HighLow21

After reviewing some of the replies to this thread I want to be clear here: I am suggesting 3 separate problems, as I see them, with the current BBO rating system. They are presented in increasing order of complexity, in terms of the cost of implementing a solution to them, and the magnitude of the potential dangers of such implementations. (1) The current system is far too simple, in terms of its explanation, for most people to use accurately. Let's improve the documentation of that system. (2) The current system results in far too many people being most accurately assessed as "Intermediates." This limits the usefulness of the system. Let's consider revising the core system so that not as many people would most accurately fit into "Intermediate." (3) Self-rating alone, no matter what improvements can be made upon it, is fraught with problems. Can we consider alternative options to this. Note that (1) and (2) involve leaving the current system essentially unchanged, but improving upon it at the margins. In my view: small cost, small set of new problems, vast potential improvement. Please reread this if it isn't clear. I never expect many possible solutions to (3) to get implemented here, but maybe there's a compromise that will make some people happy. Hey, if we're talking about a "wish list," not a "to-do list," it can't hurt to discuss it, right?

OK that's a very good point. So your suggestion is to have (a) "Novice" or "Newbie" forum, (b) B/I, and (c ) A/E, correct? Doing so might provide some additional benefits, as well, and more broadly, the idea of realigning the forums in (1) precisely your suggested way or (2) some similar derivative of that way couldlead to other benefits as well. As a comment to your thread pointed out, self-rating comes into play here... after all, how does one know which forums to read and post in, unless one has a fairly good idea of where they stand? Hence the inspiration for me to post about my thoughts on the current rating system-->followed by some suggestions that are open to criticism, refinement, discussion, etc.

Chris I recognize that a results and performance-based rating system (i.e., not one that is self-assigned) is fraught with dangers and a lot of work to implement. That is why I clearly separated it out as Problem (3). Problems (1) and (2) if handled right, in my opinion, could be done (a) without many new problems, (b) without very much work, and (c ) with substantial positive upside potential for the BBO community.

Here is the thread Diana is referring to: Rating Players: Basic Theory It is in the general BBO Discussion forum, not this one. It is an excellent read from what I've looked at so far, and if I see any reason to update my original post after reading it all, I will definitely do so.

Here is the description available for self-rating according to BBO. This is available from Help | The Rules of this Site in the web-based client:

(1) I do, and a lot of people I know do. In fact, I would posit that almost everybody who thinks about it cares about it, but many who would care MORE about it have dismissed it entirely because it's so inaccurate. That's precisely why they don't care about it. That, anyway, is my opinion. (2) Really. :) (3) I haven't seen the other posts and I am sure this has come up many times. I'm not interested in re-inventing the wheel here, but I had some ideas and thought "It's better to put them out there and see whether they gain any traction that to sit and grumble about the problems in a system that I find inherently fixable." (4) The idea came up specifically today in a discussion about the possible splitting of some skill level-based forums here (specifically, the B/I and A/E split, and whether it'd be better to do something else, such as B, I, and A/E). My thought is: if we're discussing this split, why not discuss improving the self-rating system as well? You are entitled to your opinion Chris, but in all due respect (and I do mean this, I'm not being sarcastic): so am I.

Agreed with this, but if the Matrix idea (A1, above) is implemented thoughtfully, and people actually use it as honestly as they are capable of using it, it could help and couldn't hurt in my opinion. Plus, I see tremendous value from trying to separate the 90% or so who would fall into 'Intermediate' under the current regime. Of course not. In any self-rating system, intentional misuse cannot be avoided. My thesis is simply that the current system and explanation of it aren't particularly good, and that it's not as helpful as it could be to people who WANT to self-assess accurately. I agree that there are ways around the problems inherent in the current system. That's not, in my opinion, a valid reason for failing to entertain ideas for improving the current system.

How about this: I am going to do so now, and afterwards will edit my OP to reflect anything relevant. Sound good?

I'm in the process of completing a writeup of my Muppets Take Manhattan system; notes to be available soon. B-)

