[jdonn]

TimG, on May 31 2008, 12:56 PM, said:

Vilgan, on May 31 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

TimG, on May 31 2008, 08:49 AM, said:

The ACBL addition of a platinum point requirement repeats past errors by adding an attendance requirement to the equation.  Just like silver, red and gold points, average players will accumulate modest amounts of platinum points if they play in events that offer platinum points.

I disagree. Remove the platinum match award from the open swiss, and winning platinum shows actual success at a real level instead of just getting the attendance handouts at regional KO/pair events.

You'd have to eliminate platinum point section awards in pair events, too. I've got a few platinum points and have never sniffed at an overall award in a open national event. As they are currently awarded, they can be accumulated through attendance.

"Accumulated" is an overbid. I think it would take you 30 or 40 years of tiny bits and pieces from national pairs and swisses, if you are of less than expert level, to get as much as winning one major national event.

[Vilgan]

TimG, on May 31 2008, 12:56 PM, said:

You'd have to eliminate platinum point section awards in pair events, too. I've got a few platinum points and have never sniffed at an overall award in a open national event. As they are currently awarded, they can be accumulated through attendance.

So you had actual success at a national event, and earned some platinum. This seems okay to me. If you had to get 5 platinum for the "Expert Bronze Life Master" as described a few posts ago, would you feel motivated to keep entering national events? I think so. It would provide something to shoot for and be motivated to acquire.

Acquiring the 150 platinum for "Expert Diamond Life Master" as described, would NOT be easy. Could it be done by nickel and diming section scratches? Absolutely. However, it is still something that is commendable and it is a goal to work for that is HARD but MUCH MORE attainable than a national title. If someone told me they were an Expert Diamond Life Master, that would be impressive to me. Not as impressive as Grand Life Master, but a hell of a lot more impressive than accumulating 10000 masterpoints with no other requirements.

The Japanese system of seeding sounds like a nice improvement. Would be awesome to see their seeding along with the expert ranks described previously added to the system. Would it take more effort to implement and track? Absolutely. However, the added retention and attendance at tournaments would be worth the extra effort imo.

[Vilgan]

officeglen, on May 31 2008, 06:38 AM, said:

Subsequent to this the ACBL reported back to the Board of Directors that, even though this was approved, it would be too hard to implement, so it was dropped. I was not happy.

Do you happen to remember what was too hard about it? The logistics of implementing for the future seem trivial. It seems like parsing old tournament results to implement this retroactively is a bit harder, but also fairly trivial. I realize the ACBL has a lack of programmers who know wtf they are doing (Windows based ACBLScore anyone?) but this is stuff that any programmer straight out of college with basic database experience ought to be able to handle.

There is a bit of difficulty if the ACBL wanted to include the new ranks in things like the Mini Mckenney, In and Out reports, etc. But that does not seem necessary. If implemented as a stand alone "achievement" type setup that players get cards/recognition for but don't blend into the other existing aspects of the ACBL, this seems like an easy change to make.

[awm]

I don't think "unrestricted regional wins" are actually recorded anywhere as things stand. At some point I noticed people advertising how many "regional wins" they had and wanted to look myself up for comparison (no I do not keep track) and there was no real way to do it. So perhaps this particular qualification would be hard to set up retroactively. And there is also the fact that people actually use their ribbon quals, so presumably people have "earned" a few more than they currently "have" (and I'm not sure the ACBL records anything but the current number available). But the ACBL web page records platinum points (and they don't decline over time) so I don't really see what the issue would be about using them for title requirements.

[Vilgan]

awm, on May 31 2008, 02:32 PM, said:

I don't think "unrestricted regional wins" are actually recorded anywhere as things stand. At some point I noticed people advertising how many "regional wins" they had and wanted to look myself up for comparison (no I do not keep track) and there was no real way to do it. So perhaps this particular qualification would be hard to set up retroactively. And there is also the fact that people actually use their ribbon quals, so presumably people have "earned" a few more than they currently "have" (and I'm not sure the ACBL records anything but the current number available). But the ACBL web page records platinum points (and they don't decline over time) so I don't really see what the issue would be about using them for title requirements.

