Pairs will become the toughest pairs event. I don't know what percent of ACBL members qualify to play in the event, but my guess is that it is somewhere between 2% and 4%.

I bet it is closer to .2% than 2% (but I am just guessing too).

 

There is already an analogous situation on the calendar between the Reisinger and the NA Swiss, where the Reisinger is more difficult by far. In reality, the difference between the Platinum and IMP Pairs will be substantially larger; almost all "very strong" pairs will be playing the Platinum Pairs.

 

I disagree. For one thing, most of the very strong pairs do play in the Reisinger. Also, I think there will be a reasonable number of very strong pairs who do not play in the Platinum Pairs. Some members of these pairs will play in other events with sponsors, some very strong pairs will "practice for the Vanderbilt" with their teams in Regional knockouts or in privately arranged games, and some very strong pairs never play together in pairs events.

 

I do think that the Platinum Pairs rates to be significantly more challenging than the Blue Ribbon Pairs. But I am guessing that this will mostly be because the bottom of the field rates to be stronger in the Platinum Pairs (because some Blue Ribbon Pairs qualifiers will not qualify for the Platinum Pairs and because others will opt to play in the IMP Pairs where they will have a better chance to score well). The top of the field rates to be about the same in my view.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[MFA]

What is platinum pairs?

[rogerclee]

I bet it is closer to .2% than 2% (but I am just guessing too).

0.28% of the ACBL has 10000+MP, so these people automatically qualify.

 

0.92% of the ACBL has 5000-10000MP; I am not sure what percentage of these people qualify, but I would guess it is something like 30%

 

3.09% of the ACBL has 2500-5000MP; going to estimate that 10% of these members qualify.

 

11.81% of the ACBL has 1000-2500MP; going to estimate that 2% of these members qualify.

 

Virtually no ACBL members with less than 1000MP probably qualify for this event.

 

This adds up to 1.101%. I will bet on 2% :).

[awm]

I'm playing in the Platinum Pairs this year; should be fun. My expectation is that the first day will look sort of like day two of the Blue Ribbons Pairs, which means the final should be pretty impressive. I agree with Fred that the "top of field" will not be very different from the BR Pairs, but the "bottom of field" will be quite a bit better because of the tougher pre-qualification.

 

I'm not really clear on why the IMP Pairs start on the same day, rather than starting on the Saturday. Since the IMP Pairs are two days and the Platinum Pairs are three, they would still both finish in time for the Vanderbilt. The way they have it arranged makes the IMP Pairs substantially weaker, because the "bottom half" of the Platinum Pairs field (which is still pretty strong, as Fred indicated) now cannot drop into the IMP pairs after failing to qualify. I guess they are trying for some self-selection where weak pairs choose not to enter the Platinum Pairs even if they meet the qualifications because they can potentially do better in the IMP pairs? But it still seems like this makes the IMP Pairs a very weak national event, perhaps even weaker than the Wernher Pairs in the summer (parallel with day two of Spingold). And obviously it will make the people who lose in round one of Platinum Pairs less happy.

 

As for what Platinum Pairs is, it's a three-day pairs event held at the Spring North American Bridge Championships, for the first time this year in Reno, NV, USA. To qualify for the event both partners have to have done reasonably well in other national-level events (it's based on points collected in these events only). This is the hardest "pre-qualification" of the major events on the ACBL calendar; of course, this does not mean it is the hardest event.

[Rodney26]

I'm not really clear on why the IMP Pairs start on the same day, rather than starting on the Saturday.

I'm guessing so that those of us playing in the "soft" National events can schedule out our week.

 

Top players are supposed to schedule Platinum/Vandy.

Next tier -- IMP, Silver, Mixed, Silodor, Swiss.

 

(Obviously some of us aren't eligible for the Silver but most of the attendees are.)

 

I do think the IMP/Platinum overlap is unfortunate. There are tons of open matchpoint events (Silodor, Werhner, LM summer, LM fall, Blue Ribbon, Fast, Flight A NAPs) but only one yearly opportunity to compete for a title at this form of scoring.

 

I hope it is a success. It might be really fun to kibitz on Sunday.

[Phil]

I agree the IMP pairs will be weaker than the Werhner (sp?) but we will see. Plenty of pairs will get scared away from the Platinums, and I know of a few client-pro pairs playing.

 

The Wernher starts the day after the Spingold, Senior Swiss, the Wagar and the 0-5/1.5K Spingolds, so you have plenty of decent pairs that drop into the Werhner.

