GCC and Bracketed KOs

[wyman]

He could ask me to play in Philly. :) Seriously, so far I am playing only in the Spingold, so I should be able to play in most of the rest of the tournament. Besides, Danny Sprung has been bugging me to work Sunday evening in the Casino night that the Philly unit is putting on after the evening session, and I am certainly not going to do that if I am not playing on Sunday.

 

What do you say, Wyman?

 

Already booked with bd71 for the LM Pairs and some of the Ann Arbor crew for the open Swiss, so my weekends are booked. But I definitely appreciate the offer, and I'd love to take you up on it at some point -- either a weekday evening game during the NABC or perhaps an upcoming regional/sectional if you are available. I'll PM you.

[JLOGIC]

Yes, that is the toughest spot if there are 4 wyman level players with no masterpoints. Masterpoints is a very bad system for that kind of team. Obv you wanna play on a team with your friends, fair enough, but an option would be to split into 2 teams and play with 2 other pairs who have more points.

 

If they let you play up, thats great, you probably were good enough to play up then.

 

It does not actually piss me off, it does piss me off that people think they are entitled to play whatever methods they want (when most people of their level don't want that), and also that if they are huge favorites against teams in their bracket, they are entitled to play in bracket 1 if they have the same chance of beating the best bracket 1 team as a team in their actual bracket does of beating them.

 

It does create an imbalance if there are some very weak teams in bracket 1 with the draws, but thats bridge, sometimes you get a lucky draw and sometimes an unlucky one. If you are allowed to move up then you are not bumping out a team that had a chance of winning the event anyways, so it doesn't matter. AFAIK directors won't let you move up if you were going to bump out a good team, so problem would be the same for me, not enough competitive teams in the event.

 

I was just trying to note that it is funny that people are all like "i don't wanna play vs awful teams, so I'll go to bracket 1 and lose" without thinking that maybe the bracket 1 teams don't like playing awful teams. That said, if they let someone move up, there was gonna be a team that was bad in the bracket anyways, so don't worry about it. But I don't think those people should be indignant if they're not allowed to move up.

 

In fact, I would expect your team to have a better chance than 4 local regs who have like 3000 points each and have played for 50 years, ldo.

[Vampyr]

Put the bracket 2 people into that bracket 1 and see how they do!

 

I see what you're saying; I hadn't really thought about it that way.

 

When I lived in America there were no bracketed knockouts, or maybe they were just starting up (but were a little different; I played once in a "super-flight" (I don't know what that is or whether it exists anymore, but in any case I think there were other brackets of a sort). Now they seem to be the most popular event at regionals and nationals. So I guess people are not very concerned about the (maybe) catching-up problem, as obviously they have voted with their feet.

 

About the whole midchart issue -- are members polled about what conventions they want allowed at different levels? I understand that this forum does not represent the typical ACBL membership, but it seems that every time a discussion about bidding methods comes up, ACBL members are stymied and frustrated by the GCC.

[jeffford76]

We just think it's pointless to play against total droolers, and the only alternative we have from the directors is B1.

 

This definitely varies regionally. I know that the directors in the Seattle area have accommodated teams that wanted to play up a bracket without playing all the way up.

 

It also seems to be a big grey area whether it's ok to just "overestimate" your masterpoints. I actually think this would be a great solution if it were made explicitly legal. Just let teams write down whatever total they want (or TOP) as long as it's at least as many as they have.

[Phil]

Strangest thread drift ever.

[Vampyr]

I wonder about the effect of changing the format a bit -- have a first session of multiple teams, and use the results to divide people into brackets (perhaps of 8, to keep the event the same length). Then everyone would feel that they were in the bracket they "deserved" to be in, and people who didn't have the time and money to travel to win masterpoints, but were good players, could get a decent game.

[JLOGIC]

 

About the whole midchart issue -- are members polled about what conventions they want allowed at different levels? I understand that this forum does not represent the typical ACBL membership, but it seems that every time a discussion about bidding methods comes up, ACBL members are stymied and frustrated by the GCC.

 

A poll might be useful. But I agree, we just don't see a representative sample on the forums.

