[pilowsky]

 johnu, on 2020-October-17, 19:27, said:

Some kind of analytical results based rating system would be the way to go IMO if you want to get the most accurate system of ratings.

BBO has consistently been against numerical rating systems but that was under the old ownership. I don't recall seeing anything about rating systems from the new owners.

No matter what descriptive rating system you use, as long as it is a self rating it won't be worth much.

I have a friend who plays on Funbridge - he tells me that they do use a ranking/ladder system.
Of course, it is a somewhat different game.

[sfi]

 johnu, on 2020-October-17, 19:27, said:

Some kind of analytical results based rating system would be the way to go IMO if you want to get the most accurate system of ratings.

If - that's the big question. OKBridge had one and it turned the place into a fairly toxic environment. In fact, from memory that was at least one of the triggers for the creation of BBO. It's not clear what problem an accurate rating system would solve, but we do have at least one good example of the problems it creates.

[pilowsky]

 sfi, on 2020-October-17, 21:58, said:

If - that's the big question. OKBridge had one and it turned the place into a fairly toxic environment. In fact, from memory that was at least one of the triggers for the creation of BBO. It's not clear what problem an accurate rating system would solve, but we do have at least one good example of the problems it creates.

Couldn't agree more. If there's going to be a solution, it's a good idea to know exactly what problem you are trying to solve first.
The people that don't like self-describing of 'talent' don't like it for a number of reasons.

I play in the Beginners Intermediate Lounge and describe myself as an Intermediate. I'm pretty sure that many here would think that was over-rating myself.
You absolutely cannot play in the BIL if you rate yourself as anything other than Beginner or Intermediate.

This means that many people overwhelmed with modesty constantly self-describe themselves as intermediate or Beginner even if they have a ranking of J or 24 or similar.
These unfortunates are so desperate for masterpoints they'll do anything. If you don't believe me ask the TD's.

In Chess, the Elo system is internationally and universally recognised. It has its problems too because, for example, Australian players were disadvantaged by playing in a smaller talent pool. I assume this is no longer the case.
Bridge needs to wake up to itself if it wants to be recognised as a mind sport alongside Chess and Go which have been around for a very long time. At the moment Bridge is still puddling about in the shallows.
I know it's been going for a few decades, but that's nothing compared to the others.

The idea is to attract participants not repel them.

[CarolS]

I agree. This year, when I first started playing for real on BBO, I was reluctant to upgrade from the Intermediate status I gave myself when I first joined years ago.

I am also a Silver Life Master, and will likely make Ruby in the next year or so.

Now that I've been playing against largely Intermediate and Advanced players, I am comfortable with the upgrade, but Advanced is too wide a range before Expert.

[SelfGovern]

 chigal64, on 2020-October-17, 12:00, said:

i would have to agree about the level of play and the way some describe their ability. Many who say they are intermediary dont know some of the most common conventions and dont have profiles to note this fact. I have always thought a profile should be mandatory so a partner and opopenents can understand the bidding.

Profiles mean nothing. Anybody who calls themselves 'advanced' should have a complete system card available to share with a partner, and post an agreed card for the benefit of the opponents. I am fine if people want to use the GIB 2/1 card -- a workable system -- for this purpose.

[Vampyr]

Most Poles and many other Central Europeans

 bberris, on 2020-October-17, 07:24, said:

Lead low from 2

Any number of people

Quote

lead low from equals as declarer

It is sometimes right to

Quote

cover an honor lead

or

Quote

grab an ace

One style, when playing 2/1GF is to

Quote

reverse with a minimum

After responder’s 2/1

Quote

I'm sure I forgot somethings.

Indeed.

[Vampyr]

 sfi, on 2020-October-17, 21:58, said:

If - that's the big question. OKBridge had one and it turned the place into a fairly toxic environment. In fact, from memory that was at least one of the triggers for the creation of BBO. It's not clear what problem an accurate rating system would solve, but we do have at least one good example of the problems it creates.

Did you find it that way? I never noticed. I even played with strangers when I was in a foreign country and didn’t yet know any bridge players. I met my husband on OKBridge.

One other thing is that the U/I was miles better than BBO’s was/is.

[johnu]

 sfi, on 2020-October-17, 21:58, said:

If - that's the big question. OKBridge had one and it turned the place into a fairly toxic environment. In fact, from memory that was at least one of the triggers for the creation of BBO. It's not clear what problem an accurate rating system would solve, but we do have at least one good example of the problems it creates.

From the posts made in this very forum, bad behavior is rampant on BBO in the free pickup games. Of course the suggested solution has always been to avoid those games and only play in games with people you know.

On the other hand, besides the numerous cheating incidents (and for all I know, the cheaters were very polite people ), the online pay to play games run by the national bridge organizations don't seem to have a big problem. There, you have masterpoint ratings (I know, nobody thinks much of them for determining skill) and the EBU has a separate bridge rating system for their players. Colorado Springs has an independent rating system for ACBL players.

[akwoo]

 pilowsky, on 2020-October-17, 22:34, said:

The idea is to attract participants not repel them.

The USCF has 93,000 members, and about half of them are under 18.

The ACBL has 165,000 members.

An order of magnitude more people know how to play chess than know how to play bridge.

I don't think chess is a good model for attracting participants.

[nullve]

 akwoo, on 2020-October-21, 23:24, said:

The USCF has 93,000 members, and about half of them are under 18.

The ACBL has 165,000 members.

An order of magnitude more people know how to play chess than know how to play bridge.

I don't think chess is a good model for attracting participants.

BBO (by far the biggest bridge site, isn't it?) has currently 4,711 players online.

chess.com (the biggest but just one of many big chess sites) has currently 93,252 players online.

Maybe chess does something right after all.

[pilowsky]

I stopped playing Chess for two reasons.
paedophiles and girls didn't play chess.
That does not mean that the rating system is a bad thing. I didn't play Bridge when I was a child so I don't know if Bridge has the same problem with paedophiles that chess had when I was young.

[Zelandakh]

 pilowsky, on 2020-October-22, 00:18, said:

I stopped playing Chess for two reasons.
paedophiles and girls didn't play chess.

Which of the two groups did you feel that you belonged to?

[pilowsky]

 Zelandakh, on 2020-October-22, 15:42, said:

Which of the two groups did you feel that you belonged to?

You are only the second person I know that boasts about having passed a cognitive test. For no prize at all guess who the other one is.