Revision of Grading System

Is there any progress on this? I have read through recent newsletters and Board Minutes, but can't see a mention.

Lots of admirable initiatives are under way, but in a game/sport based on a competitive, hierarchical structure, it does seem bizarre that we are still using a grading-system which includes so many obvious, well-discussed and generally acknowledged flaws!

Isn't this a priorIty?

Started by GERALD NORMAN on 27 Aug 2019 at 12:40PM

Post a Comment

You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.

Latest Posts on this Thread

  1. Brad Johnston27 Aug 2019 at 12:54PM

    My conspiracy theory to make the wait time less annoying is that NZ Bridge actually have a functional system for this; but the gradings for key individuals on the board / other important figures for NZ Bridge aren't up to what they want the national perception of them to be - so they're delaying the project until they can build in enough false data and exceptions to protect the 'expected' ratings of these prominent figures.

  2. GERALD NORMAN27 Aug 2019 at 01:24PM

    Brad - hmmm!

    I think your post will almost certainly mean that unpleasant debris is already flying off the proverbial fan.

  3. KAREN MARTELLETTI27 Aug 2019 at 05:43PM
    I will for now take your comments Brad as tongue in cheek ! Delaying any project we undertake will be for good reason. In this case, cost. Waiting until we can put in enough false data to protect "prominent figures" is being silly, I take it ?!
  4. Brad Johnston27 Aug 2019 at 08:40PM

    I've been told it's rude to have my tongue outside my cheeks, so that's where it's been firmly lodged since my parents gave me a proper upbringing.

     

    I don't think anyone truly expects their local beginners to be rated higher than any gold grandmaster you'd happen to name...

  5. GERALD NORMAN31 Aug 2019 at 11:42AM

    Karen - I don't have any conspiracy-theories to offer, but I DO think we should be kept in the picture more.

    The topic has very rarely been mentioned in official correspondence to members, recently. What ARE the cost-issues? What time-frame are we talking about? Who is addressing the problem? These are obvious questions that shouldn't need to be asked.

    This is not some peripheral issue. As I said, it is absolutely central to any competitive structure that its divisions/grades/boundaries etc. represent a fair reflection of the participants' ability-levels! That is patently not the case in New Zealand bridge at the moment.

     

  6. KAREN MARTELLETTI03 Sep 2019 at 09:22AM

    Fair comment Gerald.  I will pass this onto the Chair.

  7. GERALD NORMAN03 Sep 2019 at 02:43PM

    Thank you, Karen.

  8. GERALD NORMAN25 Oct 2019 at 01:06PM

    Having read the latest newsletter from the Chair, I note that the whole matter of revising the grading system has again been "deferred".

    The subject has been on the back-burner for so long now, it is in danger of simmering away to nothing. 

    Perhaps that is the intention. 

    Maybe Board-members have decided that if they cover their ears and whistle for long enough, members will forget the issue altogether.

  9. KAREN MARTELLETTI29 Oct 2019 at 08:38AM

    The Grading revision was just part of the story.  This was going to be included the possibility of introducing a National handicap system and it was felt the grading review cannot be done in isolation if we were to have a national Handicap as well.  A National handicap system will be quite significant in terms of cost, resources and logistics.  Sorry you are disappointed it is not progressing as quickly as you want it to.

  10. GERALD NORMAN30 Oct 2019 at 01:45PM

    Well, Karen - I have been corresponding with NZB on the same topic for eight years now, so I don't think I can be accused of impatience!

  11. KAREN MARTELLETTI01 Nov 2019 at 10:09AM

    Indeed you have been patient Gerald !  My personal view is that we should just review the grading system, but even that will be a challenge, as I am sure there are many views on the matter and it will be hard to get agreement !

  12. GERALD NORMAN01 Nov 2019 at 04:56PM

    Karen - I am in favour of the handicapping system, long-term, but I agree with you that a simple revision of the Grading system has priority.

    I think there is a pretty widespread consensus that the obvious step is an extra Grade between Intermediate and Open. 

    One straightforward way of doing this is to rule that a player does not move into the top (Open) Grade until (s)he has accumulated at least 50 A-points.

    The current system, whereby someone with 300 B-points - put together over 30 years - is classified as being in the same bracket as a Platinum Grandmaster is nothing short of bizarre!

  13. KAREN MARTELLETTI02 Nov 2019 at 10:25AM

    Hmmmm comparing someone with 300 B points to a Platinum Grandmaster is a little extreme.  Platinum Grandmasters are few and far between and best to just say you are comparing them with other Open players.  The majority of the Open players will not be that far different to someone with 300 B points.  There is an argument to suggest that those players who only play club level for many years, are good players, but just did not accumulate masterpoints at the same rate as a tournament player. So I can see arguments for against, but this was done some time ago now and does not remove the fact that a review of Grades will not be a bad thing.  It should, however, be linked to a Handicap system, if we were to go down that track.

  14. GERALD NORMAN03 Nov 2019 at 04:27PM

    Karen - can't agree about the similarities between those who have become Open players via 300 B-points and those who have 50+ A-points.

    Obviously, there will be some people who simply don't like tournaments, although they might well be successful in them. Realistically, however, the vast majority in the "300 B-points" Open category will simply be decent-quality Club players who turn out regularly and have put together between 15 and 25 B-points a season (entirely via C-points) over many years.

    We have a number of these at Mt Albert. Two of them have NO A-points at all. One complaint I have regularly heard, for example, is that they are effectively disqualified from playing in the Auckland Region Interclub competition, because - in the Open grade - they would be up against players (from Akarana, for example) who have hundreds of A-points.

    These two groups have very little in common, where ability is concerned.

    From my discussions with NZB on this topic over the years, I have come to the conclusion that because the decision-makers are almost always very good players whose main experience of bridge is in tournaments, they are rather remote from ordinary club-players and have a very different perspective on - and overview of - the game.

  15. KAREN MARTELLETTI04 Nov 2019 at 09:15AM

    I hear you Gerald and I do know this has been raised several times.  The reason for not reviewing this has nothing to do with the ability of players on the Board.  I think the size of the task is the limiting factor and that we are all volunteers and do not have enough hours in the day to do all the tasks required of us.

