New Rating System

[Brandal]

I'm curious as to how these AKQJ10987654321 numbers

from pay tourneys affect how people "think" when looking

for a partner.

 

Do they cause "bad social behavior" like a rating system

apparently does?

 

Do players avoid someone with a "1" and only ask the AKQJ

players?

 

 

I honestly believe any rating system is no good.

 

I honestly believe the only way for me to rate a player is

to play with him,and see if we match,if we do how we're rated

elsewhere does not matter,if we don't how we're rated elsewhere

does not matter.

 

 

Frode

[Rain]

I'm curious as to how these AKQJ10987654321 numbers

from pay tourneys affect how people "think" when looking

for a partner.

 

Do they cause "bad social behavior" like a rating system

apparently does?

 

Do players avoid someone with a "1" and only ask the AKQJ

players?

I should be very surprised if people seek partners based on the BBO Masterpoints (BBOMP) ratings.

 

The fact is most bbo players have never played in a pay tourney, so the majority will have no opportunity to obtain anything beside their name. Most still don't know what the symbols mean, or how to obtain them.

 

I believe many pay tourney players will prefer to play these with a favourite partner--why pay to play with random pickups if you have a favourite partner? If so, it will be likely the 2 players have approx. the same no. of BBOMP.

 

For normal club play, like I mentioned, most players don't have any weird symbol beside their name, and these symbols are only easily visible in lobby--if you are looking for a table to play, you can't see the symbols beside the names, unlike how you can see the stars.

 

So to answer your question, I will guess confidently that there is no effect.

 

But do these symbols affect negatively in other ways? I think yes. Sadly, I see an increase in the number of cheating claims when none exist--I don't know the technical term for this, so will just call it the jealousy effect! This is not only a major waste of time for those who investigate cheating claims, its also super irritating and sad. If cheating accus. is true, the BBOMP consideration is probably a very minor factor in the psyche of the cheaters; however, it is probably part of the equation.

 

So yeah, anyway, no bbo ratings please. There are other ways to tell standard of whoever you're playing with/against. 2 or 3 boards suffice in general. (If you can't tell after 2 or 3 boards what standard of your opponent is, it shouldn't matter as much to you, as one usually can tell if another is of a "lower" standard easily, but not the converse....)

 

Wonder if I'll get edited for this :-)

 

Rain

[luke warm]

I should be very surprised if people seek partners based on the BBO Masterpoints (BBOMP) ratings.

i personally know people who, based on the acbl rating they have, charge to partner... true, usually they only charge their entry fee, but these are intermediate to advanced players

[ellie26]

Sadly, I see an increase in the number of cheating claims when none exist--I don't know the technical term for this, so will just call it the jealousy effect! This is not only a major waste of time for those who investigate cheating claims, its also super irritating and sad.

 

I can't resist the temptation to reply to the above comments.

 

Firstly, we join ACBL because we consider it an institution where " fair play" and " ethics" take high priority. Many of the players choose ACBL tournaments online because they feel these attributes are adjudicated.

 

Secondly, if a player has a concern about cheating, etc, and if they have taken the time and effort to report their concerns, then they should not be considered as a nuisance or a waste of time. That particular person has a reason to be concerned and I think those concerns have to be addressed. The institution of the ACBL , similiar to the Justice System, as an example, must be perceived as being fair.

 

It was only a couple of days ago that I suggested to Uday to consider an independent ethics committee to look after allegations of online cheating. This committee would be totally independent from BBO staff and would be made up of qualified ACBL directors, teachers, club owners, managers and only those who have had some years of experience. With 100,000 playing members on BBO, I am sure there are lots of qualified people who would be willing to donate their time for a term on such a committee. Apparently the workload is too great for abuse, as there are too many complaints that are a waste of time, or irritating. Such a committe will free up precious time for abuse to address other issues. Rays Bridge Ladder had an issue with cheating a couple of years ago, and they were able to address it with much fewer members to draw from than BBO.

 

Sorry my message is so long,, wasn't intended, but I feel cheating needs to be addressed.

