[billw55]

paulg, on 2012-February-06, 10:36, said:

Unfortunately everyone who has played for more than a year wants a rating that shows that they are in the upper 50% of the players.

True, but I don't see what is unfortunate about it. It should be optional, and if chosen displayed in your profile along with your self-rating. If not chosen, then only the self-rating appears.

In fairness, this applies only to the theoretical BBO where Fred has plenty of spare man-hours to code things that forums trolls think up. In reality, this would not be a high priority for resources if I was running the joint.

[Wayne_LV]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-06, 09:40, said:

1. Who chooses the bidding system? Do you really want to make quizzes for every major bidding system in the world? What if I only ever play with one partner and we have a custom system?

2. Again, popular according to whom? Where? Popular conventions with me are denial cue bidding, assymetric relay, ZANT, ZANMO and a few others. How well do you think you will do in a quiz on these?

3. Single suit or within a whole hand? Fred has said that you can be a great player without knowing all card combinations even in a single suit. For whole hand situations this might be even more complicated.

4. Which leads? Do you know Combine carding? Same for signals. Dodds is very popular in the Acol club. Standard carding in Poland is very different from standard in the USA.

5. How about a simple category of:
a. How long have you played bridge?
b. What percentage of the time do you finish "in the points" at local club games?
c. Have you been successful at any national level tournaments? Which and how many?
d. Have you represented your country?

Silly me, that is the current rating system!

The purpose of a rating system is to find a temporary or pick up partner for a casual game, not to find a lifetime partner to play an exotic system with a gaggle of obscure conventions.

A bridge quiz should cover basic bridge knowledge that applies to all systems. Specific bidding questions could be limited to ACBL SAYC, which after all was intended to allow strangers to sit and play with NO discussion. Funny how so few seem to know the basics of SAYC yet expect partner to play Exclusion Blackwood, lebensohl, and other complex conventions. The play of the hand and basic defensive techniques are system independant for the most part.

[gnasher]

paulg, on 2012-February-06, 10:36, said:

Unfortunately everyone who has played for more than a year wants a rating that shows that they are in the upper 50% of the players.

That's easy enough to address: just give each player a rating that is between 50 and 100. That's the equivalent of what already happens with self-ratings.

[Rossoneri]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-06, 06:21, said:

The current criteria for Intermediate is basically "Anyone who has played the game for a year up to anyone who is not regularly successful at tournaments." That's probably well over 80% of BBO players if they were judged by the specified criteria. The ratings seem to me to have been devised by someone who concentrated on the higher levels: intermational success -> national success -> local success -> everyone else. The trouble is that it is the "everyone else" grouping that makes up the vast bulk of players.

Even if the rating system was applied correctly and (almost) everyone was Intermediate it would not be particularly helpful except for the players at the extremes! The real answer is simple - Intermediate covers too broad a range so just split Intermediate into 2 groups. If there is a limit in the software to only allow 6 groups then it would still be better to have 2 intermediate levels and to combine Novice and Beginner. Something like:-

1. Have played bridge for less than a year
2. Played for at least a year but only very rarely successful in tournaments
3. Some success in tournaments. Most club players should rate themselves in this category.
4. Regular success in tournaments
5. Success at State/County/Regional level
6. Success at national level
7. Represented your country

would even out the (correct) numbers in each category enormously. They would even mean something for regular BBO users! Obviously it would not stop inflation; some people will consider themselves Expert whatever the criteria say. But it would reduce some of the need for it.

By all means, this looks logical, but you'll find that people coming from small countries will have 4 to 6 being the same thing.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-February-06, 09:37, said:

Do you really think people are going to subject themselves to such a test just to sit down and play some random bridge?

Everyone loves to complain about ratings, but I don't think most people really want to see honest ratings on display -- it would be too much of an ego hit. Go to OKbridge and see the games people play with their Lehman ratings, for instance -- either hiding them or resetting them whenever they get too low.

Yes, people do this, but it doesn't affect the fact that the ratings do give you an idea of a potential partner's recent-ish performance.