  16. GERALD NORMAN04 Nov 2019 at 03:55PM

    Karen - I think just about every player appreciates how hard our representatives at NZB work. I hope so, anyway.

    On the other hand, it is not as if this is something that has just been raised. As I said, I first tackled the subject myself about eight years ago.

    I understand that a switch to handicapping would be taxing. However, the insertion of an extra Grade is surely NOT a complicated mathematical procedure. Obviously, I do not know the current process by which the data is/are analysed, but I would have thought that a moderately sophisticated computer program could quite easily be fed the changed parameters. Subsequently, the calculations would require very little human intervention at all.

    I honestly do believe that some action is fundamentally necessary. A grading system which does not sort players properly is not fit for purpose.

    Let me use an analogy. I am a follower of English football. At the top level, there are four Divisions ("grades", if you like):

    The Premier League, the Championship, Division One and Division Two.

    If we equate our Junior Grade with D.1, and the Intermediate Grade with D.2, we hit a problem. Last season, one of the English football teams promoted from Division One was Barnsley. Barnsley is a small town, and the football club has limited resources. Now, if that competition followed the structure of NZ bridge, Barnsley would have gone straight up to the Premier League, where they would be faced with the likes of Mancheter City and Liverpool!

    Clearly, that would be nonsensical. Equally so is a situation where a bridge player who has very few or no A-points finds her(him)self in the same Grade as New Zealand's elite.

  17. STANLEY ABRAHAMS04 Nov 2019 at 03:57PM

    Well perhaps one can suggest you stop playing bridge every week end, and overseas, or just resign and get new Board members who are happy to do the work for which you cannot find the time.

  18. KAREN MARTELLETTI04 Nov 2019 at 06:35PM

    Thank you Gerald.  All very helpful and constructive comments. 

    I am really disappointed some think we do not commit enough time to NZB matters.  I would think most of us give more hours than you are aware of, and at times, this has prevented us from playing bridge when we have wanted to.

  19. GILES HANCOCK05 Nov 2019 at 12:15PM

    Hi all    

    (I was on the Taskforce that discussed these issues.   I've seen the 2017 survey comments.)

    The truth is that having a 4th grade is a great upheaval, and doesn't solve the problems.   Having a 4th grade will just create two more grey areas where even more players aren't happy with their grade or their opp's grade.   Making a quick-fix to the grades, titles or Rating Points doesn't achieve anything, it just makes a lot of work for administrators and Directors.

    I believe the Board and Officers of NZB are in two camps.   Those that think the current system is OK, if it ain't broke don't fix it.   And those that think the whole system is a mess and needs a radical overhaul, ultimately moving solely to a National Handicap, no grades.   The two camps are at opposite ends of the spectrum, there's not much common ground.

    Regards

  20. KAREN MARTELLETTI06 Nov 2019 at 11:44AM

    You make some valid points Giles about adding another grade.  Will be a major upheaval because a 4th grade would also lead to tournaments needing to be scheduled for that grade.

    I don't think NZB is in two camps, however.  I think it is the difficulties we see with making a change is the resources and cost of implementing it.

  21. GERALD NORMAN06 Nov 2019 at 03:07PM

    I really don't see that the fourth grade would cause a major upheaval. 

    Of course there would be implications for tournament organisation, but it wouldn't be the world' s biggest headache to re-label and restructure one or two tournaments a year (for most clubs).

    I simply don't buy this "If it ain't broke..." argument.

    The whole point of any grading-system in any sport or game is that it matches like with like, which our grading-system patently, blatantly and obviously doesn't do! 

    I actually refuse to believe that anyone thinks the current enormous range of ability represented in our Open grade is fair or sensible! My suspicion is that tackling it has been put off...and put off... and put off, because it requires a significant investment in terms of time and money!

    A lot of the other initiatives we have seen in recent years have been very valuable, but surely having a grading-system which is recognisably just and fit-for-purpose is fundamental, not peripheral.

    It cannot be dismissed as an irrelevant side-issue - one that can be shelved indefinitely.

    I have checked the equivalent systems in several other countries, and I cannot find any other nation that lumps such a wide range of players together in one grade.

  22. GILES HANCOCK07 Nov 2019 at 04:05AM

    I'm with you Gerald.   But having a 4th grade would create some issues :

     

    Is the grading decided on Rating Points/Masterpoints ?   What are the new threshholds ?   What are the allowed systems ?  Do we allow pairs to play up ?  What masterpoints are awarded for a Restricted-Open event ?   Is this going to inflate masterpoints ?

    Which grade of Director will be eligible to direct an Open-Restricted event ?  Will we need to pay more to directors/scorers ?

     

    Four grades at once ...   More boards need to be dealt.   More chance of phantoms.   Can we combine grades, and how do we advertise that in advance ?   Each grade is playing a different movement, the rounds will not be the same length, more commotion.   Do all grades play the same boards ?   Catering won't be at the same time for each grade, more commotion, more labour.   Announcements on the microphone will be at different times, whilst others are playing.   How do we divide up the playing area ?   Four events on the computer/tablets may create more issues.   More results to upload.

     

    OK, not insurmountable.

     

    Regards

    Giles

     

  23. GILES HANCOCK07 Nov 2019 at 11:50AM

    Just to add -

     

    There are definitely NZB people who think most tournaments should be Multi-grade.   There are grandmasters who don't want an elite grade as they won't get some easy boards.   They worked their way up, others can just do the hard yards for a few years ...

     

    From the 2017 Survey of players, 81% indicated "Competing with players of similar ability" as a major encouraging factor.  

    67% of Open B players agreed Open players should be divided into two categories.   For Open A players this was only 46%.

     

    Junior and Intermediate players indicated that they want more Multi-grade events, but with graded prizes - Spades/Hearts/Diamonds/Clubs.

     

     

  24. GERALD NORMAN08 Nov 2019 at 03:31PM

    Giles - at one point on the long-and-winding road of my discussions with NZB on this topic, I did draw up a tentative plan as to how the difficulties of restructuring tournaments might be managed.