 

ellie

[inquiry]

Hi Ellie,

 

I think you misunderstood rain's point. She is suggesting that there are more "reports of cheating" when there is NO EVIDENCE of cheating. People report just one hand, which is often not even suspecious. Twice in one week people turned in a pair (different) for cheating in a tournement despite the fact that these two pairs came in DEAD LAST in the events they were suppose to be cheating in.

 

I have to admit the BBO is probably not likely to institute a panel of community cheater catchers for a variety of reasons. I am not saying this as a system administrator on this board or a yellow host on the BBO. I am saying this as am individual as it relates to privacy issues. But I want you to rest assured that every cheating allegation is examined (this is why frivolious ones are such a waste of time). Also, rest assured that cheaters have been caught "punished". Sometimes there is not enough evidence to be certain a player or pair is cheating, in which case they are put on a watch list for additional examination as more hands are played.

 

While it is not possible to catch all cheaters, cheaters should tihink twice about cheating in pay tournments. The limited staff we do have to look into cheating allegations, are most interested in making sure cheatng does not occur in those events. If you cheat in them you will get caught, and many of the expelled cheaters ahve been caught playing in those events, and some where not even turned in by users, but whose activity caught the attention of yellow host.

 

You want to help catch cheaters? When you suspect someone is cheating, send an email to abuse and include links to the hand swhere you feel strongly that cheating occurred. We find that allegations of cheating accompained by 3 or 4 hands are much more often correct than an email naming someone or email iwht only one hand offerened in proof that cheating was occruing.

 

Ben

[TimG]

You want to help catch cheaters? When you suspect someone is cheating, send an email to abuse and include links to the hand swhere you feel strongly that cheating occurred. We find that allegations of cheating accompained by 3 or 4 hands are much more often correct than an email naming someone or email iwht only one hand offerened in proof that cheating was occruing.

It shouldn't be the job of those reporting to gather multiple hand records. I might feel an action is suspicious, but not end up playing against this pair (or individual) again for weeks (or ever). There should be a central depository of reports and when a certain name keeps popping up a closer examination of events should take place.

[rona_]

despite the fact that these two pairs came in DEAD LAST in the events they were suppose to be cheating in.

 

You will find that people who feel the need to cheat aren't very bright, so fortunately for everyone else, some cannot take advantage of their cheating. Coming first or last should not even be a subject of discussion, nor the concern of abuse, in my view. :)

[TimG]

This committee would be totally independent from BBO staff and would be made up of qualified ACBL directors, teachers, club owners, managers and only those who have had some years of experience. With 100,000 playing members on BBO, I am sure there are lots of qualified people who would be willing to donate their time for a term on such a committee.

I'm not sure why you want to limit the committee members to ACBL Directors (managers, teachers and owners). Passing a club director test (opening a club or teaching a lesson) does not make one qualified to investigate cheating allegations.

[ellie26]

Glad I caught someone's attention.. Tks Inquiry,, was afraid no one would read my post. :) :)

 

I am very opinionated when it comes to cheating. Even though cheating cannot be eliminated, it at least has to have the perception of being "under control". It is not easy, but allegations of cheating cannot be taken lightly. And as you indicated, I'm sure there are many non-valid complaints, that comes with the territority. To make players feel more confident, these concerns have to addressed, or they will just lose interest.

 

BBO is a great playing site. The programmers have done a terrific job.

I will never be a World Class player, not even close. But I do enjoy the principles of the game and BBO can boast about the marvellous people with such intense interest in the betterment of the game as being players on this site. I think it is wonderful.

 

I have a couple of concerns about your posting and I will speak to you in private.

 

I have a little incident to tell you that is of reading interest. I played in a NABC game and the caddie got the boards mixed up in a swiss team event. Mistakes happen, but at the National level, I felt this mistake shouldn't go unnoticed, so I went to the office to report it. The ACBL at the office showed no interest at all. And guess what ? I boycotted the ACBL National games for a year. Nobody cared, and I was the one to suffer, but at least I found a way to vent my frustrations. All the office had to do was to show some concern, give me a free entry to the next Swiss event and I would have gone away happy and would have been buying entries to the NABC for the next year. Get my point?

