Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ping Hu
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff, I agree with you.
Jan. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the original OP probably should ask in this way: if it is the same 30 tables of players, play a team game, a pair game or an individual game, should the masterpoint awarded to be the same?

If it were asked in this way, my answer would be YES. The first place award should be same, the total masterpoint awarded should be about the same.

There are a number of ways you could achieve this. The 2nd and lower place MP award is calculated as a fraction of 1st place MP on a sliding scale. All it needs is to have a different sliding scale for team, pair and individual game so you could get the total MP awarded to be same. Currently ACBL uses the same sliding scale for team, pair and individual game. Then it tried to twist other parameter to make them compatible but it did not work.
Jan. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The bracket size is usually determined my tournament organizer and directors. For bracketed Swiss, it is usually targeted for 8 per bracket so it is easy to pair teams head to head.

However some tournaments have chosen 9 teams per bracket. The reason is masterpoint award. For 8 teams per bracket, 3 of them get overall awards. With 9 teams 4 would get overall MP. So for the same 72 teams, 8 team per bracket produces 27 overall MP winners, 9 team per bracket would have 32.

As you found out 5-6 per bracket only awards top 2.
Dec. 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin,

You are correct that it does get a little complicated in term of tournament organization. However we could try to model it to reach some rational decisions.

Let say I reorganize the event in this way: all teams entering CKO will pay for 2 session fees. If they are out of 1st session, they automatically enters 2nd session for single session Swiss. This CKO + one session Swiss is equivalent to two session bracketed Swiss. Furthermore let's assume no additional teams enter the one session Swiss. I would say the MP awards total (all places) for two session Swiss should be about the same as those from CKO + one session Swiss.

In practice you may want to have the one session Swiss to pay a little more to attract more teams.

There are a number of ways you could do to achieve this. CKO overall award is limited to top 25%. You could pay two session Swiss up to 30 or 35% so that they could be compatible to CKO + one session Swiss.
Dec. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Moved
Dec. 30, 2017
Ping Hu edited this comment Dec. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I abstained for this question because I think it is not well formed. Are we trying to compare a 60 entry pair game against a 30 entry team game? If so, there are actually two questions? First, should pair game pay the same MP (first place and aggregate) as team game? Second, how should field size be factored in MP awards.

For the first question, philosophically I think they should be same, both for first place and aggregate. For the second question, it certainly will affect on the depth of overall awards. However I would favor total table count as secondary factor in MP awards, for example it could change the MP determined by strength by +-20%. See my previous post from link below.
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/fixing-acbl-mp-system/
Dec. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin,

This should not be a problem. If we just normalize the first place MP to be the same and the award depth the same (25%), the MP awards will be compatible.

For teams out of KO, in principle they could enter another event (so called loser's Swiss). This would not be much different from two session Swiss where at lease half of the teams are usually out of competition for overall after one session.
Dec. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Max,

I don't think we are in much disagreement. The OP simply asks a philosophical question: should Swiss and KO pay same amount of MP award for same teams.

To put them in correct context we have to create the similar condition of contest. Assuming we have a good strength based rating system that we could rate each team correctly, for 40 teams we could either divide them into 3 brackets or 3 strata. More teams should be an issue in the future. We should be able to divide them into as many strata as the brackets we do today. With the same “condition of contest” there is not a reason to favor one over the other.

