[shoemaven]

I'm sure that this is not a new topic but I wondered if anyone has brought this subject up to customer service? Something needs to be done about the multiple number of players who designate their level of play WAY, WAY above their actual skills. I just recently started playing on BBO and I described my skill level as "advanced," which on MOST days would be an accurate description. And so no one thinks I'm overstating my skill level "some days not so much!" However, at least I have a "clue" on those days as to why not. So, when playing in the various games offered in the main card room I've invited players at that same level to be my partner. REALLY??????????????????? I don't think so!!!!!!!! After many horrible experiences I decided to re-designate my skill level as "expert" and sought out partners who designated themselves as "expert" or even "world class." DOUBLE REALLY???????????????? Some of them were not as skilled as the "advanced" players were!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have partners and even students in the real world who are at best "intermediate" players whose bidding, defense, play of the hand, and general knowledge of the game is far better than these self designated "experts" or "world class" players. I study many aspects of this game of which I am passionate about and I know who 99.99% of the "world class" players are and I've yet to run across any one of them in the main card room. What are these so called "world class" players doing playing in the main card room and not in the ACBL and BBO master point games anyway? I realize that since there are many ways to play various conventions or gadgets that a different interpretation by each partner can lead to an occasional disastrous result. But there are basic assumptions that go with many conventions and a 100% tried and true situation in which they would be applied so you would think that these so called "experts" and "world class" players would at least have a clue even if they can't or don't want to use those conventions. In the short time that I've been playing on BBO the number of times I've encountered (both as partners and opponents) players who profess to be that highly skilled and haven't come any where near living up to that level of play who outnumber those who actually do live up to those skill levels.

[Fluffy]

 shoemaven, on 2014-March-01, 00:29, said:

What are these so called "world class" players doing playing in the main card room and not in the ACBL and BBO master point games anyway?

I was following you untill I read this, what does it make you think a real world class player would want to do in ACBL or master point game?. Specially, what he'd do that he cannot do much better on the main bridge room.


Now a real answer to your question, someone starts this very same thread with the very same arguments every year, at least once since 2003, we are quite bored of it, and you are not going to achieve anything from that. BBO has decided that skill level is to be self asigned and its not going to change it anytime soon. For a more complete answer you can look through General Bridge discussion for someone saying the same, it won't take you much time.


You won't understand this sadly, but other users probably will: If you and gzesz somehow made posts together maybe the quality of your posts would increase.

[Trinidad]

Hi Shoemaven, welcome to the forums.

Yes, it is annoying that people are not honest about their skill level. But since BBO is an international network, it is hard to make an objective comparison between skill levels of different countries. So, BBO cannot really do this any other way.

Fluffy, an excellent bridge player BTW, is right: This discussion pops up once or twice a year, and the outcome is always the same. The result always is: Though the self-rating system definitely has flaws, it is probably the best system that is feasible.

I hope you will enjoy BBO despite its few flaws.

Rik

[eagles123]

Some people will always self-rate way higher than their actual level, after a while you'll figure out who the genuine advanced/expert/world class are and who are the jokers!

[Trinidad]

 eagles123, on 2014-March-01, 02:34, said:

Some people will always self-rate way higher than their actual level

Not me. I really am fantastic!



Rik

[Antrax]

What others have said, plus it's possible to beat the system. As you've already noted, the average "advanced" player is better than the average "expert". There are other similar principles to discover.

Moreover, after you kiss some frogs, you'll come across decent partners. You can add them as friends and after a while you'll have a small group of players you know you can have a good game with. Then, you can stop playing with randoms completely.

[lycier]

According to my experience, I found that there are several phenomena:
1 - I once asked some " expert" players, they replied that the advantage of "expert or world class" are very easier to find a better partner and that is just a game.There may be self-abased psychology.
2 - When a lot of players open new table,they only make" expert "players to join,so self designated "experts" or "world class" can reduce discrimination.
3 - Many world class or expert players will change their higher skill into intermediate or advanced skill after 2-4 years .
The bridge is a kind of civilization education,BBO try to construct good bridge gentleman,no doubt this is wise.

[MrAce]

Hi, welcome.
I sometimes use "beginner" for the humor purposes. But i play with the people i know and who knows me, as well as specs mostly my group of friends, so i was not (imo) trying to gain some advantage by being deceptive. Main club in BBO games are usually for practice purposes, you don't gain anything . Get over it, you are taking it too seriously. And if you are trying to play a serious game, never ever call people from lobby. Take notes for the people you played before, add them in your friend list if the notes are positive invite them. And reject the ones who has negative notes from you.