    I'll see if I can dig it out over the weekend.

  25. JOHN O'CONNOR01 Jan 2020 at 02:29PM

    Quote:

    GERALD NORMAN03 Nov 2019 at 04:27PM

    One complaint I have regularly heard, for example, is that they are effectively disqualified from playing in the Auckland Region Interclub competition, because - in the Open grade - they would be up against players (from Akarana, for example) who have hundreds of A-points.

    Endquote

    The Auckland/Northland region could fix this easily enough for their interclubs. There are no masterpoints awarded in these events so presumably the region can do what they like.

    Just introduce a new flight in the interclub competition, open restricted, fewer than X A points of fewer than Y rating points. Just introduce it and say that the new flight will be run in addition to the existing three and see how many people enter.

    If this generates another ten teams then cleaarly there is demand that must be recognised on the national scene.

     

  26. JENA ROBINSON02 Jan 2020 at 05:11PM

    Two players at my club have just become Open. Whilst there is surely some thrill at their new status, they have gotten there by an accumulation of B points over many years. If you play in a small club, as an intermediate, you are likely to do reasonably well in club sessions, throw in a few tournaments and a great many years and suddenly you are Open. The sad thing about this is that these players are now denied the opportunity to compete in tournaments at the level where they are comfortable - its just not good.

     

  27. GERALD NORMAN02 Feb 2020 at 02:15PM

    Jena - I completely agree.

    I note there is more tinkering at the edges this weekend, with the proposed introduction of 3A tournaments for players with fewer than 100 A-points.

    Meanwhile, the obvious, fundamental flaws in the grading-system continue to go unaddressed.

  28. GERALD NORMAN02 Feb 2020 at 02:46PM

    I have finally found the format I suggested years ago with regard to how tournaments might be modified if a fourth grade was introduced. I have edited the original slightly to suit the current discussions.

    Here it is:

    "Assuming that a fourth Grade-category were created (called, for convenience, “Advanced”), and – for the sake of argument - that the term “Open” would apply only to those players of Provincial Master Rank and above (50+ A-points), it is clear that some progression-route would still have to be made available to the new category of “Advanced” players (100+R.P. or 300+ cumulative A/B-points). Of course, such players could still enter “Open” tournaments, but many have previously avoided that level of competition, so something would have to be created which suited the ability-level of the bulk of the Advanced players, but which nevertheless represented a potential ladder upwards.

    One way of doing this would be to formulate a new form of 3A tournaments so that players with 50+ A-points on January 1st were not eligible. This would mean that there would be much more incentive and encouragement for those who have previously shied away from Open tournaments because of being hopelessly outmatched.

    Such “Advanced 3A” tournaments might well attract ambitious Intermediates as well, but the primary target-audience would be those recently promoted to "Open" under the current system, but with fewer than 50 A-points to their names.

    Obviously, any re-ordering of the Grades is bound to have an impact on the organisation of Club-tournaments, in terms of both finance and structure, but that should not stand in the way of a move towards a clearly more equitable overall pattern."

     

    In fact, I also submitted a plan listing what the whole tournament-structure might look like with this amendment incorporated, but the above represents the key element.

    Clearly, I am not suggesting this as the only possible way forward. I am merely arguing that creative solutions to the overall problems could be found, if the will were there.

  29. KAREN MARTELLETTI03 Feb 2020 at 10:06AM

    Hi Gerald,

    You will see a recent announcement of a 3A restricted which goes some way to helping (maybe)

    These events at 3A level will be open to players with 100A points or less at the time of the event. Rather than compromise an already full tournament schedule Clubs are invited to host these alongside their existing scheduled 10A & 5A events.

    I agree new Open players find it hard playing against the "big boys" and may discourage them participating in tournaments, but the problem with introducing a new Grade is the very full tournament schedule we have and it is very hard to fit in another grade.  Holding a new event alongside another is a good compromise.  Our club recently ran a Restricted event alongside our 10A and it seemed to be popular.  It was an 8B (not 3A) but we got 9 tables and I am sure if a 3A it could have been even more attractive. The really nice thing about it, is that a very new Open player from our club won it and she is one who has commented to me about how tough it is now for her. She became an Open this year by .29 Rating Points !

    Gerald, I know you said you submitted a paper to NZB some time ago.  Could I ask (if you haven't already), that you send it to Allan Morris directly please. Allan is quite keen to look at ways to help the new Open players and he initiated the above trial for 2020. 

  30. GERALD NORMAN04 Feb 2020 at 03:29PM

    Hello Karen

    I will try to dig out all that material, and send it.

    I have already submitted stuff several times, but I suppose the tortoise beat the hare in the end.

  31. JUDITH HOWARD19 Jul 2020 at 08:51AM

    I agree wholeheartedly with this comment 

    Time to create a structure that will encourage more participation in the competitive game in New Zealand

    I know that in my area that if opportunities are not put in place for the " forgotten group " of lower open players there is talk to a boycott of all the existing A point tournaments next year 

    This would be a great shame as this group all enjoy tournament bridge but their frustration is growing at the lack of support locally for a more inclusive approach to tournament opportunities 

    What they are realizing is that the 5A tournaments rely on their participation to be successful and they are starting to realize that this is very unfair. They are starting to realize that they are the majority of open players and they believe that their needs need to be better addressed 

     

  32. KAREN MARTELLETTI20 Jul 2020 at 12:30AM

    Hi Gerald

    Sorry to say this is not high on the list at the moment.  I think I have mentioned before the intial look at it was going to be expensive and at present NZB does not have the resourses.  We have, however, tried to promote more Open Restricted events to help those transitioning from Intermediate to Open, which is probably the most affected group.  If you want to take this further, maybe you should contaact Allan Morris and get his views, as the above comments are just my take on the situation

    Cheers
    Karen

  33. MICHAEL NEELS30 Sep 2020 at 10:37PM

    There is light at the end of this tunnel .. and it's not an oncoming train!

    Many of you belong to clubs that play X-Clubs deals. X-Clubs has been around since 2012. Currently about 40% of clubs in NZ are participating. Any club can do this. There's an overview at www.compassmate.bridge-centre.org/about/about.

