[mikeh]

mike777, on 2026-February-19, 19:24, said:

Is this really a priority for bridge?

2025 ACBL lost another net 7% in membership

I have it in very good authority that the ACBL believes that it’s facing a ‘demographic cliff’ within the next five years. But it’s possible that last years ‘loss’ was partly due to an effort to identify, and close the memberships of, people who haven’t played in, literally, years and years and years…many dead, many disabled, many just no longer interested but the membership lists weren’t always curated as they ought to be.

My bet…inside of 5 years the numbers and size of every kind of tournament will be down by 50% except possibly in areas with extremely high populations of seniors. And that’s my optimistic take, lol.

[johnu]

barmar, on 2026-February-19, 14:54, said:

Your rating doesn't go up much, if at all, when you beat someone you're expected to beat. Your rating goes up when you do better than expected, and it goes down when you do worse. Getting the expected result implies that the ratings accurately describe both pairs, so they stay the same.

I'm no expert on Lehman's, but beating somebody the equivalent of 51-49% is not going to improve your ratings much. Beating them 75-25 or 80-20 or the equivalent is going to improve your ratings a lot. What is the expected result when a pair of top experts play a team of mediocre players? The expected result is that the experts are going to crush the mediocre players. Disregarding labels, if an pair demolishes mediocre players over an extended time, getting the same results as an expert pair, wouldn't one expect that they should get the same rating as an expert pair, whether or not they are actually expert?

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2026-February-19, 14:54, said:

I don't remember how Lehman handles big discrepancies between members of a partnership.

Looks like it's a straight average - but note that the results are weighted toward the stronger player (more of the good result and less of the bad one). And it looks like from the current page (by search, not sure about OKB) that there is no "probationary period" implemented (thought to be a good idea, but unsure how to do it), so yeah. As you go from "new 50%" to "actual 59%", you are seriously damaging the ratings of the 59%ers you're playing "scratch" against. Once you're there, of course, it all is fine.

[mike777]

mikeh, on 2026-February-19, 20:19, said:

I have it in very good authority that the ACBL believes that it’s facing a ‘demographic cliff’ within the next five years. But it’s possible that last years ‘loss’ was partly due to an effort to identify, and close the memberships of, people who haven’t played in, literally, years and years and years…many dead, many disabled, many just no longer interested but the membership lists weren’t always curated as they ought to be.

My bet…inside of 5 years the numbers and size of every kind of tournament will be down by 50% except possibly in areas with extremely high populations of seniors. And that’s my optimistic take, lol.

Well at this rate in ten years it will be, if the average age of ACBL members around 75 today. And median around 71..

If not death. Then illness and simply driving to clubs becomes an issue


Any future must be online. In some form. Assuming a future for our game...


I feel very fortunate that our local club is going pretty well. At least the day games, very few attend evenings.

We are still profitable, top ten in charity giving in the country, hefty investment account. Lucky..

[pescetom]

AL78, on 2026-February-19, 17:46, said:

You can do it approximately because unlike chess, bridge is not a deterministic game. There is considerable variance (maybe less at the expert level) that can impact your results and rating.

An example from my recent situation, pickup partners in a club with a low standard (NGS ~ 44%), my NGS just under 57%, I need to get near 60% every time to break even. Given an evening with a mean hand HCP < 9, declaring three times in 24 boards, cards go the way of the opponents, they bid everything that is available to them, half the room can't bid 27 HCP games, good luck with getting over 50%. My NGS has dropped over 1% over two sessions largely thanks to stupid annoying sessions like this being on the wrong end of hand biases where it is very difficult to near impossible to engineer anything on many hands. On the other hand, partner an dI get the cards, the pickup partner is competant, a couple of squeeze plays come up, we end up with over 70%. NGS doesn't care about level of variance or whether you are fortunate enough to have an enthusiastic regular partner you can work and grow with.

