Rating system, contra

I believe Dave Lubeck is wrong in the assertion in his letter (May 2019) about the need for a rating system. There are many fundamental flaws with a rating system in bridge, which makes it impossible to develop fairly:

1. Bridge is a partnership game. Both partners would get rated the same way based upon results, when a good or bad result may be the result of only one of the players.

2. It would destroy incentives for players to play outside of their normal partnerships or with weaker players. My unit is starting a mentoring program: Why would a mentor volunteer if it will negatively impact their rating?

3. Luck (part 1) – Chess is a game of known outcomes; bridge is not. Percentage plays and superior lines of play are not guaranteed to work. A finesse or a lucky break may bring home a bad contract; similarly, taking an inferior line of play may work on a particular lie of the cards. Bad breaks can sink a well-bid contract. In chess, you can see where all the pieces are to determine your play; you do not see all 52 cards at bridge to know the right place to bid to or the right line of play. Also, not all fields are created equal. Playing against a field of weaker players, you are more likely to do well. Are you playing in a national event or a limited club game? How good are the players generally at your club? Finally, the results on a board may depend on who you are playing. Some examples:

a. A poor declarer goes down or makes fewer tricks than a more experienced player would. The more experienced player benefits, even though if he were playing it one table away, he would have gotten a worse result.

b. Receiving an average against a weak pair because it’s a flat board. To win, you should do well against weaker players, but there may be nothing to be done within your control.

c. Receiving a bad result because you play against a strong pair who bids, plays or defends well.

4. The form of scoring impacts results! At matchpoints or BAM in a 4 heart contract, you may take a safety play to ensure four. Are you going to penalize a partnership for taking a safety play at IMPs because it is better technique and the other declarers took a matchpoint-style line of play and made five? Similarly, if a defender plays all-out for a set at IMPs, which leads to an overtrick instead of holding declarer to the contract, is that pair going to be penalized for using the right strategy at that form of scoring?

5. Bad play can get a good result, leading to an undeserved bad result for the opponent.

6. The conventions being used affect both sides’ results. Sometimes system, rather than the quality of the play, determines results.

7. Sometimes, one board hand makes a big change in the score, but it does nothing to show the caliber of a player.

8. Penalties for irregularities can create score swings. Obvious examples are being able to forbid a lead, or being forced to lead a particular card.

Jason Fuhrman

Yonkers, New York