BBF is not a customer service btw. There are members instead of customers.

[barmar]

 Fluffy, on 2014-March-01, 00:50, said:

For a more complete answer you can look through General Bridge discussion for someone saying the same, it won't take you much time.

Actually, General BBO Discussion, where I've moved this thread as well, or Suggestions for the Software.

[SimonFa]

If all else fails,read the instructions. From the BBO help page under "people":

• Profiles Everyone lies. You can too

And if you follow the link:

Novice - Someone who recently learned to play bridge.

Beginner - Someone who has played bridge for less than one year.

Intermediate - Someone who is comparable in skill to most other members of BBO.

Advanced - Someone who has been consistently successful in clubs or minor tournaments.

Expert - Someone who has enjoyed success in major national tournaments.

World Class - Someone who has represented their country in World Championships.

And at the end its says:

Of course, you may at times find that you disagree with another's assessment of his expertise. If this is the case, it is not appropriate to mention this to him via private or public chat. You may be correct, but it may also be that he's just having an off day.

You're on a free service where you can play as much bridge as you like, watch real world class players (Stars) with commentary with some of the best bridge analysts in the world for free. Furthermore, for the equivalent of SQRT(b*****r all) you can plan against GIBs, which, for all their faults still provide good partnerships and competitions and for the same amount you can get ACBL and EBU Master points and play in other entertaining competitions.

What more do you want others to pay for?

But of course you knew all that because when you joined BBO you went to the help page and read it all before filling out you're profile honestly and you're just frustrated others haven't.

[HighLow21]

I realize, of course, that this is going nowhere, because it's been debated countless times here. But here's my two cents.

Maybe we could have a dual system -- something like "Self-Rated", plus "Recent IMP average"? What's wrong with adding some degree of objectivity to this? If I sit at a random table to play a few pickup hands and my partner has a -1.2 IMP average, I'm out. Next table please.

Heck, maybe doing something like this will teach some of the particularly bad players that they are, in fact, not good at all, and should either pick up a new hobby or learn to play better.

In my experience the "IMP-Killers" (the ones who drop in for one hand, bid or play terribly, and drop 10+ IMPs to the opponents through no fault of your own) are the ones most likely to be nasty or try to engage you in a ridiculous argument about how good they are. Many of them self-rate as "Expert" or "World Class." NOTHING ruins my bridge experience more than getting ripped to pieces by a foolish partner who often is oblivious and might even try to pin it on me. It makes me not want to play in the main room anymore. And sometimes I don't have time to go hunting for people on my friends list and find one who's available and willing and able to play.

One last point: YES, you can go through and make notes on every fool you chance upon, but it would take decades to notate all the fools who are like this. The current system simply doesn't work.

[MrAce]

 HighLow21, on 2014-March-02, 03:29, said:

Maybe we could have a dual system -- something like "Self-Rated", plus "Recent IMP average"? What's wrong with adding some degree of objectivity to this? If I sit at a random table to play a few pickup hands and my partner has a -1.2 IMP average, I'm out. Next table please.

Heck, maybe doing something like this will teach some of the particularly bad players that they are, in fact, not good at all, and should either pick up a new hobby or learn to play better.

Some degree of objectivity ? It was tried actually, and this objective rating system which used recent IMP average, showed that MrAce was much better player than Lauria and Versace and Duboin. Either this degree of objectivity you are talking about was an awful idea (and i can make you a long list why it is but i won't because if you dig forums you will find it yourself) or those players are not as good as me. You of course know the answer, and if you do not, ty for the compliment

A rating system + no secure platform to avoid cheating = open invitation to cheat.

Which one do you prefer ?

A- Inaccurate self rated players + some cheaters

B- Inaccurate IMP average rating + a lot of cheaters which auto creates a lot of paranoia among members.

I'd go with A over B

[bluecalm]

Your frustration is understandable but even in the real world it's hard to say who is good and who isn't.
There are some big names who aren't really good at bridge and some unknown players who can win one of the major bridge tournaments in the world first time they go there. I play with/against both kind on BBO on regular basis. Objective rating is not going to happen neither on the internet nor real life. That's how the game is. You have to learn to deal with it and seek friends/partners with similar views on your level of play

[trevahound]

 HighLow21, on 2014-March-02, 03:29, said:

I realize, of course, that this is going nowhere, because it's been debated countless times here. But here's my two cents.

