new life master requirements in ACBL

[Travis Crump]

I just heard through the grapevine that they've upped the requirements
for life master for new members starting 2010. It's now going to be
500/50/50/75/75 instead of 300/25/25/50/50[doubling gold/red points].
What do people think? An implicit admission that they've inflated the
awards too much or a good idea? An attempt to keep the 'stop going to
tournaments once they make life master' crowd around for an extra year?

Travis

[MrWCF]

Post by Travis Crump
I just heard through the grapevine that they've upped the requirements
for life master for new members starting 2010.  It's now going to be
500/50/50/75/75 instead of 300/25/25/50/50[doubling gold/red points].
What do people think?  An implicit admission that they've inflated the
awards too much or a good idea?  An attempt to keep the 'stop going to
tournaments once they make life master' crowd around for an extra year?
Travis

I think all three: good idea, admission of inflation, increase the
length and difficulty of the challenge. (Plus, it somewhat dampens
all the cries of, "It's not the same as when I made LM in 19xx.")
After I became a life master seven years ago, I had the deflating
feeling that it wasn't nearly as difficult, and it wasn't nearly the
indicator of excellence, as, for instance, when I made class A in USCF
chess.
Michael

[Jürgen R.]

Post by MrWCF

Post by Travis Crump
I just heard through the grapevine that they've upped the
requirements for life master for new members starting 2010. It's now
going to be 500/50/50/75/75 instead of 300/25/25/50/50[doubling
gold/red points]. What do people think? An implicit admission that
they've inflated the awards too much or a good idea? An attempt to
keep the 'stop going to tournaments once they make life master'
crowd around for an extra year?
Travis

I think all three: good idea, admission of inflation, increase the
length and difficulty of the challenge. (Plus, it somewhat dampens
all the cries of, "It's not the same as when I made LM in 19xx.")
After I became a life master seven years ago, I had the deflating
feeling that it wasn't nearly as difficult, and it wasn't nearly the
indicator of excellence, as, for instance, when I made class A in USCF
chess.
Michael

USCF Class A means you are among the top 5.33% of USCF members.
USCF masters: about 3 per 1000.

ACBL life masters: about 400 per 1000.

[blackshoe]

Post by Jürgen R.

Post by MrWCF

Post by Travis Crump
I just heard through the grapevine that they've upped the
requirements for life master for new members starting 2010. It's now
going to be 500/50/50/75/75 instead of 300/25/25/50/50[doubling
gold/red points]. What do people think? An implicit admission that
they've inflated the awards too much or a good idea? An attempt to
keep the 'stop going to tournaments once they make life master'
crowd around for an extra year?
Travis

I think all three: good idea, admission of inflation, increase the
length and difficulty of the challenge.  (Plus, it somewhat dampens
all the cries of, "It's not the same as when I made LM in 19xx.")
After I became a life master seven years ago, I had the deflating
feeling that it wasn't nearly as difficult, and it wasn't nearly the
indicator of excellence, as, for instance, when I made class A in USCF
chess.
Michael

USCF Class A means you are among the top 5.33% of USCF members.
USCF masters: about 3 per 1000.
ACBL life masters: about 400 per 1000.  

I'm sure the ACBL's goal is 1000 per 1000. Or perhaps more. ("We will
guarantee every American an above average income!" :-)

[Bill Jacobs]

Post by blackshoe

Post by Jürgen R.

Post by MrWCF

Post by Travis Crump
I just heard through the grapevine that they've upped the
requirements for life master for new members starting 2010. It's now
going to be 500/50/50/75/75 instead of 300/25/25/50/50[doubling
gold/red points]. What do people think? An implicit admission that
they've inflated the awards too much or a good idea? An attempt to
keep the 'stop going to tournaments once they make life master'
crowd around for an extra year?
Travis

I think all three: good idea, admission of inflation, increase the
length and difficulty of the challenge.  (Plus, it somewhat dampens
all the cries of, "It's not the same as when I made LM in 19xx.")
After I became a life master seven years ago, I had the deflating
feeling that it wasn't nearly as difficult, and it wasn't nearly the
indicator of excellence, as, for instance, when I made class A in USCF
chess.
Michael

USCF Class A means you are among the top 5.33% of USCF members.
USCF masters: about 3 per 1000.
ACBL life masters: about 400 per 1000.  

I'm sure the ACBL's goal is 1000 per 1000. Or perhaps more. ("We will
guarantee every American an above average income!" :-)

Why the smiley?

