[helene_t]

 pilowsky, on 2021-January-19, 15:30, said:

10. Without ratings, people have absolutely no idea of their opponents' strength or the quality of the advice or criticism they are getting when they get a bad result and don't understand why.

With or without rating, unsolicited advice should be ignored, so its quality is moot.

[hrothgar]

For what it's worth, I have long advocated that bridge sites should implement a permanent Indy ladder.

When you join the Indy, you get matched at random with a partner and play four boards or so against another random pair.
Chicago style scoring
No duplication

At the end of three boards, you can either choose to continue or drop.

BBO tracks your running score.
You're more likely to get matched against someone with approximately the same running score as not.

If you quit mid match, you get banned for a week
If the other three players at the table choose to boot you, you get banned for two weeks

Play enough boards and the lack of duplication doesn't matter
Over time, the cream will rise to the top...

If folks really care about ratings, once folks hit 500 boards or so you can start displaying average score

[pilowsky]

 helene_t, on 2021-January-19, 15:50, said:

With or without rating, unsolicited advice should be ignored, so its quality is moot.

I understand that many people don't like having obvious errors pointed out to them, especially when the intent is intimidation.
On the other hand, if I am playing with someone much better than me, comments are welcome - they help me improve.

In Chess, if my rating is 1600 and my opponent's rating is 2200, this means that I can only expect (in steady-state) to win about 1 in 50 games if I'm lucky. Luck might include them being tired.
When I was a Junior, Laimons Mangalis in his Sunday column wrote that "Torres did not play so well because of late-night courting and carousing". I went to school with the subject of that statement.
That's the thing about the Elo method. At the outset, you know what your chances are - all things being equal.
That doesn't mean that you don't try; it just gives you a sense of where you are.
It also doesn't mean that your opponent's chances are the same against every player - their style may not suit your style, and they may play worse/better against you compared with their play against others.
I stopped playing with a rating of 1660. School and work intervened.

Chess players know that the rating says nothing about their 'instantaneous skill level', but it gives you an idea about your progress, and it is an incentive to play at your best every time.

Except for the infamous 'Grandmaster draws' popularised by the Russian teams nobody in Chess would play the equivalent of 7NTxx just because someone annoyed them. The penalties are too great.

[mycroft]

Comparisons to Chess and Go are facile, but *switching to* ELO is likely to be a problem they don't have.

Also, I've beaten Bob Hamman and Sam Lev, with randoms as teammates. Once. In a 7 board match. Because we played really well, but mostly because our weak NT opening highlighted a weakness that allowed us to avoid the doomed slam. Even if I was as good at chess as I am at bridge, I'm never beating Carlsen, likely never drawing, not even once in 20 tries. Ratings are deterministic in chess in ways they are only after much larger timeframes in bridge.

But the big question is not against chess, it's against bughouse. Which is a "non-serious" event. Wonder why? Maybe because you have to rely on someone else?

I don't need ELO to know what my chances are against Kamil-Coren and the Egyptians over 60 boards, and neither do you. Didn't mean I didn't try when it happened (frankly, didn't mean I didn't deliberately enter the event to get that kind of a match). Didn't mean I didn't score more IMPs against them than the next two teams combined (there could easily be other reasons for this). I don't need ELO to know what my chances are against Bertrand-Marshall, or Marshall-Herrera, or Gartaganis-Gartaganis, either, even if none of you have ever heard of them (and vice versa for the "near-world-class" players in your area). And if I go to a new environment, it's really easy to learn the relative ranks quickly, even if there aren't awards up on the wall.

OTOH, I've said multiple times that I'd play with Life Novices that were nice every day of the week if the other option was Strong Obnoxious player. It's better for my temperament. It's also better for my game.

And when was the last time you heard about a sandbagging bridge player? (The only times I can think of are people who deliberately *avoid playing* except when paid, to remain a "flight B pro" as long as possible)

As I said, what is the rating system for? Nobody who wants one has told me, but: if it's to find compatible skill partners, well there's a massive amount of stuff there that isn't "skill", whether it's partners for pickup, or (semi-)regular partnerhsips. If it's to set up competitive opponents, well, use the secret method and never tell anyone even that you have one (but also, there's the rest of the stuff. Players who won't play against Precision/Polish Club/players from a particular country with a bad reputation, players who will try to "constructively criticize" the opponents (even if they have no clue what the opponents are playing), ...) If it's a status symbol, well masterpoints work for that, at least to the level where they become monsterpoints and the only reasonable ranking is "what you've won" (at which point, what dimensionless number can be better?) If it's "I can show I'm better than you, so I can tell you what you should have done, and not the other way around", then go play chess. Your kind aren't needed in bridge.

And finally, the poker line applies, even if there isn't money to be had. If you can't spot the fish at the table within 5 boards - it's you.

[mycroft]

 hrothgar, on 2021-January-19, 16:36, said:

For what it's worth, I have long advocated that bridge sites should implement a permanent Indy ladder. ...

First, and seriously, I think this would be a great addition to the world (although I'd want the other three rows in ONEB NEBO represented, because I'm a purist like that). End serious.

I find it amusing that the person known for the alternative expansion of ACBL is in favour of an event that effectively requires everyone to play "defined card"...

[hrothgar]

 mycroft, on 2021-January-20, 11:25, said:

First, and seriously, I think this would be a great addition to the world (although I'd want the other three rows in ONEB NEBO represented, because I'm a purist like that). End serious.

I find it amusing that the person known for the alternative expansion of ACBL is in favour of an event that effectively requires everyone to play "defined card"...

If you are referring to the Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons, I cribbed that one off Bo-Yin Yang....
No clue where he got it from