[nige1]

A search of BBO fora for rating systems revealed no relevant topic devoted to that subject -- although this must surely have been exhaustively discussed here before
Some time ago, the topic of objective rating systems did come up in rec.games.bridge: most commentators criticized the idea; and Fred persuasively explained why he was against implementing such a system
Are there any rating systems currently in place on BBO -- other than those run by private clubs? If not, what are current views on this issue?
For example, what about an optional rating system? Has that been discussed?
Nobody need display their rating. In fact, if the idea were widely disliked then only a few of us would display their ratings. Also if any player started behaving badly in an attempt to be highly rated, then BBO could use an over-ride to reduce or hide his rating. This might become a useful management sanction, less final and draconian than expulsion from BBO
Rating could be confined to a few open events. For instance, money bridge games, certain open tournaments, and tournaments restricted only by rating. This would preserve the normal friendly mix enjoyed by all in the main bridge club and other events.
Currently, rgb is discussing why there are no child prodigies in bridge. Among many possible reasons is the difficulty of quickly recognizing promising young talent. There may well be a wealth of potential world-class players among the thousands of youngsters who play on BBO. A rating system could accelerate their early recognition and development.

[hotShot]

I think everything was said in one of these threads ....

Look here

or here

Here is another one

yet another thread

And don't forgetthis one

[jdonn]

nige1, on Jun 5 2007, 07:33 AM, said:

Currently,  rgb is discussing why there are no child prodigies in bridge.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sir, I'd like to introduce you to the incomparable JLALL

[nige1]

jdonn, on Jun 7 2007, 01:40 AM, said:

nige1, on Jun 5 2007, 07:33 AM, said:

Currently,  rgb is discussing why there are no child prodigies in bridge.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sir, I'd like to introduce you to the incomparable JLALL

I looked up Justin on Google, and the pleasure is mine

According to his profile, Justin Lall is 20 years old. In Bridge terms, he is a child prodigy, a fantastic young talent , already twice junior world champion!

I notiice, however, that, at least until recently, you still qualifiy as a junior in Bridge, even at 25. That seems to confirm the notion that bridge players tend to mature later (for a variety of obvious reasons).

Although many bridge-players are competent as young children, few seem seem gain recognition as precocious talent. At chess and Go, child prodigies are and nurtured to reach top international level in their pre-teens -- about 11 years old.

That was the comparison being made on rgb

Again it seems to me that the main reasons are obvious. One of the more subtle reasons, however, is the difficulty of recognising and developing young Bridge talent.

IMO, all this may change in the future, especially due to on-line play sites like BBO.

Thus, Enquiry implies that objective performance measures are available on request. Were I a young Bridge prodigy, <sigh> I would want regular easy access and permission to publicise my status.

IMO, Justin Lall's views on this topic would be interesting.

[inquiry]

While you are at it, Nigel, you may ask jdonn for his views as well...

You can look him up too... his name is Joshua (Josh) Donn on his views, you will find him as second from the right (I hope) in the following photograph/article 11th hunio world championship -- final daily bulletin. In addition to being a junior world champ (ok, only once so far), rumor has it he was in the top five at the world junior pair championship last year.

[firechief]

I was youngest life master at the key age of 11, and already in print being called a child prodigy. So, regardless of whether or not I was one, it's an overstatement to say there are clearly *no* child prodigies in bridge.

Joel Wooldridge

[jdonn]

I consider Joel more of a foosball prodigy.

[Al_U_Card]

You see, Nigel? This is why there are *no* child prodigies in bridge.....they actually want to act like children and have fun......imagine the audacity!

[foo]

I think Joel, Josh, and Justin would all tell you that they there have been many fine players that are considerably younger than US legal drinking age

(Evidently, particularly if their names begin with "J" )

[nige1]

foo, on Jun 9 2007, 07:01 AM, said:

I think Joel, Josh, and Justin would all tell you that they there have been many fine players that are considerably younger than US legal drinking age

(Evidently, particularly if their names begin with "J" )

foo may have a point: The UK has two gifted young Js: Justin and Jason Hackett.

I posted this in the Software forum but it also seems relevant to this discussion:

Fred definitely not to want an official rating system on his site; and that would seem to be the end of the matter....

