The EBU Grading System
|
How are grade bands and numeric bands related? |
|
EBU grades are divided into 13 playing card bands, ranging from |
|
‘Ace’ at the top to ‘Two’ at the beginners’ end. Each band, except the end |
|
bands of ‘Ace’ and ‘Two’, covers a grade range of exactly 2, with ‘Eight’ |
|
having a range of 49-51. To split up the highest graded players the Ace band |
|
(and only this band) is divided into four suits. The full set of bands and their |
|
numeric equivalents are shown below. |
|
|
|
Grading Range |
% |
H/C |
|
|
|
|
|
Ace of Spades |
67+ |
-6 |
|
Ace of Hearts |
65-67 |
-6 |
|
Ace of Diamonds |
63-65 |
-6 |
|
Ace of Clubs |
61-63 |
-6 |
|
King |
59-61 |
-5 |
|
Queen |
57-59 |
-4 |
|
Jack |
55-57 |
-3 |
|
Ten |
53-55 |
-2 |
|
Nine |
51-53 |
-1 |
|
Eight |
49-51 |
0 |
|
Seven |
47-49 |
+1 |
|
Six |
45-47 |
+2 |
|
Five |
43-45 |
+3 |
|
Four |
41-43 |
+4 |
|
Three |
39-41 |
+5 |
|
Two |
under 39 |
+6 |
|
Many bridge clubs have handicapped pairs events and the National Grading |
|
Scheme can provide Club Secretaries the best available ready-made |
|
handicaps for players. Each player’s handicap can be derived roughly by a |
|
simple conversion scale of -6 for a Current Grading Band of "Ace" to +6 for the |
|
band of "2". A partnership’s handicap is the sum of the two player’s handicaps |
|
and this is the amount by which the event’s percentage score is adjusted in |
|
determining the handicapped result. |
|
A stumbling block will occur if a club member makes their grading “private”, |
|
but logic would dictate that it would be unlikely that a player who wishes their |
|
gradings to be kept private would wish to participate in a handicapped event. |
|
More precise handicaps can be derived from the grade values themselves. |
|
Using these, a partnership’s handicap is the average of the two grades |
|
subtracted from 50%. |
|
The National Grading Scheme thus provides scope for Counties and other |
|
organisations also to construct ranked, flighted or handicapped events based |
|
on players’ current grades, should they feel that any such events may be |
|
popular. |
|
Certainly at club level, most players enjoy the boost of having a session when |
|
they score better than their average. Handicapped ranking lists enable club |
|
players who would otherwise usually be in the bottom part of the field to finish |
|
higher up the list on these occasions, and thereby heighten their enjoyment of |
|
the game. If your club has a sweepstake, it could be handicapped, or perhaps |
|
handicaps might be used for club party or celebratory events. |
At 8th July 2012 the top rankers were:
|
Name
|
%
|
Grade
|
|
Davies, Geoff
|
64.28
|
AD
|
|
Hartley, John
|
64.26
|
AD
|
|
Martin, Roy
|
63.46
|
AD
|
|
Ratcliff, Bryan
|
62.04
|
AC
|
|
Feltbower, Geoff
|
61.76
|
AC
|
|
Stubbs, Raymond
|
60.57
|
K
|
|
Owen, David
|
59.71
|
K
|
|
Day, John
|
59.57
|
K
|
|
Sullivan, Kevin
|
59.08
|
K
|
|
Webb, Ian
|
58.79
|
Q
|
|
Mayland, Paul
|
58.73
|
Q
|
|
Cleasby, Elizabeth
|
58.37
|
Q
|
|
Togneri, Tony
|
58.22
|
Q
|
|
Stacey, Pat
|
57.63
|
Q
|
|
Barnes, Alan
|
57.56
|
Q
|
|
Robinson, Graham
|
56.76
|
J
|
|
Mangan, Jean
|
56.37
|
J
|
|
Jordan, Marion
|
55.91
|
J
|
|
Tayar, Clifford
|
55.70
|
J
|
|
Ross, June
|
55.61
|
J
|
|
Goodwin, Harold
|
55.54
|
J
|
|
Owen, John
|
55.45
|
J
|
|
Davis, Margaret
|
55.21
|
J
|
|
|
|
|