[uday]

We know we'd all prefer to disagree in a polite and friendly fashion.

Heat without flames, please

[Winstonm]

There is a comparison between golf and bridge. The 2-handicap golfer doesn't normally make a game with an 18-handicap golfer. The reason is they don't play the same game. It is the same with the advanced/expert bridge player. The expert plays with another expert not to increase his chances of winning masterpoints but because they play the same game. That is where the enjoyment of the game for them comes.

When I was a beginning player, I saw that if I wanted to play with the better players then I had to impove; it was not their duty to instruct me or help me get better; it was up to me to raise my level of play.

Not everyone cares to put that kind of time and energy into the game and that is fine. There should be a place in bridge for the social player. But to make everyone else come down to that level is not the answer. It's like forcing the 2-handicap golfer to play against the 18-handicap golfer. It is not as enjoyable a form of entertainment for the good player when his is required to play against players who are not on the same wavelength. And I am firmly of the opinion that what made bridge such a hotbed in the 60's and 70's was the play of the good-to-expert player. It was only when bridge clubs, tournaments, and the ACBL began catering to the low to mid-level player that attendance began its spiraling fall.

There is an entire generation of fantastic bridge players who never go to the tournaments anymore, never set foot in a local club, and don't pay any ACBL dues. It's not bridge they lost interest in- you'll still see them from time to time on BBOnline or OKBridge. But organzied bridge, by limiting events, placing masterpoint restrictions on events, not allowing two life masters to play together, and the like, forced them into a choice - either to play a game that was no longer fun, no longer challenging, and no longer the satisfying intellectual experience that playing with an equal partner against equal opponents achieved or simply not play. We see now what their choice was.

So instead of playing with the 18 handicapper, these 2 handicappers simply bid organized bridge adieu. And that is a pity because they were the staples of the game, the ones who showed up time after time, would play 5-7 times a week, go to the tournaments and share rooms.

I would like to see two additional changes in ACBL tournaments. Simplify to two flights, Closed and Open. Both are open to anyone, but points are awarded separately. The Closed pairs would be MPs to give everyone a chance. The Open would be Imp pairs, to remove as much luck as possible.

Heck, I might even be tempted to play in that.

WinstonM

[pbleighton]

"I would like to see two additional changes in ACBL tournaments. Simplify to two flights, Closed and Open. Both are open to anyone, but points are awarded separately. The Closed pairs would be MPs to give everyone a chance. The Open would be Imp pairs, to remove as much luck as possible.

Heck, I might even be tempted to play in that."

So would I.

Peter

[hotShot]

Well how long does it take a young new bridge player at his local club to collect 199 masterpoints?

a ) if the club averages 5 tables twice a week
b ) if the club averages 20 tables every night

For how long do these players have to take "candy of the babies" before they are allowed in real competition?

Are there realy such limits in ACBL events?

[TimG]

Quote

I would like to see two additional changes in ACBL tournaments.  Simplify to two flights, Closed and Open.  Both are open to anyone, but points are awarded separately.

ACBL already offers this: Open events and Senior events. [ducks for cover]

Quote

The Closed pairs would be MPs to give everyone a chance.  The Open would be Imp pairs, to remove as much luck as possible.

I do not believe IMP pairs involves any less luck than MP pairs. In fact, I'll bet that most experts consider IMP pairs to involve more luck than MP pairs. There is a lot of luck involved in any pair event because your score is dependent upon results at tables where you have no influence on the outcome. In a MP event, each board caries the same weight, there are the same number of MP available on each board; in an IMP event the value of each varies, some boards are worth lots of IMPs, some are worth next to nothing. So, not only do you have the randomness (lucky or unlucky) of results at tables you have no control over, those random fluctiation will be worth lots sometimes and little others.

[TimG]

Quote

Well how long does it take a young new bridge player at his local club to collect 199 masterpoints?

a ) if the club averages 5 tables twice a week
b ) if the club averages 20 tables every night

It matters how often the new bridge player plays.

Quote

or how long do these players have to take "candy of the babies" before they are allowed in real competition?

Are there realy such limits in ACBL events?

Only a very few. I think there are either 2 or 3 Life Matser Pairs at NABCs in a year. but maybe only one.