Maybe we could have a dual system -- something like "Self-Rated", plus "Recent IMP average"? What's wrong with adding some degree of objectivity to this? If I sit at a random table to play a few pickup hands and my partner has a -1.2 IMP average, I'm out. Next table please.

Heck, maybe doing something like this will teach some of the particularly bad players that they are, in fact, not good at all, and should either pick up a new hobby or learn to play better.

In my experience the "IMP-Killers" (the ones who drop in for one hand, bid or play terribly, and drop 10+ IMPs to the opponents through no fault of your own) are the ones most likely to be nasty or try to engage you in a ridiculous argument about how good they are. Many of them self-rate as "Expert" or "World Class." NOTHING ruins my bridge experience more than getting ripped to pieces by a foolish partner who often is oblivious and might even try to pin it on me. It makes me not want to play in the main room anymore. And sometimes I don't have time to go hunting for people on my friends list and find one who's available and willing and able to play.

One last point: YES, you can go through and make notes on every fool you chance upon, but it would take decades to notate all the fools who are like this. The current system simply doesn't work.

I genuinely don't understand any of the above. I'd encourage you to be open to rethinking this entirely. First, if my partner has a recent average of -1.2 Imps, or whatever, maybe they were playing some of the many truly world class players on BBO. They very well might be many times stronger than the yahoo who plays with new or weak players and has a big recent imp average. Second, this partner may very well have that poor average by sticking it out for a bit with a weak partner, instead of throwing a fit and leaving the first time his weak partner did something poor (as it seems you might be inclined to do). You can work on important parts of your game playing with a weaker partner on occasion.

Finally, when a random unknown to me criticizes my bidding or playing, I'm able to judge for myself if there's merit in what they say, and not get in a "who's right" argument with someone unequipped for it. I don't know what someone expects to gain by trying to convince someone a level down or so of their rightness. No stranger can "rip me to pieces"; I'm not that fragile. As Steve Smith said to Talib (NFL reference) last year while walking off the field after the game, "Ice up, son!".

[helene_t]

 HighLow21, on 2014-March-02, 03:29, said:

Maybe we could have a dual system -- something like "Self-Rated", plus "Recent IMP average"?

Arghhh this would be the worst of both Worlds - a completely inaccurate rating (not much better than self-rating) which also has the devastating social effects of an objective rating.

[HighLow21]

Ok I understand everyone's concerns. For the type of bridge I play, it suits me to know if my partner's any good and not get stuck with lousy results because I had no way of knowing my partner was a fool.

I do completely understand MrAce's point about moral hazard in publishing such a rating--BBO could become a lot more cutthroat and it could ruin the experience for a lot of people. It is an excellent point and probably that reason alone is strong enough to kill the argument behind objective ratings. I disagree with a number of other points that have been made, but I'll only address a few here and let the others go:

- Nothing I can think of is more objective that statistics from historical results. It's one heck of a lot more objective than a self-rating system with very ambiguous guidelines and no penalties for dishonesty. They cannot tell the whole picture, but they tell a lot more than no statistics tells.
- Simple Bayesian analysis would indicate that someone with a -1.2 IMPs average is FAR more likely to be a truly bad player than someone who is Advanced and regularly plays way out of their league. There may be 1 of those for every 10,000 terrible players out there. That 1 person could simply create a new login if he/she wanted to start fresh.
- Similarly, you can get a great result, in theory, by "bunny bashing." But seriously, just try to pull that off in the long run. You have to find a willing, good partner, and then selectively allow only bad players to your table to whip on them. They have to stick around or be replaced by other bad players. In my experience, this is completely unsustainable in the long run. Anyone who has good results over a decent number of hands actually knows what they are doing.
- Helene, very simple: the fact that you do not understand an argument does NOT imply that the person who made the argument needs to rethink it. I will restate it, but the logic behind the argument is very solid. There are people who regularly chuck a hand in a major way and pretend to be Advanced--they often blame partner for their ridiculous bids or play. Some are malicious, but most are just obliviously foolish. These people very strongly negatively impact the experience of playing pick-up bridge at BBO. I'm not sure what needs to be re-thought here.

Again, I prefaced all this by saying that for many reasons, the system is not going to change and I'm fine with that. I for one would simply cast my vote in the minority, and nod when my side loses. It's fine. I'd still rather play here than anywhere else.