[dwar0123]

barmar, on 2012-February-06, 09:37, said:

Do you really think people are going to subject themselves to such a test just to sit down and play some random bridge?

Everyone loves to complain about ratings, but I don't think most people really want to see honest ratings on display -- it would be too much of an ego hit. Go to OKbridge and see the games people play with their Lehman ratings, for instance -- either hiding them or resetting them whenever they get too low.

I mostly play on OKbridge(and kibitz on bbo) and I hardly ever see anyone hiding their rating and it notes in their profile if a rating has been reset recently and I hardly ever see that note. Even in the cases that I do see such things, those players are merely treated as unknowns and generally excluded from tables that are looking for a certain level of skill, which is the vast majority of tables.

Playing on bbo is very frustrating when you don't have a regular partner, the skill ranges wildly and there is almost no correlation between actual skill and stated skill, making the entire self rating system meaningless. Even when I did have a regular partner(before he switched to okb entirely) the level of the opponents was generally bad and occasionally appalling and this was after we gave up, joined in and called ourselves advanced.

BBO has a lot more players and naturally more top players, but when you are just playing random pickup games in the intermediate-advanced range, it is easier to find peers on OKB then BBO.

It's not perfect, there are people who are over rated as well as under rated on OKB, but the deviation is several orders of magnitude less.

That said, the access to vugraph as well as the forum community is vastly better on bbo and if you are just starting out, bbo is probably a lot less of an ego hit then the imposed rating system of okb.

[mgoetze]

billw55, on 2012-February-06, 09:44, said:

Better yet, BM2k has enough questions that you could take the quiz several times without seeing repeats. Thereby reducing cheating.

barmar, on 2012-February-06, 10:00, said:

If you're trying to use the rating system to find compatible partners,

...then declarer play is surely the aspect of their game that I care least about.

[mycroft]

Well, what I saw (from years ago, really years) on OKBridge, what happened was that people set up games for "lehmans between X and Y only", where X and Y were within 5 ratings points. Given the nature of the Lehman calculation (which was *not* designed for that), as long as those games were basically 50-50, nothing would change. Very shortly people find their level, and then after that they play "in their level", and the lehmans never change.

If I wanted to manipulate my Lehman rating, I know how I would do it. But I don't - in fact, I don't care about it at all (to the point where when I was allowed to be one of 4 people on BBO, I took it, and never went back, now that I'm one of 14 000). Of course, I paid more attention to how the calculation was done than most, given that for about 8 months, I hosted Lehman's explanation on my (long dead) web site.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2012-February-06, 17:42, said:

Well, what I saw (from years ago, really years) on OKBridge, what happened was that people set up games for "lehmans between X and Y only", where X and Y were within 5 ratings points. Given the nature of the Lehman calculation (which was *not* designed for that), as long as those games were basically 50-50, nothing would change. Very shortly people find their level, and then after that they play "in their level", and the lehmans never change.

But these people can depend on the fact that their partners will have roughly the same level of skill as they do, as will their opponents. So they are happy. I'll bet OKBridge would be more popular than BBO for this reason, if it were free.

[dwar0123]

mycroft, on 2012-February-06, 17:42, said:

Well, what I saw (from years ago, really years) on OKBridge, what happened was that people set up games for "lehmans between X and Y only", where X and Y were within 5 ratings points. Given the nature of the Lehman calculation (which was *not* designed for that), as long as those games were basically 50-50, nothing would change. Very shortly people find their level, and then after that they play "in their level", and the lehmans never change.

If I wanted to manipulate my Lehman rating, I know how I would do it. But I don't - in fact, I don't care about it at all (to the point where when I was allowed to be one of 4 people on BBO, I took it, and never went back, now that I'm one of 14 000). Of course, I paid more attention to how the calculation was done than most, given that for about 8 months, I hosted Lehman's explanation on my (long dead) web site.

You seem to be implying something wrong with that, could you elaborate? If the games are 50-50 with equal opponents, the rating shouldn't change.

