New Player Definitions

[Winstonm]

I would like to suggest and hear comments about BBO creating some different terminology for playing levels. Somehow, terms such as novice, intermediate, advanced, and expert have either negative connotations or overglammorized meamings, so I'm proposing a new set of self-descriptions:

 

1. Learner: someone new to the game.

2. Player: someone who plays regularly online, in clubs, or in social settings.

3. Sectional Player: One who has won at least one sectionally-rated or equivalent event.

4. Regional Player: One who has won at least one regionally-rated or equivalent event.

5. National Player: One who has won at least one or placed highly multiple times in a nationally-rated or equivalent event.

6. World player: One who has played for his or her country in a multiple world-level events.

7. World Master: One who has won a world-level event.

 

Winston

[Free]

Great idea! Much better than the current system imo

[luke warm]

i like it, w... i also like

 

beginner - new to the game, be gentle

novice - didn't just fall of the turnip truck

intermediate - follows rules of thumb very effectively

intermediate plus - can have flashes of excellence, but seems to have short term memory problems (ahem)

advanced - a gifted player who rarely embarress him/herself against other advanced/expert players (i put the word "rarely" in here to keep me out)

expert - a gifted player who rarely embarress him/herself against other expert/world class players

world class - whomever fred ordains as such

[Winstonm]

i like it, w... i also like

 

beginner - new to the game, be gentle

novice - didn't just fall of the turnip truck

intermediate - follows rules of thumb very effectively

intermediate plus - can have flashes of excellence, but seems to have short term memory problems (ahem)

advanced - a gifted player who rarely embarress him/herself against other advanced/expert players (i put the word "rarely" in here to keep me out)

expert - a gifted player who rarely embarress him/herself against other expert/world class players

world class - whomever fred ordains as such

I'm with you J, but I think the problem is the nomenclature: few want to term themselves beginner, novice, intermediate, etc.

 

I have a good grasp of where I stand on the totem pole - I can hold my own against some great players and lose by a small amount - :(

 

In my mind this makes me advanced - the expert is the one who beats me 8 out or 10 times. To others, this looks like expert level. To the experts who beat me, I'm probably intermediate. :)

 

So, with a new classification system, I could call myself Regional Player. I've never won a national event and probably never will (It might increase my expectations if I ever played in one, but so far I never have.)

 

Winston

[MickyB]

I'm not too keen on either of these suggestions. National events vary in quality from country to country, and some fairly weak players have won such events through use of their chequebook. My problem with Jimmy's suggestion is that it seems to define advanced and expert by knowing how good advanced and expert players are (as well as how easily they get embarrassed :) )

[mike777]

I'm not too keen on either of these suggestions. National events vary in quality from country to country, and some fairly weak players have won such events through use of their chequebook. My problem with Jimmy's suggestion is that it seems to define advanced and expert by knowing how good advanced and expert players are (as well as how easily they get embarrassed :rolleyes: )

I see this critique all the time and frankly do not understand it.

 

If a weak player wins the world championship with her checkbook, how great can the second and third place players be? If they are great then the sponsor deserves the accolades as much as any other player in the event!

 

If you disagree then beat her.

[Finch]

'sectional' and 'regional' are fairly US-based terms, I believe.

 

And as Micky says, 'national' varies a lot between countries. Who do you think is a better player: the runner up in e.g. the Spingold, or the winner of the Christmas Island championship?

[Winstonm]

'sectional' and 'regional' are fairly US-based terms, I believe.

 

And as Micky says, 'national' varies a lot between countries. Who do you think is a better player: the runner up in e.g. the Spingold, or the winner of the Christmas Island championship?

Yes, the terms are U.S. based and the reason I tried to include "or equivalent". I am not in a position to know what those might be in other countries.

 

Flights as well make a difference - one who has won a Flight A event and placed highly at other times is probably a somewhat tougher opponent than one who has won other types of events. There was a time years ago in the U.S. when the K.O. events were seeded, and you had to beat the likes of Bob Hamman and company to get to the second round - how do you factor that into the mix? Points and wins were hard to earn in those events.

 

However, the point is not to make things perfect but better.

 

I've known some rubber bridge players in my life who almost never played tournament bridge or began playing later in life and yet would drown many "tournament" players.

 

It just seems to me that renaming categories, especially into sectional, regional, and national, would help overcome the bias against self-describing as intermediate, advanced, and expert.

