Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ping Hu
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, I think masterpoint will continue to be part of game. However it will mainly serve as a reward system.

A strength based rating system would be able to classify players based on their ability and group them into appropriate “stratum”. It is more like the chess rating and chess tournament where players are grouped by their rating and only compete within the group. If a player is really good, his rating increase will put him into the higher rating group next tournament. So most players will compete with their peers in term of ability, not someone much stronger or weaker. Of course you might not be able to avoid to put different level players together for pair event if there is an attendance problem, but rating system could still be used to calculate a proper handicap and still have each group compare within itself.

The Commongame has run my rating system for a couple years. We found players could be divided up to 9 different levels (similar to chess from master, expert to class A-G), not counting new players who are unrated or provisional rated (not have enough game in database). This has much more granularity than A, B, C three strata in ACBL. In the future masterpoint award could be determined by the strength of the group instead of mainly by table counts. There was a couple thread discussing about this not long ago (I had one of them). We could even create new colored points based on group strength.

Players who pass their prime don't have to be afraid of this. You will still be grouped to play against your peer of similar ability. You may have a chance to beat some future world champions on their way up.
Jan. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the bridge game might divided into two categories in the future. One for players who are looking for challenge and want to play against best players. The other is more geared towards the social aspect of the game.

In the past we tried one size fit all and that does not work very well. In order to satisfy the second group we end up devalued masterpoint. Now the players from first group are not happy.

I'll post more about what I think later. Have to leave office now.
Jan. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we should have realized masterpoint has diminished its value. There is no way to get the old prestige back. Right now its only purpose is to keep people playing and bring ACBL needed revenue.

For players who really care about tournament bridge, we need to new solution. I hope the strength based rating could provide a solution. This is the future.
Jan. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought the frequency is (4441 8+ opp to 17+)/(17+).
Jan. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Should it be 1/60 instead of 1/600?
Jan. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Except , but that's a price you pay for using artificial calls.
Jan. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play 2 as GF for any 4441 and 2 as GF for any two suiters (at least 5-5). Most players play these two bids as semi-positive, but it sometimes could make wrong side to be declarer.

Strong club opener could use 2 to ask after 1-2, the responses are
2NT : 11-13 HCP
3///: singleton in bid suit

Responder 3x bid could be 8-10 or 14+. With 14+, he/she could make another bid if opener bids 3NT. After 2NT showing 11-13, opener asks again with 3, responses are similar with 3NT shown .

After 1-2, opener use 2NT to ask, the responses are
3: + another suit;
3: +
3: +
3: +

After 3, opener 3 ask for another suit, repsonder bids the major he/she does not have, 3NT shows . In all cases opener could be the declarer.
Jan. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Debbie and I both agree having caddie to move the boards is the best solution. I'm just suggest a “minor revision” as an alternative.
Jan. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yu,

This is at TD's discretion currently. I know some East Coast directors like to run pre-dup boards for Swiss beside David White.

I have a program to support running Swiss using Bridgemate with pre-duped boards. If you read this month Bridge Bulletin, CEO's message mentioned ACBL is doing software certifications. Hopefully it would be available in the near future.
Jan. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Debbie,

EW could not start to play next round until their home table finishes. Because their next round boards were still at their home table.

I agree with you caddie probably should do it. However the nature of 3 way is that if one table is still playing, no body could move to next round (players may take a break). Either boards are not available or players are not all available. So I think just delay the time to move the boards should be sufficient.

By the way, my experience with caddies in nationals is that they are very well trained to handle head-to-head matches. However any derivation from their normal routines are difficult.
Jan. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pre-duplicated boards won't able to solve the 2 round 3-way match problem. If you play two set of boards same as head to head matches, you end up playing different boards in two tables against same opponents. You always need relay in three way matches.
Jan. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My understanding is ACBL did some evaluations. However the manufacturer wants to control the games (meaning the users have to use their servers). It is not like Bridgemate that it could be programmed use with ACBLscore. So it gave up the idea of using Bridge+.
Jan. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it only needs a small change in the procedure to fix this problem. Instead of asking EW to move boards after they finish playing, move them after their home table finishes playing.
Jan. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard, thanks. I'll relay your message to Jay Whipple who runs Commongame.
Jan. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At this time this data is private and we don't have plan to publish it except using them to study.

In the future if ACBL develops a rating system, I could see games could potentially be separated into two types: those who want to be rated, and those who do not. This is similar to chess game where some sections could be rated, and others that are not. This might be a natural way to separate out those who play seriously from those who just want to play social bridge.
Jan. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard,

Yes, the predictability is a big thing. In commongame database we kept an expected (predicted) score and actual score for each pair every game. These data could be used for study.

Thanks for alerting us about legal issues with player data. For rating purpose we only kept player ID and partnership ID. The commongame handles all other data. I believe it generate its own player ID for players that don't have ACBL player numbers. In principle the rating system don't even need to know player's name, just their ID (ACBL number or Commongame player ID). In practice it kept a map between the ID and player name so it could generate report with player names. No other player information is saved.
Jan. 1, 2018
Ping Hu edited this comment Jan. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That would be a topic that needs separate study. There might be a few different ways to do it. I have some studies in my original document two years ago. Now we are getting more data and I'm sure we'll do some more studies this year.
Jan. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jim,

There is not public access to the database directly. If you want to get information, send me private message.

However the information about the handicap could be found at
http://thecommongame.com/PingHu/PingHuRating.html
Jan. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The results were kept in the commongame database. It has rating data for over 66K players and 220K different partnerships.
Jan. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marty,

Most of the questions you raised about Elo rating has been solved. Look at my post below.
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/an-elo-rating-system-for-bridge/
This system has been running for the Commongame for over two years. If you do to thecommongame.com, you could see a handicapped score based on this system and related information.
Jan. 1, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top