Two of my favorite pastimes are drinking beer and playing bridge. Unfortunately, I usually have to remember to do these in the correct order. Alcohol muddles the bridge brain. But there have been several notable exceptions to this rule, particularly when I've been playing with Kim.
The first occurred several years ago now at the Life Master Pairs in Honolulu, our first attempt at that event. We realized what we were up against in the first session and, given our 42% game, decided to go back to our room and have a glass of wine with dinner. It couldn't hurt, right? We'd need at least 58% to qualify and that was simply out of the question in such an event. But sometimes the bridge gods like to play jokes. In the evening session, we scored 62%, winning our double-section (which included Zia and other luminaries) and easily qualifying us for the second day.
The latest happened just this last weekend, playing with Kim in the A/X pairs at the Sturbridge Regional. Nothing really bad happened in the first session but we were a few too many times on the wrong side of average, scoring a disappointing 45.5%. Still, we were going to have fun during the break with many of our bridge friends at the barbecue hosted by Brian Duran on a nearby lake. Should we enjoy the full barbecue experience and have a beer? Why not?
The fun over, we returned to the second session with no great expectations. But, as one of our bridge friends likes to say, the gift box was open! A couple of decent things happened in the first round (four boards) which was worth about 64%. We dropped just half a matchpoint in the second round for 98.2% (!). With two of the seven rounds to go, we were at 73.5% although of course we didn't know that for sure. Although I wasn't estimating, my gut feel was that we were having a 70% game. Only in the last round did we slip a tad below average, finishing with 68.5%. We were greeted by "how was your last round? You guys could win it." Now, it was getting interesting! I'd had a second-place finish in a regional A/X pairs and Kim had actually won a regional pairs event. Otherwise, we'd won a single-session regional Swiss and a two-session sectional together. Now I really wanted to win a two-session open regional event.
The trouble was we were two matchpoints behind the leaders. I quickly checked the scores and found one that had been entered as –790 instead of +790. That's one of the tricky aspects of scoring in a Howell movement – you keep switching directions so it's easy to go wrong. Once we got that corrected, it was more than enough to put us on top. It certainly was quite the comeback!
I'll just mention a couple of good (or maybe just lucky) decisions that helped us along the way:
All vulnerable, you hold ♠ QT7542 ♥ Q9874 ♦ 65 ♣ –. 1♦ on your left, pass by partner, 2♦ on your right, alerted as inverted minors. Your call?
Kim chose 2♠ which was doubled, ending the auction. I produced ♠ K ♥ KT632 ♦ 42 ♣ T8542 without any great enthusiasm, though it seemed at least I had one useful card! Turns out we can actually make 3♥ on this hand, while 2♠ was down 2 for –500. However, the opponents have 6♣, 6♦, or 6NT. Never were we so happy to play in the wrong suit – a shared top for us.
Here's one where a couple of somewhat aggressive bids paid off. I dealt the following hand with nobody vulnerable: ♠ QJT975 ♥ K6 ♦ 876 ♣ A2. What to open? Some might open it 2♠. I know some who would pass and await developments. I don't like to open a weak two with two outside "cards" so I opened it 1♠. This is not as crazy as it might seem, even though it doesn't meet the "rule of 20." On the Zar points scale, this hand evaluates to 26, a minimum opening hand. It's also a seven-loser hand, again worth an opening. LHO passed and Kim responded 2♠, which shows either three-card support or a really flat hand with four spades. RHO doubled and I raised the ante with 3♠ (bidding to our "law level"). This was passed out, allowing me to go quietly off two for a clear top. The opponents could make either 400, 430 or 450 in diamonds, notrump or hearts respectively so even being doubled would have yielded a decent score.
But mostly, we were handed gifts, like the 640 for 2♥XX or the 800 for a "save" against a slam where even game doesn't make. Sometimes you just get lucky. Or just maybe it was our relaxed attitude that arose from the combination of a 45% first session, good food and a beer?
The moral of this story is that bridge is a game in which it is easy to take a wrong turn, but that whatever happens at the bridge table, you should never give up. This applies at the level of your bridge career (or partnership), at the event level, on a particular board, and indeed after any card or bid. When you first realize that you have just made a bad bid or play, set your mind to accept the fact that your bid or play was in fact correct and continue, based on that assumption, from that point forward. And if you have a disastrous start to a session, put it behind you and play to win.
Showing posts with label winning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label winning. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Points, schmoints
This posting is actually a proposal for a way that the ACBL could improve the masterpoints scheme and the corresponding ranks such that decent players who will never achieve Grand Life Master status, would have something meaningful to work for. I'm not wedded to the specifics of the proposal (one precious metal is much like another) and the particular point values I suggest are quite arbitrary. Let me begin with a little introduction.
Who cares about masterpoints? Non-life-masters care a lot. Experts couldn't care less. Other players are somewhere in between, although it's probably not too far from the truth to say that nobody who has achieved gold life master status, cares much about their points. When was the last time you heard a really good player looking at the recap sheet and saying "we got 13 points!"? Come to think of it, when was the last time you saw a really good player even at the recap sheet?
I can't really say what motivates expert players, but I'm sure isn't masterpoints. That wasn't always true – there was a time of course when masterpoints really meant something. At the other end of the spectrum, I know quite a few players who regard masterpoints as a tax: the more they earn the sooner they will be forced to play in flight A. Neither of these constituencies gains much from the masterpoints scheme.
