Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Oleg Rubinchik
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Jonathan,
I have no doubts that if people like Peg and you saying there is a problem, the problem is real.
But I cannot see that problem out of results from the latest Philadelphia regional. So, my post was to understand if I am misinterpreting the data or there were something specific for that Regional that made the problem with masterpointwise inequality between pairs and teams less acute.

Hmm… looking and my data. Masterpoint awards for Sunday. 28 tables teams and for Thursday, 137 table teams almost the same. Does not feel right at all. Am I missing something? I am also confused by words “based on”. Do they have any special meaning towards the actual conditions?
July 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Peg,
I just look at results the latest regional I played and do not really see _that_ kind of problem. Not sure if we were lucky here or I just missing something:
I copied data with masterpoints given for first 4 places below:

Sunday AX Swiss - 28 Tables: 1st - 32.09; 2nd - 24.07; 3rd - 18.05; 4th - 13.54

Saturday Open Pairs / Based on 29 Tables: 1st - 28.88; 2nd - 21.65; 3rd - 16.25; 4th - 12.18

Friday AX Pairs / Based on 81 Tables: 1st - 34.29; 2nd - 25.72; 3rd - 19.29; 4th - 14.47

Thur Flight A Teams / Based on 137 Tables: 1st - 32.23; 2nd - 24.17; 3rd - 18.13; 4th - 13.60

***

By the way, there is another problem I can see from that data - shrinking of attendance on weekends.
July 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But don't we already have it? Everyone can play ACBL robot games that cheap, stratified, have much less boards and give away huge amount of masterpoints?
July 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to refer to Edgar Kaplan “ETHICS HUDDLES AND PROTESTS” article, which I personally regard as the most important article about bridge ethics.
Idea of Kaplan is the following: player should be able to “say “I have been damaged” without implying “I have been cheated””
All kinds of ethics violations, according Kaplan, should be addressed as a merely technical violation, similarly to exposed card.
Here is an illustration from Kaplan’s article:
“At the meeting, South, a lady of absolutely irreproachable character, told us that she had hesitated slightly, but only because she had a slight problem, certainly not to give partner information. We believed her. North, a gentleman whom we all knew to be of blameless reputation, told us that he had not allowed partner’s hesitation, which he hardly noticed, to influence him. We believed him. And we awarded an adjusted score, for one no-trump, undoubled, down two.
We did not have to weigh North South’s morals or delve into their minds. North, no matter why, had taken doubtful action after partner huddled; and, under our rule, he was not entitled to do so. We certainly did not think that East-West had been cheated (if we had thought so, we would have referred the matter to the Conduct and Ethics Committee.) But we did think that they might have been damaged (not were damaged, but might have been damaged, observe), so entitled to redress.”

***

If you look at the situation from that point of view, you can see that absolutely worst think you can do at the table is to “educate” your opponents about ethical side of their action.
What you supposed to do is:
1. Reply on question without unnecessary comments. No calls for director at that moment. Opponents had a right to ask question, your duty is to reply. No possible violation of rules yet.
2. After lead made if you feel that lead might be suggested by UI, you should call the director and say: “RHO asked about club bid, LHO lead clubs. I think I might have been damaged.”
3. If director will not agree you were damaged you can appeal or not, but you should carefully avoid discussion with opponents about how ethically correct was their behavior. If they ask, you can explain that RHO choose very unfortunate timing for his question and you feel that it could affect his partner decision about lead. You agree that they did not try to do anything bad, but rules are rules and we have director to check if some accident violation was made and corrective action is due.

It is how I see it. I might be wrong.
Agree, it is much easy in theory than during the actual game.
July 11, 2017
Oleg Rubinchik edited this comment July 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Medical students' disease (also known as second year syndrome or intern's syndrome) is a condition frequently reported in medical students, who perceive themselves to be experiencing the symptoms of a disease that they are studying. “

I have a feeling that is a very similar case. Good students of complicated science of bridge ethics, like medical students, perceive themselves to be experiencing the symptoms of unethical behavior from opponents much more often than unethical behavior actually exist.
It is not innocent disease, because imaginary “black magic” from opponents together with absence of expected response from directors, make student feel bad and act such a way that make them real issues.
July 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In that particular case, according OP, RHO of topic starter hold unsupported King of clubs with Ace behind it. I doubt he actually wanted his partner lead that suit.
July 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for explanation John.

I guess I see the problem.
Masterpoint Awards document (http://web2.acbl.org/codification/MPBOOK.pdf)
has “the absolute limits on the depth of all overall awards” that is 50 places for Four Sessions (page 11). If I read the document correctly, this is the upper limit of depth for all possible masterpoint awards.

Because of that limitation if we have one huge section, only very limited number of players can get masterpoints.

If field will be divided in sections, depth of the section awards according the same document “is 40% times the number of pairs in the comparison group, rounded to the nearest whole number with .5 rounded up,” so about 40% of field could be awarded.

As a result for 1000 participants up to 50 can be awarded in each session (maybe even less). By dividing to 10 sections by 100 player in each number of awards could be increased by 10 times.

***

I guess majority of players on BW does not care about masterpoint awards. Test is test, lets ACBL to have room to make the second game more “masterpoint hunters friendly”.
July 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
it's a pity
July 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The TD returned to the table and I was told that if I continued, I would receive a Zero Tolerance Penalty.”
Who called the director that time? Or he returned because of noise from that table?

If Topic Starter called the director for the third time and got the threat of ZT penalty I agree with Donald; but if director had to return due to noise or Opponents called him with complaint about inappropriate comments from person who already got decision from director, ZT is not far from the correct thing.
July 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe idea was to divide by sections unrelating to hands, I mean, different people from the same section does not have to play the same hands. It will not introduce any issues … but I am failing to see any benefits of it.
July 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As it is already said by Serge above, X by Gib simply shows value, not distribution. Good to guess what it holds :)

With human partner double is penalty, unless another meaning is agreed.
July 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To be honest to her word “screaming” is probably an overbid on my part. It was loud bot not on the level of scream.
July 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I doubt gold points by itself will make serious impact on participation in absence of stratification.
People who care about gold points have to compete for masterpoints with A players.
July 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems like gold idea.
June 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, I once played in a chess tournament where organizers forgot to bring chessboards :)
June 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Out of curiosity, what exactly is unfair in no stratification?
June 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess I missed an ice-cold grand slam but there is no intelligent way to check it after my 3NT bid.
June 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Difficult choice between: pass, 4 and 1

State of the match and who are opponents would be deciding factors.
June 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is true. But increasing entry fee from 0 (free BBO daylong tournaments) to $0.25 decreasing participation 9 times (from ~9000 to ~1000). Increasing entry fees to 40$ could strongly affect participation. Or not :) Will see.
June 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
- I don't like cats!
- You just don't know how to cook them.
June 22, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top