Friends of Fred

[Walddk]

2. With this said and done, I like it when the experts make an effort to play with the Beginners. However, I think that this is best achieved through events specifically dedicated to education. New England has a number of Pro-Ams in which experts and novices partner each other. There are a wide number of training /mentoring programs available...

 

Sorry if this comes across as harsh...

Isn't a table in the Main Bridge Club at BBO the perfect place for a practise then? Why would we have to play tourneys if the lesser player gets intimidated and the experts are bored?

 

Roland

[TimG]

In my opinion experts have an obligation to play with lesser players more frequently.

I don't think it's an obligation, but it sure is good for the game.

 

Two different things are being discussed here: playing with lesser players; and playing in lesser fields.

[TimG]

Eliminate stratiflighted events, and just have a beginner

game (199er, etc.) and a stratified open event. That way

the "aspiring players" (me!) can play against the top players

without having to play up in a segregated event where we

would (for now :blink: ) lose for sure.

So, what you want is an open event that is random enough that you have a chance of placing?

[TimG]

Lots of B players don't want to play against the best, and

from the reaction on rgb, a lot of the best players have their

noses in the air and don't want to mingle with the <2000

masterpoints crowd.

I don't think it's a matter of the best players having their nose in the air, but rather a desire from the best players to be able to play in a high quality game. As Richard has pointed out, when the field is weakened, the reliability of the results is lessened. This will also lessen the enjoyment of the best players.

 

Tim (still a member of the <2000 crowd)

[TimG]

New England has a number of Pro-Ams in which experts and novices partner each other.

Most (if not all) of the Pro-Ams in New England are run by EMBA (Eastern Massachusetts Bridge Association) in conjuction with their sectionals (local tournaments).

 

(Just trying to give credit where credit is due.)

 

Tim Goodwin

President, New England Bridge Conference

[pbleighton]

Richard - you didn't read my post carefully:

 

"From my perspective, many expert level players prefer to play in events where the skill levels are fairly uniform. Adding beginners into the field"

 

and

 

"With this said and done, I like it when the experts make an effort to play with the Beginners. However, I think that this is best achieved through events specifically dedicated to education. New England has a number of Pro-Ams in which experts and novices partner each other. There are a wide number of training /mentoring programs available..."

 

I wasn't proposing this - I specifically recommended keeping 199er games. There should be a separate event for beginners. What I am proposing is blending B events (top limit 1500 mps for sectionals, 2000 for regionals) with A events. Low end B players could choose to play in the 199er events, and I imagine many of them would.

 

I don't know why you create a false dichotomy of experts and beginners, when most bridge players are neither.

 

I was specifically responding to yzerman's post regarding the lackof opportunities for the "aspiring and talented intermediate/advanced player". I've been playing for two years, and have become an above average club player, and put myself into that category, rightly or wrongly.

 

"However, don't complain that you can't simulataneous "win" master points."

 

I wasn't - my post didn't reference masterpoints, which are pretty low on my priority list. I do feel, however, that getting a 38 in a segregated A event is just as much a distortion as getting a 60 in a B event. I'd rather play against everyone except the 199ers.

 

In spite of this, I will be entering some segregated A events this year. In my area this is quite unusual - people hate to play up. I think B players would have the opportunity to get better if they had to face the best players in Open events in tournaments.

 

Richard, I find your attitude unfortunate. It seems that, in your own way, you are as cliqueish as senior ACBL members. You would no doubt feel at home on the ACBL Rules committee. I hear Bobby Woolf is retiring. You'd make a splendid replacement.... :P

 

Peter

[TimG]

I wasn't proposing this - I specifically recommended keeping 199er games. There should be a separate event for beginners. What I am proposing is blending B events (top limit 1500 mps for sectionals, 2000 for regionals) with A events. Low end B players could choose to play in the 199er events, and I imagine many of them would.

Most low end (skill wise) B players have lots more than 199 masterpoints.

 

Let's refocus the discussion: What would be the benefit of eliminating flighted events (ignoring the newcomer/199er game)?