Leaving aside for the moment that an expert player might be being rewarded by getting paid, I think that what motivates such players, apart from the simple love of the game, is winning. Winning is the only path to recognition (and respect) by their peers.
The conclusion that I draw from this is that, if the ACBL really wants a way of recognizing achievement beyond life master, they should come up with a new system of points which recognize winning only. Platinum points, as currently defined, are OK but they are only available at NABCs and not everyone can afford to go to such tournaments. Moreover, fractional platinum points are awarded for placing quite distantly in an NABC+ pairs event.
This month's ACBL bulletin has yet more letters bemoaning the failings of the current masterpoints system. Here's my suggestion for another type of points: titanium, awarded only for winning open events at sectionals, regionals, and of course Nationals. No points for second place, no points for flight B. No points for winning a bracketed KO (unless it's the top bracket). Just winning. Two-session events would score at least double the points for a single-session event. Some exceptions might be made, such as winning a section (26 pairs) at an NABC+ event such as the LM pairs because that's probably at least as difficult as winning a two-session local sectional. Or winning a KO match in the Spingold or Vanderbilt: because of seeding there are no easy wins. I think there should probably be some minimum table requirements too. For example, a 10-table sectional event should probably not count (or maybe the award would be reduced to 1). Perhaps "consolation" events should not count either (that might rule out all single-session regional events).
Here are some possible titanium point values (these are just suggestions):
* including STAC games provided that there are at least two clubs competing and at least 20 tables.
As you can see, the titanium awards would be about the same, numerically, as you would receive in platinum points. But they would not be interchangeable.
The requirements for silver, gold, diamond, etc. life master rankings could be amended to include a certain number of such points. For example (again, these are merely suggestions):
This would give people who have achieved life master status something meaningful to work for. For those of us who will never reach the rank of Grand LM, there is really nothing to work for beyond LM. Just more and more relatively meaningless points.
I think this would give back meaning to the idea of masterpoints, something more like in the "good old days" that we newer players keep hearing about.
Who cares about masterpoints? Non-life-masters care a lot. Experts couldn't care less. Other players are somewhere in between, although it's probably not too far from the truth to say that nobody who has achieved gold life master status, cares much about their points. When was the last time you heard a really good player looking at the recap sheet and saying "we got 13 points!"? Come to think of it, when was the last time you saw a really good player even at the recap sheet?
I can't really say what motivates expert players, but I'm sure isn't masterpoints. That wasn't always true – there was a time of course when masterpoints really meant something. At the other end of the spectrum, I know quite a few players who regard masterpoints as a tax: the more they earn the sooner they will be forced to play in flight A. Neither of these constituencies gains much from the masterpoints scheme.
Leaving aside for the moment that an expert player might be being rewarded by getting paid, I think that what motivates such players, apart from the simple love of the game, is winning. Winning is the only path to recognition (and respect) by their peers.
The conclusion that I draw from this is that, if the ACBL really wants a way of recognizing achievement beyond life master, they should come up with a new system of points which recognize winning only. Platinum points, as currently defined, are OK but they are only available at NABCs and not everyone can afford to go to such tournaments. Moreover, fractional platinum points are awarded for placing quite distantly in an NABC+ pairs event.
This month's ACBL bulletin has yet more letters bemoaning the failings of the current masterpoints system. Here's my suggestion for another type of points: titanium, awarded only for winning open events at sectionals, regionals, and of course Nationals. No points for second place, no points for flight B. No points for winning a bracketed KO (unless it's the top bracket). Just winning. Two-session events would score at least double the points for a single-session event. Some exceptions might be made, such as winning a section (26 pairs) at an NABC+ event such as the LM pairs because that's probably at least as difficult as winning a two-session local sectional. Or winning a KO match in the Spingold or Vanderbilt: because of seeding there are no easy wins. I think there should probably be some minimum table requirements too. For example, a 10-table sectional event should probably not count (or maybe the award would be reduced to 1). Perhaps "consolation" events should not count either (that might rule out all single-session regional events).
Here are some possible titanium point values (these are just suggestions):
| event type | award |
|---|---|
| single-session sectional* | 2 |
| double-session sectional | 5 |
| single-session regional | 4 |
| double-session regional | 10 |
| NABC+ section top | as now (7) |
| KO (Spingold/Vanderbilt) win | 15 |
| NABC+ | as now (typically 120) |
* including STAC games provided that there are at least two clubs competing and at least 20 tables.
As you can see, the titanium awards would be about the same, numerically, as you would receive in platinum points. But they would not be interchangeable.
The requirements for silver, gold, diamond, etc. life master rankings could be amended to include a certain number of such points. For example (again, these are merely suggestions):
| rank | requirement |
|---|---|
| silver LM | 1000 points, inc. 1 titanium |
| gold LM | 2500 points, inc. 10 titanium and at least one two-session sectional win |
| diamond LM | 5000 points, inc. 25 titanium and at least one two-session regional win |
| platinum LM | 10000 points, inc. 50 titanium and at least two two-session regional wins |
This would give people who have achieved life master status something meaningful to work for. For those of us who will never reach the rank of Grand LM, there is really nothing to work for beyond LM. Just more and more relatively meaningless points.
I think this would give back meaning to the idea of masterpoints, something more like in the "good old days" that we newer players keep hearing about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)