 

I have always agreed these "B" level nationals (except the NAOP which is a different format) should allow drop-ins from the premiere events, even on the 2nd or 3rd day.

[jdonn]

Adam, probably so that people who want to go to the whole tournament and play national events including the imp pairs have to come a day earlier. Money money money.

[mycroft]

I wrote this before knowing that all 10000+MP players were lifetime eligible, irrespective of current or lifetime Platinum holding. It can't have gone down.

 

I still think, for a "BRP qualification is too easy to get. We want a *real* prestige qualification event" event, that 8, 15-table sections already eligible lifetime no matter what their current results have been, never mind the ones that get in only on current results, is "too easy to get".

 

My suggestion would be to eliminate the lifetime eligibility. 50PP/3 years (perhaps treating ACBL-converted WBF points in relevant events as Platinum) seems right. The best players will be there. The ones that have shown they can hold their own against the best will be there. The ones that were the best, or who accumulate lots of Gold, but can't get Platinum, won't - and that's a good thing for the event, not a bad thing.

 

Having said that, it will be an event to watch!

[gwnn]

so the ACBL isnt all evil? :)

[Phil]

I wrote this before knowing that all 10000+ players were lifetime eligible, irrespective of current or lifetime Platinum holding. It can't have gone down.

 

I still think, for a "BRP qualification is too easy to get. We want a *real* prestige qualification event" event, that 8, 15-table sections already eligible lifetime no matter what their current results have been, never mind the ones that get in only on current results, is "too easy to get".

 

My suggestion would be to eliminate the lifetime eligibility. 50PP/3 years (perhaps treating ACBL-converted WBF points in relevant events as Platinum) seems right. The best players will be there. The ones that have shown they can hold their own against the best will be there. The ones that were the best, or who accumulate lots of Gold, but can't get Platinum, won't - and that's a good thing for the event, not a bad thing.

 

Having said that, it will be an event to watch!

Why do you think that someone with 10,000 points 'can't' get platinum points? I would guess a lot of them have high places in National events but haven't broken through and perhaps they haven't played enough recently to have otherwise qualified.

 

I am quite sure there are the hard core club players that have played for 40 years and consistently rank high in the A♣ awards and have generated enough blacks to get 10K. But these people aren't going to Reno this year (or any year) so they really aren't a factor, so if they earn the right to play the 1st day of this event its no big deal to me.

 

I would agree that a lot of these people can't play that well, although at a certain level (GLM? 5K?)I believe that you can become a decent player through brute force.

 

I'm not that sure that 50 plats over three years is really a high hurdle to jump over. It just means you play a lot of Nationals. OTOH, if the league made the requirement 150 plats in 3 years, then I think you would eliminate a lot of wannabes.

 

By the way, I thought at one point plats could only be earned through section tops and overall places - sort of like how golds could only be earned at regionals the same way. But its changed now hasn't it?

[awm]

The Wernher starts the day after the Spingold, Senior Swiss, the Wagar and the 0-5/1.5K Spingolds, so you have plenty of decent pairs that drop into the Werhner.

This would be true if the Spingold were to actually eliminate roughly half the teams on the first day. However, there have been a number of instances in the past few years when there were a very large number of byes (combined with four-way matches where three advance) meaning that the percentage of advancing teams in the Spingold was quite high.

 

The Wagar field is very small anyway, and for the most part I'm not impressed by the field in the mini-Spingolds relative to the field in most (even "second-tier") national events.

[rogerclee]

mycroft, we already have an extremely prestigious pairs event, it's called the Cavendish. An extremely strong pair event on the ACBL calendar won't happen anytime soon; not enough entries means not enough money, and it is totally reasonable for the ACBL to cater to the 90%+ of the ACBL who does not care a lot about elite bridge.

 

We also have very prestigious team events, they are called the Spingold, Vanderbilt, and Reisinger. If you think the fact that these three are open events makes the fields weak, then I would recommend that you look not only at the top 20 seeds in the Spingold/Vanderbilt, but also the 50th-60th seeds. Many of them contain multiple national champions, foreign internationalists, etc. I think people who don't play in the big three events don't appreciate how strong the bridge is; making it to the round of 16 is a huge achievement.

 

Also for people who want the IMP Pairs to start a day later, I think that is not feasible, since as I roughly calculated above, their decision caters to the 99% of the ACBL who does not qualify for the Platinum Pairs. Makes sense to me.

