Online pts count 100%

[awm]

Hmm my interpretation was never that online points "counted only a third" as people seem to be suggesting. It was, rather, that only a third of your points can be online points.

 

To give an example, suppose I had 1000 points of which 300 were online. By my interpretation, I'd be a silver life master (requiring 1000 points, of which at most 333 can be online points). If online points actually counted a third I would not be a silver life master (because I have 700 offline points + a third of 300 online points is only 800). In fact I'm pretty sure my interpretation is correct by observing my own rank changes.

 

This change will therefore only effect the small number of players for whom more than 1/3 of their masterpoints are online points. The color requirements tend to cause problems for these people anyway.

[JLOGIC]

Purely on-line poker players don't have the same status as face to face players either nor should they.

 

Not sure if serious.

[billw55]

I wonder whether the ACBL have tried to increase interest by offering a greater variety of events. Do they offer multiple teams events (apart from board-a-match)? Do they ever have Swiss Pairs?

Personally I would like to see more IMP pairs. I would think there are enough players out there who aren't fans of matchpoints. Plus pairs is more convenient for drop-in players, or singles hanging around the partnership desk, etc. Forming a team of four out of thin air on short notice can be tough.

 

Don't know if there is wider interest in that or not.

[Vampyr]

Personally I would like to see more IMP pairs. I would think there are enough players out there who aren't fans of matchpoints.

 

It seems like there are enough players at the nationals and many regionals to cater to all tastes. In the EBU we only ever have enough players for one event at a time, so most congresses offer one matchpoint ("ordinary" pairs or Swiss pairs) and one IMP (Swiss teams or (rarely) multiple teams (I think!)). Knockout events are (except at Brighton) not held because there would not be another event to play in once you got knocked out. The big Knockout events are played privately in the early rounds with a final played at a congress venue.

 

In the Brighton Congress we have, among other things, a "Play with the Experts" tournament (hands from a long-ago match where you score up against your "teammates"; a good way to play IMP pairs because at least you have experts at the other table!) and a Mixed Pivot Teams (a mixed [but you don't have to be 2+2] multiple teams event in which you play three rounds of three boards with each of your teammates).

 

Finals of pairs events are sometimes barometer scored. Certain team finals and invitational events use hybrid scoring.

 

I think that if the EBU had the ACBL's numbers, they would put together a really creative programme!

[aguahombre]

I think that if the EBU had the ACBL's numbers, they would put together a really creative programme!

Unfortunately (see earlier portion of this thread), our "numbers" might be less than those in the EBU ---number of pairs who want to play in a big prestigeous event against top players is the number I would worry about.

[Mbodell]

Personally I would like to see more IMP pairs. I would think there are enough players out there who aren't fans of matchpoints. Plus pairs is more convenient for drop-in players, or singles hanging around the partnership desk, etc. Forming a team of four out of thin air on short notice can be tough.

 

Don't know if there is wider interest in that or not.

 

I also wish we had more different kind of events. Swiss MP Pairs would be nice to see. For that matter it would be nice to see hand records for our Swiss teams and KO.

 

I think one reason the KO are popular is not just the bracketed part, but also just the different format. In the KO you get:

 

1. Play at your own pace (more or less) since there is not wasted time waiting for a 2 or 3 board pairs movement.

2. IMP scoring as opposed to the MP scoring you commonly see in the club. This is both good for variety and good in that it is often lower stress (don't sweat the overtricks/partscores so much).

3. 50% odds of winning. In a typical pairs section, if everyone is equally good, you only win 1/12 or so times. In the KO match you win 1/2 (or sometimes 2/3).

[Vampyr]

Unfortunately (see earlier portion of this thread), our "numbers" might be less than those in the EBU ---number of pairs who want to play in a big prestigeous event against top players is the number I would worry about.

 

Well, with a lot of players there could be Flight B, C etc. Here there is sometimes a Flight B, but take-up is always low, since it is the case that most people do want to play against the best.