    Over time, as explained in www.compassmate.bridge-centre.org/handicaps, Bob Fearn - author of Compass scoring - has refined a proto National Grading System (NGS). As it feeds on the X-Clubs data (basically just 40-C club bridge where participants have played the same hands in the same time slots) the ratings are referred to as XG's - as distinct from NG's which are what would arise from the data submitted to NZB. A weekly computation updates the XG's of over 5000 individuals and 16000 pairs who have played an X-Club deal some time in the previous 50 weeks. The updated XG ratings are shown on the Sunday of each week at www.compassmate.bridge-centre.org/results/weekly.

    So far nothing new here to those who knew. Just an introduction for those who didn't.

    Moving on ... Bob's weekly calculation is similar to the one used by the EBU for its NGS. It takes into consideration the XG of each player, the XG's of that week's partners, and the average XG's of the people they played against, to come up with a new XG for that player. If it's been a good week his/her XG will rise a teensy bit. As only the last 2000 boards are taken into the calculation XG's tend to be fairly stable after a while. Eureka! A working NGS of sorts which is open to all. It doesn't address tournaments or teams but will process Swiss Pairs.

    But there's more ... much more.

    In a world-leading innovation Bob has reverse-engineered the weekly calculation to produce Dynamic Handicaps. (whaat??) By averaging the XG's of a partnership, and taking the difference between that and the strength (in XG's) of their opposition, an Expected Score is calculated for that pair in any given session. The difference between this and 50% is taken as their handicap. An amazing thing happens. (Not really - it's mathematical certainty.) As with the raw scores averaging 50%, so too with the handicapped scores. Which gives a pretty clear indication that these Dynamic Handicaps, tailored to the session, really do level the playing field. The computing is quite simple once the scoring program accesses players' XG's.

    The entire process described above is "easily" (says Bob) transportable to process the data currently held in the NZB masterpoint files.

    So New Zealand could have a real proper NGS quite soon.

    Which could be used to produce fair and reasonable handicaps for any session or event.

    The bugbear to date has been giving access to the people.

    This now exists ...

    ... very likely for no charge. A fait accompli. A freebie. On a plate.

    Watch this space!! Wheels are turning.

  34. JENA ROBINSON30 Sep 2020 at 11:15PM

    Handicaping? I hope not - at least not for tournaments. Lets keep this tool for "junior" club sessions. Not knocking x-clubs - it's an incredible innovation and I'd recommend every club in the country to jump on board - but please can we keep our tournaments as competitive events with winners and losers and the hope to "do better next time"

  35. KAREN MARTELLETTI01 Oct 2020 at 09:38AM

    There have been a few discussions with programmers and developers recently, but like a good cheese things take time.  

    Sorry we cannot give you any more than that, but can assure you it is not forgotten

  36. GERALD NORMAN01 Oct 2020 at 04:29PM

    In fact, COVID has given inaction a bit of a reprieve.

    Because so much of the year has been lost, many players who were promoted to Open in the last few years will fall back into the Intermediate grade again, after their 20% rebate.

    That may mean 5B tournaments will include a majority of Intermediate players again - for a year!

    In the Auckland Region, certainly, numbers in those 5Bs had diminished in recent years, and many of those still entering were actually Juniors. That is not a problem in itself, obviously, but it is an extra indicator of what was happening.

    To put it briefly, there was a sort of circuit, with many of the same Intermediates entering every local tournament. With the grading-points pretty evenly shared, many of them quickly progressed to Open - finding themselves, suddenly, of equal status to NZ internationals. 

    Bizarre and nonsensical.

    This is why the 5Bs suddenly became a struggle for organisers. As I said, we will probably see a brief upturn - in 2021 - of numbers in the Intermediate tournaments...and then the same thing will happen all over again.

    Obviously, those people who have progressed to 300(A)/B points over 20 or 30 years will get no such reprieve. They will also find themselves classified as of equal status to our international players - despite, in many cases, never having picked up a single A-point in their whole bridge-playing careers.

    That only makes sense in a world which accepts as logical the current occupancy of the White House.

     

  37. GILES HANCOCK12 Oct 2020 at 01:59PM

     

    The Rating Points for 2021 must not be calculated the same as other years.   A and B point permanent promotions fine.

     

    I don't see a problem with having handicaps, and publishing both raw and handicapped ladders for a tournament, and possibly a handicapped prize.

     

    All praise to Bob Fearn, and I'm sure the problem costs won't be because of his time and efforts.

  38. KAREN MARTELLETTI16 Oct 2020 at 12:09PM

    Yes Bob Fearn has done a lot of work during his lockdown and come up with a great handicap system based on the EBU calculations. He has also spoken to the sub committee tasked with the handicap and grading review.

    John Skipper is heading this group and I think they are making progress.

    I love the idea of handicap prizes at Tournaments, by the way

  39. MICHAEL NEELS16 Oct 2020 at 06:29PM

    Big day coming up Gerald. John Skipper will be presenting Bob's work at the next Board meeting on the 20th.

    Mike

  40. GILES HANCOCK27 Oct 2020 at 04:04PM

    Bulletin from the Board out today.

  41. GERALD NORMAN11 Nov 2020 at 04:38PM

    A few people have asked me for confirmation or clarification.

    Is it correct that, from January, the only way of becoming an Open player is by reaching 50 A-points?

  42. KAREN MARTELLETTI11 Nov 2020 at 06:07PM

    In answer to Gerald's question; yes the only way to become an Open is when you get to Provincial Master or higher Rank. A Provincial Master must have at least 100 a & B points, which includes at least 50 A Points.

    I think this would make you a lot happier Gerald, as there are a few Open players at the moment who have very few A points.  It is interesting, though, that a player chatted to me today about this.  She is going to go back to Intermediate, but now thinks it will be too hard for her to ever become an Open, so there is no incentive for her to pursue going up to Open any more.  Is that a good or bad thing ?  Dunno !

  43. GILES HANCOCK13 Nov 2020 at 06:03PM

    but if the trial 3A Restricted Open tournaments are reassigned as 3A Intermediate tournaments then the best Intermediates will eventually go up to Open, they just might get there by playing with their peers rather than taking on the elite.