 

ellie

[inquiry]

You want to help catch cheaters? When you suspect someone is cheating, send an email to abuse and include links to the hand swhere you feel strongly that cheating occurred. We find that allegations of cheating accompained by 3 or 4 hands are much more often correct than an email naming  someone or email iwht only one hand offerened in proof that cheating was occruing.

It shouldn't be the job of those reporting to gather multiple hand records. I might feel an action is suspicious, but not end up playing against this pair (or individual) again for weeks (or ever). There should be a central depository of reports and when a certain name keeps popping up a closer examination of events should take place.

We already keep a log of reported cheaters. One report is enough to get someone looked at, but if they are cheating only occassionally or only with certain partners it is harder to catch them. Obviously if you send in two or three or four hands, that would help. You may be surprised how active some members are in this regard. They feel burned by someone and they go to the myhand site and send in a lot of hands.

 

But even a report that pair x and y are cheating, is enough to have at least a cursory look but unless it is so flaggarnt and repeated, such a single report will probably not get them caught. Six such reports, on the other hand might get them found out.

 

Ben

[inquiry]

despite the fact that these two pairs came in DEAD LAST in the events they were suppose to be cheating in.

 

You will find that people who feel the need to cheat aren't very bright, so fortunately for everyone else, some cannot take advantage of their cheating. Coming first or last should not even be a subject of discussion, nor the concern of abuse, in my view. :)

Some hopelessly inept people cheat, some OUTSTANDING quality players cheat. It is clear that a person could cheat and still come in last, but that would be rare. We did look at all the hands played by the last place pairs in both of these events. In each case a hand was submitted that was outrageous.. how could someone bid or play that way even we had to ask... that is until we saw how they bid and played the other hands in the event. Sometime a novice will do something so stupid it is impossible to imagine such a dumb play (or bid)... and yet on a given hand, it turns gold. This is what happened in both these cases. Eight boards, eight dumb things, one of which worked, 7 which didn't. Dead last. If you only saw the one that worked, you could rightfully guess cheating....but the other hands prove no cheating.

 

ben

[TimG]

But even a report that pair x and y are cheating, is enough to have at least a cursory look but unless it is so flaggarnt and repeated, such a single report will probably not get them caught. Six such reports, on the other hand might get them found out.

I understand. But, if individuals are discouraged from reporting incidents unless they have 3 or 4 examples, then lots of incidients will go unreported, incidents that could, when added together, make a strong case.

 

Tim

[Rain]

Sorry for off-topic.

 

I think the key is not to discourage reporting of cheating; rather, asking for 10 boards will help

 

1) Discourage frivolous reporting of cheating

 

2) Reporter do some "homework" so they can have a general idea if the people they are accusing are actually cheating.

 

3) 10 sounds like a huge number. I am content with less, BUT the boards selected and sent in normally do not all look unusual. So if the "success" rate is only 50%, 10 becomes 5, 6 becomes only 3, etc, which, depending on the number of boards played and event entered, may not be an anomaly.

 

Rain

[HeartA]

I have never known there is such a link to rate players on BBO. I am "advanced", not too bad. :)

[TimG]

Sorry for off-topic.

 

I think the key is not to discourage reporting of cheating; rather, asking for 10 boards will help

 

1) Discourage frivolous reporting of cheating

 

2) Reporter do some "homework" so they can have a general idea if the people they are accusing are actually cheating.

I want to the reporting process to be as simple as possible. We don't want lots of people investigating on their own, that will only generate bad feelings. This is not a job for vigilantes. Sure, some would be capable of investigating discreetly, but the vast majority of investigators would offend someone, especially considering these investigators would likely be biased (since they thought enough of the original incident to report it in the first place). Those accused are much less likely to be offended if the people investigating the allegations are considered neutral.

 

I'm quite happy with "frivolous" complaints so long as the accused never sees them. The body (or person) assigned to the complaint would speak to the accuser (if appropriate) and the accused (if appropriate) and save the complaint (if appropriate). The problem arises when a "frivolous" complaint is the potential for confrontation between the accuser and the accused.

 

Tim

[bearmum]

You want to help catch cheaters? When you suspect someone is cheating, send an email to abuse and include links to the hand swhere you feel strongly that cheating occurred. We find that allegations of cheating accompained by 3 or 4 hands are much more often correct than an email naming  someone or email iwht only one hand offerened in proof that cheating was occruing.