 

I'm open to better ideas.

 

Winston

[kgr]

I would like to suggest and hear comments about BBO creating some different terminology for playing levels. Somehow, terms such as novice, intermediate, advanced, and expert have either negative connotations or overglammorized meamings, so I'm proposing a new set of self-descriptions:

 

1. Learner: someone new to the game.

2. Player: someone who plays regularly online, in clubs, or in social settings.

3. Sectional Player: One who has won at least one sectionally-rated or equivalent event.

4. Regional Player: One who has won at least one regionally-rated or equivalent event.

5. National Player: One who has won at least one or placed highly multiple times in a nationally-rated or equivalent event.

6. World player: One who has played for his or her country in a multiple world-level events.

7. World Master: One who has won a world-level event.

 

Winston

You will have a lot of "player" on BBO.

A lot of players on BBO only play on-line and will never have won a sectional.

I play BBO and once a week in my club. I win almost every week at the club (and if not then it is because my partner made too much mistakes :rolleyes: ). I can win as much as I want, but will always be rated as a player.

...don't know what the equivalent of a sectional is in Belgium. I suppose some tournament?

[Rain]

If self rating continues, we need a standard. I think BM2K should be used for that. Its available with 6 free sample deals per level, more for a not expensive price. Just play 6 and see if you can get at least 5 and you'll know your level.

[pigpenz]

all attempts at ranking people are futile in my opinion. Maybe you should be ranked by your peers ;) Have button on a players profile where you can click on what you think they are and it keeps the average and shows it as such. There have been many people with STARS on BBO that I dont know what they did to get them and many people who say they are experts that well you know what i mean. Its a matter of how your opps rate you not how you rate yourself.

 

overheard at a acbl regional back in 1984......2 pros

"he doesnt know what he is doing"

 

the 2 pros were talking about Barry Crane!!! :rolleyes:

[jillybean]

Does rating really matter?

[luke warm]

My problem with Jimmy's suggestion is that it seems to define advanced and expert by knowing how good advanced and expert players are (as well as how easily they get embarrassed  :rolleyes: )

well you're right, m... otoh, an 'expert' who plays with world class players can either hold her own or not.. if not, she won't be playing with them long.. if so, expert she is.. so work it down, an advanced who plays with this expert either holds her own, etc etc

 

you're right about the embarrassment part... anytime i make an error i shouldn't make i'm pissed (and embarrassed)

 

Does rating really matter?

not to many of us

 

I think BM2K should be used for that. Its available with 6 free sample deals per level, more for a not expensive price. Just play 6 and see if you can get at least 5 and you'll know your level.

that would work, if the deals haven't been seen much before

[Winstonm]

Does rating really matter?

Rating, no. Self rating, maybe yes. From my play in the open room it seems that many do not like to call themselves advanced and opt for expert instead when in fact their ability is somewhat less. When a game is advertised with open seats for advanced/expert and non-advanced/experts arrive claiming expertise, it puts a burden on the table host and the new player's partner to be gracious and accept them or simply be rude and brush them aside....not a good situation either way.

 

Myself, I have little time for actual play so want to use that constructively and set up games that challenge my abilities and keep me sharp - if there is extra time or if not in serious competition mode then it is fine to open the table to all.

 

It just seems for some it would easier on the ego to be able to realistically assess their status with some tag that isn't so broad or seemingly unflattering as intermediate - seems this player may more readily acknowledge sectional player as a tag, which acknowledges the victory without overstating the event, than intermediate - a sectional winner may be intermediate or much better for that matter - but to me, this is the player (in the U.S.A.) that you generally meet in the non-flighted events at the tournaments that may have done well in local duplicates and have a few wins in local-to-sectional tournaments but who for reasons of their own do not wish to compete in the higher bracketed KOs - which is fine.

 

But when I am working on my own game, I need the test of other players equal in skill level to my own - and if I advertised an open seat for a Regional Player it would seem I would have a better chance of that type player coming in, not have to unseat someone less capable, and everyone would be happier.

 

My purpose here is only to suggest an alternative description that allows players to realistically announce not skill level exactly but more like "interest" level - from what I've seen, for many it is more enjoyable to play somewhat close to their ability level and many do not what to go up or down too much - and if this can be done without a stigma associated with the label, so much the better.

