Rating Players

[barmar]

Are we really allowing calling out of random users now in the forums?

Now? That post was over 2 years old.

[jeffford76]

Sorry - there was a new post in the thread which made it show up in new posts for me and I didn't notice the original was that old.

[sharzers]

Have you taken into account that most players in BBO that THINK they are 'reasonable' or even think they are quite 'good' players, don't have a clue about even the basics of this game. If I were to ask some basic bridge questions, many if not all self-rated 'advanced' players wouldn't be able to string together even a simple coherent response

[gentgiant]

Have you taken into account that most players in BBO that THINK they are 'reasonable' or even think they are quite 'good' players, don't have a clue about even the basics of this game. If I were to ask some basic bridge questions, many if not all self-rated 'advanced' players wouldn't be able to string together even a simple coherent response

It's noticeable, too, that many who self-describe themselves as expert or advanced, are very poor players of the cards and usually the rudest players around.

[cencio]

Now that bridge master is free. One may play all the hands of a level. And when he resolves the 50% of them.Put this level as your own.

[barmar]

Now that bridge master is free. One may play all the hands of a level. And when he resolves the 50% of them.Put this level as your own.

Bridge Master only tests declarer play. There are lots of players who can play the cards well, but are lousy bidders. In particular, someone who has played social bridge for many years, but has just started playing duplicate, will often not be familiar with popular conventions.

[bd71]

Bridge Master only tests declarer play. There are lots of players who can play the cards well, but are lousy bidders. In particular, someone who has played social bridge for many years, but has just started playing duplicate, will often not be familiar with popular conventions.

 

Don't forget DEFENSE...partly due to Bridgemaster, I'm far better at the quarter of boards I declare, and much worse at the HALF of boards the opponents insist on declaring themselves.

[9NTredbl]

Yes, obviously. Bridge is the only serious competitive strategy game that does not do this. MP are stupid. But nothing will happen until we introduce a time control.

 

Best,

Nak

[mdpepper]

It has some flaws, but one pretty fair way to rate players would be to require those who wish to be rated to play in one of the 18-board daily games per week (or at minimum 2 per month). Everybody would have the "same" partner, with the downside being that it would limit the effect of bidding skill in the rating. I would love this system, also, because I fear that when face-to-face bridge "fully" returns, we might lose the 18-board game due to low participation. I'd actually like that game to be 24 boards because it's the best way to practice playing matchpoints as far as maintaining concentration and discipline for a full session.

 

Having said that I strongly appeal BBO to offer 24-board games daily in the week or 2 before the 3 annual Robot National tournaments. The "practices" don't cut it as far as the mental-concentration aspect. With 3 consecutive days of playing 24-board robot games, you can simulate the endurance aspect of playing in the tournament.

[ThomasRush]

Yes, obviously. Bridge is the only serious competitive strategy game that does not do this. MP are stupid. But nothing will happen until we introduce a time control.

 

Best,

Nak

 

Matchpoints aren't stupid, they're very good at doing what they're designed to do, and very bad at doing other things.

What are they good at?

- recognizing lifetime achievement

- Keeping people playing in (especially) tournaments to get the next (or next significant) rank

- Getting a certain group of people interested in the Masterpoint races (Ace of Clubs, Mini-McKinney, and Barry Crane Top 500)

- Recognizing small steps in a player's Masterpoint accumulation

 

What are they bad at?

- serving as a benchmark for an individual's skill level (especially recent play level vs. lifetime accumulation)

- Separating out your success based on your skill from the skill of your partner(s)

 

Yes, I'd love to have something to tell people my current skill level. PowerRatings was a good shot at this ( https://www.bridgepowerratings.com/ )_but since Covid he's not been able to get the kind of information he used to have. Maybe the opening of tournaments will bring it back to life.

[barmar]

Matchpoints aren't stupid, they're very good at doing what they're designed to do, and very bad at doing other things.

I think you mean Masterpoints. Matchpoints is a duplicate bridge scoring method.

[mycroft]

He does. Having said that, he's not wrong...

 

(the quote I usually use is "Matchpoints isn't bridge. It's a great game, but it's Not Bridge." Wish I could remember who said that to me first.)

[AL78]

In an IMP event, the NS winner will be one who gets the 7NT board right. In an MP event, the winner will be the one who gets most decisions right - someone who got 8 of the 10 right might win the event, even if one of the wrong decisions happened to be the 7NT board. So unless the 7NT decision happens to be highly skill-dependent while the 3♣ decision are largely luck, the MP scoring will show a stronger correlation with skill level.

 

I can kind of see your point but it all depends on whether the decisions are a complete guess or whether there are subtle inferences to guide declarer towards the correct decision. If the latter, the most skilled at picking up and using the available information will win. In the former, those who are most lucky will win. Swings and roundabouts.

 

There are advantages and disadvantages to both MPs and IMPs. I personally prefer IMPs because I find it irritating all this agonising about whether to play in 3NT or 4M because I have to guess the probability of 3NT making the same number of tricks, and the complete guess of what everyone else in my seat will bid. At IMPs I can more easily judge the most likely safest game and play in that, and take safety plays if necessary to bring it in. The disadvantage of IMPS, especially IMP pairs, is if you are on the wrong end of a huge hand bias and the opponents get most of the big contracts. If they get it right and the field get it wrong, that is 12 imps out which at IMP pairs is almost impossible to get back if on most hands all you can do is pass and follow suit, or frequently lose the part score auction battles. The hand bias is less problematic with teammates as they will have the hands in their favour so also have the opportunity to bring in the big contracts (and if they don't then your team played worse than the opponents and you lose). The advantage of MPs is that all boards are equal weight, so in theory if you get the slam bid against you that no-one else finds, you have more opportunity to get it back with a top on future boards, although in reality, there is more opportunity to get shafted by the opponents doing something different from the field that worked well for them, so I'm not sure the equal weighting benefit is as advantageous as it is made out.

[AL78]

Bridge Master only tests declarer play. There are lots of players who can play the cards well, but are lousy bidders. In particular, someone who has played social bridge for many years, but has just started playing duplicate, will often not be familiar with popular conventions.

 

Yes, I get better with the BridgeMaster deals the more often I go through them, because hand recognition sets in eventually. The skill is learning the techniques needed to solve BridgeMaster hands and applying them to completely different deals as and when they are required.

 

I wish there was a version of BridgeMaster that could help train defence. No good learning how to be an expert declarer if you only declare three hands in 24 boards, or over a year or two you are defending 70+% of the time.

[nige1]

Yes. I've wondered if the purpose of offering those tourneys was to make a rating system.But if it becomes "official", it will encourage cheating.

Please explain how an official rating system encourages cheating, Helene_T. By its nature Bridge is competitive so for some there is an incentive to bend the rules to win.

[Badmonster]

Take this with a grain of salt. I'm not sure if I should get a vote. After 15 years away from BBO and bridge in general I'm up to a grand total of two hours a week, with a set partner, against robots.

 

Here's the thing. Apparently, some people have a weird reaction to cards. It turns them into big rude jerks. It's so bad that I prefer to play against robots because they don't belittle each other or type at each other in all caps. People are nuts!

This is true, playing for zero stakes and the ability to politely excuse themselves. If they start obsessing about their ratings I'm afraid of the bridge playing population being wiped out by spontaneous human combustion and exploding craniums.