Bracketed KOs are a different story, very often it is impossible to play up in a bracketed KO.

[hrothgar]

pbleighton, on Feb 2 2005, 12:48 AM, said:

"I would like to see two additional changes in ACBL tournaments. Simplify to two flights, Closed and Open. Both are open to anyone, but points are awarded separately. The Closed pairs would be MPs to give everyone a chance. The Open would be Imp pairs, to remove as much luck as possible.

Heck, I might even be tempted to play in that."

So would I.

Peter

My understanding is that BAM features the lowest amount of luck, followed by Match Points. Many people in the North East of the US argue that BAM formats nearly killed bridge in New York because it elimanted too much "luck from the game.

The game and slam bonuses introduced by IMP pairs actually substantially increases the role that luck plays.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Feb 1 2005, 05:46 PM, said:

My understanding is that BAM features the lowest amount of luck, followed by Match Points. Many people in the North East of the US argue that BAM formats nearly killed bridge in New York because it elimanted too much "luck from the game.

I would expect the luck to be (from lowest to highest):

BAM teams
IMP teams
MP pairs
IMP pairs

That is teams vs pairs is a bigger luck factor than IMPs vs MP.

I don't think BAM almost killed bridge. But, when Swiss teams came on to the sceen, they quickly replaced BAM. I expect that BAM events in the 60's were just as popular, maybe more so since more people were playing, as today's Swisses.

Tim

[Winstonm]

I have to agree that imp pairs certainly has a luck factor, one which could (and should in my opinion) be addressed in that overtricks are too richly rewarded. For example, if the par contract is four hearts making four and one pair gets off to an uninspired lead or goes to sleep for a minute, that extra 30 or 60 points is magnified way too much in imps conversions.

For imp pairs, what does everyone feel about getting back closer to the meaning of total point type imps, that is the emphasis is on making or beating contracts, game bidding and slam bidding - over and undertricks are the province of matchpoints in my opinion - and bring the scoring into line with a minimum differential before any imps are won? Luck can never be factored out of bridge and it is one of the attractions of the game; however, when you are playing imp pairs and the contract is 4H and you can count 10 tricks for the opponents, should it really matter if they score 450? If you slip two tricks you perhaps deserve to lose a few imps, so perhaps the starting point should be a 60 differential.

If this small concession were accepted, it should also speed up the game to some degree, especially on hands were it is cold for 5, 6 but an esoteric squeeze may bring in the overtrick. I'm not saying don't play it out, for finding and executing such a squeeze is part of the fun, but should it really be rewarded in imps as well as satisfaction?

WinstonM

[TimG]

Winstonm, on Feb 1 2005, 08:32 PM, said:

If this small concession were accepted, it should also speed up the game to some degree, especially on hands were it is cold for 5, 6 but an esoteric squeeze may bring in the overtrick. I'm not saying don't play it out, for finding and executing such a squeeze is part of the fun, but should it really be rewarded in imps as well as satisfaction?

An IMP is an IMP. Some matches are lost by single IMPs.

About a year ago, I was on a KO team that won a match by a single IMP. My partner and I missed a vulnerable slam that I knew would be bid at the other table. So, I played a little loose and was able to take all 13 tricks (yes, our bidding was pretty bad). They played safe at the other table and took 12 tricks. The 3rd overtrick held the loss on the board to 12 instead of 13.

This may be just the sort of thing you are talking about: why should the 13th trick in either contract have any significance in the outcome of the match? I did know what I was doing when I tried for 13 tricks.

Tim

[Winstonm]

I, too, have won and lost K.O. matches by a single imp...and I've tied as well and had a playoff. But a K.O. match is not imp pairs event. As you said, you had a pretty good idea of what was happening at the other table.

My point is that adjusting the scoring at imp pairs may remove some of the matchpoint-like rewards for overtricks and undertricks. A good example of what I mean is the safety play. A safety play may only work out well 5% of the time, and on those other 95% of the times you lose imps when most everyone else plays the hand like a matchpoint pairs event. Maybe at imp pairs that is the way you are supposed to play, but it goes against my nature to risk my contract for an extra 30 points. That's why I don't much care for matchpoints. And I only wondered how many others share this view that imp pairs could be improved with the suggested change.