Isn't the financial basis of all national bridge associations that they
sell masterpoints to the players, even though these masterpoints have no
intrinsic value nor signify any level of competence or skill?

Cheers ... Bill

[Jürgen R.]

Post by Bill Jacobs

Post by blackshoe

Post by Jürgen R.

Post by MrWCF

Post by Travis Crump
I just heard through the grapevine that they've upped the
requirements for life master for new members starting 2010. It's
now going to be 500/50/50/75/75 instead of
300/25/25/50/50[doubling gold/red points]. What do people think?
An implicit admission that they've inflated the awards too much
or a good idea? An attempt to keep the 'stop going to tournaments
once they make life master' crowd around for an extra year?
Travis

I think all three: good idea, admission of inflation, increase the
length and difficulty of the challenge. (Plus, it somewhat dampens
all the cries of, "It's not the same as when I made LM in 19xx.")
After I became a life master seven years ago, I had the deflating
feeling that it wasn't nearly as difficult, and it wasn't nearly
the indicator of excellence, as, for instance, when I made class A
in USCF chess.
Michael

USCF Class A means you are among the top 5.33% of USCF members.
USCF masters: about 3 per 1000.
ACBL life masters: about 400 per 1000.

I'm sure the ACBL's goal is 1000 per 1000. Or perhaps more. ("We will
guarantee every American an above average income!" :-)

Why the smiley?
Isn't the financial basis of all national bridge associations that
they sell masterpoints to the players,

Surprisingly, this is not true everywhere. Here (Germany) recording
masterpoints is optional. If you opt out you save €5 p.a.(!). The 2008
budget
shows that about 50% of the membership does not pay the fee and that
masterpoint fees account for about 7% of income, nearly balanced by
expenses related to management. There is some additional income from
license fees that bridge cruise organizers pay. Moreover, you don't need
to join the federation to play in a bridge club.

Once the mistake of rewarding attendance was made, it quickly became
irreversible. Today, with computerized processing, you could introduce
a more rational rating system, but nobody will risk taking hard-earned
masterpoints or meaningless titles away from the paying public,
and the ACBL members don't seem to be calling for reform.

Post by Bill Jacobs
even though these masterpoints
have no intrinsic value nor signify any level of competence or skill?
Cheers ... Bill

[David Babcock]

Post by MrWCF
it somewhat dampens
all the cries of, "It's not the same as when I made LM in 19xx.")

This can cut either way depending on that xx. Before gold points were
introduced, you could make LM without ever getting a section top or
overall at a Regional.

David

[thg]

Post by MrWCF
it somewhat dampens
all the cries of, "It's not the same as when I made LM in 19xx.")

This can cut either way depending on that xx.  Before gold points were
introduced, you could make LM without ever getting a section top or
overall at a Regional.

I believe there was an intermediate step of red points.

[David Babcock]

Post by thg
I believe there was an intermediate step of red points.

Red points were what you got for any scratch at a Regional (and still
get). Gold points were carved out of the top end of the red points.

David

[Lone Locust of the Apocalypse]

Post by thg

Post by MrWCF
it somewhat dampens
all the cries of, "It's not the same as when I made LM in 19xx.")

This can cut either way depending on that xx.  Before gold points were
introduced, you could make LM without ever getting a section top or
overall at a Regional.

I believe there was an intermediate step of red points.

As it happens, I emailed the ACBL back at the end of August because
I was curious about the history. Here's the reply I received:

Before 1940 women had to have 110.00 points and men had to
have 260.00 points, at that time all points were black. In
1944 all players had to have a total of 300.00 of which
30.00 must come from a National Championship or 50.00 must
come from a Regional. In 1950 the requirements were 300.00
of which 30.00 red points came from a National or 50.00 red
points from a Regional. In 1969 you had to have 300.00
points of which 50.00 were red. In January 1969 the gold
point requirement was added making the requirement 300.00
points of which 25.00 had to be gold and 25.00 had to be
red. In 1988 the silver point requirement was added making
the requirements 300.00 of which 25.00 had to be gold, 25.00
had to be red and 50.00 had to be silver. In 1999 they added
the additional requirement that at least 50.00 points of the
300.00 points had to be black.

Of course, there's at least one minor error in their response --
"25.00 had to be red" should read "25.00 had to be red or gold"
based on today's requirements.

