[rienzi a]

That the "Private" definition be banned from the Profile

[Trumpace]

Why?

Because it gives no sense of the skill of the player?

Do you really think self rating which people have gives an accurate sense of the skill of the player?

I used to think that "Advanced" was one rating which was correct a reasonable amount of times, but nowadays it seems like most intermediates prefer to use that rating.

[1eyedjack]

rienzi a, on Sep 10 2007, 04:12 PM, said:

That the "Private" definition be banned from the Profile

Agree with Trumpace. If you want a suggestion to be taken seriously then it would help your cause to present a justification. If you had come up with a suggestion that might not have occurred to everyone else (either sympathetically or otherwise) then maybe the post would have been of value without further elaboration. As it is, your post simply registers a "vote" of one member out of tens of thousands, but otherwise adds nothing, as everyone already has formed their own personal opinion on this issue.

Personally I welcome the private definition, and adopt it myself, not because I wish particularly to conceal my ability but principally so that I don't have to play against those who object to the practice.

[MrOutlaw]

I have no qualms with the private.. I usually do not let them play in the team game unless they are also stars. after all private notes allow you to rank anyone the way you think they play.
Perhaps someone will run a tournament with a "No Privates" policy and see if there is any feedback.

[1eyedjack]

MrOutlaw, on Sep 12 2007, 07:00 PM, said:

Perhaps someone will run a tournament with a "No Privates" policy and see if there is any feedback.

I am pretty sure that I have seen such tourneys advertised. Why would you expect any feedback? To whom would you expect the feedback to be addressed? and via what avenue, media or forum? And why would (or should) anyone pay any attention to it?
They happen. They attract players who for whatever nonsensical reason regard that as a priority. They repel players who could not care squat. The world continues to revolve.

[sceptic]

Quote

I used to think that "Advanced" was one rating which was correct a reasonable amount of times, but nowadays it seems like most intermediates prefer to use that rating.

And there is a very good reason for that, because if you are not advanced then 80% of people reject you out of hand

[Trumpace]

sceptic, on Sep 12 2007, 02:58 PM, said:

Quote

I used to think that "Advanced" was one rating which was correct a reasonable amount of times, but nowadays it seems like most intermediates prefer to use that rating.

And there is a very good reason for that, because if you are not advanced then 80% of people reject you out of hand

Would you really want to play with such people? They might not be the nicest ppl, or perhaps are nice people but are really looking for a serious game...

If you are not advanced and claim to be, they will likely boot you after a few hands.

You will be just wasting your time and also theirs if they are looking for a serious game.

Of the 20% who do accept you, I suggest you mark them as friends and try playing with them the next time, rather than lying about your skill and trying to play with players who don't want you there...

[jillybean]

sceptic, on Sep 12 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

Quote

I used to think that "Advanced" was one rating which was correct a reasonable amount of times, but nowadays it seems like most intermediates prefer to use that rating.

And there is a very good reason for that, because if you are not advanced then 80% of people reject you out of hand

I don't find this to be true at all although I don't play at random tables often and I steer clear
of the table hosts who have specified Expert+++++

However, try changing your name to Wanda and see what happens.

[johnjo42]

It also happen in reverse with some so-called novices or intermediates being better players than they like to advertise sometimes to gain access to (e.g.) the BIL lounge.

[sceptic]

Quote

Would you really want to play with such people?

actually yes I would, there are some right a*****s about but they play bridge well so why would I not want to play against them

[pclayton]

I have "Private" under my profile.

If you know me, you know how I play. Then again, I don't drop in on open tables, so it doesn't create an issue for me.

[helene_t]

In the partnership desk I rarely invite "experts" unless I know them, because my exerience is that most "experts" are characterized by a lack of realistic self-assessment rather than by good skills. I'm obviously being unjust to some but so be it.

I have no issues with "private". But to each his/her own.

If you don't want to play with/against players who conceal their self-rating, it helps you that you can recognize them as such. If the "private" level was not allowed, those who wished to conceal their self-rating would just pick some unrealistic level, and you would not be able to wead them out. Just like I wouldn't if the "expert" level was not allowed.

Quote

It also happen in reverse with some so-called novices or intermediates being better players than they like to advertise sometimes to gain access to (e.g.) the BIL lounge.

Could be, but another issue is that "intermediate", as defined, coveres a very broad range of skill levels. A beginner is someone who has been playing for less than a year or so. An advanced player is someone who has been consistently successful in clubs or minor tournaments. Hence most club players (and virtually all casual social players) will be intermediates.

I don't think I should rate myself as "advanced" since the "succeses" I have had in minor tournaments are scattered, and I only won the local club championship once. Yet of course my level is far above the B-line of the local club, where everyone has played for years or decades and can therefore call themselves "intermediates" as well.