[Elianna]

Honestly, I'm not so sure this is purely a youth vs. age thing.

I know that data is not the plural of anecdote, but the people playing this (that I encountered) were older than me by 10+ years at least. When we played against them last year, the directors ruled that it was not allowed, and they could not play it (they were also playing artificial responses over it, so it was very clearly not allowed). And I'm rather old for this forum.

I will say that I'm not against alternate ideas about conventions, it's more that I'm in favor of rule-following. I had a very unpleasant interaction, where I was blamed for calling the director.

I agree with others, though, that most of this would be avoided by better clarity in the rules on the account of ACBL. If we are all expected to follow the rules, it would be nice if the rules were clear, and if people were able to get consistant answers from the game's governing body in our region. I can't imagine that anyone enjoys that some people get one response, and others get another response.

[TylerE]

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I also don't see the problem with it. It could sorta be a "World Poker Tour" of Bridge. Hold a 2 day event once a month maybe 10 months out of the year, and a week long event once or twice a year.

[mycroft]

I would suggest that several clients wouldn't mind it (Roy Welland, for instance, who certainly played, if not plays, a mid-chart only system on his teams; Ekeblad also comes to mind). I don't think it affects the pros all that much; even playing with their clients, they're in "I'm in a mid-chart bracket all by myself, so I never play GCC". Yes, it would matter for the big pairs events, but they're not usually GCC either - and they just don't play sub-National events where the client has to play 100% of the boards.

But they do think it's a problem for hoi polloi - and to give them credit, it probably is. But I don't think the "good enough" players are polloi; I'd probably put the limit at my recorded MP level, which means the "best" 20%. One of the problems of the accumulative nature of MPs is that the 60 points/year for 20 years player, who hasn't learned anything in 10 and frankly doesn't like that anyone else has, is stuck in that "best" 20%.

[TylerE]

I sort of see it as an oppurtunity for those like myself who enjoy the rare oppurtunity to play "real bridge" but realistically aren't ever going to make a national team (or be part of a serious top bracket team). I do agree that many pros wouldn't be interested, but again, this isn't so much about making everyone happy, but serving a niche that the ACBL is doing an extremely poor job of serving currently.

[akwoo]

mycroft, on 2013-May-23, 12:20, said:

But they do think it's a problem for hoi polloi - and to give them credit, it probably is. But I don't think the "good enough" players are polloi; I'd probably put the limit at my recorded MP level, which means the "best" 20%. One of the problems of the accumulative nature of MPs is that the 60 points/year for 20 years player, who hasn't learned anything in 10 and frankly doesn't like that anyone else has, is stuck in that "best" 20%.

Back when I was in the SF Bay Area, it was common knowledge that the lowest bracket in a seven or eight bracket regional knockout was almost always harder than the two or three brackets above it.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2013-May-23, 12:20, said:

But they do think it's a problem for hoi polloi - and to give them credit, it probably is. But I don't think the "good enough" players are polloi; I'd probably put the limit at my recorded MP level, which means the "best" 20%. One of the problems of the accumulative nature of MPs is that the 60 points/year for 20 years player, who hasn't learned anything in 10 and frankly doesn't like that anyone else has, is stuck in that "best" 20%.

The solution is so simple -- self flighting. There normally aren't prizes anyway at ACBL events, so there is no particular downside. A person could be forced into a higher category only if they have won a reasonably large event at the lower one.

Or Flight A and Flight B could both be unlimited in terms of master point holdings.

[mycroft]

Possibly. But what about:

- having played for your country in international competition? If that's auto-flight A (which it is in the ACBL, as it stands, as a point of fact), what if it was 1960? What if it was for a country with 10 members in their NBO?
- "won a reasonably large event" - again, what if it was 1960? The "other big MP problem" are the 80+year-olds who have to play in Flight A because at 35, they were world-class or close to it; at 70, they were still insanely dangerous; but now have been known to pass 2♣-2♦ GF; 2♥, or don't have the stamina to play in "Crazy-A" (and aren't, at their current level, "clearly too good" for B)?

Also (and this is the big issue) there are "big fish in small ponds" players; the ones that play in separate 0-1000 when they have 995 MPs, but would be competitive (but not winning) in flight A, or the ones that bring in ringers (bright players with few MPs, but they will soon) to KO games to get into Bracket 6 (and butcher it) instead of 4 (which is where they would be if they got a team of their peers, but then they might not win). If one can self-flight, we'd never get rid of these pests, and the real flight B'ers would leave instead (those that don't decide to play in A because of "well, if I'm not going to have a chance, I might as well get beaten by the best", of course).