Hi everyone, A post by wyman about the possibility of changing the skill-level breakdowns in the forums (currently "B/I" and "A/E") has prompted me to start thinking about the self-rating system here on BBO. I think many people will agree that it's better than nothing but, as it currently stands, it's often insufficient as implemented and actually used. I'd like to begin a discussion about ways to improve it --> not that such a discussion will necessarily lead to actual changes, but more to flesh out some possible ideas for changes and get a sense of what others think of the system and how it could be improved. If the discussion is thoughtful and productive, perhaps it will give the BBO management some incentive to consider implementing some of the recommended changes. The Problem. To me there are 3 significant problems with the system that could potentially be fixed (I encourage people to include their own perceived problems in this thread): (A) The explanation for self-assigning the skill rating is far too simple and compares things that are not really comparable. (I will attach the explanation in a follow-up post to this thread.) (B) The explanation, as written, leads to far too large a percentage of the BBO population being lumped together in "Intermediate" and therefore is less helpful than it could be. (C ) Because the system is self-assigned and is not corroborated by any metrics of actual experience or ability, there are many people who self-rate very inaccurately. I think (A) and (B) are actually very easy to fix or to improve upon. I think (C ) opens a massive can of worms, but still can be improved upon. It just would require a lot more work, in my estimation. Problem (A): Explanation is too simple. I've attached the explanation for choosing a rating in a follow-up post to this thread. It only takes into account one dimension of a player's skill and experience levels, and across different ability levels, the dimensions taken into account are not comparable. For example: - the definition of a "Beginner" is given in terms of calendar length of experience; - the definition of "Intermediate" is based on a broad definition of skill RELATIVE to other players; - the definition of "Advanced" is based upon performance in two specific environments (clubs and minor tournaments). This only takes into account one aspect of a player's overall skill and experience, and across different categories, the aspects are not comparable. Here is one suggestion I propose to improve this: (A1) Develop a self-assessment "matrix". The column headers of the matrix represent different dimensions of a player's game. The row headers of the matrix correspond to different skill designations. Explain that most players will show signs of different ability levels for different dimensions of the game. Ask the player to self-rate with the skill designation that seems to be the closest overall match. For the row headers I propose the following: - Bidding system comprehension - Bidding skill - Declarer play skill - Defensive play skill - Length of experience - Lifetime # hands played - Typical performance results - Tournament participation For the Intermediate row, as an example, the descriptions I would include in the columns would be something like this: - Bidding system comprehension: "Strong or complete understanding of one system (e.g., SAYC, 2/1, Precision) and some knowledge of other systems. Have played variations of some conventions." - Bidding skill: "Ability to re-evaluate hands under some conditions. Capable of making some good judgment calls not dictated by system." - Declarer play skill: "Ability to count winners and losers. Ability to assess different lines of play and compare some of them. Some experience with advanced play concepts, such as endplays and squeezes." - Defensive play skill: "Understands basic signalling. Has a decent sense of when to switch suits and which suits to switch to. Understands the concept of passive vs. active defense. Can assess some of the pros and cons of different opening leads depending upon the auction." - Length of experience: "Typically 1-10 years of experience." - Lifetime # hands played: "Typically 10,000-100,000 lifetime hands." - Typical performance results: "Above average in the MBC; average to above average in minor tournaments; interest in developing as a player and proceeding to more challenging levels of play." - Tournament participation: "Depends, but typically active in minor tournaments with the possible occasional entrance in higher level tournaments." Problem (B): Too Many Intermediates. As we discussed, the current system is set up such that probably 90% of BBO players fit into this category. Two possible solution ideas: (B1) Redefine Intermediate bracket endpoints within the current context. For example, make the bottom level something like "2+ years of experience" and make the top level something like "some success in MBC, clubs, or minor tournaments." (B2) Proceed as in (A1), above. Further flesh out ranges of ability across all dimensions of play at all levels. Potentially tighten the definition of Intermediates, allowing some players to flow back into Beginner and others to flow into Advanced. (B3) Add a new class between Beginner and Intermediate. Call this category "Improving" or "Solid" or "Average" or some such thing. Broadly, have this category take on the characteristics of what would probably constitute, roughly, the bottom half of current Intermediates. Other ideas appreciated. Problem (C ): Self-Rating is unsubstantiated and often inaccurate. I think this problem speaks for itself, but I foresee a broad spectrum of ways to improve this. Here are some ideas for "quick" fixes: (C1) Give an indication of # of lifetime BBO hands played in the player profile. (The best proxy we have currently is # of logins and signup date.) (C2) Give an indication of scoring averages attained by the player, either lifetime or over the past month or so. (C3) Give an indication of the player's level of participation in tournaments. (# of tournaments played, recent results, etc.) Here are some ideas for more difficult fixes: (C4) Have the player rating tied directly to the aforementioned metrics. (This leads to a whole host of potential problems as discussed in a separate thread, where some of the behaviors of players on a different site, which does this, are designed explicitly to manipulate or protect their rating. This can be a huge problem.) (C5) Have a battery of tests available for players to take to "qualify" for various levels of ability. Make it so that self-assigned ratings of some levels are unavailable to people who have not passed these qualifying tests. (C6) Develop a "wizard" that a player can use to review past decisions (bidding and play) and assess the player's skill. (This is a huge undertaking but worth its weight in gold and highly marketable if done well.) Any thoughts appreciated. -Tate

100% agreed. The gulf between "1 year of bridge experience" and "enjoying consistent success at clubs and minor tournaments" is gigantic. Particularly given that those two criteria are measuring totally different things. That said, changing the self-rating system is a massive undertaking, and it would take weeks/months/years before the majority of the BBO population would understand and broadly reflect the changed system. Thus under the assumption that the self-rating system is not changing but the forum breakdown can be changed, the change I recommended above, or something similar to it, would get my vote.

