Points and the Partnership Desk

I try to tag along with McKenzie whenever he has a professional bridge gig, and a lot of times that means I'm left floating around the tournament with no partners lined up. His work takes him all over the place, so it's pretty common that I don't know anyone else at the tournament aside from his teammates. That means that if I want to play, I have to visit the partnership desk.

For every one good partner you find at the partnership desk, there are at least five who will give you a migraine. After all, these are usually people who couldn't get anyone to agree to play with them.

When you request the services of the partnership desk, pretty much the only criterion they use to match you with someone else is your masterpoint total. Have you ever noticed that every bridge player in the world thinks that they are better than their masterpoints indicate?

I know I feel this way. I have about 560 masterpoints as of this writing, which is 260 more than I started the year with, and something like 550 more than I had this time three years ago. Some people spend their whole lives trying to rack up the points that I've won in the last year -- clearly I'm better than these people, right? Well, maybe...but there's also the fact that I play bridge all the freaking time. Anyone who plays enough bridge can win a Mini-McKinney race.

I used to have a whole spiel that I would deliver when approaching the partnership desk. "I only have 350 points, but 150 of those are from the last six months and my regular partner is a bridge pro, I can pull my weight, please match me with an A player." Gosh, I really sounded like a tool.

Eventually I realized that everyone rates their own skill above what their masterpoints may indicate, and no real A player wants to get matched up with some full-of-herself novice, no matter how many times she claims to have defeated Meckwell (once).

I've been matched up with people like this, too. They have 100 points or so, or maybe even 1,000 or more, but insist that they are really top notch players, nevermind the points or lack thereof. And since I've always been a believer that masterpoints are no indicator of skill, I believed them when they made their proclamations.

Inevitably, within the first few boards, I'm thinking to myself "how on earth did this person EVER get out of of the 0-5 game?!" And players who think they are better than their points tend to make terrible partners. They want to look for blame when a defense goes awry, they misuse all the dozens of conventions they insist on playing, they don't trust their partners, and they don't listen. The only thing more painful than the migraine is the 28% next to your name on the score sheet. Ouch.

My best partnership desk experience ever was not with some expert player who listened to my BS about being better than my points -- it was in Gatlinburg 2008, when I finally realized that telling them I'm better than my 400 points won't get me a better partner. I just handed in my card and waited quietly to get matched up with whatever threesome was missing a fourth. As I'd expected, I was put with a group of players with about 700 points between them, and off we went to compete in bracket 26 of the KOs. My points actually pulled the group up, as the spread in the bottom brackets at Gatlinburg is very tight.

No one on the team thought they were better than anyone else, my partner was very respectful and kind, and no one did any teaching -- except when the beer card came up. We had a blast together, were moderately successful as a team, and for the first time ever, I got a lasting friendship out of a partnership desk experience.