[Tongass]

I notice some players log in with fictitious names and countries, experts log in as beginners, advanced/expert players don't have a correct convention card, players won't explain their calls at all or not in a timely manner and self kibitzing. BBO feels like a free-for-all and some of us are treating it like a regular bridge game. We log in to play speed ball games and there is no time to make a judgment call with so much calculated deceit. Is there any game on BBO to play in where there are some rules?

[pilowsky]

Robot individuals.
Challenge games.

Although the robots take a bit of getting used to, and they sometimes do some unexpected things in bidding and play, at least everyone else suffers in exactly the same way.
Some humans lie, cheat and deceive. This is because some humans believe that masterpoints = talent. They have no moral compass.

[FelicityR]

It's been a free for all for years, well before this pandemic. That's why I rarely play here. I do not blame BBO, I put it down to human nature. It's just a (smoke and) mirror image of the wider world. I tended - when I used to play - to avoid players who couldn't bother to fill out their convention cards whatever their level. At least by looking at a player's system and convention profile you do get some idea of their status.

And when you suspect that players have been cheating or deluding their level/experience at the game, just change their relationship profile to 'ignore'.

And welcome to the forum and good luck.

[nige1]

Tongass, on 2020-August-05, 17:49, said:

I notice some players log in with fictitious names and countries, experts log in as beginners, advanced/expert players don't have a correct convention card, players won't explain their calls at all or not in a timely manner and self kibitzing. BBO feels like a free-for-all and some of us are treating it like a regular bridge game. We log in to play speed ball games and there is no time to make a judgment call with so much calculated deceit. Is there any game on BBO to play in where there are some rules?

On-line...

• Many players avoid the self-rating problem by classifying themselves as "Private". I would prefer a simple meaningful rating system like the EBU's popular NGS (National Grading System).
• With on-line convention cards, self-alerts, and StanMaz's BBOAlert, disclosure facilities are better on-line than F2F; but dissimulation and prevarication are human-nature in all walks of life
• Unfortunately, cheating is almost as common on-line as it is F2F BBO is tackling obvious abuses (like kibitzing hands you are playing or are about play).
• If you want a fair game, play with friends or robots. GIBs (and we veteran Bridge-players), are showing our age, but BBO can upgrade it's robots, eventually.

[paulg]

nige1, on 2020-August-06, 05:50, said:

On-line...

• Many players avoid the self-rating problem by classifying themselves as "Private". I would prefer a simple meaningful rating system like the EBU's popular NGR (National Rating System). :}

The BBO founders never wanted a meaningful rating system, probably because they'd seen how the Lehmans rating system on OKBridge was the root cause of so much objectionable behaviour. They wanted BBO to be a friendlier place that would be open to a greater number of users and from a significantly greater number of countries.

The EBU NGS is very similar to Lehmans and it has been accepted by all the clubs. When I've been arranging matches with English clubs, their starter for ten was "9s and lower" to specify the strength. But it is not without the occasional controversy, especially recently with its use on online events.

But it is dangerous to assume that just because a system is popular with offline bridge club players it will work as well online.

[pilowsky]

paulg, on 2020-August-06, 06:43, said:

The BBO founders never wanted a meaningful rating system, probably because they'd seen how the Lehmans rating system on OKBridge was the root cause of so much objectionable behaviour. They wanted BBO to be a friendlier place that would be open to a greater number of users and from a significantly greater number of countries.

The EBU NGS is very similar to Lehmans and it has been accepted by all the clubs. When I've been arranging matches with English clubs, their starter for ten was "9s and lower" to specify the strength. But it is not without the occasional controversy, especially recently with its use on online events.

But it is dangerous to assume that just because a system is popular with offline bridge club players it will work as well online.