[mycroft]

My suggestion would be to eliminate the lifetime eligibility.  50PP/3 years (perhaps treating ACBL-converted WBF points in relevant events as Platinum) seems right.  The best players will be there.  The ones that have shown they can hold their own against the best will be there.  The ones that were the best, or who accumulate lots of Gold, but can't get Platinum, won't - and that's a good thing for the event, not a bad thing.

 

Having said that, it will be an event to watch!

Why do you think that someone with 10,000 points 'can't' get platinum points? I would guess a lot of them have high places in National events but haven't broken through and perhaps they haven't played enough recently to have otherwise qualified.

I don't think they can't. I just think that they shouldn't be exempted in if they haven't. The lifetime exemption for the Blue Ribbons is for the top 100 MP holders (who will never have to worry about not having a qualifier, either). 10000+ is a lot more than 100 people, for what is supposedly a "more prestigious event".

 

I am quite sure there are the hard core club players that have played for 40 years and consistently rank high in the A♣ awards and have generated enough blacks to get 10K. But these people aren't going to Reno this year (or any year) so they really aren't a factor, so if they earn the right to play the 1st day of this event its no big deal to me.

Exactly. And it's not a big deal, really. But the visuals of the thing (as is the case with most of my gripes about the ACBL) are horrible.

 

1. Platinum pairs - a prestigious event for people who do consistently well at the top level of ACBL competition.

2. We'll define "consistently well" as "N platinum in the last three years, or M platinum lifetime."

3. We'll define M as a number that currently encompasses 600 or so players, and rising (reasonably) fast.

4. Oh, and we'd better throw in GLMs.

5. Actually, what we mean is 10000 any points, even if zero of them are Platinum.

6. Hmm - the "permanently qualified" field is bigger than the Blue Ribbons were last year, if all of them show up and play. How prestigious is that?

 

I'm not that sure that 50 plats over three years is really a high hurdle to jump over. It just means you play a lot of Nationals. OTOH, if the league made the requirement 150 plats in 3 years, then I think you would eliminate a lot of wannabes.

Yes, I think that would be excessive. But it seems to me that 50 PP/3 years is a reasonable criterion for "can play with the world-class in current form" even if it is not "is world-class in current form"; and that seems reasonable for the Platinum Pairs. The problem isn't, to my mind, the 50. It's the 200 lifetime. If you raise the requirement to 150/3 years, there will be people who never make it in three years, but are permanently eligible in 5.

 

Roger: Well, the Cavendish has its issues, as well, but for this discussion, it is explicitly NOT an ACBL event (for very valid, if anachronistic, reasons). Also, I know about the strong fields in the "big games". I like the fact that they are open. I'm not the one pushing for an event with an elite prequalification requirement, like the LM Pairs were at first, and the Blue Ribbons were at first. But that's what the ACBL had as the "raison d'etre" of the Platinum pairs, and then rather than waiting for masterpoint inflation/qualifier inflation to water down the field, they preset it that way. It just doesn't look right.

 

It is still going to be a great field, even if it is "days 2 to 4 of the LM Pairs". I'm not knocking that.

[eyhung]

10000+ is a lot more than 100 people, for what is supposedly a "more prestigious event".

 

According to ACBL website, there are exactly 461 people with 10000+ MP. I suspect most of these already qualify under the 50/3 rule. I'd save your outrage for the 200 lifetime provision.

[peachy]

I wrote this before knowing that all 10000+MP players were lifetime eligible, irrespective of current or lifetime Platinum holding. It can't have gone down.

 

I still think, for a "BRP qualification is too easy to get. We want a *real* prestige qualification event" event, that 8, 15-table sections already eligible lifetime no matter what their current results have been, never mind the ones that get in only on current results, is "too easy to get".

 

My suggestion would be to eliminate the lifetime eligibility. 50PP/3 years (perhaps treating ACBL-converted WBF points in relevant events as Platinum) seems right. The best players will be there. The ones that have shown they can hold their own against the best will be there. The ones that were the best, or who accumulate lots of Gold, but can't get Platinum, won't - and that's a good thing for the event, not a bad thing.

 

Having said that, it will be an event to watch!

I also support eliminating lifetime eligibility without the requisite platinum points. And they should be current platinum points (50+ within the last three years) or way higher than 200 if lifetime platinums are included in the mix.

 

I am not qualified, btw. One reason is I attend NABC's about once in two years. The other being, when I play in nationally rated events, I sometimes place on the "first page" of the results and that just doesn't cut it although in itself it is nothing to sneer at.

 

All in all, keep the bar high. There are plenty of other events to play in.