 

I agree with something you said earlier, choice would be good. But people already have choice of teams or pairs, then there are different brackets and flights. If you then segment some of that into people who want to play a GCC vs people who want a midchart event, there might not be enough players to have reasonable sized events for all of these things. And some people would still be unhappy. There is no perfect solution, and I think continuing to try and figure out what people want while also keeping the integrity of the game and making the most people happy is all good, but it's going to leave some people upset no matter what. I do not envy the jobs of people who have to do all of those things.

[Mbodell]

This is the opposite of what is true. Basically every teams masterpoint EV would be higher in a low bracket. I just pulled up this regional (which I didn't go to to avoid cherry picking).

 

http://web2.acbl.org/tournaments/results/2012/05/1205001.htm

 

This is very likely true at the top. But at the bottom it can very much not be true. I see you did somewhat acknowledged lower in the thread that when you have a team of friends with fewer MP you can be in a tough place, but I think since that is where a lot of people spend much of their time (the typical ACBL member is a NLM!), that this can be a real issue too.

 

I mean take the winners of bracket 7 from that link. They get 6 MP. 3/4 in bracket 5 gets almost as much and 3/4 in bracket 4 gets more. If you have a team of people who have much greater skill than MP (typically young people who haven't played as many masterpoint granting tournaments) they can be like strong favorites in any of the bottom half brackets, while likely still being cannon fodder for bracket 1. So the EV of a bracket 6 team might well be higher in bracket 6 than if they played in bracket 7, and there certainly can be teams in bracket 7 that would have a much higher EV if they played up some number of brackets (but not all the way to bracket 1, most likely).

 

As for wanting to play a midchart system. I agree you get little sympathy if you seek a protected field and want to play your system, but in some situations your only choice is to play the bracketed event (I.e., there is no other simultaneous even going on) and in others the only other events are also GCC (open pairs are always GCC, unless they are strati-flighted [and even then some time, at the Seattle national they had gold rush pairs where the lower flight was <750 so the "open" flight stayed GCC]). I agree that people need to follow the rules and shouldn't flout them intentionally playing their midchart system where it is illegal, but you have my sympathies if you are trying to play the best event you can and still told no.

[Mbodell]

A poll might be useful. But I agree, we just don't see a representative sample on the forums.

 

I agree with something you said earlier, choice would be good. But people already have choice of teams or pairs, then there are different brackets and flights. If you then segment some of that into people who want to play a GCC vs people who want a midchart event, there might not be enough players to have reasonable sized events for all of these things. And some people would still be unhappy. There is no perfect solution, and I think continuing to try and figure out what people want while also keeping the integrity of the game and making the most people happy is all good, but it's going to leave some people upset no matter what. I do not envy the jobs of people who have to do all of those things.

 

They (the ACBL) does poll the players periodically on various issues, I've been polled at least twice. I think the general consensus is that the majority of players wish there were less conventions allowed and more protection of the field and more flighting, but that the unrepresentative minority (which you see much more of amongst this forum and much more of amongst the smaller younger people crowd) wishes there was more conventions allowed and that we had some way to measure skill or current performance rankings that was less a participation award and more a reflection of quality of play (like an elo rating for chess). I don't know if people have polled enough to verify that this general consensus is actually the true state of the world.

[blackshoe]

When I played with a local expert a few years ago, we had what he called "Reese 4NT" openings on our card: a good five level preempt in either minor, non forcing. We played for a year or two, and it never came up. Later on, I looked at the convention charts trying to find authority to play this convention. I couldn't find it, so I wrote to HQ asking about it. I never got an answer, but a little while later, the Mid-Chart was amended to allow "Opening 4NT to show a strong minor suit" in two board or longer segments. In the defense database this is called "Minor Suit Namyats", and the 4NT opening is described as forcing. :blink:

 

I think this is a useful bid, forcing or no, and I was surprised to see it appear on the Mid-Chart.

 

Two other Mid-Chart bids I might like to use: 2♥ as "Precision 2♦" (2 board segments) (so that I can use 2♦ as Mexican) and 2NT as a weak preempt in either minor (6 board segments). Both of these seem useful, and neither seems all that complex, to me. And they're all part of the current full, two card Romex system - regular Romex when vulnerable (MPs) or at unfavorable or equal vulnerability (IMPs), Romex Forcing Club otherwise. Except for these three conventions, the system is GCC legal, and I'd like to give it a try.

 

Maybe I'm biting off more than I can chew (I certainly wouldn't propose to play this with any of my current partners) but I'd still like to try it out. I'd have to "play up" to do it, though. I am willing to do that, if I can find an interested partner, but so far I've had no luck with that locally.

