New Rating System

[aray]

I like rating systems, but see that I am in the minority

I am afraid you are not in the minority. However when you read forum comments, it definitely appears so. It is because majority of forum posters are persons who pass their maximum available free time only in bbo, it is a vritual club for them and so besides playing bridge bbo is also a forum for them to interact with others, make friends and share opinions etc. And for obvious reasons these social players will not want a gradation which would divide BBO.

 

However beyond the regular forum users, there is a vast majority of regular bbo users who are serious bridge players and would like to see rating system. (we can not ignore equivalent popularity of a competitive online bridge site among serious tournament players, whether it is aligned with bbo goal is altogether different). However these players hardly use forum or hardly bother to let thier voice heard.

 

I do not have stats to support the above, but may be a figure like how many gold stars (excluding yellow) use the forum would be good stat to prove my point.

 

Again the result of majority/minority would probably be strictly dependent on number of social/tournament bridge players in BBO and it may be that the former is a majority because of the free nature of BBO, however I am sure the later is also of significant volume.

[Elianna]

I like rating systems, but see that I am in the minority

It is because majority of forum posters are persons who pass their maximum available free time only in bbo, it is a vritual club for them and so besides playing bridge bbo is also a forum for them to interact with others, make friends and share opinions etc. And for obvious reasons these social players will not want a gradation which would divide BBO.

I think that I am more of a tournament player than a social player, in real life, that is. I think that you will actually find that most forum users are actually tournament players, unless you mean what kind of BBO players people are (as opposed to in real life). For example, on BBO I tend to play teammatches or at tables with friends, but not because I want to be social (that's a laugh to those who know me! ;)) but because I prefer to avoid ridiculous bridge when possible.

 

Anyway, as I said, I think that you will find most people who use the forums are "tournament players", if by this you mean serious players who go and compete in big tournaments.

 

I think that your asking about goldstars is irrelevant. There are a signifant number that are regular forum posters, but if you observe them playing in BBO, most tend to play at "social" (but permission only) tables (ie, not at tournaments), to practice against people similar to themselves.

 

Speaking solely for myself (and thus hoping to avoid generalizing other people's opinion based on my perceptions of them) I am against bridge-playing-based ratings imposed by the program mainly because I'd view them as unreliable. I know how good I am, I know how good my most frequent opponents are, and I don't usually need help figuring out the level of random opps.

 

Having ratings can create problems. For example, on FIBS (which, granted, is backgammon) people quit losing matches (and never return to finishing them) thus preventing their ratings from going down. Granted, I have no idea why someone would do this, but it is highly annoying for the OTHER person.

 

Maybe I just don't like change, but I dislike someone telling me where my opinion comes from.

[awm]

Before playing on bridgebase, I played on okbridge for several years. Among other differences, okbridge has a fairly reasonable system of computed ratings (the lehman system). Obviously, this is not a perfect rating system (rating individuals in a partnership game is a VERY difficult problem) but it's better than masterpoints and the like.

 

In my experience, the upshot of this rating system was mostly negative. Some observations:

 

(1) The ratings discouraged people from playing with random partners, for fear it would hurt their ratings.

 

(2) People demanded opponents within a very narrow range of ratings, even though it was obvious to any objective observer that the ratings were not useful to that degree of accuracy.

 

(3) Many excellent players had poor ratings, because they often played with students, or played against even better players with expert (but non-established) partnerships.

 

Obviously it can be somewhat annoying to play at a table in the open room, and have individuals who obviously have no idea what they're doing wander in and play as your partner or opponent. However, it's not a problem that can easily be solved.

 

One nice feature though, might be a way to look for a game as a pair seeking another pair -- at least this way you get opponents who are familiar with each other and their system, less likely to have a random misunderstanding or leave in disgust in the middle of a board.

[Al_U_Card]

Wow! Reading all of the posts in this thread has really opened my eyes and even changed my mind about rating systems.

My only rule for bridge is the same as in life, do unto pard (or opps) as you would have them do unto you.

The site is fantastic, the service great, the company enjoyable and the level of play suitable.

Fred G. , respond to market (if you dont charge, is it a market?...lol) forces, if the time and resources allow of course.

Make rooms for individual players to join in progress (like now), rooms for established pairs (whether external or made on-site, at the moment) and teams. Make rated rooms and even money rooms. Factor in rudeness, table presence, anything else you like but what a lot of work! OR....

 

When a person leaves a table, the other three players give the person a rating of from 0-10 for how much they enjoyed playing with or against them. One vote per person per table presence. Nothing like being judged by your peers and policing yourself. How about that?

[pigpenz]

people can always go and check someones hand records see what they last months averageis for imps and matchpoints.....the more hands they have played then the truer the ratings are mostlikely. ;)

 

I have a friend who has been playing for about 30 years and though he nas never won a national acbl championships he has been in the top ten numerous times, his first experiences with BBO has been very humorous.....so called expert telling him that he has no idea what he is doing.....sound familiar :)

[Blofeld]

One nice feature though, might be a way to look for a game as a pair seeking another pair -- at least this way you get opponents who are familiar with each other and their system, less likely to have a random misunderstanding or leave in disgust in the middle of a board.

That's a lovely idea. It's possible to try to arrange such things at present (typically by asking the host of a table with two players seated), and often gives a much more enjoyable game than playing against opponents who often don't have more a line of agreement in partnership bidding/defence. A method to encourage this and make it easier would be welcome, I think.

 

On a similar note, I think the only really sensible way to assign ratings is per partnership, and even that would have problems to be overcome and almost certainly be more hassle than it was worth.