[kereru67]

In chess there are Elo ratings, based on results. It's a blunt instrument but it works. The higher rated player is generally the favourite in a one on one game. In bridge though, it is much more difficult to assess a player's strength. Master points systems, it seems to me, are more a matter of playing a lot than how good you are.

[jillybean]

Yes, MasterPoints accumulate over a lifetime, like the odometer in my car.

Some organizations award MP's and also ranking points. These are based on recent success and will increase and decrease accordingly.
The ACBL has only MP. The players at the top end of the ACBL MP listings have both been playing for a long time and are very good.

[johnu]

OKBridge has a rating system based on ELO for players on that platform. It can be manipulated fairly easily. I had a friend who only played with longtime partners, who tried to play only against pickup pairs of less than expert strength. He was able to get his rating up to top expert levels, even though he was just a good club player, but not considered an expert.

There's an English Bridge Union grading system for their players that attempts to rate players based on recent performances. There was also a website that scraped BBO hands from their database that tried to rate players on BBO. BBO is adamant about not having a rating system, and they eventually barred that site from having access to their hands. That site has disappeared.

In the ACBL, there's something called the Colorado Springs Power Ratings, which used ACBL tournament results to calculate individual and pair ratings. They haven't been updated in a couple of years because the ACBL stopped sharing data with them.

[mycroft]

Yes. What have you won? And with who?

Because frankly, that's the only way to tell.

Some of it is that Bridge Is a Partnership Game, and it's really hard to measure individual skill in a team sport (WAR, anyone? Anyone willing to state for certain that the +3.5 WAR 2B is better than the +3.4 one? or the 1.025 slugging is better than the 1.015?) Some of it is really, truly, because players, by and large, Don't Want to Know (and *certainly* don't want *you* to know).

And, as I always ask when this comes up, why do we care? Note, this is a very serious question. In chess, or shogi, or go, or any of those other games, ELO or equivalent is very useful in making good matches - you're not for the shark tank all day, conversely you're not going to sleep through the event. In bridge, if what you're looking for is a good match for you and your partner, well, that's a laudable goal, and we should be able to do a good job at that. Of course, we don't *do* that IRL - you play 2-3 boards against 8-13 pairs in a session, or you play a set number of boards against everyone in the event (qualifying to long KO matches, usually). It would be a good thing to make work in the Competitive Lounge of BBO (and we've been talking about the "hidden rating system" that BBO could be using to set games - that will only work if they don't publicise it - for 20 years).

Or we could be rating players like the tennis tour, either for seeding or qualification rights or just for bragging rights and to play "is my player going up or down".

But that's not what 90% of players who want a rating system want. What they want is to get a partner "good enough" for them. Maybe even "at their level" (read, "slightly better than I actually am"). And they want to play against opponents "at their level", too (read, "slightly worse than we are, so that we can win"). You can see where this is going. Add to that all the "can't play" issues (technical, like that other thread, or skill-based, like Bridge Master hands, or even "incapable of directing a defence, or reading partner's direction, without using a bullhorn"), and it gets worse (because I may be a good player, but I can't play Polish Club, and I can't play Dutch Doubleton, and I can't understand Vinje signals or odd-even discards (unless the opponents are playing them). And most north americans can't play Keri, or Acol, or any of that other stuff either. And vice versa, frankly).

And then there's the biggest issue with partners, pickup or otherwise (also evident in that other thread). And it can be from the lowest level to the highest - I send you to the Meckstroth vs Barry Crane story (frankly, the entire page of stories).

But finally finally - the fish rule applies. Just like at the poker table, if you can't figure out who the fish is in 4 boards - it's you. Now, you might be stuck with partner (or she with you) for another 22, but oh well...

[mike777]

I have mentioned this rating scale often.

If you make it to the second day of a three day national event AND people are not surprised you are a good player.

If you make it to the third day AND people are not surprised you are an expert level player

Win an open National event and people are not surprised you are a national rated player.

