July
30, 2019
Rating
system, supported
In response to Jason
Furman’s letter to the editor (August 2019), the fundamental flaws with a
rating system in bridge can be avoided.
The ACBL should stop using a rating
system that raises both partners ratings by the same amount. Rather the average
skill level of a player can be found by looking at all games for a player over
a period of time, taking into account strength of partners and strength of opponents.
Factors such as club championship and unit game are irrelevant.
The ACBL should stop using a rating
system that raises a player rating more when playing with an experienced
partner instead of a newer player.
Taking into account strength of partner, a player’s rating should
require a lower score to raise both partner’s ratings when playing with a newer
player.
The ACBL should not give higher
ratings to players who play in weak club games.
All 13 table open pair club games pay the same number of points, but no
two clubs have the same strength of opponents.
Using a degree of difficulty factor would level the playing field for
all clubs.
Since the form of scoring impacts
results, using a single rating system to rate all forms of scoring is like
comparing apples to oranges. A rating
system should only rate one form of scoring.
Matchpoints offers the best results for a
rating system because it is the most common type of game and you have a game
percentage to split between two partners.
Try splitting a win or loss between 4, 5, or 6 teammates. The results are much less accurate.
In short, the ACBL should stop using
Masterpoints as a rating system. It is
an awards system!
Luck, conventions, penalties, do not
affect a player’s expertise. But it does
affect a pair’s score, and at the end of the day, it’s the pair that scores the
best that wins.
Players in the Gold Rush pairs all
have less than 750 Masterpoints, but their skill levels cover a range from
beginner to open pairs.
Any player with a skill level higher
than the skill level of the average player with 750 Masterpoints should not be
allowed to play in the Gold Rush pairs.
Chris
Champion
Colorado Springs
Stop criticizing Masterpoints
Masterpoints
is an awards system. Masterpoints is
used for Life Master achievements, the Barry Crain 500, Ace of Clubs, and other
Masterpoint races. I do not want to get
rid of Masterpoints, but ACBL members criticize Masterpoints when it is used to
bracket, stratify, or flight ACBL events.
I advocate we have both an awards system, and a ratings
system. One system cannot do both jobs well.
If Masterpoints were not used to bracket, stratify, and
flight, it would be restored to its formal glory before the creation of these
events.
Chris
Champion
Colorado Springs
Fix It
In regards to Billy
Miller’s tragic story of Mary Oshlag, he offered
a solution for the many thousands of others that shared her situation. “Perhaps a think tank can be formed to
overcome the red tape involved in making medical exceptions regarding club
games.” Does the ACBL know who these
players are? Will players need to make
their medical records available?
Our
philosophy has always been “players with similar Masterpoints should play
against each other”. I do not think we
should make exceptions for certain players.
Let’s do it for all players, based on skill. We need a strength-based rating system. The main problem, some players with high
Masterpoint totals may not appreciate a low rating.
It is a
technological challenge, but all players could enter events without stating
their rating, or having their rating revealed.
They simply say “two session pairs” or “bracketed KO’s” or “one session
swiss”. The open pairs, gold rush pairs
and I/N pairs could all be two session pairs.
The bridgemate will tell you which flights you
can play in and it will ask you to select one.
The advantage to this is that players would not have to ask for special
treatment.
Colorado Springs
April, 2018
Awards, and Rating Systems
Awards System: A measurement of how
many successes a player has had over time.
Rating System: A measurement of how
well a player plays the game today.
Purpose of Awards System: Barry
Crane 500, Life Master ranks, Player of Year, Ace of Clubs, ect.
Purpose of Rating System: Bracket
KO’s and some Swiss. Flighted events like A/X, Gold Rush,
Intermediate/Novice. Stratify
events. We can also seed, every player,
in National events.
By the way, since no one will
remember their exact rating, we will need to enter our ACBL player number as
well as our partner’s and team mate’s numbers into the bridge mates. No rating will ever be revealed. If you want, you will know where to go to
find them.
I have never heard a complaint about
the Masterpoint Awards System. Our
editor, Paul Linxwiler, in the
October, 2017 Bridge Bulletin, wrote a column, “How good are you at
bridge”. In it he urges the creation of
a rating system as well as keeping Masterpoints. Our CEO, Bahar Gidwani, is promoting “strength based
ratings”. Many members have written to
the editor detailing the unfair short comings of the Masterpoint Rating System.
Conventional wisdom is that we can not have a Chess like individual rating system. Chess is a game of individuals, and Bridge is
a game of partnerships. Everyone is
entitled to their opinion. I believe
that we can have a Chess like individual rating system, but only if we want it.
The biggest supporters of our game
are often the biggest victims of our rating system. The players who love the game the most, play
as often as they can. Over 20 or 30
years they accumulate thousands of Masterpoints while spending tens of
thousands of dollars. Are they among the
best players? Maybe. Are their partners and teammates excited
about going to tournaments with them?
Sometimes.
Chris
Champion
Colorado Springs