[pigpenz]

I was wondering why in the ACBL games that are scored over several sections they dont just give an one overall award each direction or if they want to persist on awards by the sections they just dont score the results per section.

The way it is now I have seen sections where there are only 2 Plus scores in imps and the others in that section direction are minus, and maybe in another sections everyone is plus but 2 pairs. It seems like you should reward good bridge not the luck of being in a hopeless section where you can be the average minus of the worst.

[Double !]

FWIW: the acbl started to "give away master points" about 35 years ago when they implemented swiss team events.

[uday]

"They" is "we"

The reason I do this is to increase the total MP awards issued per tourney.

[scoob]

i played at a local club for the first time a few weeks back. there were about 15 or so tables, and my pickup partner and i came in dead last (i really shouldn't play 2/1, but that's a diff. story) and we were still awarded 1.xx masterpoints, being that we finished 3rd in the C bracket.

[Al_U_Card]

Psychology refers to the Pavlovian principle of reaction to reward. People play in "events" to "score" a reward (masterpoints). Repeated failure to achieve a reward results in a change of behavior (no longer attending events).

The consultants indicated to the ACBL that they would have to find a way to reward more participants if they wished to retain and increase membership (dues). Swiss events and others could only reward "good" performance but why not induce the participants with a meaningless reward since it hurts no one.

Good players judge others by their play, knowledge, deportment and demeanor; not by their Masterpoint total (unless initially only).

Perhaps Life Mastery , were it only confered on those who had won an open regional event would reduce the number and increase the status of Life Masters. But then again, only the rank and file would care and they might not take it well.....

[pigpenz]

uday, on Aug 30 2005, 12:56 AM, said:

"They" is "we"

The reason I do this is to increase the total MP awards issued per tourney.

then why dont WE just compare results per section and give the awards per section like a normal tournament.

The way it is set up now it like a door prize,oh maybe I am in a crappy section and can still come in.

Gee Mabel, if they had a flight Z we would have gotten points.

[awm]

I'm not convinced that the ACBL masterpoint plan is any good -- it seems weird that things are often set up to "award the maximum number of points" -- surely if this was the goal we could just award a few thousand to anyone who played in anything and have done with it. And it really doesn't make sense to me that swiss teams (and KO teams) award twice the masterpoints of a pairs game of equal length and size of field.

On the other hand, the section awards do make some sense. The reasoning is:

(1) You're competing in a big tournament, and so the goal is to win overall. The major awards should be for placing in the entire field (or the entire field your direction at least).

(2) However, the event has not been very carefully seeded. It's quite possible that I happened to sit in a section where the pairs in the opposite direction were particularly strong (if things are matchpointed across the field) or where the pairs in my direction were particularly strong (if matchpointed separately by sections). In these cases my score will tend to be rather low even if I play well. For example, if we have world class N/S pairs in my section and I have the highest E/W score in the section, but I score in the low 50s because the other section has beginner N/S pairs and their E/Ws almost invariably rack up better scores than I can, it seems I should still be given some reward. So basically section awards are compensation for a failure to do accurate seeding. I should note that in multi-day national events (which are seeded and have stronger fields in general), ACBL typically does not award masterpoints by section.

[Al_U_Card]

awm, on Aug 30 2005, 12:14 PM, said:

I'm not convinced that the ACBL masterpoint plan is any good -- And it really doesn't make sense to me that swiss teams (and KO teams) award twice the masterpoints of a pairs game of equal length and size of field.

I think that it serves the intended purpose, good or otherwise.....and as far as KO's are concerned, you win 2 matches of 4 and already 75% of the field has been eliminated (thus you are in the top 25% which at any ACBL contest at any level puts you into the masterpoints) so the calculation makes sense as so many recent life masters can attest to.

[Al_U_Card]

awm, on Aug 30 2005, 12:14 PM, said:

ACBL typically does not award masterpoints by section.

Seems to me I've had section awards in multi session events before......