The ratings system is a rough yardstick to help create competitive games among peers, sure people can manipulate it, but they are few and far between and even then, if they manipulate it far out of their actual skill range they are not playing against people with similar ratings. Hence they can be an over rated 60% playing against 52% or they can be a correctly rated 52% playing against 52%. If they are an over rated 60% playing against 60%, they won't be 60% for very long, the problem is self correcting and the manipulation is mostly cosmetic as it doesn't actually change who you end up playing with.

[barmar]

mgoetze, on 2012-February-06, 16:06, said:

...then declarer play is surely the aspect of their game that I care least about.

There's more to being a compatible partner than playing the same style.

A common situation when people play pick-up games is that they put "Expert" in their profile, and then go down due to a dumb mistake, and their partner, who was expecting better declarer expertise, says something to the effect of "You call yourself an expert?" and leaves the table.

Comments like these are stupid and inappropriate, of course -- everyone makes mistakes, even world champions. But at least an objective rating system would remove the possibility of lying, and thus such accusations should be reduced.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2012-February-06, 10:00, said:

If you only play with one partner, then why do you care what your rating is?

If ratings were meaningful then it would be much more common for a table to be "Advanced only" or whatever. It is common enough even now when ratings are close to meaningless. If a pair are in truth Expert but the "meaningful" rating system marks them as Beginner then they would be excluded from such tables.

Obviously I was using some overly extreme examples in my post to make a point. But the truth is that many many systems are popular in different parts of the world and it would be close to impossible to create a meaningful test that would apply to every such system.

Wayne_LV, on 2012-February-06, 11:03, said:

The purpose of a rating system is to find a temporary or pick up partner for a casual game, not to find a lifetime partner to play an exotic system with a gaggle of obscure conventions.

Is that the only purpose? Do you not think some players would like to use a rating system to find opponents of roughly their level (or better)?

Wayne_LV, on 2012-February-06, 11:03, said:

A bridge quiz should cover basic bridge knowledge that applies to all systems.

Could you name some basic bridge knowledge that applies to ALL systems?

Wayne_LV, on 2012-February-06, 11:03, said:

Specific bidding questions could be limited to ACBL SAYC, which after all was intended to allow strangers to sit and play with NO discussion. Funny how so few seem to know the basics of SAYC yet expect partner to play Exclusion Blackwood, lebensohl, and other complex conventions.

It is quite true that very few know SAYC well. The truth is that I have very little idea about the details of SAYC whatsoever because I am not American. English Acol is also a system where players sit down without discussion. I believe Polish Clubbers do this too. Similarly SEF, Forum D, Swiss Acol, Benji Acol, even Precision. Such American-centric views are really quite distasteful to me for an international system such as BBO.

Wayne_LV, on 2012-February-06, 11:03, said:

The play of the hand and basic defensive techniques are system independant for the most part.

Agreed. That does not mean that standard carding methods are not different in other parts of the world. Or do you plan on only allowing carding agreements common in the ACBL in your test too?

barmar, on 2012-February-06, 19:42, said:

A common situation when people play pick-up games is that they put "Expert" in their profile, and then go down due to a dumb mistake, and their partner, who was expecting better declarer expertise, says something to the effect of "You call yourself an expert?" and leaves the table.

Or perhaps the Expert really was an Expert and played for a specific layout that was suggested by the bidding/carding but turned out not to be the case. In my experience, the fact that Dummy can see all 4 hands tends to colour their view of how a hand should be played. I also think that the software should be changed that the player that was Dummy when the play started should keep the score even if they leave the table thereafter - I have lost count of the number of times Dummy left the table to avoid a bad score, often after their extremely poor bidding caused their side to reach a ridiculous contract. This would help my own rating system which is to simply check the last month's hand records for a given player. The combination of self-rating and actual rating is often a decent guide to how to handle a given partner!

[diana_eva]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-07, 02:23, said:

...

Or perhaps the Expert really was an Expert and played for a specific layout that was suggested by the bidding/carding but turned out not to be the case. In my experience, the fact that Dummy can see all 4 hands tends to colour their view of how a hand should be played. I also think that the software should be changed that the player that was Dummy when the play started should keep the score even if they leave the table thereafter - I have lost count of the number of times Dummy left the table to avoid a bad score, often after their extremely poor bidding caused their side to reach a ridiculous contract. This would help my own rating system which is to simply check the last month's hand records for a given player. The combination of self-rating and actual rating is often a decent guide to how to handle a given partner!