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by MrWCF

Post by Travis Crump
I just heard through the grapevine that they've upped the requirements
for life master for new members starting 2010. It's now going to be
500/50/50/75/75 instead of 300/25/25/50/50[doubling gold/red points].
What do people think? An implicit admission that they've inflated the
awards too much or a good idea? An attempt to keep the 'stop going to
tournaments once they make life master' crowd around for an extra year?
Travis

I think all three: good idea, admission of inflation, increase the
length and difficulty of the challenge. (Plus, it somewhat dampens
all the cries of, "It's not the same as when I made LM in 19xx.")
After I became a life master seven years ago, I had the deflating
feeling that it wasn't nearly as difficult, and it wasn't nearly the
indicator of excellence, as, for instance, when I made class A in USCF
chess.
Michael

IMHO, the ACBL has been between a rock and a hard place for some
time---the "rock" being players who want it to be easier to rack up
masterpoints and advance up the ladder, and the "hard place" being the
better players who feel that their achievements are cheapened by the
changes that make it easier for the multitudes to advance. The ACBL's
solution seems to have been to alternate trying to make both groups
happy. Way back a long time ago, when I found it difficult to earn
masterpoints due to not having been born yet, it was hard to get
enough MP's to make life master. Then, I think, they changed the
award scales and made it easier. Then they decided that some of those
points had to be red; then they made it easier to get red points; then
they added a requirement for some of the points to be gold; then they
made it easier to get gold points, etc., etc. Really, I don't envy
them. The ACBL is a business (even if a not-for-profit business) and
they want to make their customers happy, and there's just no good way
to please both sides. Maybe they ought to just make it easy to get
oodles of masterpoints and then devise something called a "Real
Masterpoint" that really does measure achievement, but they'd have to
keep it a secret that they share only with the good players, or else
the masses would figure out that their regular masterpoints are a joke
compared to the Real Thing, and then they'd demand that the ACBL make
it easier to get Real Masterpoints, and we'd be back where we started.

-- Adam

[Jon Siegel]

Post by Adam Beneschan

Post by MrWCF

Post by Travis Crump
I just heard through the grapevine that they've upped the requirements
for life master for new members starting 2010.  It's now going to be
500/50/50/75/75 instead of 300/25/25/50/50[doubling gold/red points].
What do people think?  An implicit admission that they've inflated the
awards too much or a good idea?  An attempt to keep the 'stop going to
tournaments once they make life master' crowd around for an extra year?
Travis

I think all three: good idea, admission of inflation, increase the
length and difficulty of the challenge.  (Plus, it somewhat dampens
all the cries of, "It's not the same as when I made LM in 19xx.")
After I became a life master seven years ago, I had the deflating
feeling that it wasn't nearly as difficult, and it wasn't nearly the
indicator of excellence, as, for instance, when I made class A in USCF
chess.
Michael

IMHO, the ACBL has been between a rock and a hard place for some
time---the "rock" being players who want it to be easier to rack up
masterpoints and advance up the ladder, and the "hard place" being the
better players who feel that their achievements are cheapened by the
changes that make it easier for the multitudes to advance.  The ACBL's
solution seems to have been to alternate trying to make both groups
happy.  Way back a long time ago, when I found it difficult to earn
masterpoints due to not having been born yet, it was hard to get
enough MP's to make life master.  Then, I think, they changed the
award scales and made it easier.  Then they decided that some of those
points had to be red; then they made it easier to get red points; then
they added a requirement for some of the points to be gold; then they
made it easier to get gold points, etc., etc.  Really, I don't envy
them.  The ACBL is a business (even if a not-for-profit business) and
they want to make their customers happy, and there's just no good way
to please both sides.  Maybe they ought to just make it easy to get
oodles of masterpoints and then devise something called a "Real
Masterpoint" that really does measure achievement, but they'd have to
keep it a secret that they share only with the good players, or else
the masses would figure out that their regular masterpoints are a joke
compared to the Real Thing, and then they'd demand that the ACBL make
it easier to get Real Masterpoints, and we'd be back where we started.
                                   -- Adam- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

This analysis is correct. The two sides can be seen fighting almost
monthly in the letters column in the Bulletin, with one month
featuring letters from players complaining that it's too hard to get
masterpoints (either novices complaining about having to play against
good players in stratified events, decent players complaining about
making it to the finals of some 4-session event but not getting any
points, or some other variation), and the next month featuring letters
by good players complaining that it's too easy for bad players to get
points.

The only solution is to adopt this mantra and repeat it each time you
play: "Masterpoints are not the goal. Masterpoints are an illusion.
The goal is to have fun and become a better bridge player."

