[kchatz]

I think players should be truthful in their self evaluations, perhaps backed up by official bridge league rankings. I frequently play in speedballs on bbo. What I don't like is people purposely falsifying their credentials. I see people who classify themselves as "novice," who end up playing a lot of artificial conventions, I also don't like people considering their rank to be "private." This kind of gamesmanship is inappropriate in competitive bridge.

[hrothgar]

kchatz, on 2019-January-02, 08:05, said:

I think players should be truthful in their self evaluations, perhaps backed up by official bridge league rankings.

And I want a pony.
I think that we are both equally likely to have our wishes granted.

[barmar]

johnu, on 2019-January-01, 17:39, said:

To the extent that players in JEC matches play against random players, they would have a rating based on those random players. Say their rating corresponds to scoring ~70%. If you play those JEC players and break even, then you should be ~70% if you don't play anybody else.

What I actually meant was how would you calculate a rating for JEC and his teammates, since he only plays against other expert teams (well, except for the JEC vs BBF games, which we've finally given up on since participation dropped off). It's not fair to compare their results against experts with other players' results against randoms.

Of course, it doesn't really matter -- JEC will never show up at the Partnership Desk or ask to sit in a random game, so his rating will never be an issue. But it's indicative of a general problem: if you have disjoint communities of players, ratings within each community are not necessarily comparable. The best MBC player might only be considered "very advanced", not as good as the experts and champs who tend to play in set games.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2019-January-02, 09:48, said:

What I actually meant was how would you calculate a rating for JEC and his teammates, since he only plays against other expert teams (well, except for the JEC vs BBF games, which we've finally given up on since participation dropped off). It's not fair to compare their results against experts with other players' results against randoms.

Of course, it doesn't really matter -- JEC will never show up at the Partnership Desk or ask to sit in a random game, so his rating will never be an issue. But it's indicative of a general problem: if you have disjoint communities of players, ratings within each community are not necessarily comparable. The best MBC player might only be considered "very advanced", not as good as the experts and champs who tend to play in set games.

If you have completely disjoint sets of players, then there is nothing wrong with having completely disjoint sets of ratings.
There is no reason to assume that ratings need to be cardinal rather than ordinal.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2019-January-02, 09:51, said:

If you have completely disjoint sets of players, then there is nothing wrong with having completely disjoint sets of ratings.
There is no reason to assume that ratings need to be cardinal rather than ordinal.

If they're permanently disjoint, that's true. It becomes more of a problem when players occasionally wander from one cohort to another. They'll show up with a rating that isn't really representative of how they're expected to do in this community.

I'd have wildly different ratings if they were based on my results in robot games, acbl speedballs, or JEC games.

[johnu]

barmar, on 2019-January-02, 09:48, said:

What I actually meant was how would you calculate a rating for JEC and his teammates, since he only plays against other expert teams (well, except for the JEC vs BBF games, which we've finally given up on since participation dropped off). It's not fair to compare their results against experts with other players' results against randoms.

Of course, it doesn't really matter -- JEC will never show up at the Partnership Desk or ask to sit in a random game, so his rating will never be an issue. But it's indicative of a general problem: if you have disjoint communities of players, ratings within each community are not necessarily comparable. The best MBC player might only be considered "very advanced", not as good as the experts and champs who tend to play in set games.

I'm guessing a substantial number of JEC opponents play against at least some better random players. And those better random players play against some average random players. JEC doesn't need to play against random players to have a rating.

As far as MBC players, they normally get soundly trounced by JEC so if they had above average ratings, JEC should have very high rankings for consistently pounding the MBC teams.

[a Maverick]

it can be a prob BUT no real solution cos we all make MISTAKES/COCK UP/ take the wrong line from time to time.................Plus sometimes even the beginner( because they are) come with the killer lead/play.......thats part of the fun