It shouldn't be the job of those reporting to gather multiple hand records. I might feel an action is suspicious, but not end up playing against this pair (or individual) again for weeks (or ever). There should be a central depository of reports and when a certain name keeps popping up a closer examination of events should take place.

ITA :D :D :D Why should it be up to a single person to collect more than ONE suspect board??

 

IF and I DO mean IF all reports to abuse@ u know where have ANY relevance - SURELY it it to collate "suspect cheating " boards ---[and I also realise that a LOT of the "cheating" allegations will be totally frivilous] but UNFORTUNATELY that's the only way a "casual" player (like me who rarely plays tourneys with the same player more than maybe twice and in Main room maybe play with a "friend" more than that :) ) can hopefully stamp out unethical behaviour ( and that is MORE than cheating)

[Elianna]

I support the idea of a friendliness (non-obnoxiousness) rating system. I would like to add the suggestion that people can opt into it. This way people who are interested in playing with friendly people (and know how to be polite in leaving a table that is inappropriate for their level) can find like-minded people, and those who don't care don't have to be bothered with this.

 

Another idea is to have, as on AIM (and I believe these forums, but haven't tried it out) a "warning" button, that one can press when a player has done something rude (left in the middle of a hand, made obnoxious comments, etc.) You could have something that when one "warns" someone, they must make a comment (so it's not frivolously pressing a button) and then after the player has been warned a certain number of times (5 maybe?) by different people, an automated email or message or something could be sent to them, telling them that their warning level has risen, and showing them the messages (annonymously). This way maybe they'll come to the realization that the names on their program are actually people. And maybe I'm too idealistic.

[aray]

Do not know if anyone will ever read the post now after such a long time but can not resit my desire to comment on after reading all the threads. Hope I will not be hammerred by the same guy, who has so badly tried to attack another person just because he does not like his opinion!!

 

1. There is absolutely nothing to complain about BBO. This is the most wonderful thing one can get free of cost and this has undoubtedly revolutionalised online bridge (with or without rating)

 

2. It is understood that rating system would cause various problems but somone should accept that there are controls to check issues like cheating. I believe it is impractical to ask for those controls to be in place in a free site because that demands for additonal effort and associated cost.

 

3. But a player with good rating not being willing to play with a player of inferior rating should be a non issue to be discussed. Will Fred play with me in a NABC tourney? when the answer is no and it is perfectly ok, it should be the same in online as well. There are social players and serious players and online bridge should serve both the communities. Forum comments is not a true reflection of BBO community, purely because of the low % that use forum.

 

4. We should also try to accept the fact that the rating system in paid tourneys are no way flawless and it is probably a commercial compulsion inevitable to do such an wonderful job like BBO.

 

5. We as bridge players should know and believe by heart that a very few % of bridge players are cheaters anyway. I must repeat that there are very few. There are majority of players like me who use BBO ti imporve their game and would be happy to have a scientifc comparison with rest of the players and it hardly matters if the dataum is not that perfect because of 5% people who cheated.

 

6. Online bridge though popular is far far away to replace real life tournments. Everyone knows that you may have a .9/1 rating in a bridge site but if you are a dog in real life, you remain there. So, do not think there would be any undue importance to rating. Offcourse there are some players like one of my friend who said to me that some national champion in India is not a good bridge player because his abalucy rating is below .5 (with due respect to abalucy rating system and the standard of play), but there are many more like me and my friends who laughed at him.

 

 

Again I must restate, none of these are written to demand a rating system at BBO, because BBO has given us so many things without asking that I can not really demand anything.

 

But it is just posted to make us think of the other side of the coin and understand that rating system is not so bad afterall. Rating system would probably not spoil the fun in BBO more than it does sometimes when you choose an expert partner who can not count!!

[csdenmark]

I don't understand who needs the present rating system - I have nothing to use it for. For partners I find out their level very quickly and for non-partners a persons skill level is irrelevant to me.