[h***@yahoo.com]

Post by Travis Crump
I just heard through the grapevine that they've upped the requirements
for life master for new members starting 2010. It's now going to be
500/50/50/75/75 instead of 300/25/25/50/50[doubling gold/red points].
What do people think? An implicit admission that they've inflated the
awards too much or a good idea? An attempt to keep the 'stop going to
tournaments once they make life master' crowd around for an extra year?
Travis

If the ACBL is working on a new master point system, I would support
the creation of a new color (say, platinum) that is only awarded to
the Spingold, Vanderbilt, and Resigner (i.e., the 3 major team events
in the Nationals). Even though that doesn't handle the issue of
sponsors, those events are sufficiently unique and prestigious to
deserve their own color. Perhaps some combination of gold points
awarded for match victories through the round of 32 and then platinum
points awarded in the rounds of 16, 8, 4, and 2 would be workable.

Henrysun909

[BBO expert]

Post by h***@yahoo.com

Post by Travis Crump
I just heard through the grapevine that they've upped the requirements
for life master for new members starting 2010. It's now going to be
500/50/50/75/75 instead of 300/25/25/50/50[doubling gold/red points].
What do people think? An implicit admission that they've inflated the
awards too much or a good idea? An attempt to keep the 'stop going to
tournaments once they make life master' crowd around for an extra year?
Travis

If the ACBL is working on a new master point system, I would support
the creation of a new color (say, platinum)

We already have platinum...

Post by h***@yahoo.com
that is only awarded to
the Spingold, Vanderbilt, and Resigner (i.e., the 3 major team events
in the Nationals).

And isn't that what you get platinum points for? :-)

"Platinum Points
Platinum points are awarded for NABC+ events (which are national-rated
events with no upper masterpoint limit) and include the national-rated
senior and women’s event" http://www.acbl.org/about/masterpointAwards.html

[thg]

Post by BBO expert
We already have platinum...

Post by h***@yahoo.com
that is only awarded to
the Spingold, Vanderbilt, and Resigner (i.e., the 3 major team events
in the Nationals).  

And isn't that what you get platinum points for? :-)

I have Platinum points, none of which were won in the Spingold,
Vanderbilt or Reisinger. (Nor have I ever finished in the overalls of
a NABC+ Pair event.)

[Stu G]

Post by thg

Post by BBO expert
We already have platinum...

Post by h***@yahoo.com
that is only awarded to
the Spingold, Vanderbilt, and Resigner (i.e., the 3 major team events
in the Nationals).  

And isn't that what you get platinum points for? :-)

I have Platinum points, none of which were won in the Spingold,
Vanderbilt or Reisinger.  (Nor have I ever finished in the overalls of
a NABC+ Pair event.)

Platinum pts are awarded in all NABC events with no upper limit on
master points. So Senior and Women's events are included, as well as
the lesser national events. I believe you get platinum pts for
scratching, ie. a section finish or a Swiss round win, but you don't
get much.

Even so, I consider plat. pts to be a real indicator that one can play
bridge and hold your own against strong competition.

The ACBL BoD is considering a Platinum event at an NABC. It would
require all entrants to have earned 30 platinum points in the last 3
years. They have yet to find an NABC and day where it can be squeezed
into the schedule.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[thg]

Post by Stu G
Platinum pts are awarded in all NABC events with no upper limit on
master points.  So Senior and Women's events are included, as well as
the lesser national events.  I believe you get platinum pts for
scratching, ie. a section finish or a Swiss round win, but you don't
get much.

That was my point. Henry's suggestion would limit platinum points to
the three big team events.

Post by Stu G
The ACBL BoD is considering a Platinum event at an NABC.  It would
require all entrants to have earned 30 platinum points in the last 3
years.  They have yet to find an NABC and day where it can be squeezed
into the schedule.

I wonder if they've thought of eliminating one of the lesser NABC+
events.

[BBO expert]

Post by thg

Post by BBO expert
We already have platinum...

Post by h***@yahoo.com
that is only awarded to
the Spingold, Vanderbilt, and Resigner (i.e., the 3 major team events
in the Nationals).

And isn't that what you get platinum points for? :-)

I have Platinum points, none of which were won in the Spingold,
Vanderbilt or Reisinger. (Nor have I ever finished in the overalls of
a NABC+ Pair event.)

I was fairly sure it applied to more than those 3 events, but those three
_do_ give Platinum, right? So Henry needs something brighter and shinier
than platinum for his new points.

[Jürgen R.]

Post by BBO expert

Post by thg

Post by BBO expert
We already have platinum...

