[RedSpawn]

Can we ask/require folks who want to be listed in the Partnership Desk to complete profile information that is visible to other players who want to play in the same tournament with them such as the following:

1) How would you describe your overall offensive bidding style -- aggressive or conservative?
2) How would you describe your style of preemptive bidding overall (e.g. in 1st and 2nd seat) -- disciplined or undisciplined? (e.g. would you preemptively bid weak 2 with KX,♠ Q8XXXX♥, JXX♦, XX♣ which would be considered undisciplined)
3) How would you describe your defensive bidding technique -- aggressive or conservative?
4) On a scale of 1-10 1 being justified and 10 being not justified, how would you feel about responding to your partner's opening 1 of a suit bid with 0-4 total points?
5) On a scale of 1-10 1 being bad and 10 being good, how would you feel about playing a 9 board tournament where you are the dummy for more than 50% of the deals where your team wins the contract?

What am I getting at?
===================================================================================================================================================
We need more information than 2/1, smolen, sayc, etc to match people up at partnership desk.

We need to know people's approach and style to the game.

Aggressive bidders might want to be partnered with other aggressive bidders and have a more enjoyable experience.

People who are conservative preemptive bidders might want to partnered up with other conservative preemptive bidders.

People who are bid hoggers and have a problem being dummy for more than 50% of the deals where their team wins the contract might need to be partnered up with other bid hoggers so they can see what's the experience is like.

It might be too much to factor all of this into the 1-4 star Partnership Desk Compatibility algorithm we already have. However, we need to see such information to know how to better partner up with people. There's got to be some way to radio button these types of questions.

Is there anything we can do other than asking each individual user all of these pertinent questions each time we play a tournament?

[Stefan_O]

Good idea, but I don't think that particular approach will work in practice.

Many "bid-hoggers", obviously, will not answer honestly (or they find no partners at all) and I think people, generally, will have difficulties self-assessing correctly and honestly.

On the other hand, those traits you mention, plus many others, could definitely be assessed automatically from your play-history by software-algorithms.

That would sure generate useful information to potential partners.
I guess not all players would be too happy to have such "profiles" made public, though

[geoffff]

Since I don't place much faith in self description of Expert, Advanced, Intermediate etc., I doubt that we would learn much by asking for more detailed self-assessment. There are many who say sayc, 2/1, or whatever, even 'I'll play your system' and then don't!
Most of it, unless you have played with someone before, is a case of pot-luck and make the best of good partners and make a note to avoid bad ones in the future.

[silvr bull]

geoffff is spot on. Having a player create more information, that may be little better than fantasy, could be worse than useless on BBO. A quick glace at the profile should enough to decide if a player is worth the "risk" of partnering for a few minutes in a free tournament.

However, I really would like to see one additional detail in the list pf people who want to be partners. That essential addition is the country flag. When I look at profiles, I automatically reject people from a few countries. That is not prejudice, but a simple truth that many bidders in those countries have a different set of experience and expectations than I do, and there are frequent language issues too, so we are usually not compatible. Listing the country flag of people would not contribute to prejudice, but would save time (which is often limited before a tournament starts) for those of us who have geographical preferences.

[skivt]

Adding significantly to system information will provide no clue as to a person's bidding judgment or play and defensive skills. Even a high ranking may be partially due to longevity rather than skill. You have to make a judgment to risk an hour and a dollar on a combination of factors. There is usually no time to agree much on bidding and defense, just "Shall we use your card or mine or BBO's?". As for country, as with bridge skills, some are faked; others may be irrelevant. Good bridge players can be found everywhere, not always bidding strangely.

A quick look at systems offered and ranking is enough for me to issue an invitation for a $1 game. Simpler is better.

[SelfGovern]

One could always post players' average IMP and MP results over the last month (which is available under "hand records" for all players, anyway).

[RD350LC]

 Stefan_O, on 2017-May-17, 00:08, said:

Good idea, but I don't think that particular approach will work in practice.

Many "bid-hoggers", obviously, will not answer honestly (or they find no partners at all) and I think people, generally, will have difficulties self-assessing correctly and honestly.

On the other hand, those traits you mention, plus many others, could definitely be assessed automatically from your play-history by software-algorithms.

That would sure generate useful information to potential partners.
I guess not all players would be too happy to have such "profiles" made public, though

I agree that such an approach would be difficult to enforce.
I also have difficulty with people who list themselves as "World Class", "Expert", "Advanced" or even "Intermediate", and do not have a profile posted. What I do with such people (and this IS in my profile) is indicate "No profile, NO CONVENTIONS". That means ALL natural bidding-4NT is a natural NT bid (or raise, as appropriate), 2 bids over a 1NT opener are natural signoffs, and so forth. When this happens, they learn quickly what no conventions means.
Some people may not like this approach, but I prefer it to no profile, no play.

[barmar]

 SelfGovern, on 2017-May-17, 16:26, said:

One could always post players' average IMP and MP results over the last month (which is available under "hand records" for all players, anyway).

Bridge is a partnership game. I expect there's a big difference in average results for people who regularly play with pick-up partners or in individuals, and those who mostly play with a regular partner or in robot games.

And people who play infrequently (e.g. just 1 or 2 games a week) will have very high variance in their averages.

Coming up with a single solution that works for everyone can be difficult. The compatibility stars are our attempt to try to match players based on a few objective criteria.

[SelfGovern]

 RD350LC, on 2017-May-17, 18:25, said:

I agree that such an approach would be difficult to enforce.
I also have difficulty with people who list themselves as "World Class", "Expert", "Advanced" or even "Intermediate", and do not have a profile posted.
<snippage>

Shoot -- I would personally vote for not allowing someone to select Expert or World Class until they had posted a favorite convention card. A profile is not a convention card!

I have only a tiny piece of tongue extended into my cheek as I state the above.