The pair/team disparity is slightly different. Pair game is scored by matchpoint, team game is usually IMP. So the first question is if MP and IMP should be awarded differently? Philosophically I don't think they should. Next is a more practical issue. Players tends to like to play in pairs games over team game in tournament, because most of them don't have a fixed teammates. So I think there is a reason that team game should play a slightly higher MPs (in aggregate term) than pair game in order to draw these players into team game.
Dec. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem with reward different masterpoint for different event format is it will drive players to one format over the other. Overtime the less favorable format will have less and less players and eventually it will die. The 2015 change to reward pair event higher MP over team has shown this. Players don't want to play in Swiss team or KO when there is a pair event available in a tournament.
Dec. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Multi weak two in majors as I said in my earlier response.
Dec. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is absolutely true what best use of 2 depends on the entire system. My design of limited bids in a strong club is like the following:
1) 1/: 5+ card;
2) 2: original Precision
for the rest of hands,
3) 1: unbalanced;
4) 1NT: balanced or semi-balanced;

The 1 seems ambiguous. However if you think it in the context of you open any 5+4M with 2 and semi-balanced with 1NT, you'll find it must either has 4+ or 0-1 . The later case is just Precision 2 with 4-4 in majors. This make 1 open much better than “nebulous” 1. It promises something!

What could gain with extra 3 bids (2//NT)? I could use them to open 5-5 hands without full opening value.

I don't view weak two as “weak” hand. It has a lot of offensive values. Consider hands with 6 card suit and 10 HCP vs a balanced 11, which one could make more tricks? In term of loser count, a typical weak two is 7-8 losers. A hand with 5-5 two suits and similar HCP strength is 6-7 losers. It would be a big advantage to be able to open these 5-5 hands. I consider these bids all constructive, not “weak”.
Dec. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my system, this would be easily handled. Partner open 1 to show unbalanced hand. You respond with 1. Partner rebid 2NT to show 4 with s/v in and minimum. Now you could judge to pass or play 3.
Dec. 28, 2017
Ping Hu edited this comment Dec. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I use 2 as multi with weak two in majors. The traditional precision 2 is very infrequent, not a very good of use of this bid. Now it could be incorporate into 1 opening that shows a limited unbalanced hand.
Dec. 28, 2017
Ping Hu edited this comment Dec. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would assign a score of AVE- to NS.

A similar mistake happened to me in last session of Red Ribbon final five years ago. After first board we were discussing previous board result (how many tricks each side won). I did not notice the board had been changed and picked up my hand and exposed them. When we realized it director was called. He said he never saw this kind of problem. After consulting with other directors he assigned AVE- to us. Despite this board we still finished session top.
Dec. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff, if you read my post about rating, only pair level could be rated. How do you rating individual player? You could not partner with yourself. If each pair maintain its own rating, what does its matter if a player plays with others. Now matter how many player Eric Rodwell play with, the rating for Meckwell is always the same!

I would not rush to a conclusion on something we have not tried. In Commongame we know some lower rated players like this because there is a way for them to get rewards when they were only compared against his/her peer. While in typical open club game they could not get MP.
Dec. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are two distinct issues here. One is reward for player's performance. The other is rating that measures player's ability. These are separate issues.

Player should be awarded for their performance no matter what their rating/ability is. To be fair, the tournament should be set up in such a way that players are competing against their peer (same rating within certain range). Lower rated players could play in higher group/flight, but higher rated players should not be permitted to play in lower group/flight.

As how to award players, we could do it either the size of MP, or combined with pigment. For chess tournament that gives cash award, different group/class get different size of award. See the following link to upcoming North American Open.
http://www.chesstour.com/nao17.htm

Currently ACBL uses pigmented MP for different classification of tournament (club, section and regional). We could redefine it to reflect the strength of competition (measured by rating). If we could add more levels of Life Masters (like Ruby, Sapphire and Emerald), why not more types of pigmented points (Emerald, Diamond, Sapphire and Ruby)?
Dec. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff, the problem is how you define “merit of accomplishment”.

If you define it as winning Bermuda Bowl or an NABC championship, most of us probably should stay home not playing. If you agree winning an opening event in regional, a limited event in NABC are also “merit of accomplishment”, what about for a new player winning a 299er event, or just winning a club game? If they could all be considered “accomplishment”, then the question is whether or not they should be awarded, but how they should be awarded.

