Have you noticed some small changes in the Masterpoints ?
Small changes have occured, due to us now using a formula to calculate the MPs for the website. This means we can be more flexible and cost effective if, in future, we wish the make any changes to these awards.
As a result, the Masterpoint tables have improved the allocation for each event. They are now awarding a fairer and more consistently allocation of masterpoints, no matter how many pairs or teams are in the event. We have tried to keep them as close to the previous tables as possible in the process.
To give you an example: For a 5APairs tournament
Old system
|
Pairs |
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
4th |
5th |
6th |
| 21 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 22 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 23 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 24 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 25 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 26 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 27 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 28 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 29 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 30 |
5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
New system
| Pairs |
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
4th |
5th |
6th |
7th |
8th |
| 21 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 22 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 23 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 24 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| 25 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| 26 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| 27 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
| 28 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 29 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 30 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Most other tables have a similar story to tell. We hope you approve.
Latest Posts on this Thread
- NICK WHITTEN13 Sep 2017 at 01:46PM
What about C-points for teams?
- KAREN MARTELLETTI13 Sep 2017 at 02:08PM
Hi Nick
We did not touch the maximum C points for teams (or any other event for that matter), only the scale down according to the number of entries. So that will have to be another debate and maybe you need to discuss this with Murray Wiggins
- HAMISH BROWN16 Sep 2017 at 10:17AM
Hi Karen
your example seems to show quite a few more A points for placings. Is this accurite?
I think master point inflation is a concern to many tournament players. It is a frequent topic on the american web site bridge winners for example where the american master point system is seen as almost completly irrelevant as a mesure if skill because they keep giving more and more master points for similar achievements. In the states it appears they do this because it is the awarding of master points that generates revenue for the national bridge association. Australia have gone some way down the same track.
Can you please reasure us that New Zealand wont go down this track. While i appriciate what you have said about algorythems my preference would be a return to previous master point awards.
- KAREN MARTELLETTI16 Sep 2017 at 10:40AM
Sorry Hamish, but we will not be reinstating the old system. Under the old system, there was a table for every possible type of event (i.e. lots) and if we were to use them, we would have had to load every single one into the software to reference the Masterpoint calculation. We then would have to have a code written to ensure each one was referenced accurately. To top it off, if in the future we wanted to change anything (and I am not saying we will do this), we would have to load a new table and write a new code. This all becomes costly.
Yes some field sizes do increase A points, but some also decrease. The example above is showing increases I agree, however, is it not unfair that the old system rewards a field of 21 pairs the same as 30 pairs ? What is more, if the field had one more pair (31) the awards increased by four A points, whereas now, the steps are small for each additional pair.
Not only are the tables fairer, they are more consitently applied to all events.
We have tried to keep the revised tables as close as we can to the old ones and was not an attempt to increase revenue for NZB. I am not aware of us intending to increase the Masterpoint awards in the near future and certainly would not happen without wider consultation.
- HAMISH BROWN17 Sep 2017 at 09:50AM
Thanks Karen. That sounds perfectly resonable a great improvement even. Its good to understand that the ratational relates to the computerisation of stuff.
- 17 Sep 2017 at 08:44PM
Karen can you check the A points for the Canterbury Regional Pairs. This is a 10A event but theA points seem to be for a 5A Pairs event.
Thanks
- GILES HANCOCK17 Sep 2017 at 08:47PM
Hi Karen
Is there any reason why the placings for A-point tournaments couldn't be given fractional A points ?
So rather than 5-4-3-3-2-2-1-1 it could be 5-4-3- 2.5 -2- 1.5 - 1 - 0.5
Similarly I guess for B-point tournaments, with C points rather than fractions.
Just a thought.
cheers, Giles
- KAREN MARTELLETTI18 Sep 2017 at 11:59PM
Hi Michael
I note the Canterbury Regional Pairs event was reloaded and the Masterpoint allocation is now correct. Click on this link to see: Canty Regional Prs reloaded
Cheers
Karen - KAREN MARTELLETTI19 Sep 2017 at 12:01AM
Hi Giles
No reason at all why we cannot have partial A points for Pairs ladders. We did actaully consider it, but thought it maybe too confusing for players. At the moment, the points are rounded up, but would be very easy to stop the rounding. Worthy of debate for sure
Thanks
Karen - Jo Cairns20 Sep 2017 at 10:23AM
So last night I was placed 3rd in a pairs event at our club
All reports say i earnt 15 C points
Your table shows that 15 C points should be issued
So why is your site showing less?
Do I have to check every time now to make sure that the correct amount has been issued.
NZB number 44252
- KAREN MARTELLETTI20 Sep 2017 at 12:09PM
Hi Jo
Your C point allocation is correct, because there was a half table for that session and the C points issued are between 8 and 9 tables, which do not show on the Masterpoint table on the website, sorry. We did not realise the formula was working like this until after we went live and thought it would get too busy if we added the half tables in there as well.