[TimG]

I wasn't - my post didn't reference masterpoints, which are pretty low on my priority list. I do feel, however, that getting a 38 in a segregated A event is just as much a distortion as getting a 60 in a B event. I'd rather play against everyone except the 199ers.

Why don't you want to play against the 199ers?

[hrothgar]

Richard - you didn't read my post carefully:

>I wasn't proposing this - I specifically recommended keeping 199er games.

>There should be a separate event for beginners. What I am proposing is

>blending B events (top limit 1500 mps for sectionals, 2000 for regionals) with

>A events. Low end B players could choose to play in the 199er events, and

>I imagine many of them would.

 

Peter, I read and understood your original posting.

I still find the underlying concept problematic.

I find your attitude infuriating

 

Flighted events exist for a reason. Expert players prefer to to be able to self-segregate to reduce the field variance. Please note that the "segregate" is very gentle. Anyone who wants to can play in a Flight A event. Hell, if you want to you can enter the Vanderbilt or the Reisinger... The "only" restriction is that your results will be calculated against the field and awards will be allocated accordingly.

 

>>"However, don't complain that you can't simulataneous "win" master points."

 

>I wasn't - my post didn't reference masterpoints, which are pretty low

>on my priority list. I do feel, however, that getting a 38 in a segregated A

>event is just as much a distortion as getting a 60 in a B event.

 

Sorry, I should have mentioned master points. What I should have said is

 

"Don't bitch the tournament organizers don't appoint you King of Flight B.5"

Is this better? Either way, the critical issue seems to be that you have some pressing need for external validation...

 

>In spite of this, I will be entering some segregated A events this year.

>In my area this is quite unusual - people hate to play up. I think B players

>would have the opportunity to get better if they had to face the best players

>in Open events in tournaments.

 

My perspective is that the B players aren't interested in getting better. They are interested in "winning".

[pbleighton]

TimG writes:

"Why don't you want to play against the 199ers?"

 

I have no problem playing against them, particularly as I am one of them. I believe, however, that there should be a sanctuary for them to play in, if they don't wish to play against stronger players.

 

There is no magic number of masterpoints - I chose 199 because the sectionals use this as the cutoff.

 

From my perspective, when someone has played enough bridge to accumulate 200 (or 300) masterpoints, they shouldn't need (or don't deserve) a sanctuary, and they should play in the Open.

 

Peter

[TimG]

Flighted events exist for a reason. Expert players prefer to to be able to self-segregate to reduce the field variance.

The original intent of flighted events may have been to create a stronger field. (I think the first restricted events were "master" events where you had to have a minimum number of masterpoints to enter. There are still a few of these -- the Life Msster Pairs at the Fall NABC is one.)

 

But, I think flights have evolved to be a tool to protect the non-experts. I suspect strongly that Flight B players are more attached to their events than the Flight A players are to their events. That is, a larger percentage of flight B players would choose not to show up if events were de-flighted.

 

Tim

[TimG]

From my perspective, when someone has played enough bridge to accumulate 200 (or 300) masterpoints, they shouldn't need (or don't deserve) a sanctuary, and they should play in the Open.

I don't think it has anything to do with "need" or "deserve", but rather with what they want. If they want a sanctuary, those who run the tournaments ought to provide one. Expecially if not providing one means these players won't show up. What purpose does it serve to offer events which people don't want to play in?

 

The difference between the typical player with 100 masterpoints and the typical player with 500 masterpoints is not as great as the difference between the typical player with 500 masterpoints and an expert.

 

Tim

[pbleighton]

TimG writes:

"Let's refocus the discussion: What would be the benefit of eliminating flighted events"

 

For all players, many people (including myself) like to play in bigger fields. It's more fun.

 

For the B players, they would improve their bridge by playing against better players.

 

For the A players, I will paraphrase a very good player of my acquaintance, who also favors eliminating flighted events:

"I like Open events because you get to play against and socialize with people other than the same old A crowd, who tend to have little personality."

The A players would, of course, be able to win more masterpoints in a bigger field, assuming they cared

[pbleighton]

Richard writes:

"What I should have said is

 

"Don't bitch the tournament organizers don't appoint you King of Flight B.5"

Is this better? Either way, the critical issue seems to be that you have some pressing need for external validation..."

