[paulhar]

Here is the poll as promised.

[McBruce]

It has very little to do with rudeness and far more to do with the shady lengths some will go to in order to improve their ratings. You'll have some (not all) people playing complex systems without adequate explanations, you'll have others talking via Instant Messaging, and worse and worse. OKB, when I played on it, allowed people to 'reset' their rating as a way to keep them subscribing. Of course, if you play 500 boards and go from 50 down to 30 before your subscription runs out, then get a ratings reset as an incentive to pay for another year, basically you have blackmailed the provider to allow you to jump past hundreds of people in the rankings. The end result is that the ratings are meaningless.

[the hog]

"You'll have some (not all) people playing complex systems without adequate explanations" McBruce.

You'll have some (not all) people playing Sayc without adequate explanations.

Incidentally isn't it correct that on OKb your profile states whether you have reset your ratings or not? It certainly did that when I played there some years ago.

[Cascade]

I agree with Ron.

In my experience in fact it is more common for a standard pair to give poor explanations than a pair playing a complex system.

I frequently get I don't understand the question from standard pairs when the question is as simple as "Explain the bidding please?". In fact recently I got no response whatsoever then the player swore at me for calling the Tournament Director - after the director arrived and unbelievably she was unwilling to penalize him - but I digress.

Of course there are pairs playing complex systems who do not provide adequate explanations. I once had "it will take me too long to explain" which is not a lot of use.

But in general I think over the years I have received better explanations from those playing complex systems. That is not to say that there are not many simple system players that give good cooperate explanations.

Wayne

[Free]

Yes, today I even had one who explained a bid as "sayc". What's that supposed to mean? It was 1NT-(2♣)-2♠-(pass)-2NT*... Very nice explanation imo - ahum!

When I play a complex system I explain it completely, so opps can't say we didn't tell them everything. I find that most players who realize that nothing is standard these days and who play a complex system explain it a lot better than any other player. Standard systems are 'supposed' to be known by everyone, but sometimes opps make some weird bid and won't explain it.
Ofcourse, there are also people who play a complex system and don't explain it completely to hide info from opps. Especially in f2f bridge!

Complex systems are always a target because people don't know it, and when we explain they don't really wànt to understand... And afterwards they start complaining when our system did its job That's not rudeness from players of the complex system, but from the opps imo!

[McBruce]

My apologies, Ron. I inadvertently touched a nerve there to make my point and I deserve the rebuke.

God knows as a TD of sayc tourneys I have seen enough to know that there is chaos there too.

As an olive branch may I admit the (to those who know me) shocking fact that the TD who runs only SAYC tourneys has been spotted playing Precision for the first time in the past few weeks, and despite the initial fear that I would forget all of it in the heat of battle (actually, I only forgot most of it), I am enjoying the change.

[the hog]

McBruce, on Jun 23 2004, 03:02 PM, said:

My apologies, Ron. I inadvertently touched a nerve there to make my point and I deserve the rebuke.

God knows as a TD of sayc tourneys I have seen enough to know that there is chaos there too.

As an olive branch may I admit the (to those who know me) shocking fact that the TD who runs only SAYC tourneys has been spotted playing Precision for the first time in the past few weeks, and despite the initial fear that I would forget all of it in the heat of battle (actually, I only forgot most of it), I am enjoying the change.

Wonders will never cease McBruce! There is hope for you yet. Will we see Precision only tournaments?


Ron

[helene_t]

We have a Dutch paying-site, StepBridge, at which you can choose between rating-tables and rating-free tables. This offers a good basis of comparison since the software is the same and there is a significant overlap in players, many playing on both kinds of tables.

The difference is enormous. At the rating tables, people often accuse there partners of being stupid and the opponents of cheating. When playing at rating tables, I often feel tempted to do the same, and I sometimes make up a silly excuse for leaving the table to prevent my sucking partner from ruining my rating. Allthough I know, of course, that my partner has the universal 90% probability of being better than his partner, just like I have. The rating-free tables are very nice, on the contrary.

Also, the log-in-names must be related to IRL names and the organisation will ask you for a copy of your driver's license or such if they suspect a faked identity. The organisation claims that this discourages rudeness, presumably because the fact that you can be traced descourages bad behavior. Actually, in my impression things have improved a lot since those regulation were introduced.