Aren't score files from regionals kept in Memphis? I know we have all our club games going back ages, sort of figured the ACBL would do the same with the regional files.

If so, writing a program to parse all of those files and add "regional wins" to each person as appropriate would not be hard. If the game files of old regionals are not stored, it would be pretty much impossible.

[TimG]

Vilgan, on May 31 2008, 01:38 PM, said:

TimG, on May 31 2008, 12:56 PM, said:

You'd have to eliminate platinum point section awards in pair events, too.  I've got a few platinum points and have never sniffed at an overall award in a open national event.  As they are currently awarded, they can be accumulated through attendance.

So you had actual success at a national event, and earned some platinum. This seems okay to me. If you had to get 5 platinum for the "Expert Bronze Life Master" as described a few posts ago, would you feel motivated to keep entering national events? I think so. It would provide something to shoot for and be motivated to acquire.

No, I did not have "actual success". I have a few section awards in nationally rated open pair events. An average player will happen into those if they play in enough events.

If I had to get 5 platinum points for "Expert Bronze Life Master" I would already have fulfilled the requirement. Personally, platinum points and any associated rank change would not add any extra motivation to enter national events. I recognize that I am an atypical ACBL member in this regard.

As far as Blue Ribbon Qualifications go, I have more of those than platinum points. I cannot remember all the events in which I earned a Blue Ribbon Q. If Blue Ribbon Qs were significant, the Qs would be memorable to someone like me who has fewer than 2000 masterpoints.

[NickRW]

Vilgan, on May 31 2008, 07:43 PM, said:

...If so, writing a program to parse all of those files and add "regional wins" to each person as appropriate would not be hard....

As you say, the technicalities of the sort of things you're talking about are - well - not necessarily trivial, but certainly easily in the realm of the doable. The two main problems are usually more to do with 1) getting agreement on the implementation details and, even more to the point, 2) is there truly the will to start in the first place.

[matmat]

<thread hijack>
sort of, anyway...

does anyone think that different forms of scoring should have separate types of award?

[mike777]

Again exactly what problem are you trying to solve? I just do not see any urgent ratings problems that need to be solved.

People do not go to f2f bridge because of time, money or work, or family issues. They may not go to a tourney if it is in a cold place. I think the number who quit f2f bridge because of ratings are a tiny tiny number.

We have Platinum and seeding points for top class and for all the rest of us we just try and win and have fun.

I friend of mine just went over LM. He is thrilled. He played on an all player under 1000MP KO team that beat an all players over 5000 mp team. He is thrilled.........and I was very happy for him, I know he put in alot of time and effort to do this.

No new rating system is going to make him happier We play for the fun and enjoyment.

[xcurt]

Jlall, on May 31 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

Just wanted to add that I think platinum points are a much better measure of skill than blue ribbon Qs, and they're way harder to get.

For some reference, I have about 85 blue ribbon Qs and about 1150 platinum points, and I consider myself someone with reasonable success at nationals.

To me this just means that blue ribbon Qs are very diluted now as well, but platinum points are still tough to get and should be used in some of the higher ranking levels.

But I mean really I agree with the 2 system format, one that is like chess rankings (that takes strength of field etc) or batting average for masterpoints or whatever, and one that is just regular masterpoints. Even the WBF has a 2 system format where one is like career points and one is points that decay over time. I like that as well, but the ACBL would need to add in a strength of field component too (which the WBF doesn't really need since their events are all world level).

My take on why the 2-system format isn't happening is very simple. There is a sizeable majority among the the powers that be that do not want a system without an attendance component.

As others have pointed out, as regionals trend increasingly toward KOs having a decent rating system is more important. An alternative would be the league mandating that there be, say, a play-in Swiss on Tuesday where the top 3 placings entitle that same team or any majority of their players to demand a spot in the top bracket of any later KO at the regional.

When I was still playing f2f (I stopped for family and job reasons, hoping to play my local DC 2009 summer NABC) I was fairly burnt over this whole thing but I was a pretty extreme example of someone badly rated by mps.