 

1) In an Open event I would be "King" of precisely nothing. My score, my "external validation" if you will, goes significantly down in an Open event as opposed to a B event.

 

[snipped out : uday@ ]

Peter

[pbleighton]

TimG writes:

"Expecially if not providing one means these players won't show up. What purpose does it serve to offer events which people don't want to play in?"

 

A valid point.

 

Peter

[uday]

We know we'd all prefer to disagree in a polite and friendly fashion.

 

Heat without flames, please

[Winstonm]

:P There is a comparison between golf and bridge. The 2-handicap golfer doesn't normally make a game with an 18-handicap golfer. The reason is they don't play the same game. It is the same with the advanced/expert bridge player. The expert plays with another expert not to increase his chances of winning masterpoints but because they play the same game. That is where the enjoyment of the game for them comes.

 

When I was a beginning player, I saw that if I wanted to play with the better players then I had to impove; it was not their duty to instruct me or help me get better; it was up to me to raise my level of play.

 

Not everyone cares to put that kind of time and energy into the game and that is fine. There should be a place in bridge for the social player. But to make everyone else come down to that level is not the answer. It's like forcing the 2-handicap golfer to play against the 18-handicap golfer. It is not as enjoyable a form of entertainment for the good player when his is required to play against players who are not on the same wavelength. And I am firmly of the opinion that what made bridge such a hotbed in the 60's and 70's was the play of the good-to-expert player. It was only when bridge clubs, tournaments, and the ACBL began catering to the low to mid-level player that attendance began its spiraling fall.

 

There is an entire generation of fantastic bridge players who never go to the tournaments anymore, never set foot in a local club, and don't pay any ACBL dues. It's not bridge they lost interest in- you'll still see them from time to time on BBOnline or OKBridge. But organzied bridge, by limiting events, placing masterpoint restrictions on events, not allowing two life masters to play together, and the like, forced them into a choice - either to play a game that was no longer fun, no longer challenging, and no longer the satisfying intellectual experience that playing with an equal partner against equal opponents achieved or simply not play. We see now what their choice was.

 

So instead of playing with the 18 handicapper, these 2 handicappers simply bid organized bridge adieu. And that is a pity because they were the staples of the game, the ones who showed up time after time, would play 5-7 times a week, go to the tournaments and share rooms.

 

I would like to see two additional changes in ACBL tournaments. Simplify to two flights, Closed and Open. Both are open to anyone, but points are awarded separately. The Closed pairs would be MPs to give everyone a chance. The Open would be Imp pairs, to remove as much luck as possible.

 

Heck, I might even be tempted to play in that. :(

 

WinstonM

[pbleighton]

"I would like to see two additional changes in ACBL tournaments. Simplify to two flights, Closed and Open. Both are open to anyone, but points are awarded separately. The Closed pairs would be MPs to give everyone a chance. The Open would be Imp pairs, to remove as much luck as possible.

 

Heck, I might even be tempted to play in that."

 

So would I.

 

Peter

[hotShot]

Well how long does it take a young new bridge player at his local club to collect 199 masterpoints?

 

a ) if the club averages 5 tables twice a week

b ) if the club averages 20 tables every night

 

For how long do these players have to take "candy of the babies" before they are allowed in real competition?

 

Are there realy such limits in ACBL events?

[TimG]

I would like to see two additional changes in ACBL tournaments.  Simplify to two flights, Closed and Open.  Both are open to anyone, but points are awarded separately.

 

ACBL already offers this: Open events and Senior events. [ducks for cover]

 

The Closed pairs would be MPs to give everyone a chance.  The Open would be Imp pairs, to remove as much luck as possible.

 

I do not believe IMP pairs involves any less luck than MP pairs. In fact, I'll bet that most experts consider IMP pairs to involve more luck than MP pairs. There is a lot of luck involved in any pair event because your score is dependent upon results at tables where you have no influence on the outcome. In a MP event, each board caries the same weight, there are the same number of MP available on each board; in an IMP event the value of each varies, some boards are worth lots of IMPs, some are worth next to nothing. So, not only do you have the randomness (lucky or unlucky) of results at tables you have no control over, those random fluctiation will be worth lots sometimes and little others.

