[xcurt]

jdonn, on Dec 12 2008, 11:42 AM, said:

stacy, on Dec 12 2008, 08:54 AM, said:

barmar, on Dec 12 2008, 02:51 AM, said:

What are you expecting, a two-section game containing just national and world champions? 

Actually, yes. I'd love to watch an event like that.

Sounds a lot like the Cavendish, except not quite as exclusive.

Or as expensive.

[jdonn]

xcurt, on Dec 12 2008, 11:57 AM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 12 2008, 11:42 AM, said:

stacy, on Dec 12 2008, 08:54 AM, said:

barmar, on Dec 12 2008, 02:51 AM, said:

What are you expecting, a two-section game containing just national and world champions? 

Actually, yes. I'd love to watch an event like that.

Sounds a lot like the Cavendish, except not quite as exclusive.

Or as expensive.

Right, I meant for purposes of watching though.

[xcurt]

stacy, on Dec 12 2008, 08:54 AM, said:

barmar, on Dec 12 2008, 02:51 AM, said:

What are you expecting, a two-section game containing just national and world champions? 

Actually, yes. I'd love to watch an event like that.

I *would* stop what I was doing to watch the vugraph of the last day of an event like that (and I usually can't watch more than a few hands on vugraph). There's just so much more action at matchpoints than IMPs because every misstep can have a huge cost.

Also, the LM pairs in the old days (ie before I was born) had an all-play-all final. If you began with 100 or so pairs, you could get down to 52 (4x13 so play all the pairs sitting the other way and qualify only against players sitting your way) on day 2. Then you could get down to 28 for day 3 and run a complete Howell. This would be an extremely fair event since the only seeding decision that would matter is which pairs sit EW and which sit NS on day 2 -- you would want to balance the strength of the two separate fields. It would be nice if the ACBL BoD even specified that in the CoC -- just like the Reisinger where the fields were always set to 20 and 10 teams for the second and third day (now it seems to be 28 and 14) regardless of the number of entries.

[mycroft]

I wouldn't mind a PRPairs...but I don't think that's the idea.

I don't mind 50PP/3 years - frankly, if you get 50PP in one event, you should be there. If you can make it through day 2 of the Vanderbilt/Spingold, you've earned those 12 PP (not so much the 6 for the first day, depending on entries). If you make it to day two of a PP-eligible event twice a year, every year, you're not bad.

200PP lifetime? Okay, so I can't remember the last winner of the Spingold/Vanderbilt/Reisinger I'd not want in there. But I don't think that those three/six days should in and of itself be a lifetime auto-entry. I'm pretty certain I could come up with someone who has won a Big-Name National Event (say 140+PP - 6+sessions, effectively) who basically has his or her free pass, who would elicit a "who?" from most of the free passers (haven't tried, don't have anyone actually in mind, but I bet I'm right). I don't think that's right.

For an event that's supposed to be more prestigious than the LM/BR Pairs, 200 lifetime is Nothing. Yeah, they probably all belong there, and 80 of them were probably on last year's list, too, but at least 100 players got more than 250 PP *this year*.

50 in three years? Well, there will be a number of non-Names, but they'll have put up results. And the "42-eligible"* players who feed the ACBL with their entry fees (but are still a fair bit better than I will ever be, or can hire much better pros, or both)? We can afford to let a few of those in, too, really.

* "What do you get when you multiply six by nine?" If you don't get this one, I'm not giving it to you :-)

[barmar]

stacy, on Dec 12 2008, 08:54 AM, said:

barmar, on Dec 12 2008, 02:51 AM, said:

What are you expecting, a two-section game containing just national and world champions? 

Actually, yes. I'd love to watch an event like that.

That's what invitational tournaments are supposed to be.

The Platinum Pairs is just a somewhat more exclusive version of the LM Pairs and the Blue Ribbon Pairs. Not so exclusive that it's only recognized names, but few flight B players will be eligible.

[xcurt]

barmar, on Dec 14 2008, 11:37 PM, said:

stacy, on Dec 12 2008, 08:54 AM, said:

barmar, on Dec 12 2008, 02:51 AM, said:

What are you expecting, a two-section game containing just national and world champions? 

Actually, yes. I'd love to watch an event like that.

That's what invitational tournaments are supposed to be.

The Platinum Pairs is just a somewhat more exclusive version of the LM Pairs and the Blue Ribbon Pairs. Not so exclusive that it's only recognized names, but few flight B players will be eligible.

