[awm]

They tried an LM game. It didn't take off. I think the problem is that most people don't schedule their day around the ACBL tourneys on BBO. The typical approach is something like:

(1) I'll play on BBO whenever I feel like it/have free time. This is sort of random.
(2) If I'm playing on BBO and there's an ACBL tournament about to start, then I'll play in it.
(3) If I have the choice of ACBL tourneys starting at around the same time, I'd rather play in a particular flight.

Because of these priorities, the people who participate in the flighted game will be exactly those who were going to participate in the regular game anyway, and prefer the particular flight. So the attendance won't be all that good. I suspect that most people's priorities tend to look somewhat like the ones above. In order to get a well-attended game for a particular flight, you need people in that flight to make a special effort to be online when the game starts. I don't think this is all that likely.

[pclayton]

How long has it been? Did they try the LM game when before the ACBL games took hold?

[kenberg]

awm, on Nov 16 2006, 02:58 PM, said:

Do you seriously think that there are people who would be willing to pay $1 to play in an ACBL tournament, but decide not to because the field is too strong? I very much doubt this is the case, especially given the strength of field here on BBO.

I suspect the stratification is more due to complaints by players who participate anyway that they're not getting the masterpoints they want/deserve. I doubt it will have much impact on attendance or strength of field.

Yes, I seriously do believe this. I think the acbl seriously believes this. I don't spend a lot of time knocking the acbl but I think that a lot of their decisions are based on how to get more people to fork over a buck. Realistically, this may be necessary. But it has effects, not all of them good.

I fully realize that it's easy to be idealistic when I don't have to balance the books. I still would like to see then think at least some about attracting better players rather than more players. I don't expect Rodwell, Zia, whoever to think it would be great fun to play bridge with me for an afternoon. The acbl game could become considerably stronger without having to bring in such notables however.

I have run across some quite good players in the pairs game, and even occasionally in the indys. No names, or I'll have to defend their honor when someone says they aren't any good. I would like them to bring their friends.

I like to think I am realistic about my place in the bridge world and that I am not a snob. But I do like a good game. That's all I am saying.

Ken

[Vilgan]

flighted would rule IF they let people play up. Not enough people at some games, but others could probably support separate flights. It would, however, take a bit more from the software to automatically build the sections instead of just randomly making them at the game start time.

Stratified is kinda bleh. Good for those hunting for MP's, but tends to bring in more weak pairs (imo) and it'd get even more random than it already is imo. Stratified is a good business choice probably, but 1 or 2 flighted games would rule.

[mike777]

If you accept that there are 25 million worldwide people who play bridge, can we accept that all but a few thousand(hundreds?) and your buddies are not going to be that good.

I hope with all the demand for flighted online ACBL posted here the game is given a try. It would be nice if the ACBL or people who run the online club respond.

[keylime]

What are the strats, for curiosity's sake.

[kenberg]

The news bulletin said (I think) that the strats would shift. I suppose that means they will have some sort of software that will take the group that signs up and divide them into three or four subgroups for the purpose of awards. The playing assignments are, as now, to be random.

I suppose we can, if interested, look at data to see what the effects are. If over the next six weeks or so the numbers substantially pick up in the acbl tournaments we can figure this is a. coincidence, b. due to a lot of strong players thrilled at the opportunity to play in stratified events, or c. due to a substantial influx of weaker players. I think the acbl is betting on c. So am I.

We will see how this goes, but organizing friends to play in set games is starting to look very attractive. Sort of like the beginning, where we got together at someone's house, tossed the kids in a room and told them to shut up and play, and cracked a deck.

[Al_U_Card]

Another important aspect is that the ACBL never puts the "barometer" on. Those other tourneys where the cream rises to the top are a lot more fun. Your last several rounds are against good opps. In the acbl when there are 80 pairs and you play 3 in a row that are "random" it can be pretty sad.

[jillybean]

kenberg, on Nov 17 2006, 06:53 AM, said:

We will see how this goes, but organizing friends to play in set games is starting to look very attractive. Sort of like the beginning, where we got together at someone's house, tossed the kids in a room and told them to shut up and play, and cracked a deck.

I have given up on free pairs tournaments, Im trying to give up indys and I would love to get some teams, table games organized with other forum members - best times for me are random times during the day or after 9pm(pst).