Please, allow the minority opinion in the debate have a voice. It's fine to debate it on the merits, but simply not understanding it, or coming up with unlikely situations as a counterpoint doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of people with solid reasons for wanting a rating system. There are simply not strong enough reasons to merit BBO changing anything (or to MrAce's excellent point, there is a VERY important reason to AVOID changing it).

Final point: for those of you who actually WANT to find out how your partner has been doing, you can find it at: http://bboskill.com/. This page calculates IMP averages and a quantitative rating for any player who has played enough hands. It even adjusts (to some degree) for average opponent skill.

The only problem with it is that you have to go to the separate page for any given partner, type in their username, and wait about 10 seconds for the results to come back. It can be a handful when you're trying to concentrate on the hand in front of you.

In my experience, there is a very strong correlation between the IMP average published on that site and how strong the player actually is at the table. On many occasions I've picked a bad apple and later check this site only to find out his/her average is indeed terrible. Similarly, not once have I played opposite a great player and found his IMP average to be below +0.50.

For what it's worth, my adjusted IMP average is +1.07 per hand and it's not because I play against bad players or have Bob Hamman sitting across from me.

[HighLow21]

 bluecalm, on 2014-March-02, 10:35, said:

Your frustration is understandable but even in the real world it's hard to say who is good and who isn't.
There are some big names who aren't really good at bridge and some unknown players who can win one of the major bridge tournaments in the world first time they go there. I play with/against both kind on BBO on regular basis. Objective rating is not going to happen neither on the internet nor real life. That's how the game is. You have to learn to deal with it and seek friends/partners with similar views on your level of play

I do have to address this directly. The motto of the Christopher Society is that "it's better to light a candle than curse the darkness."

In other words, some information is more helpful in determining who is good and who is not than no information. Sure, without perfect information, there will be prediction errors such as the allegorical ones you listed. But they will be dominated by the correct predictions made in the face of actual information and analysis.

[helene_t]

 HighLow21, on 2014-March-02, 15:58, said:

- Helene, very simple: the fact that you do not understand an argument does NOT imply that the person who made the argument needs to rethink it. I will restate it, but the logic behind the argument is very solid. There are people who regularly chuck a hand in a major way and pretend to be Advanced--they often blame partner for their ridiculous bids or play. Some are malicious, but most are just obliviously foolish. These people very strongly negatively impact the experience of playing pick-up bridge at BBO. I'm not sure what needs to be re-thought here.

It wasn't me who encouraged you to re-think your idea but if you really want to suggest a way to calculate an objective rating, surely you can do better than average recent IMPs. An Elo-like system, or average total points obtained at tables with three robots, are candidates that each have their pros and cons but both of which are surely much better than raw averages.

Anyway, my main point is that the rating systems that have been tried out at other sites have led to disasters. If you have been part of a community similar to our bbf community but related to a site with an objective rating system you will know what I am talking about. BBO owes its success for a significant part to the fact that Fred and Uday wisely chose not to implement objective rating.

[sfi]

 HighLow21, on 2014-March-02, 15:58, said:

For what it's worth, my adjusted IMP average is +1.07 per hand and it's not because I play against bad players or have Bob Hamman sitting across from me.

Congratulations, you are a full 50% better than Jimmy Cayne according to the ratings. That might actually be true, but it sure seems like an indictment of the system itself more than anything else.

[HighLow21]

 trevahound, on 2014-March-02, 12:29, said:

... I'd encourage you to be open to rethinking this entirely...

... yes, you did... I don't mean to quibble. I'm simply saying that you encouraged me to rethink my position.

1. I understand the reasons why no rating system was implemented and MrAce's comment is the fulcrum-point behind those reasons. (In the end it all comes down to business, and for this business, the more members the better. It's about money. And since it's about money, their lack of a rating system is a very shrewd business move. It doesn't mean it's the best product. It means it's the product that makes the most money. Think about it.)
2. I'm indifferent between a simple averaging system and a more complicated one, such as Elo.
3. I will still play at BBO because it's the best, lack of ratings system aside. Yes, I can weed out the bad apples myself, gradually, over time. I still get aggravated every time I get whacked (in terms of IMPs) and then insulted by a self-rated Expert who cannot understand, say, transfer responses or defensive signalling. Or how to draw trumps.

Because it happens constantly.