 

Just for the record, I've played Precision, and enjoyed it, and I've played Romex (without the Mid-Chart stuff or the "two card" bit) and enjoyed that too. Well, except for the part where we got told we couldn't play it because, as it turned out, a former bridge teacher complained that some folks in the club (none of whom had expressed any kind of problem with it) might not be able to handle the Dynamic Notrump. She, of course, wasn't one of them. :rolleyes:

 

There's more esoteric stuff on the mid-chart, of course, but I'm not inclined to go there - not yet, anyway. I'm not worried about facing such things when the opponents play them, though.

 

No way would I play a Mid-Chart convention in a GCC only event.

[Vampyr]

Maybe a good solution would be, in "ordinary", ie not bracketed, events, the top flight could always allow Mid-Chart conventions, and people who didn't want to play against them could put themselves in Flight B.

[CSGibson]

...a little while later, the Mid-Chart was amended to allow "Opening 4NT to show a strong minor suit" in two board or longer segments. In the defense database this is called "Minor Suit Namyats", and the 4NT opening is described as forcing. :blink:

 

My teammates in the GNTs this year, Marc Zwerling & Mark Tolliver, were the people who got that convention & defense approved, it's fun for me to see it referenced here.

[Mbodell]

Maybe a good solution would be, in "ordinary", ie not bracketed, events, the top flight could always allow Mid-Chart conventions, and people who didn't want to play against them could put themselves in Flight B.

 

That is almost what they do, except the priority is not on "this is the highest flight, so it is legal" but instead on "there is a lower flight, so it can be allowed". So in an A/X pairs with a BCD where the B cut off is above the 1500 midchart cut off (I did think there was talk of lifting the 1500 number to 2000 or 2500 soon though, similar to the rising B and C flights), then A/X is allowed to play midchart, generally. But if it is A/B/C where the pairs aren't separated, or if the lower flight is too low (like the lower flight is just for non-life masters) then the higher one isn't high enough to allow the midchart.

[gnasher]

Usually these discussions about ACBL masterpoints leave me wondering whether the whole of North America has lost its marbles, but I'm starting to see why so many of you are concerned about them.

 

If the number of masterpoints you have determines whether you get a good game of bridge or not, that seems a good reason to care about them. Likewise, if giving lots of masterpoints to bad players will lead to pollution of the strong events, that's also a cause for concern.

 

But the problem is that the ACBL is using masterpoints for purposes that are incompatible. If your objectives are to encourage people to play, make them happy, give ordinary players a sense of achievement, and encourage weak players to stay in the appropriate flight, you have to make the awards significant in all flights and brackets of all events. If you do that, it's absurd to also use them for seeding or bracketing.

 

 

Regarding the problem of people wanting to play Midchart conventions in lower brackets, here's a suggestion: in any knockout match, the teams can agree to permit midchart conventions. If they do, the masterpoint award for the match is increased by 10%.

[Zelandakh]

Also, when a large majority of bracket 2 players don't want to play against midchart stuff, then they make stuff like GCC. I don't know why people feel like they are so special that their desire to play midchart is more important than the vast majority of players at their level who do not want to play against it.

In your previous post you mentioned there being (at least) 4 brackets at this competition. Perhaps this is a silly question but if the brackets were arranged such that

 

B1 = Midchart or perhaps even more open (Superchart?)

B2 = Midchart

B3 and B4 = GCC

 

would this not provide everyone with a form of competition where they could be happy? From what you wrote it does appear that B2 is awarding more points than B3 so dividing these by system, or at least willingness to play against less usual things, might be one way of allowing pairs who would be bunnies in B1 to be able to nonetheless play the same (non-GCC) system at most events. Of course this may have been tried and it discovered that not enough players were willing to play in a Midchart B2. In that case, fair enough. But I am not sure it is asking for "special treatment" that one of the 3+ brackets outside of the shark pool cater to players more open-minded to getting experience with alternative methods.

[JLOGIC]

Bracket 2 can play midchart if that bracket has no team that averages less than 1500 points at most regionals. So can Bracket 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 if that is true.