[pigpenz]

awm, on Aug 30 2005, 12:14 PM, said:

So basically section awards are compensation for a failure to do accurate seeding. I should note that in multi-day national events (which are seeded and have stronger fields in general), ACBL typically does not award masterpoints by section.

the problem awm is that the way the presently do it is to randomize where people are in the sections but the scoring is still done across the field. So theoretically you could have one section where all the scores are below average.

The only solution that i see is fair is forget scoring across the field and just do it by the section or just have one large section.

[uday]

1. The ACBL games we run here are "club games", not multi-session nationals

2. The only games we're permitted to run with an ACBL sanction are these "club games". We're a club, like any one of the 5,000+ ACBL-sanctioned clubs.

3. If you feel you want to see more serious online play, contact the ACBL -- www.acbl.org

4. Everyone has stuff they think is important, while other couldnt care less.

5. If you feel masterpoints are empty bits of paper, please contact the ACBL. Why not allow those who want them, or don't notice them, to keep breathing ?

[Double !]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 30 2005, 09:32 AM, said:

Psychology refers to the Pavlovian principle of reaction to reward. People play in "events" to "score" a reward (masterpoints). Repeated failure to achieve a reward results in a change of behavior (no longer attending events).

Sorry to correct you, but response to a reward is operant conditioning: B.F. Skinner. Classical conditioning (Ivan Pavlov) involves learning temporal relationships between two events (a stimulus and, usually, a physiological response) and associating the two successive events, and having the same physiological reaction even should the second event not follow the first. Sort of like developing an anxiety response when you are a relatively new player and one of the opps screams for the director because, in the past, they learned that they would be punished because they had comitted an infraction.

[Al_U_Card]

Double !, on Aug 30 2005, 02:42 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Aug 30 2005, 09:32 AM, said:

Psychology refers to the Pavlovian principle of reaction to reward.  People play in "events" to "score" a reward (masterpoints).  Repeated failure to achieve a reward results in a change of behavior (no longer attending events).

Sorry to correct you, but response to a reward is operant conditioning: B.F. Skinner. Classical conditioning (Ivan Pavlov) involves learning temporal relationships between two events (a stimulus and, usually, a physiological response) and associating the two successive events, and having the same physiological reaction even should the second event not follow the first. Sort of like developing an anxiety response when you are a relatively new player and one of the opps screams for the director because, in the past, they learned that they would be punished because they had comitted an infraction.

My apologies to B.F., I stand corrected. This is why, when I play against relative newcomers to duplicate, I preface my director calls with, "Pardon me, but I am going to make a director call, as I believe that there has been an irregularity." This helps protect them from the subsequent anxiety attack.

[awm]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 30 2005, 01:54 PM, said:

awm, on Aug 30 2005, 12:14 PM, said:

I'm not convinced that the ACBL masterpoint plan is any good -- And it really doesn't make sense to me that swiss teams (and KO teams) award twice the masterpoints of a pairs game of equal length and size of field.

I think that it serves the intended purpose, good or otherwise.....and as far as KO's are concerned, you win 2 matches of 4 and already 75% of the field has been eliminated (thus you are in the top 25% which at any ACBL contest at any level puts you into the masterpoints) so the calculation makes sense as so many recent life masters can attest to.

Honestly, I think this was an error. My understanding of the calculation is that the award for first, second, and so forth is based upon the number of tables rather than the number of competing entities. This means that in an X table pairs game, the awards for first, second, third and so forth are the same as in an X table team game. But in the team game, four people receive the first place award, four receive the second place award, and so on. This means that the total award (sum of masterpoints to all players) is approximately doubled. For more on this, see:

http://www.masterpointinfo.com/

Most likely this was simply an oversight, but one which cannot be reversed without either massive masterpoint inflation (doubling the award for pairs games) or a massive cutback in the awards for teams. Either of those is likely to lead to complaints from ACBL membership.