Thanks for the on the spot response. But that reads almost like an endorsement of NGS to me, in particular your club manager knows exactly how low standard the club is (44%) compared to the 48% / 39% of last year: important for anyone who cares about improving the level of play rather than just retaining entry fees. As for your own NGS, surely it would pick up if you (or even someone else) from your low standard club went to play the same tournaments in a better club every now and then? If there is no interchange it is obvious that things remain falsified.

[barmar]

jillybean, on 2026-February-19, 19:20, said:

I can see Sponsoring Organizations using Performance Points for Stratification purposes.

This is precisely the goal, as I understand it.

Mediocre players who have been playing for many decades hate flighting/stratification based on masterpoints, because their points overstate their expertise.

In the next year or so I'm going to become a Platinum Life Master (10,000 points). I consider myself a below-average flight A player, but my masterpoints place me in the 99th percentile.

How did this happen? Since I've beeen working for BBO, I've been able to play online for free, and the points just started adding up due to playing lots of robot games when I'm bored. Probably close to half of my points come from this, not playing against tough competition.

The result if this is that soon I won't be able to play in any of the 0-10k events at nationals, unless they bump the limit (like when they changed 5k events to 6k). I don't mind playing up, but many of my partners like to play these events and I won't be able to play with them.

We clearly need something better than "attendance points" to determine eligibility for different levels of events.

[mikeh]

barmar, on 2026-February-20, 14:31, said:

This is precisely the goal, as I understand it.

Mediocre players who have been playing for many decades hate flighting/stratification based on masterpoints, because their points overstate their expertise.

In the next year or so I'm going to become a Platinum Life Master (10,000 points). I consider myself a below-average flight A player, but my masterpoints place me in the 99th percentile.

How did this happen? Since I've beeen working for BBO, I've been able to play online for free, and the points just started adding up due to playing lots of robot games when I'm bored. Probably close to half of my points come from this, not playing against tough competition.

The result if this is that soon I won't be able to play in any of the 0-10k events at nationals, unless they bump the limit (like when they changed 5k events to 6k). I don't mind playing up, but many of my partners like to play these events and I won't be able to play with them.

We clearly need something better than "attendance points" to determine eligibility for different levels of events.

They’ve already taken a tiny step. I don’t yet have 10,000 points (I’ll get there soon) but last fall the ACBL told me that for stratification purposes I am considered as having 10,000 because I’ve got the wins needed for GLM status. Didn’t make much difference to me…I had 9800 at the time, but my regular partner, who has played less bridge than I have…and I haven’t played much, just for a long time, probably will never make GLM, although he’s one of the best players in the country

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2026-February-20, 14:41, said:

They’ve already taken a tiny step. I don’t yet have 10,000 points (I’ll get there soon) but last fall the ACBL told me that for stratification purposes I am considered as having 10,000 because I’ve got the wins needed for GLM status. Didn’t make much difference to me…I had 9800 at the time, but my regular partner, who has played less bridge than I have…and I haven’t played much, just for a long time, probably will never make GLM, although he’s one of the best players in the country

Do they really need to give you more points? Your 9800 is going to put you in top strat in a pairs game, regardless of what your partner has and I wouldn't imagine you'd drag any team down to a lower bracket Sounds like more ACBL keep busy and ignore the elephant in the room.

[mycroft]

Sure, maybe. But Klimo had about 1500 when he became a NABC+ champion. Mike didn't have 9800 when he won the CNTC the first time. Peter (and Nicholas, and the other 4) had probably 4000 when they did that Salt Lake City thing. That wouldn't get you into Bracket 1 in many places, and would it be fair or fun for anyone if they played in limited events? And what about the Euro Pros who have some seeding points (but not 10 000) when they win their first NABC+ event?

So the ACBL has a rule. Sometimes that rule doesn't matter (much). Sometimes it does. And it's pretty rare. I know it's MIke's floor for "decent player", but it's far out of the reach of almost all of us. It should be recognized.

[jillybean]

Yes. I haven't been to an NABC or even a Regional for years, Im thinking small scale.

