[fred]

Lots of interesting stuff in this thread, but I think some of you are missing an important point:

Bridge can become much more popular without duplicate bridge becoming much more popular.

Sure there are things that ACBL, club managers, tournament organizers, and duplicate players could do that would likely have a positive impact on the number of people playing competitive bridge. However, the ACBL now has something like 170,000 members and I don't think there have ever been more than 250,000 members at any given time. Even if the ACBL managed to double its membership to 340,000, that number would represent only a small % of the 10s of millions of people who used to play socially in North America.

The key is marketing the game to the masses. Only a small percentage of bridge players will ever be interested in studying the game seriously and playing competitively. An overwhelming majority of potential bridge players will never care about things like which conventions are allowed in clubs and tournaments, how easy it is to win masterpoints, or if they get a chance to play against the Bob Hammans of the world on a regular basis - they just want to play some cards with their friends, have a good time, and play well enough to occasionally bid and make a slam by taking a successful finesse. It doesn't even matter if the slam was a ridiculous contract or if 13 tricks were laydown without any finesses.

If the masses are to embrace bridge again, it is not unlikely that the ACBL and some leading players and personalities will play an important role in this, but polices regarding masterpoints, conventions, and who plays in which clubs and which tournaments are not relevant to the "big picture" in my opinion.

I suspect that even the "worst players" among the people who read BBO Forums have enough bridge knowledge and skill to be in the top 5% of the world's bridge players. Yes, we can do a better job making duplicate more attractive to this 5%, but it is the other 95% that really matters.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Trumpace]

fred, on Feb 1 2005, 12:08 AM, said:

I suspect that even the "worst players" among the people who read BBO Forums have enough bridge knowledge and skill to be in the top 5% of the world's bridge players.

Yay!

[Walddk]

Winstonm, on Jan 31 2005, 04:55 PM, said:

The good/excellent player does not want to mix it up continually with the beginner/intermediate because there is no challenge in it; not that they won't do so on occassion to somewhat "give back to the game", but most resent being required to do so continually.

I am sure you have a valid point there Winston, and it's a shame really. Most experts seem to forget how they developed into what they are today when they were newish to the game: By playing with people who were better than themselves!

In my opinion experts have an obligation to play with lesser players more frequently. Some don't do it at all, some do it rarely, but most never do. How can beginners, intermediates and advanced improve if they don't have the chance to learn? You don't learn much by playing with the same intermediate players constantly.

I suspect that many want it this way. They are not really interested in learning too many new aspects of the game, but I am also pretty certain that we, on BBO as well as in real life, have many players who are dying to play with really good players.

Many times every day do I get private chat messages from intermediates who ask for a game. I may not be like the rest in my league, but I feel honoured, and time permitting I am happy to accept the requests.

Many more should follow that example! Keep asking, the worst scenario is "Sorry no", and that is not the end of the world for any of you.

Roland

[pbleighton]

I posted a suggestion on rgb, which got no support:

Eliminate stratiflighted events, and just have a beginner
game (199er, etc.) and a stratified open event. That way
the "aspiring players" (me!) can play against the top players
without having to play up in a segregated event where we
would (for now ) lose for sure.

Lots of B players don't want to play against the best, and
from the reaction on rgb, a lot of the best players have their
noses in the air and don't want to mingle with the <2000
masterpoints crowd.

I'd make an exception for some national events which
require prequalification.

What do you think?

Peter

[hrothgar]

pbleighton, on Feb 1 2005, 03:45 PM, said:

I posted a suggestion on rgb, which got no support:

Eliminate stratiflighted events, and just have a beginner
game (199er, etc.) and a stratified open event.  That way
the "aspiring players" (me!) can play against the top players
without having to play up in a segregated event where we
would (for now ) lose for sure.

Lots of B players don't want to play against the best, and
from the reaction on rgb, a lot of the best players have their
noses in the air and don't want to mingle with the <2000
masterpoints crowd.

I'd make an exception for some national events which
require prequalification.

What do you think?

Peter

Couple points to consider:

From my perspective, many expert level players prefer to play in events where the skill levels are fairly uniform. Adding beginners into the field "randomizes" the results and reduces the ability of the experts to benefit from their superior skill.

Traditionally, when this argument is made, the experts make arguments "qualitative" arguments arround "bunny bashing". Bob Hamman made a famous comment likening teams matches with direct head to head competition to a pair of boxers climbing into the ring with one another and letting them slug it out. In contrast, he described pairs games as taking the same two boxers, blind-folding them, and placing them in a the ring with 20 drunks. The boxer who dropped the most drunks would be declared the winner.

Personally, I prefer to rely on more "pure" arguments related to the underlying math. A pairs tournament can be modelled as a statistical sampling problem. Each time players contest over a board, they provide a sample. These samples are then used to rannk the skills of the players. Mathematically, as you increase the variance of players skills, you increase the numbers of boards required to provide a 95% confidence interval.