  44. GERALD NORMAN13 Nov 2020 at 06:26PM

    The change is very welcome for those who rarely play in tournaments, but have found themselves up there in Open with the elite.

    However, I don't think it addresses the fundamental problem. It seems clear to me that we still need a fourth Grade, between Open and Intermediate. The present structure is simply not an accurate reflection of the hierarchy of ability we all recognise in our clubs.

    We will now move from a situation where too many Intermediate players have been elevated into the top rank before they are ready for it, to one where it will be extremely difficult for aspiring players to get to Open at all!

    I appreciate that the introduction of fourth Grade would require considerable restructuring, where tournament-classification is concerned, but I feel that is an administrative objection to what is a more important underlying principle 

    Namely, if you are playing in a "league" with different "divisions" - in any sport or game - you expect to find like-for-like within each division.

    Many players who were promoted to Open before the change found themselves outmatched. Now, we will have an Intermediate Grade with a range from those with 40-odd A-points to those who have reached the Grade through club-play, without having taken part in tournaments at all.

    Intermediate tournaments will certainly be better attended and more competitive next year, but some of those recently promoted to that level may find the line-ups rather daunting, so there will again groups (perhaps at each end of Intermediate) who feel themselves disadvantaged.

    I just don't see that we are much closer to an obvious, step-by-step progression that recognizes the real ladder of ability in NZ bridge.

  45. GILES HANCOCK14 Nov 2020 at 09:11AM

    Hi Gerald

    To me this is a quick fix to resolve the lost masterpoints from 2020 lockdown, and pay lip-service to the issues.  I think it's going to annoy more people than it pleases -  Juniors and lower Intermediates are going to have a tougher time.   Current top Intermediates are going to reduce their victories and motivation to get to Open.   The 700 players being demoted are possibly going to be ashamed of losing their Open status.   Provincial Masters will have no-one to be better than, they will be getting 40% in tournaments against the GMs.

    If we kill off Rating Points then how do clubs and directors work out All-Grades grading prizes ?   Purely on total partnership A points ?

     

     

    Kicking the can further down the road IMHO.

     

  46. NICK WHITTEN15 Nov 2020 at 07:43AM

    How many of the 700 affected were consulted before the change was made?

  47. KAREN MARTELLETTI15 Nov 2020 at 07:51AM

    Half a dozen at our club are over the moon (rightly or wrongly), although one has now realised the goal of reaching Open for her will be a lot harder !

  48. NICK WHITTEN15 Nov 2020 at 09:49AM

     

    An extract from letters to the editor “Pipituatua Bay Gazette” 1/4/2030 

    Dear Editor

    On last weeks item about the local Intermediate bridge tournament with Mesdames Hickson and Richman from Remuera winning this event now for the seventh time in the last ten years.

    I know little about bridge but I know some of the ladies at the bridge club in our small seaside town and how much effort they put into running this tournament every year.

    It is a huge undertaking for such a small club and it is great when one of the local pairs takes out the winning prize. Sadly that hardly ever happens these days unlike a few years ago.

    What puzzles me is how can these Auckland players continue to be eligible for “Intermediate” when they win so often?

    As one of the sponsors of the tournament I would prefer to see prizes being shared around more.

    yours faithfully
    Percy Arbuckle

    Manager Arbuckles General Store
    Pipituatua Bay

     

  49. HELENE LABRECHE24 Nov 2020 at 09:31PM

    Hi , We received a missive from NZB that stipulates, if I understand it well, that all of us open players below the grade of  Provincial Masters, will be downgraded to "Intermediate" in 2021.   I would like to know who came up with this Bright Idea ?  It seems to me, that NZB is transferring an unjust system for us lowly Open players , who could not compete in any A pts competitions with some fair chance...to the Intermediate group now...as this group will have to compete against us...downgraded Open players...you can bet this group will never reach the grade of OPEN in their life time as most learners are now near retirement age...eventually, you will end up with such a small group of "big shot" players...you better hope they live a very long time!

    I really thought NZB would have created , instead of this, a "subgroup" of Open players  say...100-Provincial Masters , for example, where we could compete with our piers without having to play against the likes of these Big Boys/Girls....like they eventually had to do in ACBL some 40 y ago...they split the "Masters grades" into 3 categories...300-500 pts, then 501-750pts , and 751 + 

    it made it worth paying to compete.

    Just my 2 cents worth, no disrespect intended! 

    Helene Labreche 

  50. Brad Johnston24 Nov 2020 at 09:53PM

    Maybe this is just NZBridges attempt to make the Intermediate Interprovincials more competitive.
    The last 3 years they've won it with over 100 VP margin to second place (cumulative).

  51. KAREN MARTELLETTI28 Nov 2020 at 08:00AM

    Hi all

    I do wonder what the difference is between a "missive" and a "notification".  Quite a bit I would have thought.  While a sub group of Open players who just compete amongst their peers seem to be a simple answer, the pacticalities are not.  This would mean a new set of tournaments to cater for this group and the tournament schedule is very full already. 

    NZB is, however, introducing a handful of 8B restricted events to be held alongside other events to try and cater for strong intermediates/lower open players (there are still plenty of these around).  Not the complete answer, but hope this helps.  There are also a number of 8B events around which the "big" boys and girls do not tend to play in that often.

    Whilst the change may make it harder to gain Open status, there have been many people thank us for the change.  The old story "You can please some of the people some of the time, all the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time"...oh dear

  52. GERALD NORMAN29 Nov 2020 at 02:18PM

    Karen - I don't think this is just one of those cases of "not being able to please everyone".

    The simple fact is, this "solution" does NOT provide a natural and equitable progression-route.

    Everyone accepts that a more radical reorganisation would require significant reformatting of the tournament structure, but is that difficulty really a good argument for avoiding what is an obvious, major flaw in the current system?

    My argument in the past was that the lack of a fourth Grade between Intermediate and Open saw the obvious anomaly of players with no A-points being classed as equal to Grandmasters.

    The recent reform will certainly be welcome to those with a lifetime 300 B-points, but it does nothing to address the more fundamental problem.