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2026-February-20, 16:37, said:

Do they really need to give you more points? Your 9800 is going to put you in top strat in a pairs game, regardless of what your partner has and I wouldn't imagine you'd drag any team down to a lower bracket Sounds like more ACBL keep busy and ignore the elephant in the room.

Actually, it does matter. 10000 MPS combined could easily be THIRD bracket at Penticton, and if we replaced the pickup I played with in Monterrey with a 7500 MP mikeh, I'd be expecting 15/20 VPs a match in third bracket. Admittedly that's not all mikeh, and in the second bracket we'd still be above average but not dominant.

[blackshoe]

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..

If I made it to the second day of any multi-day event, I would be surprised.

[akwoo]

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..

I really do not like this rating system.

Most players have no hope of getting to the level of making the second day of a national event consistently. They started learning the game, or started taking it seriously, at too advanced an age. Or they never had enough aptitude for the game to start with. Or they just don't want to devote the time and energy needed to be that good. This rating system tells all of them that they are so bad at the game that they don't matter at all.

The future of bridge depends on bad bridge, because most bridge players will be bad bridge players. They need to have achievements to aim for. (At the same time, they do need to be achievements, which mean they can't be so easy as to take no effort.)

That said, I'm happy for this kind of rating system to be extended downwards, to the level of breaking 50% (or even 45%) in a beginner game. That too is an achievement some players never get to or only barely get to.

mikeh, on 2026-February-17, 23:14, said:

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.

Compared to your average club player, the clients who are winning NABC+ events are indeed experts. They are far from being able to win such an event, or even consistently qualify for the 2nd day, with a peer, but they'll be consistently over 55% in your average club game. Even the clients who are regularly winning regional events have to be pretty good. They might not be anywhere near mikeh, but they have to be at least near if not better than me.

I decided to play over the weekend at the Monterrey Regional in January fairly late, and I ended up on Saturday with a pickup who would probably struggle to break 50% at a 750 MP game at a Sectional. We teamed up with a pair I know who are close to my level and dominated bottom bracket teams. But we wouldn't have dominated bottom bracket teams if she was someone who'd struggle to break 45% at a Sectional 750 MP game.

[barmar]

jillybean, on 2026-February-20, 16:37, said:

Do they really need to give you more points? Your 9800 is going to put you in top strat in a pairs game, regardless of what your partner has and I wouldn't imagine you'd drag any team down to a lower bracket Sounds like more ACBL keep busy and ignore the elephant in the room.

I don't mind playing in flight A -- that's a very wide field, but I prefer to play in national events when I go to nationals. I'm mainly thinking of the events that are limited to players with less than 6,000 or 10,000 masterpoints. The NABC schedules are littered with them now, and soon I won't be able to enter the 10k events.

I have a friend who has less than 6,000 points, but she won a national event a few years ago partnering with one of the best players in the country (he has several national and international wins). She's a very good player, but I'm not sure she's in the same upper echelon. Yet I can no longer ask her to play in 10k events because of that one great result.

For me to be competitive in the open national events, I'd probably have to hire a pro partner. But last fall a grand LM asked me to play with him in the Life Master Pairs, and even he couldn't carry me to a good result -- we were in the bottom 20% of qualifiers, then below average on the 2nd day.

[mycroft]

I mean, if actually being *on the field* for an MLB, NFL, NHL, etc. game is your low end for the word "good", okay fine.

Seriously, last NABC, they qualified 238 pairs for day two of the Blue Ribbons (and, later in the week, 81 teams for the NASwiss + 20 teams for the Reisinger). That means there's about 400-500 players in day 2 of the average 3-day National event. Let's say, to be fair, that 75% of those pairs "expect to make it" (a lower bar than "people are not surprised"; a combination of "'people' don't know us out of our country/area" and "90% of bridge players are better than their partners" will pad those ranks). So somewhere north of 300 players in the ACBL, minus some recruited foreigners, and if you are one of those people, some sponsors who "can't play" but can be carried, are good.