It's not complicated and works well if not PERFECT..

Everyone else is an intermediate or lower level player

Most of us are at this level..


Don't worry about a perfect rating system..

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2026-February-17, 21:44, said:

I have mentioned this rating scale often.

If you make it to the second day of a three day national event AND people are not surprised you are a good player.

If you make it to the third day AND people are not surprised you are an expert level player

Win an open National event and people are not surprised you are a national rated player.

It's not complicated and works well if not PERFECT..

Everyone else is an intermediate or lower level player

Most of us are at this level..


Don't worry about a perfect rating system..

One amendment. Win a National team game and either you’re a national rated player or you’re wealthy enough to hire 5 who are. Believe me, lots of major events have been won by players who are far from expert. Indeed, world championships have been won by non experts, although the ACBL writes about them as if they were.

The same is even more true at regionals.

Don’t get me wrong….in terms of how the game is played at the highest level, professionalism has given many gifted players the ability to play far more bridge than they would ever have played without paying clients, and in turn has allowed them to hone their skills.

[mikeh]

johnu, on 2026-February-17, 20:07, said:

OKBridge has a rating system based on ELO for players on that platform. It can be manipulated fairly easily. I had a friend who only played with longtime partners, who tried to play only against pickup pairs of less than expert strength. He was able to get his rating up to top expert levels, even though he was just a good club player, but not considered an expert.

There's an English Bridge Union grading system for their players that attempts to rate players based on recent performances. There was also a website that scraped BBO hands from their database that tried to rate players on BBO. BBO is adamant about not having a rating system, and they eventually barred that site from having access to their hands. That site has disappeared.

In the ACBL, there's something called the Colorado Springs Power Ratings, which used ACBL tournament results to calculate individual and pair ratings. They haven't been updated in a couple of years because the ACBL stopped sharing data with them.

25+ years ago, before BBO my then partner and I wanted to practice online…we lived in different cities. So we joined OK Bridge, hoping to find good opponents. We soon found real difficulty finding games against good players. As newbies, our Lehman scores were 50, and eventually one opp told us why he wouldn’t play us and why we would find similar reactions from others. Play someone with a lower Lehman and lose, your rating goes down. Beat them, and your rating won’t go up and might even go down a little. Since we’d done well the last time we played this guy….and back then we were pretty good….he saw no reason to play us again.

So we quit the site.

Plus the cheating was astounding!

[pescetom]

 mikeh, on 2026-February-17, 23:19, said:

25+ years ago, before BBO my then partner and I wanted to practice online…we lived in different cities. So we joined OK Bridge, hoping to find good opponents. We soon found real difficulty finding games against good players. As newbies, our Lehman scores were 50, and eventually one opp told us why he wouldn’t play us and why we would find similar reactions from others. Play someone with a lower Lehman and lose, your rating goes down. Beat them, and your rating won’t go up and might even go down a little. Since we’d done well the last time we played this guy….and back then we were pretty good….he saw no reason to play us again.

So we quit the site.

But that is a flawed ranking scheme if your ranking cannot initially rise quickly when you do well against highly ranked opponents: it can probably also be tricked by dropping out when you are losing and the other obvious dirty tricks.

The EBU NGS scheme looks meaningful and mathematically valid to me, it would be difficult to extend to all competitive formats but it's fine when you have a series of comparable pairs tournaments with some fluidity in pairing and enough time for it to stabilise (like VACBL on BBO, I imagine).
I wish the FIGB would adopt it for our national simultaneous tournaments, it would be very easy as the EBU has done all the hard work and we have years of data to get off to a fast start.

But they won't, and the reasons are those listed by mycroft: not many people really want to know their true level and even less want others to know it Plus, the RA has a vested interest in keeping people locked into buying MP or national equivalent. To be fair, FIGB does at least track both Master Points and Performance Points, which you only earn by winning important events and never expire. Guess how many players have any PP.