[SandraGeb]

Is there anybody else who questions the fact that we must be in the right section to win Masterpoints? Does nobody else find that they are sixth overall and fifth in their section of a three-section game? Can this be right? Sure, luck plays a role in the game of bridge but it should not here, at BBO, when sections can be rearranged at the end of the game to better equalize payouts.

[Vampyr]

I am not quite sure what you are saying, but if it is that scoring across all sections (and also arrow-switching), is best, then I agree with you.

[awm]

There is always luck in who you play. If you happen to play against stronger opponents in a big field, it can be very difficult to finish above average... whereas if you play against weak opponents you can put up a big score without doing anything particularly good.

The reason for scoring by section, is so you are scored against people who had (more of) the same opponents you did. Obviously in a short game on BBO you won't have had ALL the same opponents, but at least if there are somehow a lot of good players in your section you still have a chance of beating the people who played against some of the same tough opposition.

[ggwhiz]

Flat boards against the weak opponents and tricky/volatile ones against the good ones can do you in too. As long as the boards are matchpointed across the field (which they still refuse to do at our sectionals) I'm ok with it.

[blackshoe]

I am not sure what you mean by "they refuse to matchpoint across the field at our sectionals". Can you explain?

[keylime]

I have strongly preferred having cross-matchpointing instead of section-based matchpointing because it mitigates somewhat weaker versus stronger sections.

[barmar]

In pair tournaments, BBO awards masterpoints for both overall and section ranks (both within strats, assuming there are enough pairs in the stratum).

In individual and robot tourneys, ACBL only allows us to award section ranks, and they don't allow us to rearrange the sections after the fact.

[barmar]

keylime, on 2015-July-13, 09:17, said:

I have strongly preferred having cross-matchpointing instead of section-based matchpointing because it mitigates somewhat weaker versus stronger sections.

Her complaint is about how masterpoints are awarded, not about matchpointing.

BBO matchpoints across the entire field, we just use sections for masterpoint awards.

[Vampyr]

awm, on 2015-July-12, 18:42, said:

The reason for scoring by section, is so you are scored against people who had (more of) the same opponents you did. Obviously in a short game on BBO you won't have had ALL the same opponents, but at least if there are somehow a lot of good players in your section you still have a chance of beating the people who played against some of the same tough opposition.

This applies only when there is arrow-switching.

EDIT: but of course the sections should never be combined to produce an "overall" result.

[guinnypoo]

Assuming I understand you correctly, I believe sections are not randomly assigned on BBO. In a 3 section tourney group A is the entire pool of players, group B is the top two thirds, and C the bottom third. So it's always easier to win matchpoints the lower section you are. Corrected.

I do wish the robots always played the same if the bidding and cards played have been identical.

[ggwhiz]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-13, 08:27, said:

I am not sure what you mean by "they refuse to matchpoint across the field at our sectionals". Can you explain?

Typically we would have 2 8 table sections matchpointed as 2 separate events with the winner scoring the highest percentage. Despite the fact we played identical boards you may score 5 mp's for +620 in your section and the same +620 scores 7 in the other.

[blackshoe]

ggwhiz, on 2015-July-14, 10:28, said:

Typically we would have 2 8 table sections matchpointed as 2 separate events with the winner scoring the highest percentage. Despite the fact we played identical boards you may score 5 mp's for +620 in your section and the same +620 scores 7 in the other.

That's the way separate events are supposed to work. If you want to score "across the field" you have to put both sections in the same event.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-14, 17:44, said:

That's the way separate events are supposed to work. If you want to score "across the field" you have to put both sections in the same event.

I think that's his point: they should be the same event, matchpointed together.

The only reasonable excuse for separating them would be if they're different flights, e.g. a 299er section and an open section.

[ggwhiz]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-14, 17:44, said:

That's the way separate events are supposed to work. If you want to score "across the field" you have to put both sections in the same event.

Yeah but that is the way they "score" the one and only event.

[billw55]

ggwhiz, on 2015-July-15, 08:54, said:

Yeah but that is the way they "score" the one and only event.

If you mean that my +620 for 5 mp is compared with another player's +620 for 7 (on the same board), and that they compare such mp totals in determining awards, then yes that is very bad.

[blackshoe]

ggwhiz, on 2015-July-15, 08:54, said:

Yeah but that is the way they "score" the one and only event.

billw55, on 2015-July-15, 09:48, said:

If you mean that my +620 for 5 mp is compared with another player's +620 for 7 (on the same board), and that they compare such mp totals in determining awards, then yes that is very bad.

It is indeed.