    All it has done is to move the problem. What we will have now is someone with 30.01 Rating-Points being classed as equal to a player with 49.99 A-points!

    Is that really a solution?

    As Helene said, it is very difficult to envisage this as a level playing-field, because A-points are going to be very hard to pick up for aspiring Intermediates.

    I keep coming back to the point that we are supposed to be operating the equivalent of a "League" system, with meaningful "Divisions". Without a fourth Grade (which includes A-point tournaments of some kind), that is almost impossible. "Open" status must now seem massively distant for relatively new players, except a handful of high-fliers.

    With great respect, I still believe that there is a tendency to miss what bridge looks like to ordinary club-players, when decisions are nearly all made by people who are near the top of the tree in terms of ability.

  53. KAREN MARTELLETTI29 Nov 2020 at 05:56PM

    Hi Gerald et al

    I do not disagree with your sentiments re the grade system and do undestand the issues, so some sort of grade change for the long term may well be needed, but it maybe in conjunction with a handicap system, which will take some time to develop, but certainly being seriously looked at by the board.  The recent changes were for the time being.  Maybe that was not clear.  Just that at the moment, creating another grade or tier will put too much pressure on the current tournament schedule

  54. HELENE LABRECHE29 Nov 2020 at 09:17PM

    Very well said Gerald....I am too old now...to try and get my A pts to get back to Open ..as my goal is to teach now mainly...so I am desappointed to go back to Intermediate...even though my play is probably like a good intermediate now...

    CHeers

    Helene 

  55. GILES HANCOCK30 Nov 2020 at 09:47AM

    I am happy if this is seen as just a short-term solution.   It certainly helps to solve the 2020 lockdown Rating Points issue.

     

    Karen, I'd like a notification please from NZB that there will be more A point tournaments available for Intermediates, now that the Restricted Open grade trial will be cancelled.  Maybe 3A teams at regional congresses ?   Or Intermediate 3A Swiss Pairs alongside National events ?

    Another way to incentivise newer talent would be for the Open players to partner them more often in A-point tournaments.   I don't like the idea of money being exchanged for this, a la USA, but certainly for the pupil to pay the entry fee and drinks :)

     

     

     

  56. Brad Johnston30 Nov 2020 at 11:08AM

    There are 2 issues with your idea Giles about mixed partnerships.

    --- 

    Some number of 'intermediate' players would sign up to play with a good player and ignore any and all constructive criticism.
    e.g.
    "Doing [x] isn't really a good idea, it never works and doing [y] instead is actually helpful."
    "Well I have always done [x] and don't see anything wrong with it!"

    ---

    A lesser number of open players would be interested in playing a 'free' tournament and either feel disinclined to help the bridge journey of their new partner; or be the sort of 'confused' Open player that one's better off not learning from. 

    ---

    The first one is a sad state of stubbornness and the difficulty that people have in discussing errors at the bridge table.
    The second is the sad state that the current 'Open', 'Intermediate', 'Junior' ranking system is more about tournament participation and longevity than bridge acumen. 

    ---

    I personally think that the tournament calendar is actually a sympton of the 'old' rating scheme and could be reconsidered. But A points have become devalued since teams wins awarded fractional As. Let's embrace the fact that this occurs, as trying to ignore it is just going to mean whatever solution is arrived at will be flawed.

    One radical idea would be to change 8B tournaments to awarding based on the point scale of both a 5B tournament and a 3A tournament [possibly adjusted/scaled placing awards a little differently]. e.g. first place gets 5B + 3A, 2nd place gets 4B + 2A, then 3B +2 A, etc.

    That should tide us over until we move 'entirely' to a chess-esque system where you have an Elo rating and to move up a grade you need norms of that calibre or however it works (I only have a very passing knowledge of how it works in Chess).

  57. GILES HANCOCK30 Nov 2020 at 12:08PM

    Hi Brad

    I agree with everything you're saying :)  I believe teaching at the table is not usually productive, a good teacher/mentor will be doing the groundwork before and after the actual competitve play, but of course this takes extra commitment.

     

    I do like the idea of awarding both A and B points for some tournaments.   But really, why have both ?   (Why have C points ?)

     

    Chess has Elo which is just a single number rating and you go up or down depending on each result.   And it's the same worldwide !  Chess titles (FM, IM, GM) are achieved by multiple good tournament results (norms), or exceptional single tournament results.   Most chess players don't have titles.    I think the bridge system of titles is ridiculously OTT.

    In chess the strength of the field matters, based on average Elo.   This is something we should look at in bridge.   At the moment winning an 8B in Akaroa is the same as winning an 8B in Auckland.

     

    regards

     

  58. Brad Johnston30 Nov 2020 at 12:14PM

    Indeed, and becoming a gold grand master in Otago/Southland means the same as becoming one in Auckland/Northland currently.

  59. GERALD NORMAN30 Nov 2020 at 12:45PM

    Developing Helene's points, one of the few up-sides of the old system (in the Auckland area, with lots of clubs) was that more Juniors had recently begun to enter 5B tournaments. This was because the "regulars" on the local Intermediate "circuit" had all moved on to Open, and Juniors felt they were not significantly out-gunned.

    Already, a few of those Juniors have told me they would be less keen to enter a 5B now, because they might be matched against players with years of experience and 20 or 30 (or 49!) A-points.

    Off-topic, I suspect the Intermediate section of the Auckland Interclub competition is going to be massive!

  60. GERALD NORMAN30 Nov 2020 at 12:54PM

    Sorry - I may have missed this.

    Is it intended that Provincial Masters and above will be ineligible for 3A tournaments?

    If that is not the case, it surely should be. Otherwise, a progression-route to Open for ambitious Intermediates looks even less obvious.

  61. MICHAEL NEELS30 Nov 2020 at 01:38PM

    I submit that the cornerstone of any structure we might have in place is the rating of an individual player's current level of performance - which we have only the rudest tool to assess at present. When we get a robust real-time system in place the question becomes one of "Where to from here? How do we employ these ratings?".

