[11WAMMER]

I have been very often frustrated at the number of times what I thought should be a good board, or at least an average board, has turned out not to be the case. Someone else made 3 more tricks than I did, in the same contract, or someone else was redoubled making, when there was absolutely no foundation for the double in the first place. Now I understand that occasionally this is going to happen, but I think it's happening far too often.

Imagine my chagrine to discover that some friends that were playing in the Relaxed Club were being scored on the same score sheet as I was in the Main Club. I understand that some very good players play in the Relaxed Club, but my experience is that most, or at least a lot, of the players in the Relaxed Club are of the kitchen bridge variety, or players at the beginning of the learning curve.

The scores from the Relaxed Club and from the Main Club should be separated so that apples and oranges are not being compared and so that a player at least has an idea how he/she is doing compared to other players in the same club.

[matmat]

this problem existed before the Relaxed Club was around. The problem is that there are not enough comparisons (this is hard to change, as I understand it) and that there are still plenty of idiots pretending to play bridge in the MBC anyway. The key here is to not read into your score too much and evaluate your performance based on how you think a good field would do.

[helene_t]

Agree with Mat.

I suppose if you buy BridgeBrowser you could limit the comparison to tables where all four players had a Lehman rating above say 53.

Not that I'm seriously suggesting that method.

[Tola18]

a solution may possibly be to use only the main-bridge scores as results.

thus relaxed club players would se their own board of course, as compared against the main club.

Not perfect, but the lesser evil I think then have main club results fouled by comparing also with relaxed club.

[Wayne_LV]

The orignal objective of duplicate bridge was to provide a comparison of how you and your partner bid and played a specific hand as compared to a group of players of similar skill levels and experience.

The greater the size of the field, the more accuate the score reflects your actual performance. The larger the field the less effect bazare results have on individual scores at other tables.

What if boards were selected from major ACBL tournaments that were played by a large number of tables, say 50 or 100. And those results entered into a data base. Then as the hands are played on BBO, the results are compared, not to the BBO field, but to the field of the ACBL tournament. Then it would be as if you had played the board in that ACBL event, not on BBO. There has to be plenty of sectional and regional tournaments that could be used as a source of boards and results. I think it would be impossible for anyone to pick out a particular set of boards and "know" the actual results from the real event. For that matter, boards from different events could be mixed to make up "sets".

I realize that this would entail a substantial amount of data entry work. I, for one, would be willing to pay a reasonable premium to play boards in a special room where this method of scoring were employed.

[Codo]

Instead of using old boards and all the work that has to be done to imply them into a tourney, it would be sufficent to compare the board just with 50 other tables and not just with 16.
However, as this question arosed before, Fred or Uday told us the reasoning why this won't happen.
I am not too sure, but I think the problem was the amount of data needed and that the servers are on their limit anyway. But this is just a guess, maybe the reason was another.

Anyway, it is not useful to use the scores from the MBC to see if you did good or bad.
Better look at your hands with an expert or with GIB.