[kenrexford]

The ACBL in March approved a change that I think makes some sense. Sponsoring organizations are now allowed to include an "average masterpoint" stratification to more (regional and sectional) )events, including stratified pairs. It seems from the original motion that there are two limitations -- first that 5000+ people cannot be averaged; second that the highest person cannot be 200%+ of the top of the range.

However, that's kind of nice for some folks. A person with 1900 playing with a person who has 50 fits into the average bracket of 1000 or less average.

I think this makes sense to some degree, as a means to reflect accurately the strength of a pair and to encourage unequal partners from playing together. We have the functional equivalent with KO teams and now much of the time with Swiss. So, why not pairs?

I personally think that was a good idea. Of course, I have some bias, as my poor wife was brought up forced to play A all the time, even when she was a 0-5'er.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I personally think that was a good idea. Of course, I have some bias, as my poor wife was brought up forced to play A all the time, even when she was a 0-5'er.

Why was this so unlucky for her? The best way to improve is to play up so she should have been glad to be able to play in "A" with you, rather than seeing all the terrible bridge in C.

I said it before and will say it again. When I play with a beginner, in my club I will NOT play in the B-group but in the A-group.

[helene_t]

Problem is that everybody should play in the A-group to improve their bridge, but if everybody does, it won't be an A group anymore

[qwery_hi]

Gerben42, on May 20 2009, 05:03 AM, said:

Quote

I personally think that was a good idea. Of course, I have some bias, as my poor wife was brought up forced to play A all the time, even when she was a 0-5'er.

Why was this so unlucky for her? The best way to improve is to play up so she should have been glad to be able to play in "A" with you, rather than seeing all the terrible bridge in C.

I said it before and will say it again. When I play with a beginner, in my club I will NOT play in the B-group but in the A-group.

Not quite. The best way to improve is to play with people a little above your level. Having a 0-5'er play in the A group would not be the best way to improve for 99% of the 0-5'ers I know.

[TylerE]

While I don't disagree with this, I wish they would just do away with fixed strats and do as the Speedballs do (The one thing they get right, imo) and put the top third of the field in A, the bottom third in C, and the rest in B.

[kenrexford]

For my wife, playing in the A group is great, both for game improvement and game enjoyment reasons.

However, stratification is about awarding points for performance. It seems rather unfair, if "points" are fair and matter, to award to bumbleheads playing against two bumbleheads for a "gee whiz we won" performance while awarding small scratch points for my wife when she holds her own and comes in something like 4th in her section in the Mini Blue Ribbons or a Flight A regional event. If she manages to put together two 53% games, with me as her partner ( ), she outplayed the winning pair in the 199-er pairs.

[qwery_hi]

kenrexford, on May 20 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

For my wife, playing in the A group is great, both for game improvement and game enjoyment reasons.

However, stratification is about awarding points for performance. It seems rather unfair, if "points" are fair and matter, to award to bumbleheads playing against two bumbleheads for a "gee whiz we won" performance while awarding small scratch points for my wife when she holds her own and comes in something like 4th in her section in the Mini Blue Ribbons or a Flight A regional event. If she manages to put together two 53% games, with me as her partner ( ), she outplayed the winning pair in the 199-er pairs.

Comparisons like she outplayed the winning pair in the 199er pairs are invalid - the real comparison would be how would each of the winning pair of the 199ers have done playing with you as a partner.

[kenrexford]

qwery_hi, on May 20 2009, 11:52 PM, said:

kenrexford, on May 20 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

For my wife, playing in the A group is great, both for game improvement and game enjoyment reasons.

However, stratification is about awarding points for performance.  It seems rather unfair, if "points" are fair and matter, to award to bumbleheads playing against two bumbleheads for a "gee whiz we won" performance while awarding small scratch points for my wife when she holds her own and comes in something like 4th in her section in the Mini Blue Ribbons or a Flight A regional event.  If she manages to put together two 53% games, with me as her partner ( ), she outplayed the winning pair in the 199-er pairs.

Comparisons like she outplayed the winning pair in the 199er pairs are invalid - the real comparison would be how would each of the winning pair of the 199ers have done playing with you as a partner.

Anyone who does well with me as a partner has achieved something unique. LOL

[Phil]

kenrexford, on May 21 2009, 06:37 AM, said:

Anyone who does well with me as a partner has achieved something unique. LOL

Exactly. She must be Mother Teresa.