It's interesting that you say that. My impression from playing chess is that an accurate rating system has the opposite effect. People know where they stand regarding ability at the game (if nothing else).
It is a deterrent to rudeness.
The two things seem to be completely unrelated.
The moment competition is introduced, rudeness will appear. When 'points' and 'money' are involved greed and awful behaviour ensues: it's a lethal cocktail for humans.
Psychologically, the smaller the stake the nastier people become. This is a well-known phenomenon. It happens because people can easily understand small amounts. (The Law and the Profits - C Northcote Parkinson)

[msjennifer]

Sir,
There are no SET RULES OR CONDITIONS laid down to define the ones status.I found that some of the players who call themselves WORLD CLASS turn out to be absolute beginners.May be they presume that they are playing in a field of toddlers.
May be labelling ones ability PRIVATE is the best.No one can challenge it.

[mycroft]

yes, but in a chess world, you don't have:

"1700-1750 only"
"but your bughouse partner is a 2000! I don't want to play against 2000, even if you're 1200!"
"I was looking for real chess, even in bughouse, not playing against a novice (even though their partner is a national champion)"
"you have to reset my rating, it doesn't reflect my real skill [because my partners have been dragging me down]"

But also, there are a lot of people who don't actually want to know where they stand. They like their fairy stories. NGS seems to be being managed with a minimum of gaming, but that's probably because there aren't events with large cash prizes only available for "9s and below".

[hrothgar]

pilowsky, on 2020-August-06, 07:01, said:

It's interesting that you say that. My impression from playing chess is that an accurate rating system has the opposite effect. People know where they stand regarding ability at the game (if nothing else).
It is a deterrent to rudeness.
The two things seem to be completely unrelated.

I'm not sure that rudeness is quite the right word.

When Fred was creating BBO, OKBridge was the dominant player in the market.
OKB used (uses?) the Lehman ratings scheme.

This lead to a number of significant problems

1. Lots of players became extremely selective about who they would partner with because they were afraid that their Lehman's would be harmed.
2. Players would quit games after a single bad board, for fear that their partner might hurt their Lehman ratings
3. A never ending series of arguments about whether the Lehman's were accurate, good, useful what have you

Fred made a decision that he wanted to side step all of this by not adopting a rating scheme.

FWIW, at the time I was strongly in favor of this decision. I didn't believe that it is possible to create a rating scheme that is both

1. Accurate
2. That you can explain to non technical end users

[mikeh]

By BBO definition, I’m a world class player.

Were I living in the US, no way I’d be WC, since the only way I’d have a chance of representing the US is if I won a very big lottery and was able to hire 5 top pros. Actually, given the money involved, make that two or three big lotteries.

So to me, claiming WC status just seems wrong.

Also, I noticed, some years ago, someone from Canada claiming WC status. I’ve been playing, off and on, in our team trials for more than 30 years and, while I don’t know all internalionists well, I definitely know of all of them, and this person was unknown to me. Add to that the horrific skill level of so many ‘experts’ and it became apparent that posting one’s ‘BBO’ level was meaningless.

BBO tried, I think, to deal with the self-exaggeration by awarding stars to players who had some accomplishments that could be verified. So I got a star. But I’ve played against a number of star players who do not seem to me to be experts, no matter what they called themselves.

I empathize with anyone seeking to find good opps or partners, compatible with a reasonably held self-assessment, but the solution is either to play with or against people well known to you or put up with a lot of bullshit, culling the players until you find ones you get along with.

As for my ranking, I’m private. But I only play with and against friends or in events where everyone is (arguably) a real expert anyway, so I’m lucky in that regard.

Btw, I did play some okbridge, back when I was forming a partnership with a player I believed and still believe was, at the time, the best player in the country. We played okbridge, but neither of us had any Lehman to start with. I remember some opp refusing to play us, because he had a high rating and was worried that losing to us ‘no bodies’ would hurt his rating. I also distinctly recall that cheating was rampant. The Rating seemed, imo, to incentivize cheating.

[pescetom]

As often, I agree in principal with nige1 but the devil is in the details...

nige1, on 2020-August-06, 05:50, said:

Many players avoid the self-rating problem by classifying themselves as "Private". I would prefer a simple meaningful rating system like the EBU's popular NGS (National Grading System).