Regardless of how you make the argument, the results are the same: Mixing the field strength imposes a significant cost on the expert players. A number of players in this thread are stating that expert players have an obligation to "give back to the game" and sacrifice their own enjoyment by competing in formats that reduce their ability to win. I'm no "Randroid" and have serious problems with Objectivism as a philosophy. Even so, I have big problems with this proposition and I imagine that other people do as well.

1. Bridge players almost always have the ability to play up and compete in the Flight A pairs events. If your goal really is to compete against the best then you can do so all you want. However, don't complain that you can't simulataneous "win" master points. Furthermore, as I noted earlier, mixed fields produce quite random results. The same "crapshoot" effects that plague the experts also taint the lower strats. So its not like your "victory" would really measure anything...

2. With this said and done, I like it when the experts make an effort to play with the Beginners. However, I think that this is best achieved through events specifically dedicated to education. New England has a number of Pro-Ams in which experts and novices partner each other. There are a wide number of training /mentoring programs available...

Sorry if this comes across as harsh...

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Feb 1 2005, 08:59 AM, said:

2. With this said and done, I like it when the experts make an effort to play with the Beginners. However, I think that this is best achieved through events specifically dedicated to education. New England has a number of Pro-Ams in which experts and novices partner each other. There are a wide number of training /mentoring programs available...

Sorry if this comes across as harsh...

Isn't a table in the Main Bridge Club at BBO the perfect place for a practise then? Why would we have to play tourneys if the lesser player gets intimidated and the experts are bored?

Roland

[TimG]

Walddk, on Feb 1 2005, 05:07 AM, said:

In my opinion experts have an obligation to play with lesser players more frequently.

I don't think it's an obligation, but it sure is good for the game.

Two different things are being discussed here: playing with lesser players; and playing in lesser fields.

[TimG]

pbleighton, on Feb 1 2005, 07:45 AM, said:

Eliminate stratiflighted events, and just have a beginner
game (199er, etc.) and a stratified open event. That way
the "aspiring players" (me!) can play against the top players
without having to play up in a segregated event where we
would (for now ) lose for sure.

So, what you want is an open event that is random enough that you have a chance of placing?

[TimG]

pbleighton, on Feb 1 2005, 07:45 AM, said:

Lots of B players don't want to play against the best, and
from the reaction on rgb, a lot of the best players have their
noses in the air and don't want to mingle with the <2000
masterpoints crowd.

I don't think it's a matter of the best players having their nose in the air, but rather a desire from the best players to be able to play in a high quality game. As Richard has pointed out, when the field is weakened, the reliability of the results is lessened. This will also lessen the enjoyment of the best players.

Tim (still a member of the <2000 crowd)

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Feb 1 2005, 08:59 AM, said:

New England has a number of Pro-Ams in which experts and novices partner each other.

Most (if not all) of the Pro-Ams in New England are run by EMBA (Eastern Massachusetts Bridge Association) in conjuction with their sectionals (local tournaments).

(Just trying to give credit where credit is due.)

Tim Goodwin
President, New England Bridge Conference

[pbleighton]

Richard - you didn't read my post carefully:

"From my perspective, many expert level players prefer to play in events where the skill levels are fairly uniform. Adding beginners into the field"

and

"With this said and done, I like it when the experts make an effort to play with the Beginners. However, I think that this is best achieved through events specifically dedicated to education. New England has a number of Pro-Ams in which experts and novices partner each other. There are a wide number of training /mentoring programs available..."

I wasn't proposing this - I specifically recommended keeping 199er games. There should be a separate event for beginners. What I am proposing is blending B events (top limit 1500 mps for sectionals, 2000 for regionals) with A events. Low end B players could choose to play in the 199er events, and I imagine many of them would.

I don't know why you create a false dichotomy of experts and beginners, when most bridge players are neither.

I was specifically responding to yzerman's post regarding the lackof opportunities for the "aspiring and talented intermediate/advanced player". I've been playing for two years, and have become an above average club player, and put myself into that category, rightly or wrongly.

"However, don't complain that you can't simulataneous "win" master points."

I wasn't - my post didn't reference masterpoints, which are pretty low on my priority list. I do feel, however, that getting a 38 in a segregated A event is just as much a distortion as getting a 60 in a B event. I'd rather play against everyone except the 199ers.

In spite of this, I will be entering some segregated A events this year. In my area this is quite unusual - people hate to play up. I think B players would have the opportunity to get better if they had to face the best players in Open events in tournaments.

Richard, I find your attitude unfortunate. It seems that, in your own way, you are as cliqueish as senior ACBL members. You would no doubt feel at home on the ACBL Rules committee. I hear Bobby Woolf is retiring. You'd make a splendid replacement....

Peter

[TimG]

pbleighton, on Feb 1 2005, 02:31 PM, said:

I wasn't proposing this - I specifically recommended keeping 199er games. There should be a separate event for beginners. What I am proposing is blending B events (top limit 1500 mps for sectionals, 2000 for regionals) with A events. Low end B players could choose to play in the 199er events, and I imagine many of them would.