You did pointed out a valid issue that the current system encourage players not to seek challenge strong player but play in lesser event they had better chance to win. This is because current MP system allows it, not players fault. A proper rating system would prevent it. In chess tournament players have to play in their own rating group or higher. They could not play in a lower group. There are also anti-sandbag rule that prevents player to purposely play badly so they drop their rating and could play in lower group.

Now going back to the question of winning an A/X pair is an “accomplishment” or not. Let consider two different scenario. First, a pair of upstarting young pair or a flight B player win this event. Second, let's assume Meckwell (they probably will never enter such event) or a pair of other seasoned pro win this event. Which one is an “accomplishment”? I think the first case certainly IS and second is not.
Dec. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm glad this post started some interesting discussion. It looks like it is in common agreement that the primary award should be based on field of strength. Current MP also adjust for length of match, table counts and restrictions (senior or mixed). They are OK as secondary factors.

A more important question is how to award players based on their individual strength. In order encourage player to play (I believe this is what MP should do) player should be awarded when they perform above their expectations. This means we need a system that could predict what player's expected performance should be. Then their actual performance is better, they should be awarded.

I have previous presented an Elo based rating system for Bridge. It could make such prediction based player's own strength, their opponent and other players played in the same game. In order to be fair, players award should consider players in the same strength group. In Commongame we have divided players based on their strength up to 12 different groups. This is much more than 3 stratum in ACBLscore. In principle we could create awards based on each group. This is more like chess tournament where play and award are based on player's rating classes.

Need to board my flight a couple minutes. Will write more later.
Dec. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Swiss team using Bridgemate was a success last night. There were 30 teams with 2 stationary. Players used Bridgemate to enter player numbers and board results just like pair game.

Director used computer program to pull them into ACBLscore. Players did not have to turn in score cards. The new round pairing was published soon after last score got into Bridgemate. They were published using both projector and rack (traditional way) for first 3 rounds. Last round director decided to use only projector to make it even faster.

The only issue slowed down the game was 31 entries was sold but one team was missing at start. Later it found one team had bought two entries. So pairing had to be rearranged to change a 3-way to a head to head and Bridgemate had to be restarted. There were a couple players had questioned about scores during and after game. Director was able to pull out the board results in question right way and computer was correct.

Bridgemate allows director to monitor game progress on every table. When there were slow tables, he was able to go to that table to pull out a board. So even the game started a little late, but last three rounds were all on time.
Nov. 29, 2017
Ping Hu edited this comment Nov. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What happened was then entries were more than expected. It was expected 60 teams but 86 entries were sold. When the entry was closed, it was already about 10 minutes passed game time. The computer generated pairing soon after that, probably about 1:15. But the wireless connection to the project went down.

Some later account by other players was there was a lady who could not see screen clearly so she tried to press some buttons on projector but ended up crashing it. This was right at the time we were about publish pairing to projector. We tried to reconnect to projector but was not successful. The pairing is on computer screen but we could not publish it. So TD has to revert to manual process to publish pairing on the wall.

Initially we tried to follow the pairing given by the program and did that for top bracket and half of second bracket, but it was slow to do this exact match. So TD went back to old way of randomly pairing within the brackets. However the last two bracket had some three ways and we started with 72 tables, as entries was more than that number we pulled some tables from 4 other section to make 86. It took TD a while to figure out what table could be used for round robin. When the last pairing was put on the wall and game started, it was 1:40pm. The ACBL Director of Operation decided to issue a refund/discount coupon to all players.

I have posted a message early on this thread that we are going to use Bridgemate to enter player numbers early in this thread and advised to come early. However most players were not prepared, so they have to use another laptop to look for player number. Considerable amount of them also did not fill the bracket form (form with team masterpoint). So the selling area was very crowed and added operation difficulties.

I have previously mentioned Bridgemate will be used in Swiss team on Sunday but it was rescheduled for tonight (Tuesday evening).
Nov. 28, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top