[TimG]

Well how long does it take a young new bridge player at his local club to collect 199 masterpoints?

 

a ) if the club averages 5 tables twice a week

b ) if the club averages 20 tables every night

 

It matters how often the new bridge player plays.

 

or how long do these players have to take "candy of the babies" before they are allowed in real competition?

 

Are there realy such limits in ACBL events?

 

Only a very few. I think there are either 2 or 3 Life Matser Pairs at NABCs in a year. but maybe only one.

 

Bracketed KOs are a different story, very often it is impossible to play up in a bracketed KO.

[hrothgar]

"I would like to see two additional changes in ACBL tournaments. Simplify to two flights, Closed and Open. Both are open to anyone, but points are awarded separately. The Closed pairs would be MPs to give everyone a chance. The Open would be Imp pairs, to remove as much luck as possible.

 

Heck, I might even be tempted to play in that."

 

So would I.

 

Peter

My understanding is that BAM features the lowest amount of luck, followed by Match Points. Many people in the North East of the US argue that BAM formats nearly killed bridge in New York because it elimanted too much "luck from the game.

 

The game and slam bonuses introduced by IMP pairs actually substantially increases the role that luck plays.

[TimG]

My understanding is that BAM features the lowest amount of luck, followed by Match Points. Many people in the North East of the US argue that BAM formats nearly killed bridge in New York because it elimanted too much "luck from the game.

I would expect the luck to be (from lowest to highest):

 

BAM teams

IMP teams

MP pairs

IMP pairs

 

That is teams vs pairs is a bigger luck factor than IMPs vs MP.

 

I don't think BAM almost killed bridge. But, when Swiss teams came on to the sceen, they quickly replaced BAM. I expect that BAM events in the 60's were just as popular, maybe more so since more people were playing, as today's Swisses.

 

Tim

[Winstonm]

I have to agree that imp pairs certainly has a luck factor, one which could (and should in my opinion) be addressed in that overtricks are too richly rewarded. For example, if the par contract is four hearts making four and one pair gets off to an uninspired lead or goes to sleep for a minute, that extra 30 or 60 points is magnified way too much in imps conversions.

 

For imp pairs, what does everyone feel about getting back closer to the meaning of total point type imps, that is the emphasis is on making or beating contracts, game bidding and slam bidding - over and undertricks are the province of matchpoints in my opinion - and bring the scoring into line with a minimum differential before any imps are won? Luck can never be factored out of bridge and it is one of the attractions of the game; however, when you are playing imp pairs and the contract is 4H and you can count 10 tricks for the opponents, should it really matter if they score 450? If you slip two tricks you perhaps deserve to lose a few imps, so perhaps the starting point should be a 60 differential.

 

If this small concession were accepted, it should also speed up the game to some degree, especially on hands were it is cold for 5, 6 but an esoteric squeeze may bring in the overtrick. I'm not saying don't play it out, for finding and executing such a squeeze is part of the fun, but should it really be rewarded in imps as well as satisfaction?

 

WinstonM

[TimG]

If this small concession were accepted, it should also speed up the game to some degree, especially on hands were it is cold for 5, 6 but an esoteric squeeze may bring in the overtrick. I'm not saying don't play it out, for finding and executing such a squeeze is part of the fun, but should it really be rewarded in imps as well as satisfaction?

An IMP is an IMP. Some matches are lost by single IMPs.

 

About a year ago, I was on a KO team that won a match by a single IMP. My partner and I missed a vulnerable slam that I knew would be bid at the other table. So, I played a little loose and was able to take all 13 tricks (yes, our bidding was pretty bad). They played safe at the other table and took 12 tricks. The 3rd overtrick held the loss on the board to 12 instead of 13.

 

This may be just the sort of thing you are talking about: why should the 13th trick in either contract have any significance in the outcome of the match? I did know what I was doing when I tried for 13 tricks.

 

Tim