It may not be completely fair to compare that site to BBO, since the Dutch site has the advantage that everybody is able to chat in there mothertongue. Also, many players know each other from offline.

[guggie]

Yes Helene

The problem is the non-competition tables often have a real low standard of the game, more like coffee visit. The competition table have the better game, but also sometimes rudeness (it is far more easy to be rude in your own language;-)), quitting, and occasionally players who you know to be advanced at the most, to have staggering high rating.
Besides that it is almost impossible to find a rating system that is adequate (remember those boring endless threads about it at the dutch forum??). As Holland is a small country, we all know who is really expert and who is not. The rating of those expert players was in no way reflecting their skills, as those players really didnt care about it. The ones who care are the rather mediocre players.

I think rating induces people to show their worst character traits. I prefer the idea of Sceptic:

Learning: can be at each level, but people loving the game and wanting to improve

Arrogant: walk around in a big circle.

and i add:

Chit chatters: people not really caring about bridge but using it to socialize either f2f or on internet

As I like to teach I love to play with beginner-learners, and as i love to improve my game, i love to play with higher-level learners.

[andych]

paulhar, on Jun 22 2004, 09:08 PM, said:

Here is the poll as promised.

Before one votes he/she should not see the voting results so far?

[dogsbreath]

I reset my ratings once, in the harbour at Portpatrick, but they got really unpleasant about it and threatened to do something unspeakable to me with the 2nd anchor. I had to take them to the Crown and ply them with strong ale.
rgds dog

Quote

furnulum pani nolo

[Trpltrbl]

People that play on sites with ratings are very protective of their ratings. And therefor they are a lot meaner, unless you have a set game. Where you know who everybody is. But what is this obsession with ratings ? Don't you play in real life? If you win often at high levels, you are a good player. I f you lose most of the time you have stuff to learn.
What's the point ? You need someone else telling you who or what you are ?
Plsss

Mike

[EarlPurple]

Free, on Jun 23 2004, 11:19 AM, said:

What's that supposed to mean? It was 1NT-(2♣)-2♠-(pass)-2NT*... Very nice explanation imo - ahum!

It means: "when I open 1NT I expect to declare the hand, partner..."

A hog bid, usually followed by misplay.

[nige1]

The poll is a trifle idiosyncratic

• I can't see why the poll insists as a precondition that only those with experience of a rated site, may participate. Presumably if you've left a a rated site to join BBO, it is likely that you don't like ratings. I was a member of a rated site and found players to be less rude than on BBO. For example, the rating system made it much less likely that they would leave in the middle of a hand. (I left because I could not afford the annual subscription).
  
• The poll options are quaint and amusing but biased and unsymmetrical.
  
• I would prefer a boring old scale from Strongly approve through No opinion to Strongly disapprove

[DrTodd13]

This poll makes the mistake of believing that all ratings system are the same and produce the same effects. If you want to separate out reputation-based systems from ratings systems that is fine with me but in general there are two types of ratings, objective and subjective. Objective ratings computed with a formula do tend to create a somewhat more hostile environment but not as much as think many here believe. Subjective ratings I think have potential to eliminate many of the negatives of an objective ratings system in that you can rate playing ability and "niceness" separately. If someone is a jerk then their niceness rating will go down and hopefully they will want to improve this by being nicer.

[BillHiggin]

I chose other, but do not really intend to e-mail my explanation - here it is:

Having played extensively at a site with a rating system, my observation is/was that a small percentage of players distorted their behaviour (both social and bridge) because of the ratings. Another slightly more substantial minority basically played bridge as best they could, behaved fine but complained frequently about glitches in the rating system. The majority played bridge to their ability, behaved as best they could and let the ratings take care of themselves.

There were some players who figured out ways to manipulate the rating system and distorted their bridge to do so. There were more who thought they knew how to manipulate the rating system (but were actually wrong in their strategy) and distorted their bridge in an attempt to do so (many tried to avoid low rated partners, but the rating system actually greatly favored the stronger partner of a low rated partnership). Again, the majority just played bridge. I tended to not chose to play with very low rated players - because they were very poor players (you will not see me advertising for beginner partners at BBO either).

I do think that the "no formal rating" policy is the proper choice.