 

Seperating the charts based on how many points teams average seems much more sensible than seperating them by brackets. Some regionals have 20 brackets, some have 2. Blanket rules by bracket thus do not make much sense since not all bracket 2s are created equally. I am playing the Las Vegas regional this week, one bracket 2 team has Mike Kamil on it (of the Fleisher team!), as well as Kevin Dwyer. I am going to guess that bracket 2 here has no <1500 team and allows midchart.

[Zelandakh]

Bracket 2 can play midchart if that bracket has no team that averages less than 1500 points at most regionals. So can Bracket 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 if that is true.

 

Seperating the charts based on how many points teams average seems much more sensible than seperating them by brackets. Some regionals have 20 brackets, some have 2. Blanket rules by bracket thus do not make much sense since not all bracket 2s are created equally.

OK, I agree with this. I do not agree that points are necessarily a good way to make thiese decisions though, any more than they are a particularly good way of seeding. How about a looser "blanket rule" - if there are X or more brackets then at least Brackets 1 and 2 should be Midchart (others could also be Midchart if some criteria is satisfied). Let X be 4, or 5, or 3, or whatever number seems to work in practise. The criteria might be the 1500 MP one (yuck) although I find it incredible that an event where every team except one contained top internationals would need to be GCC just because of the last team. I guess the organisors would not allow that in practise although perhaps there is a better way of doing this than only taking the bottom team into account. Similarly, you might make a blanket rule that the bottom bracket was always GCC unless [some criteria] was satisfied. If you make your criteria good enough then I fail to see how such "blanket rules" can be any less effective than the current blanket rule of "bottom team < 1500".

[mycroft]

Bracket 2 can play midchart if that bracket has no team that averages less than 1500 points at most regionals. So can Bracket 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 if that is true.

And *that's* the problem.

 

This all started because some people, including you, said "I can't remember the last time I played in a GCC event (that wasn't a "beer swiss" or "drunk and crazy speedball")". And many people echoed my sentiments which were "that's nice. Pity it doesn't work for the rank and file."

 

You have enough MPs to push you into "Mid-Chart capable brackets" all by yourself (and Congratulations for that, and the skill that gets you there! This is not a gripe about that). Your teams will *not have to worry about this*. But I just played in bracket 3 (of 7) of a compact KO, and the top 5 teams had more than the magic 6K. The bottom team (wasn't us, but it was close) was 3250, so No Mid-Chart For You. Okay, you can't expect with 6900 that you're guaranteed to be in a Mid-Chart bracket, but if the numbers were slightly different, the brackets would have been 8000-4500 instead of 7000-3500. No Mid-Chart For You, Either. When, if you're not a full-time player, do you get to decide to modify your system so that it is irreparibly Mid-chart (say, by making 2♣ ART INV+, to make 1NT SF work, like we were discussing in the previous thread), without having to worry about "which system are we playing today" at 1305 once the brackets come out? 10000? 15000? How many teams have that?

 

Effectively, with the scheduling and the regulations in place, "full-timers" can play Mid-Chart systems, and anybody else - can't. Not without learning two systems, and sometimes not knowing which one they're using until 5 minutes after game time. But, of course, the people that can't commit to playing them (and therefore don't, even when they are legal, because keeping 2 systems in play is a huge distraction for a partnership) have to play against them when they do play in "open flight A" swiss, or when their 6300 is at the bottom of bracket 2 instead of the top of bracket 3, and don't get practise against it (Oh yes, I am pulling out the "win by unfamiliarity" argument. Here, I think it's appropriate. Yes, I think the pros will win anyway, but that little extra vig? Isn't that Convenient?)

 

And the frustrating thing, from a visual perspective, is that it's the full-timers on the C&C Committee that make these regulations. I'm sure they do their best to meet the best-interest needs of *all* ACBL players; but when was the last time *they* played sober in a GCC event, either? Or, if I'm being more cynical, when was the last time they played in a GCC event that didn't involve having a client they wanted to protect from the Mid-Chart anyway?

 

If there was an open Mid-Chart legal Championship-rated game any time there was a Championship-rated game at Regionals, there wouldn't be this problem. There's be others, of course...

[JLOGIC]

 

This all started because some people, including you, said "I can't remember the last time I played in a GCC event (that wasn't a "beer swiss" or "drunk and crazy speedball")". And many people echoed my sentiments which were "that's nice. Pity it doesn't work for the rank and file."

