[RunemPard]

Rather than continue posting in another thread, I decided to make a new post altogether to go more into detail.

I really like the system in place in Sweden where they are using different methods of ranking/rewarding players. This is done by the country, not the clubs. This handicap system is only used in pair tournament events where masterpoints are awarded. It could obviously be done better, but I think it is extremely accurate and effective used as a ranking method, not as a replacement to scratch results. When done properly at a club, it is simple to print out a SCR/HCP result. However, it is not required to even print out or use a HCP result for presenting winners. The reason I like the HCP is not because of the placement, it is the ranking in the system. When I am playing, HCP is to me what masterpoints are to many others. My main goals when playing a tournament are to try to win, obviously. If I fail to win, I can still strive to play well enough that I do better than I was expected to do in the field by the HCP.

I will provide a link to the math for those interested, but I will try and give a basic description here of how it works. The handicap starts at 52 and cannot go above this. A higher HCP is bad and a lower handicap is good. Let's say you have a handicap of 5 and are playing with a partner who has 15 in handicap. These are very good handicaps and they would place you in the top 40 and your partner in the top 650 in Sweden. Your average HCP is obviously 10. You decide to play at a local club that has a pretty high level of play for a club evening and the average handicap is 28. You have a difference of 18 HCP from the field. For roughly every 2 HCP points in difference, you must play 1% higher in scratch to break even in the HCP result. So you and your partner are expected to be about 59% in scratch to get 50% in handicap.

You finish playing and have done well. You won with 64% at MPs. Your handicap result was 55%, but this result at the club is not important. When the database updates, this 55% will drop your handicap roughly .4-.6 points (improving it). On a basic club evening every % above/below 50 in HCP drops/raises your HCP .1 points. There are other factors such as # of boards and what masterpoints are awarded in the event. A national will affect your HCP a lot more.

The problems with the system. It is not 100% accurate, but then again, all ranking systems will never be. If I were to look at our club's HCP ranking list I would consider almost all of the players to be playing well enough to what their HCP shows. A big weakness though is that let's say a top 10 player in Sweden plays with a world class player from Denmark. They don't give that player a temp HCP, but instead count them as a 52. This is wrong, but happens in only a few cases. :-/

TL;DR/conclusion...HCP is not mean't to be used as a replacement to scratch or masterpoints. It is completely different. It provides a good ranking system inside your country. It is fun to play with and you can get an accurate measurement of your level compared to your country exponentially faster than using masterpoints. Again, I stress using HCP as a method of REWARDING at the club rather than using SCRATCH results is wrong. The handicap system as I see it is a ranking method.


Cannot find the link to the math I found before, but I will post is here if I can find it.

[Zelandakh]

It sounds like I should (deliberately, or by choosing an incompatible partner) play badly in minor events and then to full potential in more important ones. This is similar to problems that can happen with other rating/handicap systems such as chess and golf.

[CamHenry]

The EBU's National Grading Scheme works on a similar method (i.e. predicts the score you should expect, on average, playing MPs with an equal partner in a nationally-average field). It's expressed as a percentage.

There is a paper on the mathematics of it somewhere under https://www.ebu.co.uk/ngs.

[Zelandakh]

The EBU's scheme is based on solid maths though, in particular those underpinning the Elo system. It would not prevent the misuse mentioned before but since there is no advantage to be had from a lower score there is no incentive for that to take place.

[RunemPard]

Zelandakh, on 2014-February-25, 08:03, said:

It sounds like I should (deliberately, or by choosing an incompatible partner) play badly in minor events and then to full potential in more important ones. This is similar to problems that can happen with other rating/handicap systems such as chess and golf.

No, it's not that drastic. But if you are playing a club event you may go down 1 point with a really good evening, but at a national you may go down 2-3. Doing poorly on purpose would not be a recommended strategy by any means. The biggest movements I have seen are about 3-4 at a very high level with a huge win. At a club level, if you play absolutely amazing you may go down 1.5 points.

[Zelandakh]

RunemPard, on 2014-February-25, 08:16, said:

Doing poorly on purpose would not be a recommended strategy by any means.

You have to start somewhere - say my partner and I score 30% in our first club event and then do so once a week for 2 months (9 events total). What would the HCP be? Is the initial HCP related to the first result or is it fixed at 26 and adjusted? Your example seemed to suggest a starting HCP of 52 which is really bad.

[mfa1010]

Denmark adopted this system from Sweden in June 13.

It is generally a lot of fun. There is a ranking list updated daily. I think it is good.

Minor details could still be improved, but that is only natural.

In Denmark, strong foreigners start with a good handicap. Curiously nr. 2 and 3 on the Danish list at the moment are P. Fredin and M. Eriksson of Sweden, who play in the Danish premier division. They might have benefitted on the ranking list from not playing club games, because the high ranked players are seemingly having problems with keeping their hcp in high-hcp fields, because the expected score is so high.

@ Zel

There is no real incitement to try to dump the ranking. Tournaments are scored as usual, it's not like in amateur golf. Having a high hcp in bridge gets you a bad seed, when the event is seeded.

[RunemPard]

Zelandakh, on 2014-February-25, 08:22, said:

You have to start somewhere - say my partner and I score 30% in our first club event and then do so once a week for 2 months (9 events total). What would the HCP be? Is the initial HCP related to the first result or is it fixed at 26 and adjusted? Your example seemed to suggest a starting HCP of 52 which is really bad.

Yes, that is one thing I disagree with that I forgot to mention in the OP. The way it is setup here (which could be improved on), is that you start at 52 and can never go above this. There are not many players who play outside of beginner evenings that can never get better than 52, but it would be better to start it another way.

Let's say you do as you said for 9 events and consistently play 30% in scratch at let's say a decent club evening with an average HCP of 32.

In theory you are expected to finish around 40% each time since your difference is 20 HCP points. Every 2 points from the field AVG you are expected to do about 1% better. The way it is now, you will never go over 52, but if it did you may very well go up to 58ish? The first event would take you to about 52.5 (

Starting the HCP at a different spot is probably better though, but it is only a few rare cases where outside players play as a 52. I am not sure if clubs have the ability to set a temp HCP to for example a great Danish player, but I have never seen this done.


I have probably not explained everything perfectly, but you will eventually reach a point where you just cannot improve drastically if at all. A player with a HCP of 20-25 I would consider BBO's version of a lower advanced, 14-20 would probably be about advanced+, 7-14 would be about expert, and any lower you are world-class at least in your country.

Some example of players people may recognize...
1. C. Ragnarsson, -4,0
2. C. Rimstedt, -2,9
3. P. Fredin, -2,7
4. M. Eriksson, -2,1
8. J. Upmark, 1,3
29. F. Jarlvik, 4,5
53. M. Nilsland, 5,6

I don't know if you can view the list if you are not a member of the SBF, but here it is...
http://db.bridgefede...ID=-1&PlacMin=1

If you want to view people outside the top 500, just change the last # in the link.