Curt

[Vilgan]

mike777, on May 31 2008, 03:38 PM, said:

People do not go to f2f bridge because of time, money or work, or family issues. They may not go to a tourney if it is in a cold place. I think the number who quit f2f bridge because of ratings are a tiny tiny number.

I can think of 7 local players who quit shortly after hitting LM or scaled back their play significantly. Lots of people are goal oriented, and without a goal to work towards they are less inclined to put in time/money/effort. Admittedly, the "point" is to have fun and enjoy ourselves. However, from a participation and revenue aspect, losing players is never a good thing imo.

Friend of mine is a fairly standard example: She retired from her engineering/management position a few years ago at 53. She started looking for things to do and got into party bridge. Then she found duplicate, and for ~2 years she played a LOT as she accumulated her gold/silver/black and total points to hit 300 points. Along the way she also won the district NAP B's (aka not a clueless LoL). Since hitting LM she has reduced her play considerably to about 1 time per week (with many weeks where she plays 0 times) and 0 out of town tournaments. She still enjoys the game, but her energy is now focused on improving her golf game and getting into the 90 stroke area.

The main issue is that she (and lots of others) are goal oriented. She put lots of energy into bridge while there were goals looming. Once she hit the LM goal, the next goal was unattainable (National event win) so she moved on to other interests.

Anyways, long/verbose response. But I did feel that stating that only a tiny few people quit due to the system is not an accurate statement.

[blackshoe]

If your assessment is correct, Vilgan, and I think it probably is, then the solution to keeping more people playing is more desirable/attainable goals between LM and winning a National event. Apparently the Bronze LM, etc. goals aren't good enough.

It strikes me as kind of like the "National Defense Service Medal" aka the "gedunk" medal ("gedunk" is Navy slang for junk food) aka one of many "BTDT" (Been there done that) medals the military hands out. Not really an award worth striving for, not really an accomplishment to be proud of.

"I went to a North American National Championship Tournament, and all I got for it was this lousy Life Master pin!"

[matmat]

blackshoe, on Jun 1 2008, 10:57 AM, said:

Not really an award worth striving for, not really an accomplishment to be proud of.

this is true, but what fraction of the population actually plays bridge? the point of getting a LM for these people is to impress the others at dinner parties and other fancy events.

"oh, my wife is a bridge life master."

or whatever...

[Gerben42]

Quote

Does the Netherlands count women's events in the MP system? The two should definitely be seperate.

Yes, but they get less MP than open events, for example if the open team wins in Pau that'll count for more MP than if the women's team wins there. Neither scenario is outrageous

[barmar]

mike777, on May 31 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

Again exactly what problem are you trying to solve? I just do not see any urgent ratings problems that need to be solved.

People do not go to f2f bridge because of time, money or work, or family issues. They may not go to a tourney if it is in a cold place. I think the number who quit f2f bridge because of ratings are a tiny tiny number.

I don't think anyone has claimed that the masterpoint system is driving people away from the game. I just think it would be more enjoyable if our ranking system reflected actual ability.

Masterpoints are used for quite a few things:

1) Bracketing KOs.
2) Flighting and stratifying players.
3) Pairing up partners and teammates at the partnership desk.

In the first two cases, it forces players to play up when they're not qualified, which can be frustrating. It can also allow players to play down -- expert rubber bridge players who don't play much duplicate will have few masterpoints.

In the third case, being paired up with a partner who can barely follow suit is not much fun if you were expecting someone of reasonable expertise.

[FrancesHinden]

Jlall, on Jun 1 2008, 10:18 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Jun 1 2008, 01:17 PM, said:

Quote

Does the Netherlands count women's events in the MP system? The two should definitely be seperate.

Yes, but they get less MP than open events, for example if the open team wins in Pau that'll count for more MP than if the women's team wins there. Neither scenario is outrageous

I would consider it outrageous (as I do in ACBL as well). Women's events shouldnt get platinum points, or whatever category that open events also get.

What about junior events?

[h2osmom]

Mixed events?