I have an "internal" rating for players: - Novice: Either having no clue at all ("It's a card game, right?"), opens and bids randomly with any kind of hand; or polish players where it seems to be some sort of in-joke (i have yet to meet a true polish novice, no success so far) - Beginner: Has heard of Stayman and Blackwood, opens with 13 hcp (no less!), plays finesses whenever possible, usually plays another round of trumps after all have been drawn "just to make sure" - Intermediate: Uses Stayman, transfers and a random assortment of other stuff routinely, opens with 11/12 hcp, usually counts at least the trump suit, most of the times correctly - Advanced: Is able to recognize and execute a simple squeeze, has a thorough understanding of many bidding systems and a great many conventions, often opens with ~10 hcp, usually tries successfully to count all (important) suits - Expert (i): Like "Intermediate". To disguise that puts up a somewhat grumpy and/or haughty attitude. Flees the table when caught with something stupid - Expert (ii): Has been playing Bridge for over 40 years in a remote village in Turkey or Bulgaria, has never heard of bidding sytems or conventions and routinely passes or raises your transfer and cue bids (but when playing often does so faultlessly) - Expert (iii): Has a very thorough understanding of all aspects of the game, can tell you the propability of the successfulness of a line within 2 digits behind the comma, opens and bids with any kind of hand, avoids finesses (last resort!), Blackwood (last resort!), all non-experts and SAYC ("brute force bidding") - Expert (iv): Any mixture of the three above - World Class: My only experience with such a player was a fellow with no name and no profile dropping by at my table (i'm "intermediate" myself). He did not greet anybody and after my "World Class p??" followed by three smilies he immediately left. Left me with the suspicion that he was not, in fact, world class at all. :) This self-rating has its downsides but i think the possibility to make yourself a profile where you can state your knowledge of the game and the possibilty to lock the table somewhat evens that out. As far as i've seen on Vugraph even the greatest players can make the most stupid mistakes. If one self-proclaimed expert makes one mistake after the other it does not necessarily mean that he is not, in fact, one. It might just mean that he's having a bad night. Or that he's had this one glass of Bordeaux too many... On the other hand: My brother, making software development, is member of a website where you can introduce yourself to potential employers via a profile. There you can self-rate your understanding of software developments various aspects, like html, c++, etc. on a scale ranging from 1 (basics) to 5 (expert). You can also participate in online-tests, the results being displayed in the same manner. An astoundingly high number of people, so he says, give themselves a 4 or a 5 in their self-rating while the test results show them to have achieved just a 2 or a 3...I find it very, very peculiar that, according to my brother, people rate themselves often 2 levels higher than their test results, which are, amazingly, displayed right next to it... I think that this is something like a "devil's spiral". An abundance of "experts" breeds an abundance of "experts". It might be quite difficult to be "honest" when you keep experiencing disadvantages in doing so. Either in job or in leisure...
