[JLOGIC]

Bracket 2 can play midchart if that bracket has no team that averages less than 1500 points at most regionals. So can Bracket 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 if that is true.

Seperating the charts based on how many points teams average seems much more sensible than seperating them by brackets. Some regionals have 20 brackets, some have 2. Blanket rules by bracket thus do not make much sense since not all bracket 2s are created equally. I am playing the Las Vegas regional this week, one bracket 2 team has Mike Kamil on it (of the Fleisher team!), as well as Kevin Dwyer. I am going to guess that bracket 2 here has no <1500 team and allows midchart.

[Zelandakh]

JLOGIC, on 2012-June-21, 03:18, said:

Bracket 2 can play midchart if that bracket has no team that averages less than 1500 points at most regionals. So can Bracket 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 if that is true.

Seperating the charts based on how many points teams average seems much more sensible than seperating them by brackets. Some regionals have 20 brackets, some have 2. Blanket rules by bracket thus do not make much sense since not all bracket 2s are created equally.

OK, I agree with this. I do not agree that points are necessarily a good way to make thiese decisions though, any more than they are a particularly good way of seeding. How about a looser "blanket rule" - if there are X or more brackets then at least Brackets 1 and 2 should be Midchart (others could also be Midchart if some criteria is satisfied). Let X be 4, or 5, or 3, or whatever number seems to work in practise. The criteria might be the 1500 MP one (yuck) although I find it incredible that an event where every team except one contained top internationals would need to be GCC just because of the last team. I guess the organisors would not allow that in practise although perhaps there is a better way of doing this than only taking the bottom team into account. Similarly, you might make a blanket rule that the bottom bracket was always GCC unless [some criteria] was satisfied. If you make your criteria good enough then I fail to see how such "blanket rules" can be any less effective than the current blanket rule of "bottom team < 1500".

[mycroft]

JLOGIC, on 2012-June-21, 03:18, said:

Bracket 2 can play midchart if that bracket has no team that averages less than 1500 points at most regionals. So can Bracket 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 if that is true.

And *that's* the problem.

This all started because some people, including you, said "I can't remember the last time I played in a GCC event (that wasn't a "beer swiss" or "drunk and crazy speedball")". And many people echoed my sentiments which were "that's nice. Pity it doesn't work for the rank and file."

You have enough MPs to push you into "Mid-Chart capable brackets" all by yourself (and Congratulations for that, and the skill that gets you there! This is not a gripe about that). Your teams will *not have to worry about this*. But I just played in bracket 3 (of 7) of a compact KO, and the top 5 teams had more than the magic 6K. The bottom team (wasn't us, but it was close) was 3250, so No Mid-Chart For You. Okay, you can't expect with 6900 that you're guaranteed to be in a Mid-Chart bracket, but if the numbers were slightly different, the brackets would have been 8000-4500 instead of 7000-3500. No Mid-Chart For You, Either. When, if you're not a full-time player, do you get to decide to modify your system so that it is irreparibly Mid-chart (say, by making 2♣ ART INV+, to make 1NT SF work, like we were discussing in the previous thread), without having to worry about "which system are we playing today" at 1305 once the brackets come out? 10000? 15000? How many teams have that?

Effectively, with the scheduling and the regulations in place, "full-timers" can play Mid-Chart systems, and anybody else - can't. Not without learning two systems, and sometimes not knowing which one they're using until 5 minutes after game time. But, of course, the people that can't commit to playing them (and therefore don't, even when they are legal, because keeping 2 systems in play is a huge distraction for a partnership) have to play against them when they do play in "open flight A" swiss, or when their 6300 is at the bottom of bracket 2 instead of the top of bracket 3, and don't get practise against it (Oh yes, I am pulling out the "win by unfamiliarity" argument. Here, I think it's appropriate. Yes, I think the pros will win anyway, but that little extra vig? Isn't that Convenient?)

And the frustrating thing, from a visual perspective, is that it's the full-timers on the C&C Committee that make these regulations. I'm sure they do their best to meet the best-interest needs of *all* ACBL players; but when was the last time *they* played sober in a GCC event, either? Or, if I'm being more cynical, when was the last time they played in a GCC event that didn't involve having a client they wanted to protect from the Mid-Chart anyway?

If there was an open Mid-Chart legal Championship-rated game any time there was a Championship-rated game at Regionals, there wouldn't be this problem. There's be others, of course...