Here are my opinions on the questions you posed: It is worth a heck of a lot more than 15 HCP would suggest. You have 6-4 (powerful) shape, a great suit, and not a single wasted honor. It is close, but the choice is between 3♥ and 4♥. I would bid 4♥ personally. But if partner is good enough to realize that K♥ is worth gold, and that honors outside of spades are much more helpful than ones in spades, then 3♥ is enough. I like to use the concept of "perfect minimum" here. On the auction, assume the 2♠ bidder has about 9 HCP. We have 15, so there are 16 remaining in the deck for partner and LHO. A normal assumption in competing over a preempt is that partner has about 8 HCP, which in this scenario is half of the remaining HCP. Let's say partner is a bit below that with 6 HCP, but has the perfect 6 as given by Art above. You would want to be in game, wouldn't you? Then bid it if partner is unlikely to know how good his perfect 6 is, and bid 3♥ otherwise. I realize partner's true minimum is 0 HCP, but playing like that is just scared bridge --> especially at these colors. Yes. I'd bid 3♥ at Matchpoints and 4♥ at other forms. As Art pointed out, Lebensohl is not relevant on the auction given so far.

And actually I agree with wyman's proposed dissection of the forums. Something like: (1) N/B (novice and beginners--> no fear of Gazilli or muppet Stayman monsters here, because they're inappropriate at this level) (2) I (intermediates should have their own forum since the vast majority of BBO players are truly I, and this forum could be dedicated to the players who are trying to climb through the vasts internal ranks of intermediate-ness on the way to advanced) (3) A/E (debatable whether further distillation here should occur. There are thousands of ideas that are helpful for me but uninformative for Phil or JLOGIC or a host of other Expert+ players; other posts are helpful for them and a bit over my head. But I have enough sense to know when a post is beyond what I'm ready for.) -Tate

I agree with both of you fully and, in reference to some extremely ill-fated comments of my own from 2 weeks ago, wherein (among many other bad posting decisions by me) I introduced the idea of some posts by a world class player (WCP) as being "dangerous." This is precisely what I was referring to. Much of the advice that is applicable to a typical mid-intermediate is positively mind-boggling and dangerous as dynamite to a true beginner. Now, I have discussed this with said WCP and we have smoothed things over entirely, but the spirit of the comment still stands: some advice that is constructive for a mid-intermediate is hazardous to a beginner's bridge game, even with a full explanation and series of caveats. Meanwhile, some advice that is constructive to a beginner is utterly insulting to a mid-intermediate. Please separate the forums.

Personally, I would rebid 3♥ with the second hand, and I might not with the first hand. The reason is that I would have passed out 2♥ with the first hand, knowing that 3♥ might go down. Yes, the first hand has a good trump suit and a 6th trump, but to me the 3♥ bid suggests that (1) 3♥ is quite likely to make, and (2) I'm not scared of partner re-evaluating his hand and giving me 4♥. Thus to me, passing here means you had a minimum transfer, and 3♥ is (again) to play, but mildly invitational if partner is near-maximum (in this case, that would mean less about his HCP and more about his fit: yes he probably has exactly 2 hearts. But does he have aces and kings in the side suits, or quacks? And how many of his HCP are in minor honors in diamonds, where they are proven to be likely worthless?) I suspect that there will be wide variance among people, in terms of what people think bidding 3♥ means, and I'm willing to bet most partnerships will agree that it shows 6 hearts but will be unclear about how invitational it is. But I could definitely be wrong about that. Also: yes partner is unlikely to have 3 hearts, but I do know some people who will not accept the transfer after interference holding 3 hearts if (1) the hand is flattish or minimum and (2) the 3 hearts do not include at least a queen.

I like that explanation and I was thinking along the same lines actually. In between a natural rebid of 2M and 3M, semi-balanced, lots of HCP in the short suits. I mean, I'd like to play that hand in NT much of the time and maybe the right way to get there is to bid it.

I agree man... this is one of the most exciting moments in bridge!!!

By any kind of heart support I meant something like Axx (unlikely, as partner didn't accept the transfer) all the way down to QT♥. Both are more than sufficient and partner couldn't know that QT♥ was good enough. You might have been transferring on 87654♥ and either (1) planning to pass, hoping it'd be better than 1NT, or (2) invite or force game with 2NT or 3NT. All partner did is let us know that he doesn't insist on playing in hearts. One thing I am not doing is letting them play in 3♦ when I have a singleton, partner seems unlikely to have much wasted in that suit, and I know we have an 8-card major fit and at least half the deck. And if partner likes his heart cards and (maybe) offensive hand, I'm not wincing if he puts me in game.