 

We will soon have a ranking system and stratified games. This brings up an interesting question -- many of our events have a qualifier followed by final/consolation. I wonder how qualification will work in a stratified game?

[mike777]

by definiton qualification should work 100% of the time ....

if not redefine.

[mycroft]

No idea, but in the ACBL, if you run a qualifier game, it must be open (you can stratify the consolation for the non-qualifiers)...for exactly the reason you asked the question.

 

This is almost certainly the reason that open qualifier-and-final games have all but disappeared from the calendar in the ACBL.

 

I find this a pity - it used to be the standard Saturday game at our sectionals, and my first "step up" bridge memory was the first time I qualified for the final. In next-to-last place, and we got hammered in the evening, but just qualifying was an achievement. I think a lot of people miss out on that kind of low-level achievement (it's just not the same as "first in C" or "first in B" or whatever). I try to play in it whenever I see it (and am not working the game), because I want to keep it around!

[Mbodell]

No idea, but in the ACBL, if you run a qualifier game, it must be open (you can stratify the consolation for the non-qualifiers)...for exactly the reason you asked the question.

 

This is almost certainly the reason that open qualifier-and-final games have all but disappeared from the calendar in the ACBL.

 

I find this a pity - it used to be the standard Saturday game at our sectionals, and my first "step up" bridge memory was the first time I qualified for the final. In next-to-last place, and we got hammered in the evening, but just qualifying was an achievement. I think a lot of people miss out on that kind of low-level achievement (it's just not the same as "first in C" or "first in B" or whatever). I try to play in it whenever I see it (and am not working the game), because I want to keep it around!

 

Obviously this format is common for the National events. You can also play it in the Summer Regional in District 21 where we have the 2-day Western Pairs (2 session to qualify, 2 final sessions).

 

In theory you could still run it stratified and only qualify based on the A results, but give awards for A/B/C.

[Finch]

Well, with a lot of players there could be Flight B, C etc. Here there is sometimes a Flight B, but take-up is always low, since it is the case that most people do want to play against the best.

 

We will soon have a ranking system and stratified games. This brings up an interesting question -- many of our events have a qualifier followed by final/consolation. I wonder how qualification will work in a stratified game?

 

 

Will we? I thought the so-called 'national grading system' was only going to be used for club events, and stratification is at least at present only offered in club events.

[Finch]

I also wish we had more different kind of events. Swiss MP Pairs would be nice to see. For that matter it would be nice to see hand records for our Swiss teams and KO.

 

It's weird, because anything other than Swiss MP Pairs is almost dying out in England. Nationally there still a few events left (the National Pairs & the Corwen are both qualifier + all-play-all-2-day-final, and the Bank Holiday congress and Easter Festival are qualifier+final events) but county one-day events are absolutely always one day Swiss Pairs + one day Swiss Teams.

 

Most people love these as the format for a one-day event, because

(i) you get green points for winning matches, not just final ranking

(ii) they are much more random than most alternative possible formats, so more people have a chance of winning something.

[Finch]

Knockout events are (except at Brighton) not held because there would not be another event to play in once you got knocked out.

 

...you might include the Spring Foursomes, which is the longest single congress event that the EBU runs, and has two consolation events to go with it.

[gnasher]

Will we? I thought the so-called 'national grading system' was only going to be used for club events, and stratification is at least at present only offered in club events.

 

According to the NGS Overview, initially it will be based on

- All club duplicate pairs events (both Match Point and IMP scored)

- All congress pairs events (All Play All and Swiss Pairs) organised at any level.

- Club multiple Team-of-Four events.

 

The Swiss teams that I played in yesterday was stratified.

[Finch]

According to the NGS Overview, initially it will be based on

- All club duplicate pairs events (both Match Point and IMP scored)

- All congress pairs events (All Play All and Swiss Pairs) organised at any level.

- Club multiple Team-of-Four events.

 

The Swiss teams that I played in yesterday was stratified.

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that the rankings that came out of the NGS were not going to be used for anything, other than potentially by clubs, so it's not exactly a real 'national grading scheme'.