There's a big difference between an invitational and an open event no matter how tough the qualification standards -- in an open event, anyone who plays well enough to qualify can then play the main event, where if they play well enough, they might win.

I suppose it's possible for me to play well enough to scratch in an event like the PPP, I've done it in stretches but never long enough actually win a NABC. On the other hand, there is no danger even if I started playing tournament bridge again tomorrow, even if I somehow played well enough to win a few NABCs, that I would be invited to any of the major invitational events -- they are so small and the goal of the organizers is to create the most interest in their event -- in the case of the Cavendish this probably translates to "maximize the auction pool" -- that you really need to be a well-known full-time player to get a shot at getting invited. The organizers of these events aren't trying to run a major championship like the LMs, BRPs, or World Open Pairs. And I have enough other interesting things to do that I have no interest in playing bridge full time.

So my whole point of raising the issue of qualification by placings is that the ACBL can't devalue the standard over time, to the point where the PPP is another BRP/LMP event -- and then we wouldn't have an opening on the NABC calendar for a fourth six-session pair game. And judging by my accumulation of PPs just from session awards, racking up 50 PPP in three years is going to include a fair amount of the folks who regularly do damage in regional events and can play three NABCs per year, so in a few years time, another LMP/BRP is exactly what we will have.

Then again, creating another attendance incentive is probably exactly what the ACBL wants -- and, after the table shortfall in Boston -- and needs.

Curt

[mycroft]

Just a note - there are 500 people on the "player of the decade (PP since 2000)" list available from the ACBL; the 500th has 441. 458 of them have 500+. I don't think PPs existed much before 2000, so for thought experiment purposes, if we up the lifetime limit to 500, there are *already* almost 125 tables worth. My guess, based on statistics, is that there are at least half again (probably an equal number) that have 200+.

That's not the 19 000 LMs, but it is possibly 1000 players, 200 tables given those that don't go to all events that are in, forever, before the first event starts. How many of them would not play in that event even if they were there, I don't know, but let's look at 130 tables of autoentries as a guideline.

The Blue Ribbons had 141 tables in Boston, just for comparison.

[han]

Quote

The Blue Ribbons had 141 tables in Boston, just for comparison.

Out of how many eligible players?

[TimG]

han, on Dec 15 2008, 03:05 PM, said:

Quote

The Blue Ribbons had 141 tables in Boston, just for comparison.

Out of how many eligible players?

That's not quite the right question to ask. I think "out of how many eligible players in attendance?" would be better, or "out of how many eligible players who regularly attend NABCs?"

[mycroft]

Oh, I'm sure there are a lot more BR eligible players, but I disagree that that is a useful question (for one thing, there's 100 tables in the BR 0-5000, and possibly a 1500limit one as well).

However, only 100 players are eligible lifetime. Think of this. There are at least 5 times as many lifetime-eligible PP players as there are lifetime-eligible BR players. And we haven't even had a Platinum Pairs yet.

Yeah, I would be happy with top 100 PP holders autoeligible. Ignoring any PPs won before 2000, that would be 1864.94, according to this page.

Yes, yes, I know that the relevance is almost nil, as anybody in the top 100 MP holding has enough BRQs to play the rest of their lives already; whereas there may come a time when #82 (to pull a number out of a hat) has lost his edge or his ability to travel, and hasn't put up the 50PP in the last three years.

Add to Tim's question - "how many eligible that want to play with the Big Boys?" - after all, that's why we've created the 0-5K events for all the big events in the last few years. Very popular, they are. I don't have enough vacation time or money to not play as up as I can, so they are, in a way, popular with me, too, as they make my games harder yet.

[benlessard]

They should keep a record of Matchpoint/total MP possible. It would be like a rating and could be used for selection of strong pair events.

[han]

Quote

Yeah, I would be happy with top 100 PP holders autoeligible.

It would get dangerously close to an elite attendance criterium, only top players that go to a lot of nationals over a long period will be able to compete for the top 100 places.

In the end I think the chosen criteria are about as good as anything. Double them and it is also seems fine.

[mycroft]

No, Han, not just the top 100 PP holders; but putting the "no matter what you've done in the last [time], you have enough accumulated results you can play" barrier that high.

I've said, and repeat, that the alternate criterion of 50PP/ last three years seems about right. But the auto-eligible-for-life list is already ~1000 players - as I said, and we haven't even had a game yet.

Please note, it still is elite attendance, if you can't go to all three NABCs + your country's championship every year, you probably aren't going to pick up enough unless you're very good. OTOH, that's not that *bad* a criterion for this game.