The fact that the second auction (1NT opened) strongly suggests that game is unlikely, while on the first auction, game will be there quite often. Another way of thinking about it is this... on the first auction, it is quite common that partner had no convenient bid in first seat, but plenty of strength. Thus we jump the bidding to let him know we are QUITE strong and don't need much to make a game. Partner could be dead broke, but it is extremely unlikely, and he could conceivably have an opening bid. In the second auction, partner will have, on average, about 4HCP. Sometimes he will have 0. He will never have 10 points. If you were to jump to 3♠ he very well might put you in game with spade support, an ace, and out, and you do not want that.

I agree with ggwhiz on this entirely. One of my favorite scenarios is when I'm in 4th seat with the auction 1M-X-XX to me, and I'm sitting there with the other major and a decent hand (say, 6-10 HCP). This tells me unequivocally that the redouble was (most incorrectly) based on a fit and a minimum response, not a strong response with no fit. A very common result of this incorrect redouble is that opener doubles us for penalty in our best suit holding AKx, thinking the defense will be murder. And we waltz home with a game contract at the 2 level when they were cold for 4 of their major. This kind of thing happens all the time, and 99% of the ATB goes to the redoubler.

Nevermind. Barry nailed it --> we're not talking about a single hand or two that demonstrates that an error was made and happens to work out. We're talking about a pattern of unbelievably fortunate calls that are well outside the norm. Once or twice it's quite probably good luck. Five or ten times in a 20 hand session? It's cheating.

Here is my opinion of this situation. The traditional view is that redouble should be used on this hand with 10+ HCP regardless of fit. The modern view, in my understanding, is that it denies a fit and suggests doubling them for penalty whenever possible. With no fit for partner's suit, there might be a killing to be had in defense of any contract by them, without a making game on for our side. The modern treatment of course is to have a gadget to show a strong hand with a fit, such as the Jordan 2nt convention. That way you can differentiate between strength with a fit (2NT) and strength without a fit (XX). If the auction reveals later that you have a secondary fit, then of course you should go after your own contract rather than defending.

3♥, to play. If partner has good heart support and a max hand he might venture 4♥. Passing would show, in my view at least, a minimum transfer in hearts with 5 hearts (either one or both).

Absurd but not ludicrous? B-) I can see valid points for either 1♥ or 2♣ but I think it is absurd to say that not opening 2♣ is absurd. Do you really want partner doubling 4♠ for penalty after you opened 2♣? He would be quite unhappy to double 4♠ with a trickless hand and watch as they stroke it home making or with an overtrick. Or maybe even two if luck is really running dry. I open 1♥ because: 1. I have no idea what to do over 4♠ by them if I open 2♣ and I do not trust a double of 4♠ by partner. 2. My defense is not great at all. All this good stuff might add up to 2 defensive tricks. 3. My suit is not the boss suit. 4. I do not have enough quick tricks. 5. I only have 16 HCP; thus if partner cannot bid over 1♥, their side will have a making game somewhere quite often.

There is from me. It is borderline, to be sure, and I do not have any qualms with anyone who does not open 2♣. But I'm all about 2♣ on this hand. Here are some different rules I can apply: 1. 4+ QT's and 4- losers? Check. (Well, almost. Technically 3.5 QT's, but that wrongly ignores the 2 rounded queens and the j spades, any of which might be a quickie.) 2. Would I feel squeamish if a 1-bid were passed out all around? Check. 3. Will I make game on at least a substantial minority of the hands where partner would pass my 1-bid out? Check. There are 4 cards I care about and any one of them with partner makes game a good bet: K♠, A♥, K♥, A♦. A priori, the odds that partner has at least one of these is about 70%, and even without any of them game might make (on a trump lead, or a singleton K♠, or a singleton heart, or a defensive error). True, it is much less likely on this hand than on a "normal borderline 2♣ opener" that 1♠ will be passed all the way around. This is because I have so much shape AND because I have only 18HCP. But I still think a passed out cold game is more likely than getting too high opposite a weak partner, unless both (1) you have a partner who is very savvy about revaluing bad hands and (2) your opponents are hyperagressive competitors. Plus, even if the auction comes back to me, but partner passed, I don't have any reason to think I'd have more information than if I had opened 2♣ originally. Partner cannot possibly know his xx♠ Kxxx♥ xxxx♦ xxx♣ is enough for a spade game to be nearly on ice. And actually, I probably open 1♥ if my majors are reversed. Here it is much more likely that the opponents (1) will overcall in spades, and (2) have a good spade contract or save, and I intend to walk the hand up to 4♥.