[JLOGIC]

mycroft, on 2012-June-21, 13:41, said:

This all started because some people, including you, said "I can't remember the last time I played in a GCC event (that wasn't a "beer swiss" or "drunk and crazy speedball")". And many people echoed my sentiments which were "that's nice. Pity it doesn't work for the rank and file."

That is fictitious. In fact, I said:

Quote

If you prefer teams to pairs, you will basically never play in a GCC event in USA unless you are in a low bracket. If you prefer pairs at a regional then you often will I think. The only GCC I can even remember playing is the one session swiss (AKA the beer game, the event you play if you get knocked out in the semis or first round of a knockout and decide to ply at night, without fail the worst field ever).

(bold for emphasis).

I was replying directly to Vampyr, who I assumed would not be in a low bracket if she came and played here, since I thought she was a foreign expert who they are liberal about giving points to, who asked a direct question about whether there were GCC alternatives at regionals. What I said seems to be factually correct.

Quote

And the frustrating thing, from a visual perspective, is that it's the full-timers on the C&C Committee that make these regulations. I'm sure they do their best to meet the best-interest needs of *all* ACBL players; but when was the last time *they* played sober in a GCC event, either? Or, if I'm being more cynical, when was the last time they played in a GCC event that didn't involve having a client they wanted to protect from the Mid-Chart anyway?

This is another lol. You act as if everyone in your masterpoint class wants to play midchart. Low level players hate playing against anything special. They seem to hate playing even against strong club which is of course GCC. The people who make the rules are not trying to cater to you, they are trying to cater to the majority of the players.

What planet are you from? You really think low masterpoint players want to play against things with which they must be prealerted to, must make a defense or read a defense when it comes up, etc? These people are very important to bridge, pissing them off does not seem like a great idea. Yes, the current system pisses you off, but it's pretty obvious to me that people like you are in a minority.

How well attended do you think the midchart low bracket events would be compared to the GCC ones if there were a choice? It would be pretty funny to see the midhcart game not even make. It would be solely for people who desire to play midchart, no one who does not want to play those things would want to play against it, and there are not that many people itching to play midchart.

I know it is human behavior, but people need to stop thinking that their desires are more important than the desires of others. No one is going to post on a bridge forum and say "you know, I really don't like playing against weird conventions, I have trouble just counting and it really throws me off and distracts me, and it lessens the enjoyment because I have trouble visualizing the hands. I don't want to read defenses, I want to play bridge. Oh, and I hate playing against people who psyche also." Yet that view would certainly represent the majority opinion in an ACBL tournament of people who avg 1000 points.

Why is it so painful for you to not play midchart conventions? Why do you feel entitled to do so when a majority of your opponents would prefer not to?

[awm]

A simple solution that I've seen a few times is to have two flights of KO -- an A/X and a B/C/D. The A/X flight would be mid-chart. If either flight has enough teams they'll be bracketed.

In addition to the (relatively unimportant for most people) option to play mid-chart methods, this gives people a chance to "play up" without necessarily requiring them to be in the top bracket. Presumably A/X would consist of those players who want the best possible opponents (or those whose masterpoint totals rate them that way). In most cases this would have little effect on the field except possibly creating one extra bracket (hey more master points!) and giving people with few points a chance to play up.

I remember being pretty frustrated when I was an intermediate-advanced player with very few points and wanted a reasonable game, only to find that in the KOs I'd be put in a bracket of basically beginners. The only options were to accept this or request to play in bracket one -- which the directors usually wouldn't allow (and understandably so, I really didn't belong in B1 at the time, but B2 or B3 would've been reasonable and a lot of fun). Needless to say I played a lot of pairs.

[Phil]

In all my partnerships, we can switch on the fly between midchart and GCC.

I suppose I'm dying to know which treatments Mycroft and co. really need as part of their overall structure?

[Vampyr]

JLOGIC, on 2012-June-21, 18:40, said:

I was replying directly to Vampyr, who I assumed would not be in a low bracket if she came and played here, since I thought she was a foreign expert who they are liberal about giving points to, who asked a direct question about whether there were GCC alternatives at regionals. What I said seems to be factually correct.

I did mean for everyone, though. You are certain that the overwhelming majority of people who don't qualify for higher brackets don't want to play/play against Mid-Chart conventions, but there does not seem to be clear evidence either way. The only evidence I know is on these forums, which again are not representative of the bridge-playing population of the ACBL, but are probably not the only people who feel this way.