Also please be aware, some scoring packages are still displaying the old Masterpoints on printouts.
Hope this explains it. We are keeping a watch on the results and they are doing what they should be doing. We recognise there have been some hiccups along the way. They have been a combination of incorrect processes at the club, through to some loading issues at our end, but most are now sorted. Glad you are keeping an eye out, however, to keep us honest !
- STANLEY ABRAHAMS21 Sep 2017 at 11:35AM
I was third last Tuesday, but my master points say I was 2nd equal. How does that work?
- Ant Hopkins21 Sep 2017 at 04:01PM
Stanley
The file received by NZB from Mt Albert for Tuesday ranks you as second equal. The information received is below.
2= Stanley Abrahams, Wesley Smith 55.83 % 2= Mary Chamberlain, Dong Gao Bi 55.83 % However the club's results website says otherwise, as below
2 Dong Gao Bi/Mary Chamberlain 56.25% 3 Stanley Abrahams/Wesley Smith 55.58% My guess is that a correction was made in the club scoring system and
... either the revised results not re-submitted to NZB, or
... or the revised results were not re-submitted to the Mt Albert results website
Anthony
- Ed Roggeveen21 Sep 2017 at 08:08PM
Hi all
I think the new A points allocations are excellent. The example given of 21 pairs and 30 pairs having the same A point allocations in the past is one that always bothered me so I'm glad it has been updated to make it fairer. So congrats and thanks for that.
I wonder, was any thought given to awarding an A (or B) point for the top 2 finishing pairs in a Howell type movement in a tournament? Quite often a straight Mitchell is not the appropriate movement and a Howell, Hesitation Mitchell, Twist and Bungee, or Pivot may be used in one or more of the sections. These all give a single winner. If in a Mitchell 1st NS and 1st EW both receive an A / B point, surely it should be the top 2 in a single winner movement?
Cheers
Ed - JOHN O'CONNOR21 Sep 2017 at 11:44PM
I am not of the opinion that it would be appropriate to award session A points like that.
Most of the time, in the tournaments that I enter, Howell movements run with fewer tables than Mitchell movements. You might see a six table Howell with 11 2 board rounds run alonside an 11 table Mitchell with the same number of rounds.
The winners of the Howell would have come first out of 12 pairs and the two winners in the Mitchell would have come first out of 11 pairs. That is comparable. Awarding an A point to a pair that came second out of 12 pairs would not be comparable to those results.
- Ed Roggeveen22 Sep 2017 at 12:07AM
What if it was 19 tables and one section was a 10 table Mitchell and the other section a 9 table Hesitation Mitchell so you can play 2 x 30 boards? 1st out of 10 gets an A but 2nd out of 18 doesn't?
When I set up a tournament I try to make sure that the chances of getting a session A point are about even for everyone by having people compete against about the same size number of pairs. But with some numbers that doesn't necessarily work.
Ed
- Ant Hopkins22 Sep 2017 at 08:24AM
Even 1A (or 1B) for topping a session isn’t very equitable.
An extreme is to compare a 25A event versus a 3A event: tops win 1A in each session/section, but the quality and depth of the fields are likely to differ.
It is hard to design a perfect system.
- JOHN O'CONNOR26 Sep 2017 at 12:10PM
Hi Edward,
In that situation - 19 tables and a need to play 60 boards - could you not run a 13 table Mitchell and a 6 table Howell with 3 sessions each comprising 10 rounds of 2 boards. Now you would have the bonus point for comming first out of 13 or 12.
I think that a creative director would be able to come up with a suitable plan for just about any number of tables and boards.
- Ed Roggeveen26 Sep 2017 at 01:12PM
Hi John
In that case you are either not running full movements and/or you are assuming that the Scoring program has a 20 board 13 table option and a 20 board 6 table Howell option (A 6 table Howell is 22 boards and I haven't seen an option for 20 boards). I assume you are not suggesting the rounds get cut short and that not all players play all the boards because that is an absolute no-no. Certainly 3 x 22 is possible with 13 and 6 but that is an extra 6 boards, two breaks ,and an awkwardly timed break for lunch. Most clubs that run 5A tournaments that I have directed prefer two 30 board sessions. I would think most players prefer 30 board rather than 20 board sessions too.
Ed
- NICK WHITTEN08 Oct 2017 at 08:52PM
Hi Ed
Compass in Hamilton has a Reduced Howell movement for 10 rounds with 6 tables (two pairs stationary)
Movements certainly exist for any number of moves from "the same number of tables" (Mitchell) up to "one less than twice the number of tables (full Howell")
As for session A-points what about issuing fractional ones proportional to the number in the section (such as 0.1 A-points multiplied by the number of contestants in the group).
Although a better option IMHO would be to do away with section/session awards altogether
Why there should be any award for the best result for a sub-set of the contestants in a sub-set of the competition baffles me
What golf tournaments have a prize for the best score on holes 1-9 among those who teed off between 10am and midday?
cheers
Nick
You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.
Click here to log in.