[hrothgar]

 

Most people love these as the format for a one-day event, because

(i) you get green points for winning matches, not just final ranking

(ii) they are much more random than most alternative possible formats, so more people have a chance of winning something.

 

Soon, we'll be able to dispense with the whole nastiness of playing bridge and simply sell master points directly for cash...

 

I suspect that the ACBL, the EBU and the players base would both find this enormously more convenient.

[BunnyGo]

(i) you get green points for winning matches, not just final ranking

 

Are 'green points' in England the same as what they are in the US ('green points' = $$), or are there actual green points similar to our gold points?

[Finch]

The latter (at least I would guess so). You get 'black' or 'local' points playing in club events or minor county and some national events. You get green points for playing in major county and national events. Masterpoint ranks need a total number of points, of which (for most ranks) some must be green.

 

To complicate matters, the EBU also calculates 'gold points'. Originally these were based on 5 greens = 1 gold but you have to win them in one event (so 6 greens in one event = 1.2 golds, but 4 greens + 2 greens = 0 golds). Then they started awarding them in the premier league without the associated greenies. Gold points are used only for seeding purposes.

[cherdano]

The latter (at least I would guess so). You get 'black' or 'local' points playing in club events or minor county and some national events. You get green points for playing in major county and national events. Masterpoint ranks need a total number of points, of which (for most ranks) some must be green.

 

To complicate matters, the EBU also calculates 'gold points'. Originally these were based on 5 greens = 1 gold but you have to win them in one event (so 6 greens in one event = 1.2 golds, but 4 greens + 2 greens = 0 golds). Then they started awarding them in the premier league without the associated greenies. Gold points are used only for seeding purposes.

See, things in the ACBL are so much easier. We just have platinum points, and gold points, and red points, and silver points, and black points. No online points anymore though. Oh and seeding points for the USBF. Oh, and Blue ribbon qualfiers. Oh, and NABC+ wins (needed for GLM).

[ArtK78]

Purely on-line poker players don't have the same status as face to face players either nor should they.

 

Not sure if serious.

This was certainly true until the many successes of online poker players in major events. And I would say that most traditional poker players grant respect to online players on a case-by-case basis based on success in brick and mortar tournaments.

[paulg]

Are 'green points' in England the same as what they are in the US ('green points' = $), or are there actual green points similar to our gold points?

The latter (at least I would guess so). You get 'black' or 'local' points playing in club events or minor county and some national events. You get green points for playing in major county and national events. Masterpoint ranks need a total number of points, of which (for most ranks) some must be green.

 

To complicate matters, the EBU also calculates 'gold points'. Originally these were based on 5 greens = 1 gold but you have to win them in one event (so 6 greens in one event = 1.2 golds, but 4 greens + 2 greens = 0 golds). Then they started awarding them in the premier league without the associated greenies. Gold points are used only for seeding purposes.

National points (which are, confusingly, Green in England and Red in Scotland) cover an increasingly wide spectrum of events that would cover red, gold and platinum awards in ACBL events and even some silver awards (in a very limited way).

 

The Scots also used to have gold points, similar to the EBU, but these have fallen into disrepute not least because of the generous awards of some minor events.

[jillybean]

See, things in the ACBL are so much easier. We just have platinum points, and gold points, and red points, and silver points, and black points. No online points anymore though. Oh and seeding points for the USBF. Oh, and Blue ribbon qualfiers. Oh, and NABC+ wins (needed for GLM).

You forgot Red ribbon qualifers.

[Siegmund]

See, things in the ACBL are so much easier. We just have platinum points, and gold points, and red points, and silver points, and black points. No online points anymore though.

 

But we do still have online points. They are still going to be colorless, not black, and still not count towards Ace of Clubs, as far as I can tell - the only thing that changed about online points is that all of them count towards one's rank.

[cherdano]

Sorry that I made things appear even simpler than they are.

[aguahombre]

Would it be best if the whole system were pointless, colorless, and tasteless?