 

I like to see a new skill level: RUDE

 

This skill level aut. to be inserted into any persons ID who are leaving table in the middle of a game and to stay there for 4 weeks. The person himself will be unable to hide or change that info even with settings for 'No information available'

[Free]

I don't understand who needs the present rating system - I have nothing to use it for. For partners I find out their level very quickly and for non-partners a persons skill level is irrelevant to me.

 

I like to see a new skill level: RUDE

 

This skill level aut. to be inserted into any persons ID who are leaving table in the middle of a game and to stay there for 4 weeks. The person himself will be unable to hide or change that info even with settings for 'No information available'

Great idea! But maybe 4 weeks is long... Maybe start with a week, and everytime they do it again add a day. This way they might become a better person.

[csdenmark]

Doesn't really matter Free. What is of importance is to attract attention and priority to the 2 most hot topics in bridge in general and here on BBO especially:

 

- Rude behavior

- Alerts - convention cards

 

Those topics have been adressing in many threads under very different names. The topics are interrelated in a way that I am unable to see which is causing what or the other way around.

 

But basically Free about 1 week. We are talking about ordinary decent behavior of grown up people. We certainly warn children winning them for better manners. For grown up persons we don't warn. They know themselves.

 

As soon these topics have been dealt with I am quite sure you will see a lot of askings for software modifications to enable decent persons to be able to handle their scheduled appointments in a responsible way.

 

I am very much hoping for such a nice day.

[adf]

I like rating systems, but see that I am in the minority and would propose an alternative, which would also address some of the other issues on this topic.

Add a new right-click option:

View recent results

This would show you the last ten tournament results for the player, including who their partner was and whether they played the full event. This information is already available online (not sure if it all is, but mostly), but this would make it easily accessible when you were deciding whether to play with someone.

 

One reason for possible mis-self-rating is that (AFAIK) there is no guideline to determine how to describe yourself. If you can set up a squeeze, does that make you an expert? If you can pull off a squeeze when it falls in your lap, are you advanced? Do you need to win a national championship to be World Class?

 

Finally, with regard to the RUDE label, here's a suggestion (not original with me): you can label someone as "rude" but that also adds one to your own "rude" score. Not a problem if you are really nice, that will be your only black mark. But it will keep people honest there. And maybe you lose one mark for every 100 boards you play.

[csdenmark]

Finally, with regard to the RUDE label, here's a suggestion (not original with me): you can label someone as "rude" but that also adds one to your own "rude" score.  Not a problem if you are really nice, that will be your only black mark.  But it will keep people honest there.  And maybe you lose one mark for every 100 boards you play.

It is not the point that I will be able to catch a few of those persons. The point is they have to be public labelled. Then they will have no other options than to play with each other and decent people will be relieved.

 

Surely it will be a MUST to all tournament organizers to exclude such a skill level and I doubt any table-host will accept them for play. That will stop this kind of rude behavior very quickly.

[Elianna]

One reason for possible mis-self-rating is that (AFAIK) there is no guideline to determine how to describe yourself. If you can set up a squeeze, does that make you an expert? If you can pull off a squeeze when it falls in your lap, are you advanced? Do you need to win a national championship to be World Class?

See http://www.bridgebase.com/help/english/ (click on settings, and then profile)

[beatrix45]

Bridge in general needs a better personal rating system. BBO certainly does not. If we accept (as we should) that people won't get their own ratings right all the time for whatever reason, but that as an approximate guide it works reasonably well, then there is no problem. I personally never cared too much about my rating during the brief time I was on OKB - my bridge battles lay elsewhere, but it destroyed so many games when people would disconnect at the merest whiff of a bad board. The way BBO is set up, there is always the (very) odd bad egg who will be selfish and ruin things for others, but the overwhelming proportion of people on here are cool, so lets not get stressed about it and just enjoy ourselves!!

 

Alan

:rolleyes:

Alan says it all for me. Automated ratings are horrid.

 

As far as cheating goes, as Alan says, my bridge battles lay elsewhere. BBO is just for practice. Fair to average players who cheat turn into good to excellent ones. So, between the actual good to excellent players and the ersatz 'good to excellent' players, the BBO field is just what one needs to stay sharp.

 

But, please keep an eye open for blatant cheating. As long as it is disguised, it passes for bridge, and I don't mind playing against it.