WinstonM

[Stephen Tu]

I don't think it's an improvement. The imp swing for an overtrick in imp pairs is at the same ratio vs. the contract going down in team games. Do you think you shouldn't get an imp for an overtrick at teams? The reward one gets for the overtrick not found at other tables is already greatly reduced from the reward one would get at matchpoints. At MP you get a top, the next board can at worst get you back to 50%. At IMPs the next board could wipe out 10 or more boards of overtricks.

Grinding out an imp here or there is part of winning close matches. Absolutely superior play should be rewarded / inferior defense punished. 1 imp is not too much.

The problem with imp pairs is that the boards don't all count the same. Boards with possible game/slam swings benefit you greatly if you get to play them vs. bad opponents.

I don't know why imp pairs is so popular on BBO & other online sites ..., is it just that the members are more used to rubber bridge type tactics? Especially with the typically short tournaments, 12-14 board IMP pair tournaments easily swing almost completely on the results of 2 boards. Would one want to play a 2 board matchpoint tourney?

[Winstonm]

I don't really want to play in a 26-board matchpoint event, much less a 2-board affair.

In my opinion, the attraction of imp scoring is that it rewards games and slams and making or not-making your contract. A 12-14 board anything is not much of a test for any scoring form. It is not surprising that a board or two determines the match outcome. But I have played in many 26 board K.O. matches against superior opponents where the match turned on only a board or two.

[Free]

I like the current format of imp games and MP games. MP gives you action, making overtricks, risking your contract because you're in the wrong one and need too much tricks,... where imps lets you play a lot more relaxed, just make that damn contract and you're home (bidding systems however need to get you in a playable contract). I think it's an overreaction if you state that in imps overtricks are rewarded too much. I just disagree, but everyone has his opinion ofcourse

[arrows]

IMHO,

Bridge is doomed when some genius came up the idea that one must
provide defense against one's own methods...

To be honest, I was really shocked when I first appreciate the profound
absurdity of this idea... Amazingly brilliant.

[mike777]

Yes, there must be thousands and thousands of people who wish to pay money and travel to tourney after tourney who want to play 52 boards versus 52 home grown systems day after day. Do not see why everyone cannot play a different home grown system every board.

They have a minute or two to prepare a defense or they should know most conventions and systems used worldwide the past 80 years.

I do not see why the preferences of the vast majority of ACBL members should be catered to when it may hinder the development of bidding theory and pleasure of a few.

[luke warm]

Quote

I do not see why the preferences of the vast majority of ACBL members should be catered to when it may hinder the development of bidding theory and pleasure of a few.

i believe i detected a faint hint of sarcasm

i heard somewhere that there weren't more mp games on bbo cause the software had a glitch in it re: mp scoring (i also heard the same wasn't true of the tourneys, just the main room)... not sure if this is true or not, but i'd love to see more mp play in the main room

i agree there needs to be system regulation by ruling bodies, i just think that those bodies sometimes go too far in stifling innovation... those of you who know, or were around at the time, how did precision become accepted? it was artificial, it was relatively complicated, yet seems not to have been unduly vilified by the powers that be... i don't see how moscito, for example, is any more difficult to learn/defend against from that standpoint

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Feb 5 2005, 04:43 PM, said:

those of you who know, or were around at the time, how did precision become accepted? it was artificial, it was relatively complicated, yet seems not to have been unduly vilified by the powers that be... i don't see how moscito, for example, is any more difficult to learn/defend against from that standpoint

There is an enormous difference between Precision and ROMEX and MOSCITO: Both Precision and Romex had very wealthy patrons.

Precision was paid for by C.C. Wei.
Romex was paid for by George Rosenkrantz

[uday]

Quote

i heard somewhere that there weren't more mp games on bbo cause the software had a glitch in it re: mp scoring

I don't know of any relevant bug. As long as I've been here, MP games have been far less popular (in the main bridge club) than IMP games.

[luke warm]

then i obviously heard wrong... it had something to do with the fact that because there are fewer mp games, this resulted in distorted scores... sounded as good as anything, but so does the fact that -8.5 imps looks better than 28% for a session