Add those that are still in the Soloway, I guess, you may get to 400.

Out of still, high side of 100 000 active ACBL players. And a fairly large number of non-ACBL paid members who play bridge in NA, many of them on BBO.

Okay, sure, if all you care about is watching top-class pro bridge/baseball/whatever, then maybe "actually making the big leagues" is in fact the low bar for "good".

If, however, you are looking to find a partner you can stand for an hour or two - they're *well* out of your league.

If you're going to tell all (but an ignorable fraction) the millions of club curlers, rec hockey league players, sunday soccer players, et al that they aren't and never will be "good", well, a few of them might just give it up. The arenas and curling clubs won't worry about them, they're turning down slots as it is. And there'll still be enough to play kickaround or even leagues. But *we can't really afford to discourage the 2nd quintile of bridge players by saying they're not and never will be "good", never mind telling people who are starting they should have started 30 years ago.

We always compare to chess. "good" by "people expect you to make day 2" standards is what, about 2000 Elo? That's about 5% of US Chess players. Maybe 2100 then?

[mike777]

Ok, now include all three nationals per year, add a number of years, retired players, semi retired..

That 400 good number increases some.

But yes less than 5% of 120,000.
Less than 6,000.

[awm]

I'd modify Mike777's rule a bit and just ask:

What is the strongest event where you'd expect to finish above average?

If we wanted to dig through actual records we could quantify this further, say "above average ~75% of the time" and perhaps further restrict to partners/teammates who are not "obviously at a very different skill level."

I'd expect to be above average in a German national championship event (have proven this on several occasions) or in the early rounds of any high-level pairs event (including WBF or EBL championships, the blue ribbons or platinum pairs, etc) but NOT in the last day of the elite pairs events (WBF/EBL championships A final, platinum pairs, etc). This probably puts me towards the upper end of "expert" but not "world class" (which is how I self-rate on BBO).

But I think you can use the same mechanism for players much further from the top levels, in which case the appropriate event might be a regional tournament, a local club game, or even an beginner/intermediate game (or perhaps "never" for a real beginner to duplicate).

I should also note that this is not that different from what NGS or the Colorado Springs ratings purport to measure, except that it avoids assumptions about linearity of scoring (i.e. just because the top players average ~10% better than me on the 3rd day of Platinum Pairs doesn't mean they will necessarily also average ~10% better than me when playing in my local club, which both rating systems would predict).

[mycroft]

Okay, but that's why I started with "made the field in an actual game". All those "was-beens" and "couldabeens" and "years ago were" are in there as well.

And again, if the lower bound of "good" is 97th percentile of *serious* (rated, non-kitchen) players, then I think you're looking for words like "master", "elite", or "national calibre" instead.

An interesting discussion on "good" in chess. Starting with "it depends" :-). But it certainly puts "good", for anyone not aiming for national championships anyway, much lower than what's being discussed here. Frankly, I'd put a least upper bound (that is, you could argue it is lower) for "good" at "not surprised when they're announced as the winners of the Open sectional event."

Which, of course, brings me back - again - to what we're trying to measure, and *why* we're trying to measure it. Which, oddly enough, very few who are asking for an "objective asses[ment of] how good a player someone is" - including many of the people here - are willing to answer. Okay, there's that one guy, who - may not be the best argument for "why does one care".

[mike777]

It sounds about right to rate more than 95 percent of dues paying bridge and chess players are intermediate level or lower

Intermediate is an achievement level


I understand only about 4000 unique individuals attend any national bridge event over a 12 month period.

[mycroft]

Then there is no advanced. There is "intermediate" and there is "master/expert". And, while I will say that I have miles to go before I stop advancing - and so are at *least* 95% of serious players (probably nearer 100%), in fact, I probably can't even see the mistakes I'm making that the top players "are advancing past" - I'm not sure that "good" should equal, or surpass, "master" or "expert".

And again, anyone looking for a good partner for a pickup game on BBO - well, I hope that's not where they think "good" is.