[mike777]

To all face to face bridge players.

What is your opinion of online ACBL tourneys, imp pairs or MP?

[awm]

I think the ACBL online tournaments are somewhat ridiculous. Basically, the outcome is extremely random and encourages "swingy" behavior, and the masterpoint award for this is way too high when compared to a F2F bridge game. Of course, this is a minor issue with masterpoints relative to the issues created by team games vs. pair games in F2F events. But in any case:

(1) IMP pairs is more random than MPs over the same number of boards, because the boards are not weighted equally.

(2) Shorter pair games are more random than longer pair games.

(3) Events with weak or mixed fields are more random than events with strong fields.

(4) Events where you compete against pairs who didn't play against the same opponents are more random than events where you compete only against pairs who played against the same people.

The online tourneys are on the random side of all of these, especially the IMP ones. But the masterpoint award for a 12-board very random pair game is equal to (or in many cases actually more than) the point award for playing 24-28 boards in a club. And honestly the online field isn't stronger (both fields are pretty bad by most measures, but the pairs in clubs are at least usually regular partners).

Playing in these events regularly earns a reasonably good player more masterpoints per dollar than anywhere else it's possible to play, and earns substantially more masterpoints per hour than playing at a local club. I don't really see how it's in ACBL's best interest to promote this sort of thing by offering the point awards they offer. But then, ACBL's masterpoint policy is far from logical in any number of ways.

[hrothgar]

Adam summarized my position quite well...

I don't play in many fee based online tournaments. The main exception is HomeBase, because I approve of what the owners are trying to do. (Even there, I don't play much because I often find it difficult to find a game at a convenient time)

In order for me to start playing in "serious" tournaments, I'd want to see the following:

1. Balanced movements
2. Long events to discourage swinging
3. Hidden scores until the end of the event (once again, to discourage swinging)
4. A reporting system ala Homebase
5. Qualified directors

[pbleighton]

I agree with Adam's points, but I still like the games.

The fact that they are a further development in the devaluation
of masterpoints, well, I don't think the ACBL has any integrity
left to lose in that regard.

I like 12 board tournaments. They fit my schedule.
If faced with a choice of 24 board tournaments, or
12 board tournaments with half (or less) the current
level of masterpoint awards, I'd greatly prefer the 12
boarders.

The main reasons I like the tournaments is that:
1) They are so much more convenient than ftf, especially
for someone with my schedule, and
2) While the fields aren't strong, they are a lot better than
random MBC opponents.

If I cared more about the integrity of masterpoint awards,
I might share Adam's conclusion.

But I don't.

Peter

[keylime]

I'd like the MP allotments reduced markedly.

I agree with Adam's post - I even wrote about the cost versus MP situation in the May 2006 Bulletin.

[mike777]

Why? I thought they already are reduced....comparing 60 table online tourney to 60 table club game?

No one mentioned this but I am finding many players from overseas playing online acbl tourneys. They seem to be decent players very often.

[keylime]

Mike,

15 table club game and BBO game done in one section:

1.50 live versus 1.20 (80 percent of club award).

[pclayton]

My biggest gripe is the tourneys take forever.

The level of play varies greatly, and the results are a little random. 85% should never be required to win any MP game, but we've all seen it. The extreme variability in the level of players has a lot to do with this.

Solution? Dunno. Maybe its a by-product of having only 12 boards. Maybe have flighted events.

[keylime]

Flighted events, now there's a great idea.

[mike777]

pclayton, on Nov 13 2006, 08:22 PM, said:

My biggest gripe is the tourneys take forever.

The level of play varies greatly, and the results are a little random. 85% should never be required to win any MP game, but we've all seen it. The extreme variability in the level of players has a lot to do with this. 

Solution? Dunno. Maybe its a by-product of having only 12 boards. Maybe have flighted events.

1)More extreme than your local club games?

2) It seems the online games are much bigger much more often than I remember at local clubs but that was years ago?