Most low end (skill wise) B players have lots more than 199 masterpoints.

Let's refocus the discussion: What would be the benefit of eliminating flighted events (ignoring the newcomer/199er game)?

[TimG]

pbleighton, on Feb 1 2005, 02:31 PM, said:

I wasn't - my post didn't reference masterpoints, which are pretty low on my priority list. I do feel, however, that getting a 38 in a segregated A event is just as much a distortion as getting a 60 in a B event. I'd rather play against everyone except the 199ers.

Why don't you want to play against the 199ers?

[hrothgar]

pbleighton, on Feb 1 2005, 10:31 PM, said:

Richard - you didn't read my post carefully:

>I wasn't proposing this - I specifically recommended keeping 199er games.
>There should be a separate event for beginners. What I am proposing is
>blending B events (top limit 1500 mps for sectionals, 2000 for regionals) with
>A events. Low end B players could choose to play in the 199er events, and
>I imagine many of them would.

Peter, I read and understood your original posting.
I still find the underlying concept problematic.
I find your attitude infuriating

Flighted events exist for a reason. Expert players prefer to to be able to self-segregate to reduce the field variance. Please note that the "segregate" is very gentle. Anyone who wants to can play in a Flight A event. Hell, if you want to you can enter the Vanderbilt or the Reisinger... The "only" restriction is that your results will be calculated against the field and awards will be allocated accordingly.

>>"However, don't complain that you can't simulataneous "win" master points."

>I wasn't - my post didn't reference masterpoints, which are pretty low
>on my priority list. I do feel, however, that getting a 38 in a segregated A
>event is just as much a distortion as getting a 60 in a B event.

Sorry, I should have mentioned master points. What I should have said is

"Don't bitch the tournament organizers don't appoint you King of Flight B.5"
Is this better? Either way, the critical issue seems to be that you have some pressing need for external validation...

>In spite of this, I will be entering some segregated A events this year.
>In my area this is quite unusual - people hate to play up. I think B players
>would have the opportunity to get better if they had to face the best players
>in Open events in tournaments.

My perspective is that the B players aren't interested in getting better. They are interested in "winning".

[pbleighton]

TimG writes:
"Why don't you want to play against the 199ers?"

I have no problem playing against them, particularly as I am one of them. I believe, however, that there should be a sanctuary for them to play in, if they don't wish to play against stronger players.

There is no magic number of masterpoints - I chose 199 because the sectionals use this as the cutoff.

From my perspective, when someone has played enough bridge to accumulate 200 (or 300) masterpoints, they shouldn't need (or don't deserve) a sanctuary, and they should play in the Open.

Peter

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Feb 1 2005, 03:09 PM, said:

Flighted events exist for a reason. Expert players prefer to to be able to self-segregate to reduce the field variance.

The original intent of flighted events may have been to create a stronger field. (I think the first restricted events were "master" events where you had to have a minimum number of masterpoints to enter. There are still a few of these -- the Life Msster Pairs at the Fall NABC is one.)

But, I think flights have evolved to be a tool to protect the non-experts. I suspect strongly that Flight B players are more attached to their events than the Flight A players are to their events. That is, a larger percentage of flight B players would choose not to show up if events were de-flighted.

Tim

[TimG]

pbleighton, on Feb 1 2005, 03:33 PM, said:

From my perspective, when someone has played enough bridge to accumulate 200 (or 300) masterpoints, they shouldn't need (or don't deserve) a sanctuary, and they should play in the Open.

I don't think it has anything to do with "need" or "deserve", but rather with what they want. If they want a sanctuary, those who run the tournaments ought to provide one. Expecially if not providing one means these players won't show up. What purpose does it serve to offer events which people don't want to play in?

The difference between the typical player with 100 masterpoints and the typical player with 500 masterpoints is not as great as the difference between the typical player with 500 masterpoints and an expert.

Tim

[pbleighton]

TimG writes:
"Let's refocus the discussion: What would be the benefit of eliminating flighted events"

For all players, many people (including myself) like to play in bigger fields. It's more fun.

For the B players, they would improve their bridge by playing against better players.

For the A players, I will paraphrase a very good player of my acquaintance, who also favors eliminating flighted events:
"I like Open events because you get to play against and socialize with people other than the same old A crowd, who tend to have little personality."
The A players would, of course, be able to win more masterpoints in a bigger field, assuming they cared

[pbleighton]

Richard writes:
"What I should have said is

"Don't bitch the tournament organizers don't appoint you King of Flight B.5"
Is this better? Either way, the critical issue seems to be that you have some pressing need for external validation..."

1) In an Open event I would be "King" of precisely nothing. My score, my "external validation" if you will, goes significantly down in an Open event as opposed to a B event.

[snipped out : uday@ ]
Peter

[pbleighton]

TimG writes:
"Expecially if not providing one means these players won't show up. What purpose does it serve to offer events which people don't want to play in?"

A valid point.

Peter