 

Winston

[kenberg]

Better self-ratings would be good, but it is difficult to bring about. The embarrasment criterion sort of appeals to me. Yesterday I could have ruffed partner's good trick and shifted to another suit to get her off an endplay. If I am going to call myself advanced, I'm supposed to be up for that. I wasn't, not this time anyway.

 

It will never be entirely possible to stop some folks from substantially overstating their abilities, but some of us really want to get it right. Good luck on this, and I will give some thought to proper naming.

 

Ken

[Free]

If self rating continues, we need a standard. I think BM2K should be used for that. Its available with 6 free sample deals per level, more for a not expensive price. Just play 6 and see if you can get at least 5 and you'll know your level.

BM2K is only for declarer play. No defense or bidding. So you actually base your rating on 25% of the playing part, and 0% on bidding part? This can't be good.

 

For kgr:

Sectional in Belgium would probably be some normal local tourney I guess (not in Leuven or Antwerpen, since these are usually higher level).

Regional is clearly 'district'...

[MickyB]

If self rating continues, we need a standard. I think BM2K should be used for that. Its available with 6 free sample deals per level, more for a not expensive price. Just play 6 and see if you can get at least 5 and you'll know your level.

BM2K is only for declarer play. No defense or bidding. So you actually base your rating on 25% of the playing part, and 0% on bidding part? This can't be good.

25% of the playing part? Does your partner hog the contracts, or do you consider being dummy a skill? ;)

 

But yes, I agree with your point :rolleyes:

[Free]

ok, make it 33.333333333333333333% (accurate enough? ;) )

 

Btw, for some people, being quiet is quite difficult, so yes, being dummy requires some skill :rolleyes:

[Al_U_Card]

I still like the idea of seeing the "myhands" average score for the previous month. If it was tagged to the player name and hovering with the mouse would show it or it would appear in the profile then at least you would have an idea of the player's performance over several hundred hands......at least people would do less silly rdbls etc. to cause pain to their erstwhile pards as it would afflict them as well.

[jillybean]

Hmmm, not so sure about this. Would that make good players think twice about playing with weaker players fearing their rating would suffer and give cheats another reason to continue with their miserable behavior.

 

jb

[Guest Jlall]

I also dislike the idea of any kind of rating system attached with performance.

[Al_U_Card]

Is the glass half full or half empty? :rolleyes:

[awm]

I'm convinced that any method for generating individual ratings is flawed. The issue is that bridge is very much a partnership game. Established long-term partnerships will almost always do better than pick-ups. Fantoni and Nunes may well be the best partnership in the world, and Meckstroth and Rodwell are top notch as well... but throw together a team of Meckstroth-Fantoni and Nunes-Rodwell (in those partnerships and with only a few minutes to discuss) and I wouldn't pick them as favorites to win a top international event.

 

Individual ratings also have negative social effects (see okbridge) in that they discourage people from playing with or against those with very different ratings. They may create incentive for people to have many "aliases" with different ratings, perhaps to distinguish between casual play and serious play.

 

On the other hand, partnership ratings might be an interesting feature to add. An easy way to compute a rating might be to take the number of masterpoints won as a pair in tournaments, and divide by the total number of masterpoints that could have been won for placing first in all tourneys entered.

 

In fact I bet the jlall-jdonn partnership comes out looking pretty good on that measure. :)

[DrTodd13]

We have to first say what the purpose of the rating is before we should say what type of rating is good or bad. Ratings may exist for several different reasons: 1) a way of tracking your progress, 2) a way of identifying potential partners and 3) a way of selecting teammates, opponents, or people to watch.

 

In the first category, you may care about random partnership performance, established partnership performance, or both.

 

In the second category, a partnership rating is useless and you really just want to see how they did with random people. Two people could both have the same delusional view of bidding and work well together and could play terribly with everyone else.

 

In the third category, you may again care about both random and established partnerships depending on whether the potential pair in question are random or established.

 

So, I don't think it is possible to say whether individual or partnership ratings are "better." They are different and each have their own uses. In my view, the problems with ratings systems are the extent to which people will lie, cheat and steal to increase their rating. I believe I have a solution for this problem and I'm willing to sell the answer to the highest bidder.

[Winstonm]

Is the glass half full or half empty? :)

Neither. The glass is too big! :P

 

Winston