[sfi]

Say someone at a regional has the bright idea of running a regionally rated goulash tournament, or one where everyone is guaranteed exactly the same number of points for the session (better not have skips!). Do we draw the line at this?

How about a national championship? Do we draw the line here? If not, maybe it will become the most popular event due to its existence at the local level, and now the game has changed significantly.

I dislike arguments that use the concept of a slippery slope, but if you don't like the end point you either need to identify a natural barrier to change or introduce one. The ACBL has chosen this one.

In Australia we do have some masterpoint provision for supervised sessions. But they are very limited and the hands are expected to be random. And membership is growing, so it's not the lack of masterpoints for novelty events that are the barrier.

[Kaitlyn S]

nige1, on 2016-November-29, 17:11, said:

IMO, most local regulations are nonsense but rating systems are highly successful in hooking up new players. It's tempting to ignore rules that you don't like but there is a danger that you condone a cheat's charter Better to comply with the rules and campaign for change .

I am not advocating that anybody try to cheat the system. I would think it's totally fine to build up ten sections of those novices using those rules, play them non-sanctioned, and never introduce them to the ACBL or the ACBL to them. Heck, she could start her own league with her own masterpoints and if her idea is any good, it would catch like wildfire and would rob the ACBL of it's influx of new players. If it grew enough, she could print her own equivalent of the Play Bridge magazine using old material of famous authors with their permission. (I'm not suggesting that she do this but she has a much better business sense than I do so I can't rule it out; I think this is a fairly drastic solution and probably a better solution exists.) She could try to run under the auspices of the ABA. I don't know much about that organization but they might be more amenable to her idea.

My point is simply this: if the ACBL is currently giving points in games where the students can get help from the teacher while playing, why not accept and proliferate an idea that has been successful at getting new players into a duplicate bridge game. Of course, I would not say it should be allowed anywhere but some low-point game. Bridge Plus+ stops at 5 masterpoints. Once the player gets those, he will never be able to get help while bidding in another sanctioned game again.

I am campaigning for change. I posted this to see what others think of that change. Right now most of you are arguing that my change could be harmful to the league because it would cheapen the masterpoint. I might agree with those posters if the ACBL hadn't already done other things to cheapen masterpoints.

Do not get me wrong. The ACBL can do whatever it wants to do. I am not saying it is wrong for the ACBL to stand firm on this and say it is an illegal way to run a game. I'm just saying that I think it is unwise for the ACBL to ignore someone who has an idea who is bringing new players in and filling seats at a duplicate game with them - and I also think it's unwise for the ACBL to alienate someone by simply telling her to "Just play the games unsanctioned, and send them to us when they're ready to play real bridge." For what might happen is that the "send them to us" part never happens. For if there are people that are playing duplicate bridge, and the ACBL has no access to those people, then IMO the ACBL is doing something wrong.

I can see one legitimate argument against this idea. Let's say that the ACBL says "OK you can do this but you must limit these games to 20MP." Two bad things can happen - the people that really love these games are not going to join because they never want to get 20 MP, or that people are going to be complaining that they now have 20 points that they can no longer play in the game that they want to. (Of course they can play as ineligible as long as the others in the game don't complain.) If this happens, the ACBL might cave in and raise the limit. (Of course, if they keep inflating masterpoints, they should raise the limit, but that's another issue.) This certainly happened with Flight B - people complained that they weren't good enough to play in Flight A but had too many points to play in Flight B so they raised the limit. Then they did it again. And again. And again. Soon, I'll be able to play in Flight B again for the first time in 30 years. So the same thing could happen to this limit, and if someone objects to the idea of limited masterpoint games being allowed to seed lesson deals for this reason, then I can't disagree with you.

[jogs]

johnu, on 2016-November-29, 14:50, said:

LOL, when was the last time ACBL masterpoints had integrity? Who does the ACBL think they are fooling?

What's right. The goal of the ACBL is to make money by selling masterpoints.
Swiss teams started losing popularity in the nineties. Too few winners. Too expensive for most teams to buy masterpoints.
Then they invented bracketed imp teams. Attendance soared. More teams. More winners. More masterpoints awarded.

[ggwhiz]

nige1, on 2016-November-29, 17:11, said:

It's tempting to ignore rules that you don't like

What makes you think there was a rule rather than a knee jerk reaction from the ACBL? Quite a few special games that come with an analysis booklet have no or very little difference imo.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2016-November-29, 10:45, said:

An "18-board game" with 24 boards, for instance, run as 6 rounds of 3, with the "training board" first and ignored in the scoring.

Yes, it creates two winners and two events, only one of which scores masterpoints; but it might be allowable. Yes, it means all the students know which board is the "training board", but that I think is better than "oh, so we're scrapping 1, 6, 14, 17, 22, and 28 tonight" at the end of the night.

It creates four winners if played as a Mitchell with no arrow-switch.

But anyway if the students really want masterpoints, they might decide not to spend their time and energy on boards that won't help them earn some. So perhaps they need an incentive, for instance giving prizes only for performance on the cooked boards.

[Kaitlyn S]

I have looked for further feedback in BridgeWinners. It is my first post there and as I am quite new to the site, I've determined that:

(a) My only choices were the Intermediate Forum and three forums that didn't apply (feedback, webmaster, partnership desk) - apparently there is no place to discuss general things with anybody except "intermediates".