 

That is fictitious. In fact, I said:

 

If you prefer teams to pairs, you will basically never play in a GCC event in USA unless you are in a low bracket. If you prefer pairs at a regional then you often will I think. The only GCC I can even remember playing is the one session swiss (AKA the beer game, the event you play if you get knocked out in the semis or first round of a knockout and decide to ply at night, without fail the worst field ever).

(bold for emphasis).

 

I was replying directly to Vampyr, who I assumed would not be in a low bracket if she came and played here, since I thought she was a foreign expert who they are liberal about giving points to, who asked a direct question about whether there were GCC alternatives at regionals. What I said seems to be factually correct.

 

And the frustrating thing, from a visual perspective, is that it's the full-timers on the C&C Committee that make these regulations. I'm sure they do their best to meet the best-interest needs of *all* ACBL players; but when was the last time *they* played sober in a GCC event, either? Or, if I'm being more cynical, when was the last time they played in a GCC event that didn't involve having a client they wanted to protect from the Mid-Chart anyway?

 

This is another lol. You act as if everyone in your masterpoint class wants to play midchart. Low level players hate playing against anything special. They seem to hate playing even against strong club which is of course GCC. The people who make the rules are not trying to cater to you, they are trying to cater to the majority of the players.

 

What planet are you from? You really think low masterpoint players want to play against things with which they must be prealerted to, must make a defense or read a defense when it comes up, etc? These people are very important to bridge, pissing them off does not seem like a great idea. Yes, the current system pisses you off, but it's pretty obvious to me that people like you are in a minority.

 

How well attended do you think the midchart low bracket events would be compared to the GCC ones if there were a choice? It would be pretty funny to see the midhcart game not even make. It would be solely for people who desire to play midchart, no one who does not want to play those things would want to play against it, and there are not that many people itching to play midchart.

 

I know it is human behavior, but people need to stop thinking that their desires are more important than the desires of others. No one is going to post on a bridge forum and say "you know, I really don't like playing against weird conventions, I have trouble just counting and it really throws me off and distracts me, and it lessens the enjoyment because I have trouble visualizing the hands. I don't want to read defenses, I want to play bridge. Oh, and I hate playing against people who psyche also." Yet that view would certainly represent the majority opinion in an ACBL tournament of people who avg 1000 points.

 

Why is it so painful for you to not play midchart conventions? Why do you feel entitled to do so when a majority of your opponents would prefer not to?

[awm]

A simple solution that I've seen a few times is to have two flights of KO -- an A/X and a B/C/D. The A/X flight would be mid-chart. If either flight has enough teams they'll be bracketed.

 

In addition to the (relatively unimportant for most people) option to play mid-chart methods, this gives people a chance to "play up" without necessarily requiring them to be in the top bracket. Presumably A/X would consist of those players who want the best possible opponents (or those whose masterpoint totals rate them that way). In most cases this would have little effect on the field except possibly creating one extra bracket (hey more master points!) and giving people with few points a chance to play up.

 

I remember being pretty frustrated when I was an intermediate-advanced player with very few points and wanted a reasonable game, only to find that in the KOs I'd be put in a bracket of basically beginners. The only options were to accept this or request to play in bracket one -- which the directors usually wouldn't allow (and understandably so, I really didn't belong in B1 at the time, but B2 or B3 would've been reasonable and a lot of fun). Needless to say I played a lot of pairs.

[Phil]

In all my partnerships, we can switch on the fly between midchart and GCC.

 

I suppose I'm dying to know which treatments Mycroft and co. really need as part of their overall structure?

[Vampyr]

I was replying directly to Vampyr, who I assumed would not be in a low bracket if she came and played here, since I thought she was a foreign expert who they are liberal about giving points to, who asked a direct question about whether there were GCC alternatives at regionals. What I said seems to be factually correct.

 

I did mean for everyone, though. You are certain that the overwhelming majority of people who don't qualify for higher brackets don't want to play/play against Mid-Chart conventions, but there does not seem to be clear evidence either way. The only evidence I know is on these forums, which again are not representative of the bridge-playing population of the ACBL, but are probably not the only people who feel this way.

 

Don't forget that the Mid-Chart is a bit less liberal than the regulations in most countries (except perhaps for some novice games). So for a person who is somewhat familiar with these other sets of regulations, and some of the interesting conventions/treatments that it is possible to play (and yes, reading the forums has created a group of such people), playing Mid-Chart conventions doesn't seem to be asking a lot.