Dummy does keep the score even if he leaves. And the board counts as uncompleted in his stats.

Also, on the web version dummy no longer sees all cards.

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2012-February-07, 03:09

[Antrax]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-07, 02:23, said:

I also think that the software should be changed that the player that was Dummy when the play started should keep the score even if they leave the table thereafter - I have lost count of the number of times Dummy left the table to avoid a bad score, often after their extremely poor bidding caused their side to reach a ridiculous contract. This would help my own rating system which is to simply check the last month's hand records for a given player. The combination of self-rating and actual rating is often a decent guide to how to handle a given partner!

To the best of my knowledge, that's already the case. I "sub" into such tables often (because I still use "take me to the first seat available"), and those bad results never show up on my profile, which presumably means they show up on the other person's.

Oh, and you self-rate as Intermediate? lol

[Zelandakh]

diana_eva, on 2012-February-07, 03:09, said:

Dummy does keep the score even if he leaves. And the board counts as uncompleted in his stats.

My experience of this has been sporadic. Dummy sometimes keeps the score; sometimes it shows up as East (or whatever) and does not show up in anyone's records for that seat; and sometimes the replacement gets the score. I would say the "no score" option is probably the most common, without any evidence to back it and without always having checked the leavers' personal hand records afterwards (although there is 100% correlation between Hand Records and Movie from the times I have checked). The "uncompleted boards" statistic is presumably one of the hidden ones that are only visible to Yellows?

[paulg]

Coincidentally the English Bridge Union is just starting its National Grading Scheme to provide ratings for all those who play pairs at a club and/or tournament - full details (PDF) or from their website.

My rating will start at and remain at 50% until they bring team tournaments into the scheme.

[Vampyr]

diana_eva, on 2012-February-07, 03:09, said:

Also, on the web version dummy no longer sees all cards.

That's boring.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-07, 02:23, said:

Could you name some basic bridge knowledge that applies to ALL systems?

How strong should the combined hands be to bid games or slams. Regardless of the system details, the purpose is to exchange information about shape and strength, and then use this information to set the contract.

And even if you only play one system regularly, familiarity with other systems is necessary to be a better player. You often have to play against people playing other systems, and understanding them will improve your game.

Competitive bidding is an area where there's much less systemic variation than in basic approach, although there's lots of stylistic variation -- it would probably be unfair to ask whether a hand with 8 HCP is appropriate for an overcall, but it would certainly be reasonable to ask about an 11 HCP hand with a decent suit that can overcall on the 1 level.

[phil_20686]

paulg, on 2012-February-07, 06:30, said:

Coincidentally the English Bridge Union is just starting its National Grading Scheme to provide ratings for all those who play pairs at a club and/or tournament - full details (PDF) or from their website.

My rating will start at and remain at 50% until they bring team tournaments into the scheme.

It will be interesting if they let you see the average NGS for a club night in your local club and stuff.

[onoway]

If you are really concerned about inflated self ratings, some clues to help blow their cover; 1) look at their profile and beware of people who simultaneously have "expert" and "stayman" on it (a surprising number of them!) or/and 2) if you really care a lot, look up their hand stats. The last can still be misleading as unless they play in tourneys it's hard to know if they are just among the best of the bunnies, as it were. Or you can consider if it's really all that important in the larger scheme of things.

As far as a "qualifying" test goes: I know a number of people who don't play "modern" bridge.They would definitely be labelled as beginners by any test demanding knowlege of even such things as transfers. However, put them at a table vs advanced players and they will play rings around most of their opps. Admittedly none I know regularly play duplicate but when they do they usually finish in the top 5% or so.

It's interesting that nobody here mentions or seems to object to the people who UNDERrate their level, people who certainly qualify as expert and instead modestly announce "novice". Maybe the bushwhacked bunnies don't post in the forums.