[lordmayo]

Many leading bridge sites have this. It will help create focus, reduce the number of runners and encourage people to join tournaments. The math for it is fairly straightforward and available online. The only exception I would recommend is a strong negative for someone who runs.

[hrothgar]

 lordmayo, on 2012-November-21, 16:35, said:

Many leading bridge sites have this. It will help create focus, reduce the number of runners and encourage people to join tournaments. The math for it is fairly straightforward and available online. The only exception I would recommend is a strong negative for someone who runs.

wow... Such a new and original suggestion.

It's remarkable that no one has discussed this over the course of the last decade...

[RunemPard]

This has been suggested...a lot...I would like a rating system, but just here to let ya know that you are not the first to think this, and post it here.

[mike777]

This has been discussed a thousand and two times here...anything new to say?

[jillybean]

Fred has voted, end of topic. Let's sticky this one.

[Antrax]

Great newbie bashing, well done all.

Two relevant threads you can find (using google search for these forums):
http://www.bridgebas...54526-bboskill/ is the most recent "serious" discussion about this
http://www.bridgebas...rating-players/ is a sticky thread from this forum (so it was reasonable to start there) that discusses the theory and difficulties of player ratings.
So the second one is more theoretical, and the first one focuses more on potential implications of such a system.
If you want to read more, there are several other threads, all available via Googling site:bridgebase.com "rating system"

[Phil]

If this wasn't pinned as a topic then Hrothgar would be out of line (more than he usually is).

Its pinned. This has been considered and rejected.

/lock thread

/close thread.

[losercover]

For a few days there was a rating system on BBO based on your tournament history. I self rated myself as expert and was rated as advanced by the algororithm. I play almost exclusively robot tournaments which doesn't accurately reflect real bridge. My current percentage is 55% and it goes up and down. I'll put together a string of 60+ games an then mix in some below 50% games where I've played solid bridge.

Rating is like grading on a curve, so your rank is dependent on who you are playing against. Masterpoints are accumulated. Chess ranking is based on how you have performed lately.

The best way to rate a player is watching them play over a reasonable period of time.

[Zelandakh]

You self rate as Expert? Perhaps you could also include mentioning which major national events you have won. You probably already know that the rating system you referred to has a very strong tendency to overrate players. For example, I am an Intermediate and was rated at bboskill as Expert. That is because I was mostly playing against other Intermediates and bboskill was incredibly bad at taking the strength of opponents into account. Of course, if you play regularly against World Class opponents then bboskill Advanced is a strong rating. However, if you think that the bboskill "algortihm" was significantly more reliable than self-ratings then I suspect you are one of the (many) players who are looking for justification for rating differently from the BBO guidelines. For reference, on BBO Expert level is defined as: "Someone who has enjoyed success in major national tournaments", while Advanced is: "Someone who has been consistently successful in clubs or minor tournaments." Which of these describes you better?

[mgoetze]

 lordmayo, on 2012-November-21, 16:35, said:

The math for it is fairly straightforward and available online.

"[T]here is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong."
-- H. L. Mencken

[eagles123]

I know this has probably already been said but for me the problem with the rating system is simple: there just aren't enough options. Especially in the middle range: from BBO

Beginner - Someone who has played bridge for less than one year
Advanced - Someone who has been consistently successful in clubs or minor tournaments

in my opinion to have only one rating option between those two is ludicrous, there's a huge range of abilities between beginner and advanced and they can only be shown in one rating option...

my rant over

[barmar]

Sure, there's a huge range of abilities. But since people can't accurately assess which category they belong in, there's not much point in offering them as options.

A small number of broad categories holds out a small glimmer of hope that players will put themselves in the appropriate one. A larger number of narrow categories practically guarantees that they'll pick the wrong one.

[Bbradley62]

It appears to me that the "everyone lies; you can too" line has been removed from the BBO instructions on how to fill out a profile and replaced with: "All members should strive to give an honest approximation of their skill level. This is very much in the best interest of everyone who plays on BBO."

Thank you for that.

Edit: The "everyone lies" line is actually still there. Oh well...

[nige1]

 lordmayo, on 2012-November-21, 16:35, said:

Many leading bridge sites have this. It will help create focus, reduce the number of runners and encourage people to join tournaments. The math for it is fairly straightforward and available online. The only exception I would recommend is a strong negative for someone who runs.

Intriguing idea but there's no demand

[blackshoe]

 eagles123, on 2012-December-21, 10:03, said:

I know this has probably already been said but for me the problem with the rating system is simple: there just aren't enough options. Especially in the middle range: from BBO

Beginner - Someone who has played bridge for less than one year
Advanced - Someone who has been consistently successful in clubs or minor tournaments

in my opinion to have only one rating option between those two is ludicrous, there's a huge range of abilities between beginner and advanced and they can only be shown in one rating option...

my rant over

I don't know what BBO says, but I'd stick "intermediate" between those two:

Intermediate - Someone who has played bridge for more than one year, but has not been consistently successful in clubs or minor tournaments.



That's probably about 95% of all players. Maybe more.

[barmar]

There already is an "intermediate" level. Eagles123 was suggesting that there should be more than just this one.

For reference, the levels available are Novice, Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, Expert, World Class, and Private.

[blackshoe]

How are they defined?

[Bbradley62]

BBO's Rules of This Site said:

Guidelines for filling out your User Profile

There is an area in your user profile where you can enter information about your level of play. It is not important how well you think you play since most bridge players are unable to assess their own skills with any accuracy. What matters is your level of experience and the degree of success that you have had in live competitive clubs and tournaments. Here are some examples of terms that you can use and how they should be interpreted:

Novice - Someone who recently learned to play bridge
Beginner - Someone who has played bridge for less than one year
Intermediate - Someone who is comparable in skill to most other members of BBO
Advanced - Someone who has been consistently successful in clubs or minor tournaments
Expert - Someone who has enjoyed success in major national tournaments
World Class - Someone who has represented their country in World Championships

Despite the wording above, these are not just "some examples of terms that you can use"; these are exactly your choices (in addition to "private") from a drop-down menu.