Don't forget that the Mid-Chart is a bit less liberal than the regulations in most countries (except perhaps for some novice games). So for a person who is somewhat familiar with these other sets of regulations, and some of the interesting conventions/treatments that it is possible to play (and yes, reading the forums has created a group of such people), playing Mid-Chart conventions doesn't seem to be asking a lot.

The one GCC rule I find particularly strange is that Drury/Drury fit is permitted by a passed hand, but not by an unpassed hand. This, after all, is largely how this discussion started, and I think that it may be one of the chief things that people who don't get into Mid-Chart events would like to be permitted to play.

[blackshoe]

Is it a matter of need? If you include me in "Mycroft and company", I'd say I don't need to play any Mid-Chart stuff. As I said upthread, I'd like to play Romex/Romex Forcing Club with the three Mid-Chart conventions I mentioned, but I don't need to do that - and I don't currently have any partners who are willing (and able) to give it a try. I'd be willing to play straight Romex (no Mid-Chart) or Precision, and maybe I can form a Precision partnership if I work at it, but most folks around here aren't interested in anything they didn't learn in beginner classes. As for Romex, I've mentioned the attitude of the club owners around here towards that system before. 'Nuf said.

One of the club owners, currently running the biggest game in town (about 30 tables usually) runs one "A" section, and two "B/C/D" sections. A while back she stratified the "A" section as "A/X" and more recently "A/X/B", but this was never a flighted or stratiflighted game - except for the fact that the B/C/D players are reluctant to play up, to the point that if she asked some of them to do so to fill a table or whatever, they'd either remain where they are, or go home. Masterpoints in this club range from, I dunno, probably very close to zero up to several thousand (we have at least one Diamond Life Master, and some may be higher ranked than that). The club owner calls the folks in her "B/C/D" sections her "babies", and coddles them thoroughly. She also runs what was originally a 299er game (Invitational, not open) but when a couple of the players there made LM, she "grandfathered" them and they still play in that game. Some of the real 299ers don't like that, but there it is. I don't know if she changed the sanction to open, or what, but I'm pretty sure that if I went to play there she'd say no — and I'm not a LM (I have just short of 351 MPs, accumulated since I joined the ACBL in 1998. I earned 17 1/2 of them last year. As you can see, I'm not a serious player, at least as far as accumulating MPs is concerned).

I'm sure some of you experts would tell me not to waste my time with the Mid-Chart or Romex or whatever, and just learn to play 2/1 well. But I play bridge to have fun, and for me part of the fun is trying new things. If my approach means (and I'm sure it does) that I'll never play in the Reisinger, or the BB or whatever, well, so be it.

[mike777]

"I'm sure some of you experts would tell me not to waste my time with the Mid-Chart or Romex or whatever, and just learn to play 2/1 well. But I play bridge to have fun, and for me part of the fun is trying new things."



I think your comments are very helpful.

Of course if we learn to play 2/1 well or learn to play the cards much better that is also "trying a new thing".

With that said learning/playing new midchart conventions is fun, alot of fun.


I guess the point is lets not do that in a reg team game and have alot of midchart convention disruption. but again it is fun.

--


fwiw I played in one live reg ko last few years...it was with a pick up pard.....I played roth stone...not sure wht the other three played. We said about ten words the whole tourney most of which were good luck and thank you. We won and left. I guess this was bracket 2 no pros. we beat everyone.


fwiw it was nice to win but not sure how much fun I had. I missed the social aspect. i have not been back.

[Mbodell]

mycroft, on 2012-June-21, 13:41, said:

You have enough MPs to push you into "Mid-Chart capable brackets" all by yourself (and Congratulations for that, and the skill that gets you there! This is not a gripe about that). Your teams will *not have to worry about this*. But I just played in bracket 3 (of 7) of a compact KO, and the top 5 teams had more than the magic 6K. The bottom team (wasn't us, but it was close) was 3250, so No Mid-Chart For You. Okay, you can't expect with 6900 that you're guaranteed to be in a Mid-Chart bracket, but if the numbers were slightly different, the brackets would have been 8000-4500 instead of 7000-3500. No Mid-Chart For You, Either. When, if you're not a full-time player, do you get to decide to modify your system so that it is irreparibly Mid-chart (say, by making 2♣ ART INV+, to make 1NT SF work, like we were discussing in the previous thread), without having to worry about "which system are we playing today" at 1305 once the brackets come out? 10000? 15000? How many teams have that?

