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.

Brad - hmmm!

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

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...

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.

Thank you, Karen.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 1^st 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.

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.

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 

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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 

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).

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.

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 

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).

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!)

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.

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).

Thanks, Giles

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

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.

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. 

Thanks, Sean.

Perhaps the water needs testing!

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.