.....But.....

inquiry tells us that BBO maintains a sophisticated rating system unofficially. And inquiry will consider divulging your own rating on request.

Hence there seem to be two avenues open that would satisfy most people and embarrass nobody...

• 1. Enable the option to insert rating field(s) into your profile that are visible only to you. I reckon this would be of interest and use to most BBO members who appreciates objective feed-back on their current form.
  
  
• 2. If you enjoy competition then join a private club within BBO, which implements a rating system confined to its members-only tournaments. Does anybody know of such a club with free membership?

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jun 7 2007, 01:40 AM, said:

nige1, on Jun 5 2007, 07:33 AM, said:

Currently,  rgb is discussing why there are no child prodigies in bridge.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sir, I'd like to introduce you to the incomparable JLALL

Doogie Lall?

[kenrexford]

foo, on Jun 9 2007, 07:01 AM, said:

I think Joel, Josh, and Justin would all tell you that they there have been many fine players that are considerably younger than US legal drinking age

(Evidently, particularly if their names begin with "J" )

Yeah, but that's a tad unfair -- different playing field.

See, most of us can drink heavily if we screw up a round of bridge. If you cannot drink, you are forced to think a lot more and make the right play. When they can drink, and of course they do not yet, then they will be enabled to make the same stupid plays and bids that the rest of us make.

[Rain]

Quote

inquiry tells us that BBO maintains a sophisticated rating system unofficially. And inquiry will consider divulging your own rating on request.

BBO does not maintain the secret rating system. This comes from bridgebrowser, a software that you can purchase.

[fred]

nige1, on Jul 2 2007, 01:00 PM, said:

Fred definitely not to want an official rating system on his site; and that would seem to be the end of the matter....

This is not true.

First of all, even if my position was "there will never be an official rating system on BBO", that would not be the end of the matter. Although technically speaking I might have the final say on this, I do have 2 business partners. If both of them felt strongly that we should have an official rating system, I would defer to their judgment.

I don't think this scenario is likely because both of my business partners see pretty much eye-to-eye with me as far as this issue is concerned.

But "there will never be an official rating system on BBO" is not my position. My position is that I do not want to make any changes in this area unless I am confident that such changes will represent a major overall improvement to what we are doing now.

So far my partners and I have been unable to come up with a plan that qualifies. It is not like we are constantly debating this issue, but it is something we discuss from time to time. We also receive a lot of suggestions (both on forums and via e-mail) about how we might improve things. While such suggestions are appreciated, so far nobody has been able to propose a "solution" that comes anywhere close to filling me with confidence.

I personally think it is unlikely that anyone will come up with an answer I like any time soon (if ever). Even if such an answer was provided tomorrow, it would likely take a while before we were able to implement it - we have a lot on our plates already.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[nige1]

I didn't mean to misrepresent Fred's position and I'm sorry that I did.

I realise that it would require work, but I would appreciate Fred's view on the idea of enabling an option to insert rating field(s) into your profile that are visible only to you. I reckon this would be of interest and use to most BBO members who would appreciate objective feed-bake on their current form.

[fred]

nige1, on Jul 2 2007, 03:54 PM, said:

I didn't mean to misrepresent Fred's posisiton and I'm sorry that I did.

I realise that it would require work, but I would appreciate Fred's view on the idea of enabling an option to insert rating field(s) into your profile that are visible only to you. I reckon this would be of interest and use to most BBO members who would appreciate objective feed-bake on their current form.

My guess is that "most BBO members" is a massive overbid.

I think that for every one BBO member who genuinely wants to track their progress and see if they are improving, there are many BBO members who do not want to know how poorly they really play.

Besides that, a system like you suggest does not address the main reason why people want rating systems: to know how well potential opponents play.

Your suggestion does has the virtue of being harmless from a social point of view.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Bsae Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

fred, on Jul 2 2007, 11:29 AM, said:

I think that * * * there are many BBO members who do not want to know how poorly they really play.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

Yeah, then you would have a lot of "D- Experts" and "12th Percentile Experts" and "-12.2 IMP/35% MP Experts" on BBO.