Hi Paul,

There is a strong odoriferous smell of leg pulling in your main assumption. Call it “a perfect solution” but leave out that the suggestion is to overflow the so-called (at least, up to now) lesser events into a master point feast for the less experienced (another euphemism) players.

My school course on logic might have suggested that if the idea is to satisfy the players with the facts that the top group of players disregarded master points and the less than top groups sought them, that the thing to do is supply them where they are wanted, not where they are ignored.

If only the above constituted the answer and all integrity vanishes along with it, then perhaps the ACBL should institute it and along with it make it retroactive and list all our players in upside down order until the new policy takes effect.

Popular is what popular does and since our National legislators (in real life not bridge) seem to follow that doctrine in their zeal to be elected to Congress, bridge may follow suit (if you don’t mind the pun) in creating an adventure which could be called, Humpty Dumpty. Where is Lewis Carroll when we need him?

‘Playing up’ will be discouraged if Strength of Field is implemented. Tournament organizers will not want those with few MP’s in the open field as they will lower the average MP of the participants which will reduce overall MP awards. Keep them in a limited MP event; those tables still count toward the open MP awards.
Off with their heads!

Still, I believe MP awards still need fine tuning. Playing in the Gatlinburg Regional last month in a single session pairs game with 63 tables, we won the A Pairs (3000+ MP) with a 68% game for 10.9 MP.

Meanwhile, playing at the same time in a two session event friends of mine won the A Pairs with 48 tables (188 tables including our one session event) and 62% for 35 MP.

Even many KOs finishing 3/4 won as many points (although 4 sessions of bridge).

Somehow, these awards seem a little off.

One of the factors of the last MP adjustment was to change KO awards based on average MP’s of the players in each bracket. While this helped the top bracket, it lowered awards in lower brackets. The problem was the heavy hitters MP holding raised the average up big time in the top bracket keeping those awards high, but lower bracket MP’s are reduced 10-30%.
The next attack on MP’s for the general membership was when the ACBL BOD lowered the awards for fund games at clubs from sectional to 70% of sectional.
Now the new attack of SOF at sectional and regional pair and (non-KO) team games again threatens to reduce MP awards to the rank and file.
Should I be paranoid?

Here’s another note: The players in lower KO brackets pay the same entry fee as bracket #1, play the same # of boards, and the same # of sessions in order to win their bracket. and relative to themselves, it is as hard for a team in bracket 12 to win as it is for a team in bracket 1.
Sounds like the ACBL wants to kill KO’s, which sort of worked in Gatlinburg where they averaged about 21 brackets instead of 30 in past years. Players under 750 flocked to the Gold Rush pairs (over 100 tables 4 days in a row), so the overall table count was not affected. The pair game, like a Phoenix, is rising from the ashes! The open pairs (40-50 tables) benefitted from this increase and 1st overall paid 30+ MP’s!