[Jinksy]

mycroft, on 2016-September-06, 10:07, said:

Anything else will ... lead to "I can't play with you, it'll hurt my rating" or "I can't play a drunk-and-crazy speedball for fun". Which was my issue with Lehmans.

Maybe anything else is gameable, but there'd be nothing to stop BBO from implementing an opt-out system, or one partition game types into ranked and unranked.

[steve2005]

Jinksy, on 2016-September-07, 13:29, said:

Maybe anything else is gameable, but there'd be nothing to stop BBO from implementing an opt-out system, or one partition game types into ranked and unranked.

I think BBO policy on ratings is pretty clear that it is a no go and has nothing to do with ability to implement a rating system.

[barmar]

Jinksy, on 2016-September-07, 13:29, said:

Maybe anything else is gameable, but there'd be nothing to stop BBO from implementing an opt-out system, or one partition game types into ranked and unranked.

IIRC, OKbridge has (or had, when I was a member until around 10 years ago) partitioned games. They have competitive games that affect your Lehmans, and casual games that don't.

I don't think it helped much.

[mycroft]

s/I don't think it helped much/It was a disaster/

I'm not a bridge operator, I can afford to not be politic in my opinions (sometimes).

I used to run a mentor partnership on OKB. If I set the table, and it was ranked, we'd get players who were playing at my level and were less than thrilled at both the fact that partner was so much less experienced and that we wanted to discuss the hands - even if I marked it clearly a mentoring table. If she hosted, the same, except *I* was geting the side-eye. If it was unranked, we never got opponents.

Eventually we found another compatible mentor pair to play with, and then when that mentor left soon after, I ended up picking up all three as students. That's the only way it worked.

The best part about ranked games was that very quickly, the invites were in very narrow rating bands; as a result, nobody ever either moved much or learned anything. And what does a 55-45 pair do?

It's really simple. Everyone wants a partner slightly better than they think they are, and opponents that are just slightly worse. That'll just work, won't it?

[ladydoc]

mycroft, on 2016-September-06, 10:07, said:

As we've discussed before, provided the skill level was *hidden* and *only used for "pair me with randoms"*, I'm happy with it. It'll probably be better in the long run. And of course, they may be doing it (remember what I said about "hidden"?) Anything else will be gamed, and will lead to "I can't play with you, it'll hurt my rating" or "I can't play a drunk-and-crazy speedball for fun". Which was my issue with Lehmans.

It is not possible on BBO at the present time to have a perfect legitimate game, except in the ACBL tourneys, which are monitered (I hope).

For years the people with the highest skill ratings on BBOskill got them by playing with themselves as partners. If you wish the name (names) I can tell you who they were, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
The reasons people would do this 1. economical, ... those are the 'teachers' who give paid bridge instructions and want to have a believable profile on BBOskill,
and 2. to appeal to a selected field target ie, the other sex.

Bridge base online is great the way it is now, with no ratings, except self ratings. Most true experts underrate themselves because they know each other.

[amateur_]

It seems the respondents deviated a bit from the topic question - thanks to Laura for raising it. Also, the overall shared opinion seems not in favor of any BBOskill usefulness. Still, to me this is a fair barometer to judge whom BBOer to pick for a random play. I won't be unsuspicious toward a BBOskill score of 2400 or more, of course. On the opposite, the lowest scores there could be taken easily for granted.
Being deprived from such a tool, I am forced to go more often to http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands to check one's records.
It is helpful to read again the official BBO stance on eventual skill level measurement system mentioned by Helene. In the light of the recent cheater cases at the highest bridge level make the concerns about not spoiling "the mostly pleasant social atmosphere" and avoiding “social problems and cheating" not so convincing. The ethics and bridge skills cannot be separated; hence, putting the statistics totally aside in the information era seems somewhat bizarre.

[Vampyr]

I have not been a member of OKBridge for some years because I don't play online anymore. Personally I didn't see much of a problem with the Lehmanns; people always wanted opponents with a rating above or below a certain level, and usually got them. I can see, though, how that could affect mixed partnerships. Probably it was the fact that people didn't actually understand how the system worked, ie that if they played against a person with a higher or lower rating than theirs, their own rating would compensate.