My verdict on those classified as "Private" is almost always "Mediocre"... whereas "Beginner" and "Expert" are almost interchangeable.
But I agree that a meaningful rating system would have enormous value, if (and only if) linked to serious anti-cheating measures and more flexible robots that could understand normal bidding.

nige1, on 2020-August-06, 05:50, said:

With on-line convention cards, self-alerts, and StanMaz's BBOAlert, disclosure facilities are better on-line than F2F

Fully agree: but BBO makes it near-impossible to distribute convention cards, did not implement and does not yet endorse BBOAlert.

nige1, on 2020-August-06, 05:50, said:

BBO is tackling obvious abuses (like kibitzing hands you are playing or are about play).

To some extent: but it still maintains inessential and criticable features like anonymous kibbitzing or private chat of playing directors, and seems reluctant to implement time-delayed kibitzing and vugraph which is perfectly feasible.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2020-August-06, 13:34, said:

My verdict on those classified as "Private" is almost always "Mediocre"... whereas "Beginner" and "Expert" are almost interchangeable.

ouch!

[barmar]

On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog.

https://upload.wikim...nternet_dog.jpg

[AL78]

pescetom, on 2020-August-06, 13:34, said:

My verdict on those classified as "Private" is almost always "Mediocre"... whereas "Beginner" and "Expert" are almost interchangeable.
But I agree that a meaningful rating system would have enormous value, if (and only if) linked to serious anti-cheating measures and more flexible robots that could understand normal bidding.

I classed myself as intermediate. What does that mean in your eyes?

[mycroft]

I may be the last person to follow the original guidelines. And yes, I am proud of that open Regional win, even if it wasn't the Penticton Open Pairs. I was better than at least two Name Pros on that day.

Yes, a bunch of name pros (and people who think people should recognize their name) call themselves "Beginner". Irony, she is a thing (and frequently causes creases). Yes, most of the rest inflate their skill, either because "New poll - 90% of bridge players are better than their partners", or because everyone wants to play pickup with a partner slightly better than they (think they) are, against a pair that is slightly worse, and since everyone *else* inflates their skill, they have to, too.

I actually like Allan Simon's "Levels of Hopelessness" rankings. As I am "not hopeless, but obviously not as good as me" to him, I'm somewhere around 2.5 LoH off World Class.

[pescetom]

AL78, on 2020-August-06, 15:12, said:

I classed myself as intermediate. What does that mean in your eyes?

Usually accurate in my eyes - people trying honestly to self-assess ability are not going to be far wrong, even if they haven't read the BBO guidelines. I doubt there are many beginners posing as intermediates or whatever. Unfortunately expert is nowhere near as reliable, one only has to look at how many there are.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2020-August-06, 15:38, said:

I actually like Allan Simon's "Levels of Hopelessness" rankings. As I am "not hopeless, but obviously not as good as me" to him, I'm somewhere around 2.5 LoH off World Class.

Some good advice in that discussion:
"Savor the misery of that terrible result and really delve into what was going on (or not going on) in your head when this happened. Over time you will see the quality of your disasters improve" (JoAnn Stansby)

[pilowsky]

There are many ways that you can calibrate yourself. This is one way that I quite like.
I use it as a continuous quality improvement tool.
Remember, in the end, it's just a game.

Compete in the BBO MP1 daylong number 1 at least 5- 10 times and compute an average score.
This tournament attracts over 1000 players a day some are very good some are not.
This means that you can take your result at the end and see where you stand.
If you score as follows you can consider yourself:
up to 30% Novice/Beginner
30-40% Intermediate
40-50% Advanced
50-60% Expert
60-70% World Expert
More than 70% Elite.


I developed this using a spreadsheet that someone published. It's based on the Elo system that is used for rating players in Chess.

Once players get above 60% they can start to make a living out of the game. World Champions are in the 'Elite' category.

NB I'm not talking about on-off performances.