nullve

I never thought they did. Just look around the the Main Bridge Club and see if you can spot a MP table. There won't be many.

I did a little experiment today, to see how long it would take me to get a MP game when I chose different self-ratings. I had decided to give up if the table wasn't full after 10 minutes, though. Result: * I didn't manage to get a game as Private, Novice, Beginner, Intermediate or Advanced. In fact, noone turned up except after 9 minutes when I was Private. * I got a game as Expert after 3 minutes. I didn't try to self-rate as World Class after I got a game as Expert.

You might have rediscovered the Dunning-Kruger effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Interestingly,

I agree with what helene_t said, except that I think she forgot to mention that 'range' is also used (esp. in her field, statistics) in the sense of a difference between extreme values, in which case range of the set {10,11,12,13,14,15} is 15-10=5, not 6. So I can sort of understand the confusion.

Suppose a 2N overcall would have shown 15-17 hcp. Then West's hand is arguably too strong for that, and also for passing, so a reasonable plan would be to double first, intending to raise spades or rebid 2N, the latter suggesting something like 18-20 bal. A thinking player sitting East would then look at his doubleton diamond and wonder why North didn't raise preemptively at these colours. E.g. if 2♦ promised 6 diamonds (as it probably did), North would be able to make a Law-ful raise with 3-card or better support, but also with doubleton support whenever he could infer that EW had an 8-card major suit fit. So from East's perspective it would definitely look like West had 3+ D and therefore most likely 18+ bal. That in itself would not be a sufficient reason for passing, but suppose East also knew that North was a particularly aggressive player who would consistently raise with doubleton support at these colours, or that North just showed great discomfort over 2♦X. Either way it would look to East like West had not just three, but at least four diamonds. That would still not be a sufficient reason for passing (and a LoTT argument would show why), but I can understand why honest non-novice players might consider it. The most likely explanation for EW's bidding, however, is that East was a novice.

Because of the slapstick factor, perhaps, with White's confident king hunt, e.g. 1. e4-f5 2. exf5-g6 3. fxg6-hxg6 4. Qg4-Kf7 5. Bd3-Rh6 6. Nf3 etc., sometimes followed by Black chasing the white queen while developing all his pieces and establishing a strong centre. Which only proves that at intermediate level blitz, anything goes as far as opening theory is concerned. (Chances are that pieces will be blundered away a few moves down the road, anyway, and no opening can compensate for that.) I also like to play serious openings, btw.

Isn't this just as true of bridge? This seems to be less of a problem on chess.com where players know that if they leave, they will lose both the game and rating points. So perhaps the rating system there has a disciplining effect. (It certainly has on me.)

Partly because bridge can naturally be viewed as a two-player game with each pair being one player. In the words of von Neumann & Morgenstern: And why shouldn't pairs be interested in finding out how good they are as single players at this 2-player game? Why does bridge have to be different from chess and other ELO-rated 2-player games in this respect?

My favourite would be a good hcp evaluator. Bad hcp evaluators, e.g. Milton Work, make hcp ranges look smaller than they really are, and sometimes hcp ranges will look adjacent when they really are overlapping. So e.g. while the standard NT ladder, using Milton Work, is 1x, then 1N = 12-14 1N = 15-17 1x, then 2N = 18-19 2N = 20-21 2C, then 2N = 22-24 etc., from the perspective of a good hcp evaluator, calibrated so that aces, kings, queens and jacks are still worth a total of 40 hcp, the ladder might look more like 1x, then 1N = 11-15 1N = 14-18 1x, then 2N = 17-20 2N = 19-22 2C, then 2N = 21-25 etc., which everone understands is bad. Also, because the ranges are wider than they have to, people tend to play a lot of invitational bids that would otherwise be pointless, e.g. invitational 2N and 3M bids after a prima facie 15-17 NT.

Thanks for the tips. I know. I thought it might be fun to hear bridge players/bidding theorists reason about the chess equivalent of a (dubious) bidding convention/system. After all, bidding theory and chess opening theory are strikingly similar fields, but bridge players might have a different perspective on chess opening theory than chess players who don't play bridge. I consider my own views on chess opening theory to be absolutely worthless, though, so I think must have been in a slightly silly mood when I started this topic.

I'm not sure South needs to be creative in order to that. I mean, he has already denied doubleton (or primary) support in such a strong hand by not raising 3♦ to 4♦, so by bidding 3♥ first he may now be showing only singleton (or secondary) support.

Sorry about that. That's the Staunton Gambit, by tranposition, but I thought main line Fred was either 2. exf5-Nf6 or 2. exf5-Kf7.

I play the following (nameless?) variation of Fred's Defence 1. e4-f5 2. exf5-g6 3. fxg6-hxg6 a lot as Black (in blitz at a modest ~1400 level), and it would be fun to hear from fellow forumers how you would go about refuting it. Moves and reasoning, please!

This:

I'm glad you've changed your mind. About unblocking the ♣J: I don't think you've spotted what I was trying to do when I discarded the ♠K. (Definitely not intended as a double dummy play, although it was one.)

No. trick 1: ♥3,♥,5♥9,♥K (won by NS) trick 2: ♦K,♦A,♦2,♦T (won by EW) trick 3: ♥8,♥T,♥J,♠K (won by EW) trick 4: ♣K This is the position manudude03 was talking about. (Yes, the ♠K is gone, so EW can defeat the contract directly once they get in again.)

There's no way I could have made 7 tricks legitimately at that point.

Sorry, I don't think you've thought this through.

Which unblocking play did I miss and how was it relevant?

East xxx Qxxxx Txxx x Bidding: 1♣-1♥ 2♠1)-? 1) GF by agreement See also http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/73133-jumpreverse-gameforcing/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/promises/ And, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

So why not keep separate rankings for each category, if necessary? Look at chess: there are separate rankings for standard, rapid and blitz. (See e.g. https://ratings.fide.com/toplist.phtml)

I used to play "Iron Fist" on the bass when I was 14.

And how do you determine their skill level without a rating system?

Pass. Easy LoTT decision.