[mycroft]

 dwar0123, on 2012-February-06, 19:14, said:

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.

No, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the rating - although if there's, say, a nice little group of 47% Lehman players, all of whom are being coached, and all of whom get significantly better, but still play in that group, then the times they do play outside the group, they're going to be severely underhandicapped.

And if not, they're always playing with 47%ers, and they'll never get better. The better players don't want to play with the 47%ers, because they know they'll need a 60% game against them to keep their coveted 55 rating (even though they probably will, but what if tonight's not the night?)

Also, I couldn't play with my mentees, because if we played rated games, we distorted everyone's game; if we played unrated games, we couldn't get opponents. I ended up with a friend of hers and a friend of *hers*, and the mentor program became "Mycroft and his harem" - but at least we had a table!

Quote

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.

Sure the problem is self-correcting. But so is the weight bracket system for boxing, wrestling, judo, et al. matches, and *everybody* manipulates it to get a "better" matchup. It's only when a) the athlete misses his target, b) it's entirely too blatant, or c) the yoyoing causes obvious (and not 20-years-on) physical harm that people complain.

If Lehmans, or any other bridge rating system for hoi polloi (of which I am definitely one - I'm basically talking everybody but the top of the top) become important enough to game, it'll be gamed. The only real rating system that works is "what have *you* won? And who were your teammates?" And it's hard to determine the difference between "Calgary regional, Bracket 2 win" and "Penticton Regional, Bracket 2 win" from Kuala Lumpur, so even that doesn't help.

[mycroft]

Please note: the only rating I care about, as a player or in a partner, is "not an asshole." Yeah, I'll gripe if I'm put with the "can't count" guy (to myself), but as long as it's a pleasant game, fine. I may not have another one with that gentleman, but I'll do it every day of the week if the alternative is the asshole, even if she's the much better player (than the "can't count" guy, or than the "those who can, do; those who can't, teach; those who can't teach, go into administration" Director who's writing this post).

[mike777]

http://www.acbl.org/...embersByMPs.php


ACBL membership masterpoint holdings.


The median is roughly 175 pts.

So roughly 83,000 players above and below that number.


I would think looking at the Platinum point holders this year would give you a good first step, not perfect, as far as a ranking for ACBL players.


http://web2.acbl.org...layerofyear.htm

[mike777]

http://www.wbfmaster...en.asp?offset=0

It lists roughly 6700 players worldwide.

wbf by masterpoints, also please note PP placing points or seeding points.

[mike777]

ACBL Hall of Fame


http://www.acbl.org/...me/inducted.php



Please note some players are too young to be in yet.

Also you can get voted in for reasons other than being a truly great all time bridge player.

[Vampyr]

 onoway, on 2012-February-07, 13:31, said:

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!)

In England most experts do play Stayman.

 mike777, on 2012-February-07, 15:36, said:

I would think looking at the Platinum point holders this year would give you a good first step, not perfect, as far as a ranking for ACBL players.

Do platinum points degrade over time?

[BunnyGo]

 Vampyr, on 2012-February-07, 16:04, said:

In England most experts do play Stayman.

Yes, but when forming a sit down partnership that evening, is it the first thing they announce that they play?

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2012-February-07, 16:04, said:

In England most experts do play Stayman.

I think his point was that if you feel the need to say that you play Stayman, you're displaying a lack of experience.

[JLOGIC]

 Vampyr, on 2012-February-07, 16:04, said:

Do platinum points degrade over time?

nope, no ACBL points degrade other than seeding points

[awm]

While its true that ACBL masterpoints don't degrade, there seems to be some inflation which has more or less similar effects (if less formally so).

[jillybean]

 onoway, on 2012-February-07, 13:31, said:

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.

Is there an "exclude bunny" option for BBO tournaments now?

[Antrax]

 onoway, on 2012-February-07, 13:31, said:

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.

I haven't seen any instances of "eeking" (deliberately playing against much weaker players and wrecking them) on BBO, so probably this isn't an issue.

BTW, since I find this discussion quite interesting, I'll chip in:
a) I completely agree with Zel that "intermediate" is wide too broad a range. Having more ratings in this category might alleviate some of the inflation. Or maybe just changing to some objective stat like "have been playing for X years" though it might do people like JLOGIC injustice

b) I like the idea of free self-rating because it takes away much of the incentive for trying to game the system to show a high rating on your profile. If you want it to say "World Class", you click on that, and that kind of makes the whole thing pointless, as most people who play on BBO quickly learn that the field means very little.
All sorts of quizzes are fine if they're tools to help people determine their self-rating, but in the end I think it's best of you define your own.

[JLOGIC]

Yeah most of you probably don't remember OKB with the lehman ratings...there was a huge bunny bashing issue with that + a cheating issue.

[Zelandakh]

 barmar, on 2012-February-07, 11:04, said:

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.

Under which evaluation method? If I say 52 (Zar) points am I wrong? How about 5 HTs - after all that is the evaluation system I learnt first so it is the default beginner standard, right? I could also be pedantic here and say I need 10 trumps and a shortage or 11 trumps irrespective of other evaluation criteria. Certainly when I am raising 1♠ to 4♠ my first thought is not "am I strong enough?". And even if you insist on HCPs, most Novices know this answer - or do you make a distinction between 26 (Novice/Beginner); 25 (Intermediate); 24 (A/E); 23 (Meckwell)?

 barmar, on 2012-February-07, 11:04, said:

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.

