[Plutarch]

BBO has many fine features but it does lack a rated game area. This means playing frustrating games with players who define themselves as "Advanced" or "Expert" when, in reality they are little better than beginner. I did an unofficial statistical check and found that no fewer than 32% of all players on BBO rate themselves "expert" which is patently ridiculous.

An area where players could establish a rating for themselves in either IMP's or MP's would go a long way to solving this problem. It works exceptionally well on the only other bridge programme I play on, although I do caution players to try to find a reasonable partner before embarking on a rated game. It's possible to play with "pick-ups" and get an unfairly low rating which may tend to make others shy away from you. Best is to try to find a partner in unrated games before proceeding to play in the rated section. Once a player has established a rating, they can then look for others with a similar rating with whom to play and they no longer need to rely on playing with their partner only.

Perhaps we could organise a poll to see how many players would choose to play in a rated game.

[Gerben42]

No thanks, my friends know how good or bad I play. I don't want the pressure of a rated game when playing online. That's one reason why I like BBO. Ratings will just cause agression and bad behaviour.

[csdenmark]

Agree with Gerben - No thank you. As I know - all playing sites using ratings are now shut down. For that there is a good reason I think.

[barmar]

OKbridge has shut down? Or have they just gotten rid of the Lehman ratings?

[benlessard]

IMO the solution is simple just make a room for steady partnership.

A steady partnership playing vs a steady partneship usually mean

1- Stronger players.
2- no quitters
3- less bidding misunderstanding
4- better alerts and explanations.
5- Less insults.
6- longer sessions.
7- its faster to etup a team matches.
8- more interesting defenses.

etc

Considering that its probably no big deal to setup a new room, I think its a real pity that a room for steady partnerships doesnt exist.

[matmat]

how do you define a steady partnership?

[benlessard]

a practical definition is ...

1-They have a convention card fill out and know what is written on it.
2- They are on bbo to play together and not there just to play bridge with anybody.

Maybe steady isnt hte correct term. Formed partnership is maybe a better term.

Imagine that when your partner log in you invite him to form a partnership he accept. There is a box with a number & both name. Then you send a message to a partnership box & both players received the messages. When you setup a TM you just type the number of the partnerships. Its just so much simple.

[matmat]

benlessard, on Sep 1 2008, 07:01 PM, said:

a practical definition is ...

1-They have a convention card fill out and know what is written on it.
2- They are on bbo to play together and not there just to play bridge with anybody.

Maybe steady isnt hte correct term. Formed partnership is maybe a better term.

Imagine that when your partner log in you invite him to form a partnership he accept. There is a box with a number & both name. Then you send a message to a partnership box & both players received the messages. When you setup a TM you just type the number of the partnerships. Its just so much simple.

what;s the check against two random people "forming" a partnership? i don't really see at all how this could be policed, except possibly keeping track how many hands the two have played together, but that might be difficult.
besides, it's not TMs that are the problem, it's the MBC.

[TimG]

Gerben42, on Sep 1 2008, 06:52 AM, said:

No thanks, my friends know how good or bad I play. I don't want the pressure of a rated game when playing online. That's one reason why I like BBO. Ratings will just cause agression and bad behaviour.

The original poster asked for optional rated rooms. Nothing saying you would have to play in the rated room.

[benlessard]

Quote

what;s the check against two random people "forming" a partnership? i don't really see at all how this could be policed

You dont need to policed anything. Just make a room where players are handle as a pair. Random player/ beginners/casual or those that want to play a short time will stay in the main club because it will be easier for them to just sit and play. Players that are looking for more serious bridge will form a partnership and go into the "formed pair" room.

[matmat]

benlessard, on Sep 1 2008, 08:40 PM, said:

You dont need to policed anything. Just make a room where players are handle as a pair. Random player/ beginners/casual or those that want to play a short time will stay in the main club because it will be easier for them to just sit and play. Players that are looking for more serious bridge will form a partnership and go into the "formed pair" room.

I think you're wrong.

[NickRW]

I think both these ideas have some merit. 1) A rated room - ok - if you don't like ratings don't play there. 2) A formed pair room (unpoliced) for those that want it - fine too.

Nick

[mycroft]

I would appreciate that - I frequently play BBO with friends, and yeah, we don't have serious partnerships, but we aren't going to be playing pickup lottery, either. People who want to play against pairs would appreciate us.

When I'm not playing with friends, I'm practising my serious partnerships. One is crazy Precision, and I don't *want* to play against pickup lottery (over and above the "bail after first bad result" brigade); I want people who know how they're going to defend against Precision - or are at least willing to discuss it and going to stay long enough that it's worth the time. One is 2/1, but still pretty gadget-heavy and, because it is a serious partnership, less prone to mistakes than pickup lottery, we play better than our normal rating, and so it's not really fun playing against the bail bridgade.

I really would like a way to say "want to play against pairs" or, if we're flying in to a table "want to reserve both E and W".

Matmat: Pickups forming pairs are fine - it shows an interest in playing more than to the bail brigade, at least. Simple solution: if one bails, it takes the second one with him, and another pair can join.

[kfay]

I think a formed pair room is a great idea.

[Dealing_Don]

I think both a rated games area and formed pairs area have merit.

A player ratng would help in understanding a partner's ability when you are paired up with them. Currently the only objective rating is the number of points accumulated which probably says more about how often a person plays rather than how well they play.

It is frustrating to play at tables where individual players come and go at will. I often want to play with a certain player for a defined period of time and as the table host find it frustrting to have to continually deal with "forming" partnerships for my opponents.

I know the online interface now has a way for a partnership to find a game. If this feature could be added to the BBO client software along with a formed partnership area, I would choose to play there more often than not.