The midchart for KO with >1500 average does not always apply to bracketed *compact* KO. I've been in bracketed compact KO in ACBL with all teams >1500 average where midchart was not allowed due to the compact nature of the KO.

[blackshoe]

Mbodell, on 2012-June-21, 23:52, said:

The midchart for KO with >1500 average does not always apply to bracketed *compact* KO. I've been in bracketed compact KO in ACBL with all teams >1500 average where midchart was not allowed due to the compact nature of the KO.

[Temperance "Bones" Brennan]"I don't know what that means."[/Temperance "Bones" Brennan]

I guess a compact KO is not a KO.

[paulg]

JLOGIC, on 2012-June-21, 18:40, said:

They seem to hate playing even against strong club which is of course GCC.

As an alien who only plays at the Nationals, where presumably the standard is relatively high compared to other events, with a Mid-Chart laden system, the convention that causes the opposition most trouble is our team mates' weak notrump.

When you see the carnage that this causes, especially in events like the LM Pairs, it is no wonder that anything more complicated is feared even though, in practice, people cope better with it.

[Cthulhu D]

Only because they don't play it at the club. America's bridge homogeneity costs here

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2012-June-21, 13:41, said:

When, if you're not a full-time player, do you get to decide to modify your system so that it is irreparibly Mid-chart (say, by making 2♣ ART INV+, to make 1NT SF work, like we were discussing in the previous thread), without having to worry about "which system are we playing today" at 1305 once the brackets come out? 10000? 15000? How many teams have that?

You probably would already be prepared for this. Most pair and swiss team events are GCC, so unless you ONLY play KOs you have to have a GCC convention card that you use in these games.

Maybe the reason you chose to play in the KO was because you expected to be able to play your more enjoyable Mid-Chart system. Oh well, that's life.

[Phil]

Blackshoe, I rarely play in bracketed KO's these days, but when I do its usually Bracket I or II, and I can play what I want. I can count on two hands the number of long matches I've played in the last 12 months, since most of my regional and sectionals are spent playing open swiss or pairs. However there was a time 9-10 years ago when I did play Bracket III in medium sized regionals where midchart wasn't allowed. At least I don't think so - I honestly do not remember, since I didn't play anything MC then.

As far as the MC you want to play is concerned, listing something thats under the heading of a system is beside the point. Multi 2N is at least as hard to defend against as Multi 2♦, and I cannot believe its integral to modern Romex, since its a destructive method. Its somethings thats probably fun to play, but you can make this argument about any MC method. You're a director, and you have seen first-hand the confusion a newer player faces. You open 2N (weak with one minor), and your partner alerts it, and I can tell you that a lot of players that have more than 1,500 will have issues with it, much less someone with 150. With all multi-style calls, there is intended confusion. If you accept this, then you should also accept that a newer player is going to be more confused. As a matter of fact, in spite of the alert, a newer player who can't instantly assimilate that 2N is a weak bid and not a strong one and will pass with a 15 count in spite of the alert.

Frankly, something like a Precision 2♥ isn't any tougher to defend against than a Precision 2♦, and you can make a senisble argument it should be GCC. But you could make it legal if you required 4♥ (and do something else with specifically a 4315), couldn't you?

[antonylee]

I thought a Precision 2♥ would be harder to defend than a Precision 2♦ because you cannot expect responder to keep the auction alive for you.

[barmar]

For the most part, the decision about whether a method should be GCC or Mid-Chart is not so much about how hard it is to defend against, but simply familiarity. Even if something is relatively easy to defend against, you still need to know what the defense is, and average players are only likely to have discussed defenses to conventions that they encounter on a regular basis. When you play in a GCC event, you expect fewer surprises.

Yes, there's a bit of a Catch-22 in this. How is a convention supposed to become common enough that it can move to the GCC, if players are rarely allowed to play it? The answer is that many clubs are more liberal, and that's where new ideas (they may be common overseas, but they're new to most of our players) can gestate.

And to some extent, most players probably don't consider this to be a problem. The game is good enough as it is; if Multi never makes it into the GCC, they're fine with that.