As to the section awards in top-flight multi-day pair events, what's typically done is to offer point awards each session to the top finishers sitting a particular direction (i.e. top EW, top NS). If the results were not matchpointed across the entire field (typically on the first day of the event they will matchpoint across 2-4 section groupings separately) then you have "section tops" for the best scores in your grouping.

[pigpenz]

uday, on Aug 30 2005, 02:27 PM, said:

3. If you feel you want to see more serious online play, contact the ACBL -- www.acbl.org



5. If you feel masterpoints are empty bits of paper, please contact the ACBL. Why not allow those who want them, or don't notice them, to keep breathing ?

Uday go back and read the very first post, I think you are missing the point completely and being well I wont say.

in regards to #3:
what is going to be more serious than what is being done here?

In regards to #5:
maybe some feel that they are empty bits of paper but mostly they quit playing in ACBL game already.

In regards to the original post:
Please go back and read again! What I was saying is that why do the games do whole field comparisons for matchpoints and imps but then randomly make up the sections for east/west and north/south on determining the awards. Why not just have 3 sections if that is what the game calls for and have the 3 sections compare only results in only their sections?


Now finally, I think BBO does have a vested interest as they must take in some of the money that the pairs are charged for playing in these games. As ACBL is taking home some of the pie and so are the directors I am sure BBO does too.

[candybar]

Whether it's Operant or Pavlovian conditioning that the ACBL bought into, the net effect has become to reward mediocre play. This means that excellent play has no reward to distinguish it from mediocre, and ultimately that no one has any incentive to excel.

Very sad.

[uday]

BBO engages directors to run the acbl-franchised club games on BBO. We pay the ACBL the standard franchise fees, we pay the TDs, and whatever is left over, we stuff in our matresses

The acbl games are entertainment, not a trial to see who will represent the US in Estoril

[pigpenz]

uday, on Aug 30 2005, 08:38 PM, said:

The acbl games are entertainment, not a trial to see who will represent the US in Estoril

and again Uday you are still missing the point!
Why not just reward the players for playing good instead of having the booby prize of being in a poor section and getting masterpoints for being below par.

IF this is the case then there isnt really any reason to pay to play in these games.

[awm]

pigpenz, on Aug 30 2005, 09:01 PM, said:

uday, on Aug 30 2005, 08:38 PM, said:

The acbl games are entertainment, not a trial to see who will represent the US in Estoril

and again Uday you are still missing the point!
Why not just reward the players for playing good instead of having the booby prize of being in a poor section and getting masterpoints for being below par.

IF this is the case then there isnt really any reason to pay to play in these games.

I think you are the one missing the point, pigpenz. The point is this:

ACBL games on BBO are run this way because this is the way ACBL runs pairs events. Uday is probably not in a position of power to change this.

Now, I have any number of issues with the way ACBL awards masterpoints, but the section awards is NOT among the problems! Think for a moment -- suppose I had a 51% game and this was somehow, amazingly, first in my section. This means ALL the pairs sitting my direction and playing the same opponents I played are doing badly. Similarly, ALL the pairs sitting in the other direction in the same section are doing well! Now, it could be that my direction is particularly weak, but it could also be that the OTHER direction (the opponents I played at my table) are particularly strong. In general, how fair is it to compare my scores to the scores of someone who played against totally different opponents anyway? Since the field is not seeded, we will get inequities in either direction. But at least some reward is deserved for doing the best among people who played the same boards, in the same direction, against the same opponents. This is the fairest comparison of all.

[pigpenz]

awm, on Aug 30 2005, 10:03 PM, said:

ACBL games on BBO are run this way because this is the way ACBL runs pairs events. Uday is probably not in a position of power to change this.

The ACBL does not run pair games that way, come on!
When they matchpoint across one or more sections, lets say 2 13table sections for a top of 25 the results are for a combined two sections.

If they dont score across more than one section they just score each section individually and the reslults are based for the different sections.

I have never seen an event where they matchpoint across the whole event then have section awards baed on individual sections....when they score across the field the sections are combined into one big N/S and One big E/W section.