    I followed up on Brad's comment about Elo ratings - it was an interesting read on Wikipedia. The use of ratings in chess seems more straight-forward than in bridge. The matter is complicated because we have partners who come with their own ratings. But the basic principle remains the same - one of Expected Performance. If you do better than your expected score in a given field then your weights will go up. If you don't achieve then the bar is lowered for your next attempt. Another phrase that took my eye was that players' ratings don't suddenly change overnight. People generally play to a fairly consistent standard engendered by success at making the "right" decisions at every turn. Another difference - we have the intermediary complication of the perfidy of a deck of cards. The "right" decision may be the correct one but that doesn't guarantee that it'll be the best one in every situation. We have a greater random element than chess does.

    Rank doesn't feature in this thread .. it's not really relevant if we view it as the high-water mark of one's bridge career. It can never decrease.

    The use of Grade is the theme this discussion. It seems we need something to ring-fence off certain events. At present there are two lines in the sand separating Juniors from Intermediates from Opens. And Open tournaments have been the only places you can mine the gold of the A points needed to move between Grades.

    Just mud against the wall .. but with a fully functional National Grading System (NGS) in place couldn't we just forget about Grades? We could specify certain ranges of rating points for partnerships - or individuals - as at the start of any month to limit the talent at any event. We might even define the awards on offer by the perceived strength (ie total Rating Points) of the field. A mix of A points and B points could be computed on the day from a schedule and doled out in fractions to the top third/quarter of the field - as they do in Oz, I believe.

    Fast forward to the future:
    In these days of computing power it should even be possible to make awards by board rather than overall placing. Having a sprinkling of A points available at lower-powered events would at least offer a path for access to higher-powered events which might have a higher qualifying requirement .. eg minimum of 150 A points OR an NGS rating for the partnership of 55+ as at the 1st of October sort of thing. If the field had an average strength between 60 and 62 there would be a schedule prescribing 7 A points and 12 B points up for grabs. These could be apportioned over the number of boards played so that top score on any board earned 0.07 A points and 0.95 B points with pro-rata'd awards down to 7th best score on each board if there were 20 tables, say. Then the winners of the event could also earn 2 bonus A points. Or words to that effect. It's all possible - just contingent on a proper NGS.

     

  62. GERALD NORMAN30 Nov 2020 at 02:09PM

    Michael

    Your suggestions may indeed be the way forward, but how long will we take to get there?

    Continental Drift comes to mind as a comparison.

  63. Brad Johnston30 Nov 2020 at 02:18PM

    The Otago Bridge Club has also already 'solved' the expected performance vs rating in an Elo context.

    See a description of John's process here.

    ---

    Chess tournaments tend to be open to a rating range.

    An example would be that there might be a 'sub 1600 [Elo]' section/event running concurrently to an 'open [any Elo]' event; the same that we occasionally have Intermediate events running alongside Open pairs events.


    One thing to consider is that despite having a robust National Grading Scheme, the ebu still have a master point scheme in place.

  64. GILES HANCOCK30 Nov 2020 at 02:33PM

     

    If we had a fully functioning NGS system then we wouldn't need masterpoints any more ! :)   We might have titles for higher-level achievements, but they wouldn't be based on longevity or frequency of one's playing career..

     

    Chess just has Elo, and tournaments are often stratified into A, B, C grade events.   Lines are drawn based on current Elo, as suits the organisers for numbers, strength etc   You can't play above your assigned grade.   But one week you may be top rated in the C grade, next week you may be bottom rated in the B grade, just depending on the entries.   It works.

     

    I guess we'll have to see how the new grading works out next year.   Intermediate grade will be larger and stronger.   Juniors will be wanting a separate event to Intermediates, even with small numbers.   Or we shift the Junior/Intermedaite line up a bit, 40 RPs ?

     

    cheers

  65. Brad Johnston30 Nov 2020 at 02:39PM

    Giles, I believe that chess tournaments actually don't enforce 'low rated' players from playing up in tournaments.

    I will admit that I don't know much in the area, but see the following entry information taken from this entry form:

    6 rounds Swiss tournaments, Open and U1000 divisions.
    Open division will be NZCF & FIDE Rapid rated where possible, and U1000 division will be NZCF Rapid rated. Non-NZL open division players must have FIDE ID issued by their chess federation.

    Note that there's an 'open' and a 'U1000' section.

    Not a 'Over 1000' and 'Under 1000' section.

  66. GILES HANCOCK30 Nov 2020 at 03:13PM

    You may be right Brad, although it looks like a Rapid event which may not be standard tournament chess.   And some chess events around the world may just take all entries in one Open section, and then hold a "novice" event on the side, or whatever.   Just interesting to compare.   I'm guessing that most golf, tennis, boxing etc events put competitor limits on entries at high levels.   Bridge would be one of the few games/sports where mere mortals can compete against national champions.

    - Giles

  67. MICHAEL NEELS30 Nov 2020 at 03:23PM

    Gerald .. see my post of 30-Sept - two months ago. Bob has done even more amazing stuff with it in the interim. The matter has been before the Board since about then. Their response seems to have been in favour of going with Bob's methods. It's hard to tell .. they play their cards pretty close to their chest.

    We got a Christmas card in the mail today - this quaint practice has dried up since email became popular. New tools engender new ways of doing things - often undreamt-of ways. We'll all have fun thinking up ways in which a proper NGS can be used to solve the grading/masterpoints issues.

  68. SUE BROWN06 Dec 2020 at 03:17PM

    Hi everyone

    I felt the need to reply to the frequent comment  - stated by many of the correspondents -  about the perceived difficulty - now - for intermediates to be able to earn A points to enable them to move up to Open.

    (a)  Nowhere has it been stated - or even thought - that intermediate players can't play in A point tournaments so, of course, they can still do that and many intermediates will - and earn some A points along the way.

    (b)  How do you think any of us who already have over 50 A points won them???  At Open tournaments no less!  (I wasn't going to Congresses when I got mine so didn't win ANY at Intermediate tounaments!)  As, now, a life master I still find A points difficult to earn and have painstakingly earned those I have over many years.

    I think the new tweak of the grading system will be appreciated by many (only two affected open going to intermediate in my Club are both very pleased!)

