A question

[MrAce]

Let's say you are playing BBO instant tourney. You ended up sharing the first place (or 2nd or 3rd) with someone else by playing exactly the same percentage (or imps). For the sake of argument let's say you shared the first place and that gives you 0.51 master point instead of 0.60 masterpoint had you won it by yourself.

 

But the person who played before you and ended up with exactly the same score gets his 0.60 masterpoint while you get 0.51. Isn't this unfair to be rewarded different masterpoints for exactly the same score in same event? (When he plays before you and gets his score for 1st place he gets his 0.60, at the time he had his score he was not sharing it with anyone)

[1eyedjack]

So what do you suggest?

[MrAce]

So what do you suggest?

 

I suggest to give exactly the same masterpoint that was given to the previous player. Both gets 0.60.

Or I suggest whoever got 0.60 should also drop to 0.51 if someone else plays exactly the same score.

 

In fact, the more I think the more i feel weird about it. Think about this. You played % 65 and saw yourself as 1st and got 0.60 masterpoint. Later Someone else played % 70 and he also got 0.60 from same event. Later someone else plays and he also gets % 70 but gets 0.51 masterpoint, less than the one who played % 65. So the 3rd guy gets more masterpoin than the first one. Or am i missing something?

[nullve]

But the person who played before you and ended up with exactly the same score gets his 0.60 masterpoint while you get 0.51. Isn't this unfair to be rewarded different masterpoints for exactly the same score in same event? (When he plays before you and gets his score for 1st place he gets his 0.60, at the time he had his score he was not sharing it with anyone)

It's unfair if attending early is much less of a skill than attending often.

[MrAce]

It's unfair if attending early is much less of a skill than attending often.

 

I hear you. Attending often brings a lot of masterpoint. There is a solution for this and it is to use the average master point instead of total masterpoint. None of the bridge organisations will do this for obvious reasons.

 

I still think it is weird that someone gets more reward than another one who played the same boards and same event with much bettter score, percentage and rank.

[johnu]

IIRC, BBO takes 14 random players from a previously paid tournament to do the score comparisons. It's possible that the top 3 or 4 finishers are excluded from your comparisons, so you could end up winning the tournament, even though if you played in the original tournament, you would have finished 4th or 5th. I'm guessing that if different players play in the same instant tournament, they may each be comparing scores against a different subset of players.

 

Certainly there is an element of luck. Same type of luck happens in the tournaments big enough to have multiple sections. You may have the 4th or 5th best score overall, but may end up with a first in section because the other top scorers were assigned to a different section.

[1eyedjack]

It sounds complicated.

 

How many masterpoints should you get if you don't rank equally with another historical player but are still up there in the rankings?

 

How many masterpoints should you get if you came (say) third and the other qualifiers around you were flighted in the original event?

[Lovera]

I suggest to give exactly the same masterpoint that was given to the previous player. Both gets 0.60.

Or I suggest whoever got 0.60 should also drop to 0.51 if someone else plays exactly the same score.

 

In fact, the more I think the more i feel weird about it. Think about this. You played % 65 and saw yourself as 1st and got 0.60 masterpoint. Later Someone else played % 70 and he also got 0.60 from same event. Later someone else plays and he also gets % 70 but gets 0.51 masterpoint, less than the one who played % 65. So the 3rd guy gets more masterpoin than the first one. Or am i missing something?

MrAce hello :i think that perhaps you should be right about ("imprecise") final score. On this subject there is another one (that i thought talk about): you play a contract and the planning is ok and defence the same (let's say you realize 4♥+1 for a better score) but another pair gets 4♥+2 because an opp playing "not good" makes theirs gift of a trick for a very good score (type impossible contract) and this one occurs also when is bidded a slam having (=rush ?) a loser more than necessary. Is this way to attribuite points right ? Is actually the lone one that is applyed or can be any type of adjustament possible to rappresent better the pair that had played better refferring at the game of the hand ?(Lovera)

[barmar]

We can't go back and change the original player's score -- it could have been months ago, and the points have already been reported to ACBL.

 

There are two ways to think about ITs. One is that it should be as if you're an additional player in the original tournament -- that seems to be what you're looking for. But you're ignoring the fact that you're only competing against 14 randomly selected players from the original tourney.

 

The other way, and what we do, is to treat it as a new tournament where these 14 imaginary players are playing against you. They don't get any masterpoints for this event, only you do, and your points are based on how you do against them.