 

The one GCC rule I find particularly strange is that Drury/Drury fit is permitted by a passed hand, but not by an unpassed hand. This, after all, is largely how this discussion started, and I think that it may be one of the chief things that people who don't get into Mid-Chart events would like to be permitted to play.

[blackshoe]

Is it a matter of need? If you include me in "Mycroft and company", I'd say I don't need to play any Mid-Chart stuff. As I said upthread, I'd like to play Romex/Romex Forcing Club with the three Mid-Chart conventions I mentioned, but I don't need to do that - and I don't currently have any partners who are willing (and able) to give it a try. I'd be willing to play straight Romex (no Mid-Chart) or Precision, and maybe I can form a Precision partnership if I work at it, but most folks around here aren't interested in anything they didn't learn in beginner classes. As for Romex, I've mentioned the attitude of the club owners around here towards that system before. 'Nuf said.

 

One of the club owners, currently running the biggest game in town (about 30 tables usually) runs one "A" section, and two "B/C/D" sections. A while back she stratified the "A" section as "A/X" and more recently "A/X/B", but this was never a flighted or stratiflighted game - except for the fact that the B/C/D players are reluctant to play up, to the point that if she asked some of them to do so to fill a table or whatever, they'd either remain where they are, or go home. Masterpoints in this club range from, I dunno, probably very close to zero up to several thousand (we have at least one Diamond Life Master, and some may be higher ranked than that). The club owner calls the folks in her "B/C/D" sections her "babies", and coddles them thoroughly. She also runs what was originally a 299er game (Invitational, not open) but when a couple of the players there made LM, she "grandfathered" them and they still play in that game. Some of the real 299ers don't like that, but there it is. I don't know if she changed the sanction to open, or what, but I'm pretty sure that if I went to play there she'd say no — and I'm not a LM (I have just short of 351 MPs, accumulated since I joined the ACBL in 1998. I earned 17 1/2 of them last year. As you can see, I'm not a serious player, at least as far as accumulating MPs is concerned).

 

I'm sure some of you experts would tell me not to waste my time with the Mid-Chart or Romex or whatever, and just learn to play 2/1 well. But I play bridge to have fun, and for me part of the fun is trying new things. If my approach means (and I'm sure it does) that I'll never play in the Reisinger, or the BB or whatever, well, so be it.

[mike777]

"I'm sure some of you experts would tell me not to waste my time with the Mid-Chart or Romex or whatever, and just learn to play 2/1 well. But I play bridge to have fun, and for me part of the fun is trying new things."

 

 

 

I think your comments are very helpful.

 

Of course if we learn to play 2/1 well or learn to play the cards much better that is also "trying a new thing".

 

With that said learning/playing new midchart conventions is fun, alot of fun.

 

 

I guess the point is lets not do that in a reg team game and have alot of midchart convention disruption. but again it is fun.

 

--

 

 

fwiw I played in one live reg ko last few years...it was with a pick up pard.....I played roth stone...not sure wht the other three played. We said about ten words the whole tourney most of which were good luck and thank you. We won and left. I guess this was bracket 2 no pros. we beat everyone.

 

 

fwiw it was nice to win but not sure how much fun I had. I missed the social aspect. i have not been back.

[Mbodell]

You have enough MPs to push you into "Mid-Chart capable brackets" all by yourself (and Congratulations for that, and the skill that gets you there! This is not a gripe about that). Your teams will *not have to worry about this*. But I just played in bracket 3 (of 7) of a compact KO, and the top 5 teams had more than the magic 6K. The bottom team (wasn't us, but it was close) was 3250, so No Mid-Chart For You. Okay, you can't expect with 6900 that you're guaranteed to be in a Mid-Chart bracket, but if the numbers were slightly different, the brackets would have been 8000-4500 instead of 7000-3500. No Mid-Chart For You, Either. When, if you're not a full-time player, do you get to decide to modify your system so that it is irreparibly Mid-chart (say, by making 2♣ ART INV+, to make 1NT SF work, like we were discussing in the previous thread), without having to worry about "which system are we playing today" at 1305 once the brackets come out? 10000? 15000? How many teams have that?

 

The midchart for KO with >1500 average does not always apply to bracketed *compact* KO. I've been in bracketed compact KO in ACBL with all teams >1500 average where midchart was not allowed due to the compact nature of the KO.