[tooncestdc]

pigpenz, on Aug 31 2005, 09:30 AM, said:

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.

Actually, this is exactly what happens in an instant matchpoint game. All the N/S pairs in section A get a 0 to 100 score based on how they did in some other field that played these hands somewhere else, and it's possible that the winning N/S could have a 49% game while the worst E/W has a 51% game.

The point is that since rhe "rules of the game" are that you are only competing with the people in your section, I have no problem with the way the games are scored. The result of matchpointing the results with all other section just gives greater credibility to the actual result.

Pigpenz, if we scored the event your way, it really wouldn't make a diffence in what pair won what award. All that would happen is that a team who placed with a 48% game would still place at the ed of the event, but their score would be reported as 55%. Noone would be the wiser that the 75% they earned on board #3 really is only worth a 50%, due to the fact that their section-mates screwed up the bidding as a whole.

The bad part is that the 1st overall "trophy" would have less meaning, since pair A1-N/S and pair B1N/S might have had the same 12 results, but since they were only scored within section, A1-N/S gets a higher percentage score. I know that the 1st overall doesn't get you any more matchpoints, but I like that I also get the knowledge of how I "really" did, as well as whether I earned masterpoints or not.

[Double !]

Jlall, on Aug 31 2005, 01:57 PM, said:

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

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 ?

I agree with this completely. The ACBL, and also BBO, are catering to the majority of their club game market. These people are not serious players, they just want to have some fun and competition and have a chance to earn something for their effort. Most of these people cherish their MP, and probably their symbol on BBO.

Top players are not catered to with this format, nor do most of them care. I am one who thinks "masterpoints are empty bits of paper" but I think that it doesn't matter how many are given out, the more the better. The good players know they're good, the weaker players want and need something to feel good about. And if they do feel good about masterpoints, great! Anything to promote the game and keep people in it. I see all of these complaints from players about masterpoint inflation etc etc. Who cares? It's good for the game.

Forgive me, Justin, but i don't believe that your explanation tells the whole story. Yes, the good players know that they are good, and yes, the weaker players like recognition that they have played well. But, IMO, what the weaker players want even more is to be as good as the good players. This game comes more easily to some people than it does to others. Weaker players usually know that they are weaker, and this is experienced by them when they have to play more than just a couple of boards against strong players because the difference eventually shows up. Masterpoints do offer a measure of achievement or progress toward different goals such as making LM as well as eligibility for some events. But, I suspect that this doesn't constitute the final objective for most people. And, don't underestimate how seriously some people take the game, even if they are not very accomplished at it. You might (or might not) be surprised.

BTW: again. Congrats on Sidney. You deserve more than a ministar, all 6 of you.

[rigour6]

What good are masterpoints?

1. They keep people involved in the ACBL, and playing bridge. Maybe it is deceptive, yes, but having more people playing is a good thing. Having higher turnouts at tourneys is a good thing. Encouraging people to stay with it is a good thing.

2. They perform (imperfectly) as a way to help people a) find a match and B) compare themselves with others of roughly their experience and playing level.

3. They encourage people to continue playing when they would get discouraged and quit, either because they are not having any success when they start or because their abilities are diminishing.

Of course players know and understand the limitations of points. In today's online play world, I could no doubt accumulate a thousand (colourless) masterpoints a year if I really wanted to. I could (and some do) hire pros to play with me at tourneys and get my reds and golds. If I feel that accomplishes something, bully for me.

I know when my partner and I have played well.
I know when the game has been enjoyable.

There's a lot of luck in bridge in terms of who you play which hands against etc.
Masterpoints are a crude tool, but why not? What harm do they do?

When will I know I am a very good player?
A: Probably never because I won't get there, but if I started winning some Regionals, that would be a not bad way to confirm it. Going to the Bermuda Bowl probably would cinch it.

In other words, I don't think really great players pay much attention to masterpoints.
I think some of us mediocre players pay too much attention to them, but most of them regard them as sort of benign markers of time and success, like an odometer.

[pigpenz]

rigour6, on Sep 8 2005, 12:06 PM, said:

In other words, I don't think really great players pay much attention to masterpoints.
I think some of us mediocre players pay too much attention to them, but most of them regard them as sort of benign markers of time and success, like an odometer.

You would have had a hard time convincing Barry Crane of that.