[Dinarius]

diana_eva, on 2015-February-13, 03:30, said:

BBO Skill is not a BBO page, and not part of BBO.

Yes, I know. But, thanks for clarifying it for those who might not.

It would be nice to have something like it though.

Self-assessment is a joke.

D.

[dtlq1]

With the introduction of free daylong tournaments there is a reasonable base for a rating system. You could get an initial rating after like 10 played tournaments and go from there.
Yes it could be slightly biased by "exploiting" GIB behavior and also people not playing 2/1 would have a bit of a disadvantage , but I think it is still viable.
To try to rate hands played with random partners,for example on the main Bridge Club could never result in an adequate rating. It just has to be individual performance vs "neutral" robots.

[helene_t]

dtlq1, on 2017-August-09, 10:39, said:

With the introduction of free daylong tournaments there is a reasonable base for a rating system.

Yes. I've wondered if the purpose of offering those tourneys was to make a rating system.

But if it becomes "official", it will encourage cheating.

[jeffford76]

Dinarius, on 2015-February-13, 03:18, said:

Someone who calls himself/herself '<REDACTED>' rates themselves as World Class. BBO Skill rates them as Intermediate, admittedly provisionally over the last month.

Are we really allowing calling out of random users now in the forums?

[diana_eva]

jeffford76, on 2017-August-10, 11:41, said:

Are we really allowing calling out of random users now in the forums?

No, that was a slip on my side. I thought i edited out the name when I originally replied to that post.

[barmar]

jeffford76, on 2017-August-10, 11:41, said:

Are we really allowing calling out of random users now in the forums?

Now? That post was over 2 years old.

[jeffford76]

Sorry - there was a new post in the thread which made it show up in new posts for me and I didn't notice the original was that old.

[sharzers]

Have you taken into account that most players in BBO that THINK they are 'reasonable' or even think they are quite 'good' players, don't have a clue about even the basics of this game. If I were to ask some basic bridge questions, many if not all self-rated 'advanced' players wouldn't be able to string together even a simple coherent response

[gentgiant]

sharzers, on 2017-August-11, 23:21, said:

Have you taken into account that most players in BBO that THINK they are 'reasonable' or even think they are quite 'good' players, don't have a clue about even the basics of this game. If I were to ask some basic bridge questions, many if not all self-rated 'advanced' players wouldn't be able to string together even a simple coherent response

It's noticeable, too, that many who self-describe themselves as expert or advanced, are very poor players of the cards and usually the rudest players around.

[cencio]

Now that bridge master is free. One may play all the hands of a level. And when he resolves the 50% of them.Put this level as your own.

[barmar]

cencio, on 2019-January-20, 05:06, said:

Now that bridge master is free. One may play all the hands of a level. And when he resolves the 50% of them.Put this level as your own.

Bridge Master only tests declarer play. There are lots of players who can play the cards well, but are lousy bidders. In particular, someone who has played social bridge for many years, but has just started playing duplicate, will often not be familiar with popular conventions.

[bd71]

barmar, on 2019-January-21, 00:45, said:

Bridge Master only tests declarer play. There are lots of players who can play the cards well, but are lousy bidders. In particular, someone who has played social bridge for many years, but has just started playing duplicate, will often not be familiar with popular conventions.

Don't forget DEFENSE...partly due to Bridgemaster, I'm far better at the quarter of boards I declare, and much worse at the HALF of boards the opponents insist on declaring themselves.

[9NTredbl]

Yes, obviously. Bridge is the only serious competitive strategy game that does not do this. MP are stupid. But nothing will happen until we introduce a time control.

Best,
Nak

[mdpepper]

It has some flaws, but one pretty fair way to rate players would be to require those who wish to be rated to play in one of the 18-board daily games per week (or at minimum 2 per month). Everybody would have the "same" partner, with the downside being that it would limit the effect of bidding skill in the rating. I would love this system, also, because I fear that when face-to-face bridge "fully" returns, we might lose the 18-board game due to low participation. I'd actually like that game to be 24 boards because it's the best way to practice playing matchpoints as far as maintaining concentration and discipline for a full session.

Having said that I strongly appeal BBO to offer 24-board games daily in the week or 2 before the 3 annual Robot National tournaments. The "practices" don't cut it as far as the mental-concentration aspect. With 3 consecutive days of playing 24-board robot games, you can simulate the endurance aspect of playing in the tournament.