yup

not sure exactly what you're getting at with your post. masterpoints are the single greatest marketing tool the acbl has.

would you prefer people didn't spend money on bridge?

What brrrr said. ACBL's business model is to sell masterpoints.

It's a long discussion I have had before but ultimately it comes down to which priority gets the most attention. The overarching bridge authority should be concerned to get lots of people playing but they should also be concerned to make sure each player is given every opportunity to get better. The master-point system facilitates the former but in ACBL land it seems to unreasonably get in the way of the later.

Master-points are a great marketing tool but they are not the only marketing tool available. Cue another long discussion I have had before about whether you promote the game from the bottom up or the top down. Most sports and lots of other activities are predominantly successfully promoted from the top down but this is not true of bridge.

It should be common ground that the best way to get better at bridge is to play as often as you can in the best school you can. It should also be common ground that master-points are not heavily correlated to how good you are but are heavily correlated to how often you play.

In any event and regardless of the merits of the ACBL master-point system it seems bad to me in a game which is fundamentally about learning that a players opportunity to do that is significantly limited by not having a big bag of master-points.

the bolded we completely disagree on. it is not the acbl's or anyone else's responsibility to try to make people better bridge players. if i want to pay my $10 to get out of the house for a few hours occasionally and mingle with people and maybe pick up some meaningless points on my journey towards a meaningless title, that is my prerogative.

and that sort of casual player accounts for an enormous majority of acbl's revenue stream.

there are plenty of opportunities for players to improve their game -- now more than ever in fact. but that is so far secondary to acbl's primary goal of getting butts in chairs that is hardly even warrants discussion.

It is clear that selling masterpoints is the ACBL's "business" model (swhich is strange to talk about because it's a nonprofit whose charter is to promote bridge and meet the bridge-related needs of its members, but OK). It is also clear that in the shortish term it is doing this quite well.

The argument against the current setup is one of two things:

1. The MP-rich approach gets people to come play but doesn't meet their needs because it doesn't sufficiently encourage them to get better. I could make this argument with a straight face, but it's not very good.

2. The current approach, while serving the needs of much of the existing membership, does not adequately draw new players to the game, which is particularly important for an organization whose median age is somewhere near 70. This argument is much better. Current management has explicitly stated that they are focusing their marketing efforts on retirees, because "young people don't play bridge"; it is therefore not surprising that the masterpoint system in place arguably serves long-standing members better than it does new folks and is arguably not optimized to draw new (and especially young) people into the game enough to get them hooked.

I and many others agree with argument 2, and think that many things including the masterpoint system should be augmented or changed. But it's good to recognize that to the extent they are "selling masterpoints", this is making a whole lot of members happy.

I have to go meet a client but later I will post the relevant text from the ACBL's charter.

We can agree about that. I am normally a competitive beast bridge-wise but several times a year I fill in for my 89 year old aunts partner on a weekday afternoon. I have a good time - she has a great time. The post-mortem is usually about the quality of the biscuits we are getting or maybe a salacious discussion about Hilda's new blue hair - almost never about the bridge. I did not say that the ACBL has a responsibility to try and make people get better.

"In any event and regardless of the merits of the ACBL master-point system it seems bad to me in a game which is fundamentally about learning that a players opportunity to do that is significantly limited by not having a big bag of master-points."

Address this part of what I said. Why shackle a players ability to play in the best school possible with the earning of master-points which you describe as "meaningless" ? I don't think it is overly cynical to suggest that maybe it happens that way because the ACBL gets to sell more master-points.

it is not a game which is fundamentally about learning for most people.

Landed in Washington last night and played the qualifying swiss for GNT flight C today.

We came 6/23 which was way over my expectations and so we get to play tomorrow anyway. I feel like we played pretty near our peak in terms of avoiding mistakes and staying fairly solid so might come crashing down tomorrow but it's all good. I thought I played well so I'm happy.

Last set we played some teenagers who had all the VPs so far and thought they were awesome - my partner had this hand in 1st seat r/r:

ATxx
Axxx
x
Axxx

Auction:

1!C - (2NT) - x - (3D)
p - (p) - x - (p) -
p - (p)

What do you lead?

Without looking at the spoiler, I'm not leading any of my aces, so I guess that leaves a trump. The ideal plan here is to draw as many of dummy's trump as possible.

+1

A trump lead is the default on that auction and I'd do it unless my hand someone screamed otherwise. This hand doesn't.

Same except I want to draw *declarer's* trump. I think dummy is gonna be endplayed a lot so not only is another suit not screaming at me, I'm definitely not looking to lead an ace.

Yeah, that's what I meant to say.

I have another question - I dealt and picked up

AKJxx
Jxx
Ax
Axx

I opened 1 spade (my only choice - we open a weak NT), partner bid 1NT (semiforcing) and then RHO overcalled 2H. What should I do?

In ye olden days you could double with this sort of hand and if partner passed you were in great shape -- it wasn't a pure penalty double, but it was highly passable. Now most experts play it as takeout. I have no idea what they do. Probably still double, except partner passes a lot less, and bids 3m a fair amount more probably.

I am not a weak NT-er, but I can't imagine not being able to double with this hand to show cards.

The problem with double in the modern context is that it shows 5134 shape and cards, not 5323 shape and cards. A partner with 2353 is going to do the very wrong thing.

I'd pass

I mean w 18-19 playing strong this is worth 3h but you have to pick shape or cards in a weak structure I guess

Asking around and a v good player says "double of this overcall shows a strong nt when playing a weak nt"

I'm sure it's all a matter of agreement but I can't imagine this is so rare - definitely need to decide something!

I did, in at least decent tempo I think. Partner passed in the passout seat with a 1354 nine count and beat it four (200), we should be making 600 in 3nt though.

Interesting - will bring it up.

You mean 800 or 1100 in 2hx?