Post by h***@yahoo.com
that is only awarded to
the Spingold, Vanderbilt, and Resigner (i.e., the 3 major team
events in the Nationals).

And isn't that what you get platinum points for? :-)

I have Platinum points, none of which were won in the Spingold,
Vanderbilt or Reisinger. (Nor have I ever finished in the overalls
of a NABC+ Pair event.)

I was fairly sure it applied to more than those 3 events, but those
three _do_ give Platinum, right? So Henry needs something brighter
and shinier than platinum for his new points.

Radium, keeps you warm too.

[h***@yahoo.com]

Post by BBO expert

Post by h***@yahoo.com

Post by Travis Crump
I just heard through the grapevine that they've upped the requirements
for life master for new members starting 2010.  It's now going to be
500/50/50/75/75 instead of 300/25/25/50/50[doubling gold/red points].
What do people think?  An implicit admission that they've inflated the
awards too much or a good idea?  An attempt to keep the 'stop going to
tournaments once they make life master' crowd around for an extra year?
Travis

If the ACBL is working on a new master point system, I would support
the creation of a new color (say, platinum)

We already have platinum...

Post by h***@yahoo.com
that is only awarded to
the Spingold, Vanderbilt, and Resigner (i.e., the 3 major team events
in the Nationals).  

And isn't that what you get platinum points for? :-)
"Platinum Points
 Platinum points are awarded for NABC+ events (which are national-rated
events with no upper masterpoint limit) and include the national-rated
senior and women’s event"http://www.acbl.org/about/masterpointAwards.html

To show how out of touch I am with bridge at that level, I didn't even
know that there were such a thing as platinum master points. I drew
that designation out of my arse!

Henrysun909

[Lone Locust of the Apocalypse]

Post by h***@yahoo.com
To show how out of touch I am with bridge at that level, I didn't even
know that there were such a thing as platinum master points. I drew
that designation out of my arse!

Barium points?

[Stu G]

Post by Lone Locust of the Apocalypse

Post by h***@yahoo.com
To show how out of touch I am with bridge at that level, I didn't even
know that there were such a thing as platinum master points.  I drew
that designation out of my arse!

Barium points?

Best comic reply this year!

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[CBFalconer]

"***@yahoo.com" wrote:
... snip ...

Post by h***@yahoo.com
If the ACBL is working on a new master point system, I would support
the creation of a new color (say, platinum) that is only awarded to
the Spingold, Vanderbilt, and Resigner (i.e., the 3 major team events
in the Nationals). Even though that doesn't handle the issue of
sponsors, those events are sufficiently unique and prestigious to
deserve their own color. Perhaps some combination of gold points
awarded for match victories through the round of 32 and then platinum
points awarded in the rounds of 16, 8, 4, and 2 would be workable.

50 years ago we had useless life masters, who got avoided in the
club duplicates. Holding Master Points doesn't make you an
expert. Just don't take the whole system too seriously.

[Douglas Newlands]

Post by CBFalconer
... snip ...

Post by h***@yahoo.com
If the ACBL is working on a new master point system, I would support
the creation of a new color (say, platinum) that is only awarded to
the Spingold, Vanderbilt, and Resigner (i.e., the 3 major team events
in the Nationals). Even though that doesn't handle the issue of
sponsors, those events are sufficiently unique and prestigious to
deserve their own color. Perhaps some combination of gold points
awarded for match victories through the round of 32 and then platinum
points awarded in the rounds of 16, 8, 4, and 2 would be workable.

50 years ago we had useless life masters, who got avoided in the
club duplicates. Holding Master Points doesn't make you an
expert. Just don't take the whole system too seriously.

We really should switch to Mollo's brilliant idea of _Monster Points_.
People would be really well motivated to avoid them!

You could raise similar amounts of cash by allowing people to pay for
absolution and the removal of their monster points.

Douglas,
Tasmania

[BBO expert]

Post by Travis Crump
I just heard through the grapevine that they've upped the requirements
for life master for new members starting 2010. It's now going to be
500/50/50/75/75 instead of 300/25/25/50/50[doubling gold/red points].
What do people think? An implicit admission that they've inflated the
awards too much or a good idea? An attempt to keep the 'stop going to
tournaments once they make life master' crowd around for an extra year?

Probably all of the above? I haven't seen any of sign of the latter around
here, but if that really happens, I wouldn't be surprised if such a change
was explicitly in reaction to it. I doubt anyone would disagree with the
first point, and so it can't be a bad idea.