Yes it will. But plenty of players reach Advanced status only understanding one system. In many clubs only one system is played unless there happens to be a visiting pair. How many pairs do you think play SAYC in European countries? Heck, you could probably win your country's trials for international events without ever having to play against SAYC in many places!

Presumably your quiz will also ask the SAYC players about Precision asking bids for the same reasons. Or is it only necessary to familiarise yourself with other systems if you play a different system from the average LOL in America?

 barmar, on 2012-February-07, 11:04, said:

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.

This is true but there is nonetheless variation. Raptor, ELC, style of 2-suited overcalls, et all have knock-on effects to other areas of the defensive structure. Some players also like to play canape overcalls when allowed; obviously this makes a massive difference! An 11 hcp hand with a decent suit will probably be a simple overcall for the majority but could easily be a jump overcall, double, 1NT bid or 2-suiter for some people, depending on the exact hand and agreeemnts in place.


The simple point here is that any quiz that is devised has to cater to all players and not only to those from a particular country or skill level. And it has to do this while being both an improvement over the current system and without putting players off. I would suggest that these design goals are actually impossible and therefore that it is better to better tailor the existing system of self-rating to the requirements of BBO players and use resources to improve the software in other areas instead.

[gordontd]

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

English Acol is also a system where players sit down without discussion.

Not if they want to play the same as their partner. If they did, they wouldn't know what partner would open with a balanced hand out of 1NT opening range, for a start.

[Zelandakh]

 gordontd, on 2012-February-08, 04:33, said:

Not if they want to play the same as their partner. If they did, they wouldn't know what partner would open with a balanced hand out of 1NT opening range, for a start.

Then they should read the EBU system file then! Somewhat perversely the writer chose to put the relevant section on what to open with a 15+ 4432 hand under "Unbalanced" but it is nonetheless there. I agree that the majority of Acol players are probably not aware of this but equally most do not care.

[billw55]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-February-08, 00:34, said:

Yeah most of you probably don't remember OKB with the lehman ratings...there was a huge bunny bashing issue with that + a cheating issue.

Interesting. A good rating system should allow for that. Basically, the lager the rating difference, the less is gained when the stronger player wins. At some sufficiently large difference, the rating gain should fall to zero. Conversely, the higher rated player should incur a larger loss for losing as the rating difference increases. Thus creating a situation where there is little to gain but much lose (rating wise) from bunny bashing.

The best rating system I know of is on the KGS Go server. It includes this element. Of course Go is quite different from bridge in that (a) it is an individual game and (b) it is easily handicapped to get the winning chances near 50/50. Bridge is much more complicated to rate, but still I think there are some things to learn there. Notably, aging of results, and rating over a set of results, rather than incrementally with each result.

edit: looked up Lehman ratings, it seems they include these factors. Seems a pretty good system in principle, how well does it work in practice?

[paulg]

 billw55, on 2012-February-08, 07:41, said:

edit: looked up Lehman ratings, it seems they include these factors. Seems a pretty good system in principle, how well does it work in practice?

The problem I had on OKB was not the ratings but the personal behaviour that that ratings gave rise to. People were more interested in protecting their ratings than playing bridge, so this led to bootings whenever you made an error and, if your rating fell below 50, no-one above 50 would play with you.

Now I must admit that I only ever play with friends on BBO nowadays. But I have a very wide circle of friends ranging in ability from world-class internationalists to local club players who I happily play with and no-one is worrying about their rating. It makes for a much more pleasant environment to my mind.

I guess the Main Bridge Club still resembles the Wild West, but it is possible to find enjoyable games. I think ratings would make it more difficult.

[gnasher]

The main problems with Lehman ratings are:
- Many people are too lazy try to understand how they work..
- The same people are, nevertheless, quite happy to misdescribe and criticise the system
- Bad players don't like being told that they're bad.
- Some players become very protective of their ratings.
- There is inflation of Lehman ratings over time, because low-rated players are more likely to give up their account.
- The inflation is exacerbated by OKBridge's policy of allowing players to reset their ratings to average. Naturally, the people who reset their ratings were nearly all low-rated (although some public-spirited individuals did try to reduce the Lehman-supply by repeatedly building up a high rating then having it reset).

Lehman ratings are still a good way of getting a rough idea of how good an unknown player is. It doesn't matter that people who play in closed groups will have incorrect ratings - such players won't be looking for a game with strangers anyway. I kept my OKBridge account going for years, because it was much easier to find competent strangers to practise against on OKBridge than on BBO.

[Wayne_LV]

And in conclusion .......

Forget about it.

There are only 3 real solutions to this problem:

1. Find a regular partner and develop your own agreements and only play online with that partner on BBO (or some other site of your choice) in for pay tournements. This way you have a partner you know and nobody can refuse to let you play at their "Holy" table.

2. Play with whoever sits across from you and try to act civil and not treat a casual game as if the World Championship of the Bridge Playing Universe was at stake. This means don't jump table everytime something happens that does not meet with your egotistical approval.

3. Give up online Bridge and play online poker where you have no partner and all the mistakes are your own.