(b) For any other newbies there: it's easy to get lost; I assumed that what I was posting was what they called an "article" but a further search showed I should have posted it in a "forum" (which I also did, I commented as such and hope the article will be deleted.)

© You probably can't see my post; it said only I can see it until I'm verified and I'm not sure what that means. I've had the account there for a few days but I apparently still need to be verified.

[blackshoe]

sfi, on 2016-November-29, 17:26, said:

In Australia we do have some masterpoint provision for supervised sessions. But they are very limited and the hands are expected to be random. And membership is growing, so it's not the lack of masterpoints for novelty events that are the barrier.

Is the culture so different? Or is the ABF doing something right that the ACBL is doing wrong?

[ggwhiz]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-29, 20:39, said:

I have looked for further feedback in BridgeWinners. It is my first post there and as I am quite new to the site, I've determined that:

(a) My only choices were the Intermediate Forum and three forums that didn't apply (feedback, webmaster, partnership desk) - apparently there is no place to discuss general things with anybody except "intermediates".

The people that make the rules and/or have a weighty opinion are in the general section and are very interested in club type concerns. It takes a while for them to vet your login to see if you voted for Trump

[sfi]

blackshoe, on 2016-November-29, 22:09, said:

Is the culture so different? Or is the ABF doing something right that the ACBL is doing wrong?

The culture is similar in many ways, so I don't have any good answers. Thoughts include:

• The ABF management is less isolated from the club scene than the ACBL appears to be. I know most of the councillors and executive play at clubs regularly, and some of them are involved in managing clubs. This may help in identifying where the organisation can help in attracting and retaining members.
  
• There is a real focus on capturing the newly retired or people about to retire. Although everyone keeps talking about other markets, this is the most successful audience.
  
• We have a national marketing officer who appears to be making strides. Similarly a national focus on improving teachers seems to be valuable, although it has drawn a lot on Audrey Grant's experience and lessons learned.
  
• I don't think bridge in Australia ever had the spectacular success it did in the US. It may simply be a reversion to the norm.
  
• Tournaments (sectionals, regionals and nationals in your terminology) are seen to be better run than in the ACBL. While there is variation in both places, I think this is a supportable statement both in relation to the administration and the directors. However, the flip side is that the ACBL regionals and nationals are more complex models and I think we have things to learn from them. In particular, a couple of major tournaments here have greatly increased their number of restricted tables in the past few years, and this is down to lessons learned from the US rather than more players.
  
• Some people will mention system restrictions, computer-dealt hands, or hand records at all events. I strongly agree with the Australian position on all of these, but don't think they really affect numbers. If someone is interested in the game they'll play regardless.
  
• Behaviour at the table is fairly similar (comparing the major events - I haven't played in a US club in decades), so that doesn't seem to be a point of difference.
  
• There is not the same level of professionalism in the game. Although we do have a number of full-time pros, the amount of money at stake is much less. Not sure how that would affect anything, but it is a real point of difference.

The level of increase is small. I don't remember the numbers, but we have somewhere around 30,000 members and are growing at something like 2% per year. I believe the average age is stabilising in the low 60's, which I understand is different from the ACBL.

[MrAce]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-29, 20:39, said:

© You probably can't see my post; it said only I can see it until I'm verified and I'm not sure what that means. I've had the account there for a few days but I apparently still need to be verified.

BW allows only members with their real names. They do not accept nick names etc. So when you register there they have their ways to confirm that you are someone who is using her real name and not pretending like someone else.
So that Timo or someone else can't go there and use your name and create an account. I like this feature of BW. It makes people more respectful and leveled when they are not hiding behind a nickname.
Regarding your subject, you can create an article and that is perfectly fine. There are many people who works for ACBL there including an account named "ACBL Official" You can post anything related to Bridge there.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on 2016-November-29, 14:04, said:

I have even less reason to trust your random friend

What kind of ****** attitude is that? For all we know, her random friend voted Jill Stein. Not that it has any baring on anyone's accountability on bridge matters, of course.

[sfi]

helene_t, on 2016-November-30, 04:07, said:

What kind of ****** attitude is that? For all we know, her random friend voted Jill Stein. Not that it has any baring on anyone's accountability on bridge matters, of course.

I'm not sure either of hrothgar's comments need to be seen in a political light. I certainly didn't read either one that way, even knowing the history that may have led you to that conclusion.

[hrothgar]

sfi, on 2016-November-30, 04:41, said:

I'm not sure either of hrothgar's comments need to be seen in a political light. I certainly didn't read either one that way, even knowing the history that may have led you to that conclusion.

I assume that Helene meant this as a joke...

<n any case, the basis for my comment was

1. I have seen the work that Kaitlyn is doing with the her posts for new players here
2. I consider this a good thing and well considered. It isn't sufficient that I think that the ACBL should allow her to bollox the deals for masterpoint games, but I do count this in her favor
3. I have no direct experience regarding her friend

[blackshoe]

sfi, on 2016-November-29, 22:41, said:

The culture is similar in many ways, so I don't have any good answers. Thoughts include:
…

Thanks.