[Phil]

antonylee, on 2012-June-22, 09:22, said:

I thought a Precision 2♥ would be harder to defend than a Precision 2♦ because you cannot expect responder to keep the auction alive for you.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Presumably if I have a takeout x of hearts, I can double 2♥ and if I'm short in spades, I can double 2♠ when it comes back. Other strong hands seem to be on equal footing whether or not its 2♦ or 2♥.

[Siegmund]

I am surprised how many posters in this thread think it is easy to find Midchart events at live tournaments.

Just because a regional CAN allow Midchart in the high brackets of KOs and in the A section of flighted games doesn't mean they will. Some regionals in my area will allow Michart for the top KO bracket (ONLY the top bracket, even though brackets 2 and 3 may well meet the 1500+ requirement); a few of them also in the A/X Swiss on Sunday...some of them just don't. A request to play up usually gets you moved up one bracket or not at all.

A strong B player or a part-time regional pro playing in the middle brackets could very easily go a whole year without playing a single hand in a non-GCC event except at the NABCs. And those like me who prefer matchpoints are even more SOL. There are a lot of fun toys I've never gotten to try since I can only use them on the internet, and it's not worth getting too hooked on them.

[blackshoe]

Phil, on 2012-June-22, 09:13, said:

As far as the MC you want to play is concerned, listing something thats under the heading of a system is beside the point.

I'm not sure what your point is. All I was doing, or trying to do anyway, was to provide some context explaining why I want to play these conventions.

Phil, on 2012-June-22, 09:13, said:

Multi 2N is at least as hard to defend against as Multi 2♦, and I cannot believe its integral to modern Romex, since its a destructive method.

Integral, no. In Godfrey's Stairway to the Stars, the authors have their characters traveling to Europe to play in a WBF tournament — Lille, I think — and they find that they can't play this 2NT opening there, because it's Brown Sticker. So they just left 2NT as a transfer to clubs, and let 3D show any preempt. Easy enough. I think the impetus for this convention in the system was that they didn't need 2NT to show a balanced strong opening any more, because in both versions (Romex and Romex Forcing Club) they have other ways to show that hand (Kokish, basically). You could leave 2NT undefined, for that matter. Same with 4NT. But the "Precision 2♦" hands have to go somewhere, and 2♦ (in a Romex context) is already taken.

Phil, on 2012-June-22, 09:13, said:

You're a director, and you have seen first-hand the confusion a newer player faces. You open 2N (weak with one minor), and your partner alerts it, and I can tell you that a lot of players that have more than 1,500 will have issues with it, much less someone with 150. With all multi-style calls, there is intended confusion. If you accept this, then you should also accept that a newer player is going to be more confused. As a matter of fact, in spite of the alert, a newer player who can't instantly assimilate that 2N is a weak bid and not a strong one and will pass with a 15 count in spite of the alert.

In the clubs here, players with 150 masterpoints play in the games where, as I mentioned before, what one club owner calls her "babies" play. I don't play in those games. I wouldn't even if she would let me. If such players "play up" well, I suppose it boils down to whose expectations govern - if the "playing up" 150s don't want to see MC, the "playing up" 350 (me) does, and the 1500s don't care one way or t'other, I guess I lose. As for the 1500s who will have issues with a Mid-Chart convention, maybe they ought to stop crawling around on the floor and get up and walk, fer crissakes.

Look, I know I'm in the minority, and I know the ACBL, and the Districts, Units, and clubs, will cater to the large group who don't want to see anything unfamiliar. I just wish they'd throw the few of us who aren't afraid to try something new a bigger bone than "top brackets of KOs or Flight A" once in a while.

Phil, on 2012-June-22, 09:13, said:

Frankly, something like a Precision 2♥ isn't any tougher to defend against than a Precision 2♦, and you can make a senisble argument it should be GCC. But you could make it legal if you required 4♥ (and do something else with specifically a 4315), couldn't you?

Maybe. I haven't thought about it, beyond wondering if I could fit all four distributions into the already nebulous 1♦ opening, and how we might untangle that after the opening bid.

Perhaps I should just take baby steps, and try to get folks to accept that Romex (without the 2 card bit, or any fancy conventions) is strictly GCC. Frankly, I don't have much hope for that, either. Actually, I'm pretty much resigned to vanilla 5 card majors/strong NT, or maybe Precision if I get lucky finding a partner. But I don't have to like it.