BBO Discussion Forums: NABC Online Should Be Stratified! - BBO Discussion Forums

It seems inconsistent with other ACBL Tournaments that the results for this NABC Online Tournament are not stratified. With 2,500+ people entered, it is silly to think that novice or even new Life Master players could possibly place in such a situation.

Since sectional, regional, and most of the NABC competitions are sometimes bracketed, and then stratified by a member's MP's, I just assumed the online NABC would be also. I read the FAQ's ahead of time and tried to educate myself about this new venture, but I guess I missed the vital information that there was no way I ever stood a chance and I completely wasted my $40. Every level player should have a chance to place relative to players with similar MP's.

WHY ARE THE RESULTS FOR THE ONLINE NABC NOT STRATIFIED?

odiek, on 2017-July-25, 12:57, said:

Yes, it's completely inconceivable that non-LM's might be able to earn a good score the old fashioned way. Let's keep lowering the bar! Points for everyone!

"NABC events" are not generally stratified (although some are flighted). The Red Ribbon pairs might be a good example. There are stratified regional events played at the NABCs, but they are not considered "NABC events" in the same way. So it is consistent not to stratify... although I think weird that they are qualifying all the pairs for the next day's play.

What's very weird is that there is only 1 section for 2500 players. Generally there are 16-17 table sections with 2 or 3 sections combined for scoring and ~40% of the players can at least get section awards. Only 67 out of 2500 players get single session awards, or ~2-1/2 % compared to 40% for a live tournament, even in events like the Platinum pairs or Blue Ribbon pairs.

I have heard that the ACBL is running low on ink for their masterpoint printing machine and that's why there are so few awards

odiek, on 2017-July-25, 12:57, said:

You weren't the only one to waste your $40 or $50 (and there were ~150 that paid and didn't even start the tournament). I assume that future events will either be stratified or flighted because if I was a 40% or 50%+ player, I wouldn't bother playing in this format event in the future with essentially zero chance of winning anything. Less than real expert players are much better off playing in the $1 ACBL robot games where games are flighted and you have a good chance of placing.

Send an email to your ACBL district director or to the ACBL president to voice your issue.

awm, on 2017-July-25, 14:03, said:

Technically this is not an NABC event it is a regional event even though it looks like an NABC event.
I personally think it should be stratified to attract as many people as possible. If stratified I wouldn't be surprised if similar event got 10,000 entries.
This was billed as a championship so reasonable to not stratify.
I don't see why they cant stratify in future and have an C, B, A and Open champion.

I completed my fourth day and don't expect to see any points. I played close to my ability, but it wasn't good enough for this field. I play a lot of bridge with robots and normally have issues with them. I can't blame them for my results. I consider the strength of my game my declarer play and yet it kept me from placing higher. Best session was 63% and a 4 day average of 52.5%. I haven't played live bridge for quite a few years and all I know is the same people that played years ago are still playing now. I played well enough to pick up some points playing in a regional. This field was much tougher. 63% didn't get squat. I'm glad I played and am not terribly disappointed. It was a more valid benchmark of my ability than the live bridge I played.

If the event is repeated, I might sign up as it is structured today. I would be more likely if it was stratified. I am a flight B player that needs a few gold points to make lm.

This was the first experiment. When it was being designed, no one had any idea how popular it would be. I thought there might be 500 entries, Rain was closer to the mark.

When ACBL saw how many people entered, they decided to change how many overall awards were given. Their original plan was just the top 48, then they changed to the top 167 (anyone who got at least 1 point), and yesterday they changed it to the top 35% of the field.

If and when we do another event like this, the comments and lessons learned this time will be taken into account.

I suppose I won a moral victory under the latest rules. Top 33% and .25 points.

Keep it simple. It's useful experience to play against experts on equal terms. Many prefer it.

With the success of this event, ACBL should have more of these events; stratified and non stratified.

I haven't played in a Regional event in a long time. I tried this year, but ran into some issues. The first one was health related and the other was finding a partner. I need a few gold points to make LM and that's all I am interested in. My attempt at finding a partner was unsuccessful and I am not optimistic about it in the future. I tried the unit's website for partnership and the partnership desk at the Sacramento regional. To find a partner I would need to find someone at the club games and I am not willing to spend the time. The next alternative is to just show up at the on site partnership desk and take my chances. Expecting to win gold points with a pick up partner is difficult. At least with the robot partner, a person has some idea of what to expect and I can't blame my partner for misplayed hands. The current online format makes cheating difficult (other than being coached through the tournament or having someone play for you). Ethics and pride should help with this. I am looking forward to more of these tournaments.

lcsmw, on 2017-July-29, 10:26, said:

The easiest way to get gold points is to play in Gold Rush events where there is a limit of 750 masterpoints. You just need a decent partner since none of the other pairs are very good.

johnu, on 2017-July-29, 11:11, said:

My wife was my bridge partner for over 30 years. She can't travel. I played in one or two Gold Rush events and didn't like them. Playing in flighted events, we had some idea what was happening at the table. If I continued playing, I would have my points.

lcsmw, on 2017-July-29, 11:49, said:

Maybe the ACBL will have Gold Rush robot games. It couldn't hurt for you to write to the ACBL and ask.

Did this online event award gold points? How many more times will the ACBL raise the required points to become a life master,introduce another colour points... it seemingly never ends.

Vampyr, on 2017-July-30, 05:17, said:

It paid 1/3 gold and 2/3 red to the first-place players each day and the players who got overall points for all 4 days.

Masterpoint inflation is a well-known phenomenon.

lcsmw, on 2017-July-29, 10:26, said:

If you haven't yet, try using the partnership desk off your "myacbl" profile. You can look for a partner for a given tournament a month or more in advance, and let them know that you want to spend some time on BBO working out system and styles. https://web3.acbl.org/myacbl

Vampyr, on 2017-July-30, 05:17, said:

I joined ACBL in the early 60's and I don't know what color points were awarded other than black. I rejoined in 1978 when I started playing again with my wife as a partner. I believe I was grandfathered in with the requirements when I rejoined. I thought silver points were added to encourage sectional play. I don't know if I would be a LM if I kept my original membership. I played in national and regional events under my old number. I didn't particularly care about being a LM. It is a cumulative rating, unlike chess and other ranked activities. I decided to add becoming LM to my bucket list.

johnu, on 2017-July-29, 11:11, said:

Is there a lower limit?

lcsmw, on 2017-August-01, 13:39, said:

I think pigmented points were created in the 70's. First red and gold to encourage regional participation, later silver for sectionals, and a few years ago they added platinum for NABC+ events.