     

  69. GERALD NORMAN08 Dec 2020 at 10:20AM

    Sue

    Obviously, some Intermediates will continue to win A-points in tournaments.

    That is not really the main point. Grading systems are designed to be hierarchical, and the divisions within them should be progressive and equitable.

    That has never been the case here, and the change in the system has simply shifted the problem.

    The Intermediate Grade now includes every player from 30.01 Rating-Points to 49.99 A-points.

    However anyone tries to wriggle, that is NOT a sensible or fair categorisation.

  70. GERALD NORMAN08 Dec 2020 at 10:26AM

    Karen

    The Chairman's newsletter mentions a notice from Alister regarding the grading-changes.

    I have been away for a few days, and I have not yet been into the club, so I haven't seen that document.

    I had a phone-message when I returned home, asking if the process of promotion from Junior to Intermediate remains the same.

    Can you confirm that is the case, please? (I have to prepare a list of promotions for a club function, this evening).

  71. GILES HANCOCK08 Dec 2020 at 11:09AM

    Hi Gerald

    The latest notice doesn't mention Junior grade criteria, but I am assured that they remain the same for 2021.

    - Giles

  72. GERALD NORMAN08 Dec 2020 at 11:58AM

    Thanks, Giles

  73. KAREN MARTELLETTI09 Dec 2020 at 08:29AM

    Hi Gerald

    Nothing has changed for the Junior Grade

  74. ALAN MACE12 Dec 2020 at 11:14AM

    Hi All

    As someone who has 399.45 combined A and B points but less than 50 A  I ask , whats the point in playing B tournaments if one wants to progress toward some sort of masters rating?

    I am one who has recently decided to try and achieve a higher rating having played on an off for many years and have been assigned at least 3 different numbers. My ealier playing years resulted in draws full of yellow tickets  which have been burnt through many shifts around the country. Who knows what my points earned actually totals?

    In fact I only play my local club B event to support the club, having faced the question that goes something like this- Why are you playing here, you don't belong in this level of tournament.

    I can and do play A point events when possible but partners are not easy to atract. 

    Could it be that this downgrade is because filling B level events is getting harder? Has our aging membership got anything to do with things?

    Are our decision makers aging Masters ?

    Allan Mace

  75. GERALD NORMAN14 Dec 2020 at 04:42PM

    Hello Alan

    I think your situation illustrates the general problem.

    You have 34 A-points, but will, from now on, be regarded (by the system) as on a par with players who have just crept up to Intermediate on Rating Points, via Club-sessions (only, or in the main).

    If we keep the current tournament-structure, you can only make further progress by playing in 3A events and above. That sounds to be your intention, in fact, but I suspect there will be former Open players who choose to "clean up" in B-tournaments, and I know of several "ordinary" Intermediates who are concerned about that prospect, because  a steady-progression route becomes harder to see for them.

    My feeling is that if we are not going to see some form of handicap-system, we must get a fourth grade, instead, positioned between Intermediate and Open.

    Then we could re-structure the tournament-ladder. A lot of thought would have to go into that, I realise, but what about the idea of, say, Restricted 5A tournaments, where only one Provincial Master was permitted in a pair, or restricted 3A tournaments which Provincial Masters were not allowed to enter at all?

    Such events would be ideal for players in your position (who could, for example, be classified as "Advanced") but would also present an acceptable challenge that ambitious players with very few A-points might want to take up.

    While on that topic, I wonder if someone with detailed knowledge can help me.

    Will it be within the framework of NZB regulations for Clubs to set up their own restrictions for tournamentts in 2021?

    For example, could we stipulate for our 5B events that no player with 10+ A-points was allowed to enter?

    Gerald Norman.

  76. SEAN LYNCH16 Dec 2020 at 01:57PM

    Clause 6 of NZ Bridge Manual 2020 on page C17 would appear to allow the tournament organizer to have the discretion to limit the maximum A points participants may have to be admitted to play in a 5B point tournament run by a club however NZ bridge retains the prerogative to override such limitation :

    The Tournament Organiser has a discretion to limit right of admission either as set out in the Tournament Regulations or because of venue limitations or other reason. NZ Bridge does not normally mandate how or on what basis this discretion may be exercised, although the Tournament Notice should specify a closing/cut-off date for receipt of entries sufficiently in advance of the date of the Tournament for any entrant to be notified of non-acceptance before committing to travel arrangements. NZ Bridge retains the overriding prerogative to direct the Tournament Organiser at any time not to exercise any limitation in any instance, or in relation to any specific entries, or to direct the basis upon which any limitation is to be exercised. An obvious example would be if an event is being used for national representative selection purposes, then Contestants involved in that process would be exempted from any limitation of admission regardless of any criteria proposed to be adopted by the Tournament Organiser for that purpose. 

  77. GERALD NORMAN21 Dec 2020 at 08:04PM

    Thanks, Sean.

    Perhaps the water needs testing!

  78. RICHARD STUART20 May 2021 at 12:36PM

    It has been many years for NZ Bridge to have made some progress on introducing a new grading system similar to the EBU.  The system could run in parallel to the current system so there is no disruption.  When the system has bedded in it can be used to give prizes for good performance similar to Auckland Club's directors cut but on a more scientific basis.

    Sometimes intermediate or junior tournaments have very few participants and become quite random.  An alternative solution is to have a Swiss format and have tournaments within one field, allowing for prizes based on performance for the intermediate and juniors, as well as prizes for best open player performance outside of main prizes.

    Introducing several Open categories, like restricted etc, are just a plaster to a broken system.  The current grading system is almost non functioning, there are Grandmasters who are falling fast in their play, fast rising intermediates with few A points and a total mess at all levels.  There is simply no way to compare a group of players based on A B and C points, there simply is no correlation.

  79. KAREN MARTELLETTI20 May 2021 at 12:43PM

    There has been more work done on this, but it is quite complex.  John Skipper is leading this project, if you wish to discuss it with him

You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.
Our Sponsors
  • Tauranga City Council
  • tourismbop.jpeg
  • TECT.jpg
  • NZB Foundation