3) Flighted events are going to be a huge problem with so many overseas players that are decent but have no masterpoints?

[pclayton]

mike777, on Nov 13 2006, 05:54 PM, said:

pclayton, on Nov 13 2006, 08:22 PM, said:

My biggest gripe is the tourneys take forever.

The level of play varies greatly, and the results are a little random. 85% should never be required to win any MP game, but we've all seen it. The extreme variability in the level of players has a lot to do with this. 

Solution? Dunno. Maybe its a by-product of having only 12 boards. Maybe have flighted events.

1)More extreme then your local club games?

2) It seems the online games are much bigger much more often than I remember at local clubs but that was years ago?

3) Flighted events are going to be a huge problem with so many overseas players that are decent but have no masterpoints?

WAY more extreme than my local games. There the level varies from bad to worse.

OK, just kidding.

The play in our local games varies from several former world champions to a few intermediates, but at least they know how to follow suit, unlike some of the characters in the ACBL game that appear to have learned the game this morning.

Of course online games are larger than F2F. You have an excellent grasp of the obvious.

The overseas players should be able to ask a sponsoring entity for a waiver if they have an equivalent ranking in their home country.

[mike777]

Well if the online games are often bigger, often much bigger then it seems the point awards are not out of line. There is a cap after all.

Ok I guess most if not all of you are saying the typical acbl online tourney is much worse than your local club game.

[keylime]

Mike,

It is significantly worse than live bridge in many areas. If interested, message me privately about it.

[awm]

Well masterpoint awards don't directly depend on quality of the field. But they do normally depend on the number of boards played. It seems strange that playing half the boards should be worth 80% of the masterpoints doesn't it?

You're not being compared against players in other "sections" so basically it's a 15-table game (the same goes at "normal" club games, they don't matchpoint or imp across the field).

As for the quality of play, it is markedly worse than at the local club.

[pbleighton]

"Ok I guess most if not all of you are saying the typical acbl online tourney is much worse than your local club game"

Depends on which game - it is better than intermediate games.

Compared to the local Saturday game - mostly LM, about 1/3 1,000 MPs plus, 10-12 tables: if you added 2-3 VERY BAD pairs to both sides, you would have the online game.

A lot better than random MBC opps, for which I am grateful.

Peter

[Vilgan]

Its better than the MBC, but still much more random than any of our club games. Not really sure if it can be fixed though. On the flipside.. I don't have a problem with online MP's. You don't have to pay for the club, the director, utilities, etc etc so the costs are going to be a lot lower. If people really care about lots of MP's and are willing to play online all the time to do it... cool. It still won't hold a candle to those who play f2f tournaments and do well.

[kenberg]

1. I play in acbl online games about 3 or 4 times a week so I can't hate them too much.

2. Awarding masterpoints makes for a good sized game. Somehow the acbl has convinced a large number of people that masterpoints have a meaning. This marketing coup could be an area of research for Ph. D. theses.

3. The level of play is uneven, but there are folks who often score well and, by and large, I think they play decently. I play f2f in the Washington DC area where (as elsewhere of course, I am not trying to be chauvanistic) the games can be substantially stronger, but the online games are OK.

4. The main weakness in online games is that players are very often pick-ups. Example: On I think hte third round my opponents were just getting around to deciding to play SAYC. The auction began 1m-2N. Oops. Responder meant it as invit, Sayc says, and opener interpreted it as, 13-15 and bid 6N. An undeserved top for us. This is frequent. I also give gifts of the same sort. Of course there is also some really weak play. Sometimes by me.

5. All in all, I could imagine better but it's nice to drop down to the basement, fire up, and play.

[keylime]

Ken,

I do agree that the club games around NOVA is a little better than the ACBL, but the bids and plays at times are even stranger than online!

[pclayton]

kenberg, on Nov 14 2006, 12:25 PM, said:

.....

5. All in all, I could imagine better but it's nice to drop down to the basement, fire up, and play.

That would explain some of the plays I've seen in the ACBL tournaments too.