[jonottawa]

Great idea. I hope it catches on.

[G_R__E_G]

I think it's been a long time coming. I'm switching my club over to using this method as soon as our executive rubber stamps their approval.

[hanp]

I think masterpoint brackets are silly and outdates. Average masterpoint brackets are about equally silly and equally outdated.

[mike777]

I grant I have heard that mp brackets are silly and outdated for almost 40 years but they seem fine as they exist.

I do want anyone and everyone to have a shot with their team to represent USA. Give top players byes and seeds.

[G_R__E_G]

hanp, on May 21 2009, 11:54 PM, said:

I think masterpoint brackets are silly and outdates. Average masterpoint brackets are about equally silly and equally outdated.

What would you suggest Han? At our club the lady that signs everyone in just asks everyone "What bracket would you like to play in today?" - or just do away with brackets so that our 'C' players who very rarely score 50% never get into the money because of the several 'A' pairs who very rarely score below 55%?

As a club manager and director the only real issue I ever run into with using masterpoints to stratify is the odd player who has played for 50 years and is very good but they have never been an ACBL member and therefore don't show up with a lot of masterpoints. All I do to resolve this is make a manual adjustemt in our computer so that they come up as a 'B' or 'A' or whatever is appropriate. At the other end of the spectrum you get some lol's who have well over 1000 masterpoints but aren't very good players but they never complain about being an 'A' so it's really a non-issue.

[mycroft]

The good players eventually realize that the great players don't care how many masterpoints you have, it's what you did. A new player, playing with pretty much anyone, scratching in section in the mini-blues is an achievement. A new player winning the 199ers is exactly that - a good 199er.

The masterpoint chasers can have their masterpoints - and I don't mind this, as I didn't mind the average MP stratification for Swiss teams (but bracketed RR masquerading as Swiss, that's another story altogether).

[cherdanno]

G_R__E_G, on May 22 2009, 09:46 AM, said:

hanp, on May 21 2009, 11:54 PM, said:

I think masterpoint brackets are silly and outdates. Average masterpoint brackets are about equally silly and equally outdated.

What would you suggest Han? At our club the lady that signs everyone in just asks everyone "What bracket would you like to play in today?" - or just do away with brackets so that our 'C' players who very rarely score 50% never get into the money because of the several 'A' pairs who very rarely score below 55%?

That's whay they did in the club in Bonn, Germany where I played occasionally. You could opt for a lower category, where they had more severe system restrictions (no multi and stuff like that), and the upper category. Nobody was forced to deal with multi or guys like me (who might alert 1M-2C and crazy stuff like that) just because they had been playing for 40+ years.

[G_R__E_G]

I'm talking about a club in a small town - we get about 12 to 14 tables on average each session. Everyone has to "deal" with everyone as we don't have enough players to have multiple sections to seperate the lambs from the wolves.

[cherdanno]

G_R__E_G, on May 22 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

I'm talking about a club in a small town - we get about 12 to 14 tables on average each session. Everyone has to "deal" with everyone as we don't have enough players to have multiple sections to seperate the lambs from the wolves.

So I suppose you are talking about stratification, rather than brackets? Masterpoints are fine for stratification. I don't mind Masterpoints affecting Masterpoints.

[G_R__E_G]

cherdanno, on May 22 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

G_R__E_G, on May 22 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

I'm talking about a club in a small town - we get about 12 to 14 tables on average each session.  Everyone has to "deal" with everyone as we don't have enough players to have multiple sections to seperate the lambs from the wolves.

So I suppose you are talking about stratification, rather than brackets? Masterpoints are fine for stratification. I don't mind Masterpoints affecting Masterpoints.

You are correct. Around here (I'm not sure if it's a local thing or more widespread) the terms brackets and strats tend to be used interchangeably.

The new option is specifically for stratifying based upon average masterpoints as opposed to before where the only option was to base it on the higher of the two player's masterpoints.

[TimG]

G_R__E_G, on May 22 2009, 09:46 AM, said:

hanp, on May 21 2009, 11:54 PM, said:

I think masterpoint brackets are silly and outdates. Average masterpoint brackets are about equally silly and equally outdated.

What would you suggest Han? At our club the lady that signs everyone in just asks everyone "What bracket would you like to play in today?" - or just do away with brackets so that our 'C' players who very rarely score 50% never get into the money because of the several 'A' pairs who very rarely score below 55%?

Why should players who rarely score 50% expect to get in the money with any regularity?