[jocdelevat]

Are the life masters players wearing a life jacket too? I thought so after reading this post that a whole army of BBO intermediates is ready to kill the ACBL online games. By the way I played in ACBL online tournaments and every time I tried to play in the pair one I couldn’t find an intermediate partner most was advanced or higher.

[inquiry]

ACBL online imp games are a crapshoot...but then so are all online imp games. Huge scores go this way and that. If you don't grab one or two of them (most often because of opponents mistakes), you have no chance to win.

ACLB online MP games still rewards good bidding and matchpoint strategy. Now the occassional -1700 at anohter table on a hand where your side has 9 easy tricks in NT, it is just one mp lost rather than a bushel full of potential imps. And if you eek out your overtrick in 3NT versus everyone else making 3NT on the nose, you get all the MP but that one. I can live with that.

The problem is most people seem to prefer IMPS. The strategy is easier, and since IMPS randomizes to some degree the results, weaker players have a greater chance to win at imps than mp.

[kenberg]

inquiry, on Nov 17 2006, 12:51 PM, said:

ACBL online imp games are a crapshoot...but then so are all online imp games. Huge scores go this way and that. If you don't grab one or two of them (most often because of opponents mistakes), you have no chance to win.

ACLB online MP games still rewards good bidding and matchpoint strategy. Now the occassional -1700 at anohter table on a hand where your side has 9 easy tricks in NT, it is just one mp lost rather than a bushel full of potential imps. And if you eek out your overtrick in 3NT versus everyone else making 3NT on the nose, you get all the MP but that one. I can live with that.

The problem is most people seem to prefer IMPS. The strategy is easier, and since IMPS randomizes to some degree the results, weaker players have a greater chance to win at imps than mp.

Perhaps, but I am not convinced. I play in both mp and in imp acbl games. Let's say that for each game I receive a score of x percentile. ie x percent of the players finished at or above my score, 100-x percent finished below. I have never checked it, but I believe my sample standard deviation is considerably higher in the mp game than it is in the imp game. This would seem to be some sort of indication of which form of scoring is the greater crapshoot. Or it may just be that some styles are more suitable for imps, some for mps. Of course you should vary your style to suit the scoring, and we all try to, but most of us probably have a preferred style. Recently I got 40% or so on a board because I just couldn't bring myself to risk my contract for the overtrick. Some other declarers were handed the overtrick on a platter.

Also, we forget. The other day I played in 7S making, after which partner apologized for not placing it in 7NT which also makes. I pointed out that the scoring was imps.


Anyway, imp or mp, flighted would be nice. As others have suggested, if you let people play up but not down, it would probably draw plenty of people. The idea is not to ban anyone who wants to enter an open game but rather to give him options that probably several players would happily choose.

[inquiry]

Well, ken, what I am talking about here is how the intermediate and below players do. It is my belief that a bad player has a better chance to win in an imp game than in a matchpoint game.

Let me try to explain it another way. In matchpoints, all 12 hands count the same. Say you are the worlds worst player, but you play 4 boards against people who self-destruct. IF those four boards were four vul game/slam swings, that 48 imps plus might be enough to allow the worlds worse player to win, if the other bids are part-score battles or easy games for everyone. If they lose 20 imps on the other 8 boards, they still are in the running with +28 imps, which on a good day might win.

However, four tops (100%) and 8 random where he plays in the bottom half of the field (lets argue averaging 30%), his final score will be 53%. I am not sure if this example gets across what I am trying to say, but the that is the principle. Usually, a few boards will decide the winner of an imp event, while consistant play is needed for matchpoints (yes, even in a weak field). So while the games are both random in many ways, for tournaments, the limited number of hands that have to go in your favor for you to win (or lose) makes all the difference. It is hard to win a short imp tournament if the opponents bid two makable slams against you, while at mp that is not the end.

[keylime]

Vote me in for team games Beaner - Larry and I would love to do that.

I agree with Ken; the set games are looking real appealing right now.

[kenberg]

inquiry, on Nov 17 2006, 02:57 PM, said:

Say you are the worlds worst player, but you play 4 boards against people who self-destruct.

Yes, that has been said at times

[pbleighton]

"The problem is most people seem to prefer IMPS."

Is this really so?

IMPs is the default for table setup. If it was MPs, I bet we'd see mostly MP tables.

Peter