I need to ask this question

[sceptic]

Is a Life master or silver life master or gold life master automatically a qualification for being an expert?

 

If you think so why and if you don't what level in the states is an expert to reach before he / she is classed an expert.

[awm]

Masterpoints and skill level aren't very well correlated, even for people who play bridge primarily in ACBL events. The issue is that you have to play for a long time to accumulate a lot of points. The problem is, we're trying to compare people who have been playing for forty years to people who have been playing for five years. And we're comparing people who play bridge basically full time to people who only play a few weekends a year. Since points only accumulate, there's no reason they'd be an accurate measure of skill.

 

Certainly any grand life master qualifies as an expert. They've won a national-level event after all. But beyond this it's pretty hard to tell. There are plenty of expert-caliber american players with under a thousand points, and some players with several thousand who I wouldn't qualify as experts.

[paulg]

England and Scotland also use masterpoints as a lifetime achievement award, although the title of Life Master is more significant than in the US.

 

In England I reckon about 5-7% of current players are Life Masters or above. According to the ACBL website ~40% of the players have the masterpoints for Life Master (although they may not have the right colors).

 

The English Life Master rank is approximately equivalent to 2100 MPs, so nearer a Gold Life Master than a Silver one.

 

Although the Scottish points system is the same the English, national (red) points are handed out more freely than in the south so the number of Life Masters is higher. Of course, that may explain why the major congresses up here are often 'raided' by southerners.

 

And none of this correlates with being an expert. Of which there are few!

 

But if you are asking whose advice (and play) to believe, then there are many who can teach but not really play, and many, many experts who can play and not teach ... in fact most of us post here <_<

 

Paul

[sceptic]

lol, thx Paul,

 

I am quite confident whos advice I listen to, I have quite a good mentor, who does not steer me wrong <_<, I am just curious about what people say to me when they have life master stuck on their profile and I think their card play is crap and they still dish out advice and stupid comments to me just before they dissappear before finishing the hand.

[kenberg]

I have a little over 2000 mps. This makes me silver, I think, but I don't much care. I classify myself, I like to think accurately, as advanced. A partner once suggested I call myself an expert. I decline. I have also received other, less flattering, suggestions. I decline those also.

 

Like everyone on BBO I have played with and against players who classify themselves as expert or even world class who can follow suit only because the software insists. It's OK.

[pclayton]

I think this is a loose correlation between MPs and skill. For instance, am I better player than I was when I had 500 points? I'd like to think so <_<

 

OTOH, I'm sure there are a few players with 500 points better than me (hopefully not too many :o ). And there's plenty of Grand LM's (10,000 +) that I can flat outplay too.

 

But if I had to choose between a random team with players of an average of 500 MP and a team with 1,000 MPs, I will choose the team with the higher amount.

 

I have about 1,300 now, which makes me a silver. I'm much more pleased with the national overall finishes I've had. There's a player in our club that has averaged close to 800 points over the last 6-7 years, and just got his Diamond (5K).

 

To my knowledge, he has NEVER played in a national event. ;)

[Stephen Tu]

Is a Life master or silver life master or gold life master automatically a qualification for being an expert?

 

No.

 

If you think so why and if you don't what level in the states is an expert to reach before he / she is classed an expert.

 

Total masterpoints ~= (length of career) * (tournament attendance rate) * (skill level) * (masterpoint inflation factor)

 

If you've played for a long time & regularly attend, you can have lots of MP but not be all that good. One also has to define "expert". If go by BBO website's definition, in my opinion that definition of expert is ~= world class, since it says "success in major national events", and I think to finish near top at major NABC events you would also be contender at world level, and certainly above par of most country's WC representatives which is the "world class" def.

 

But I think most people use a more lenient definition of expert, consistent winning at regional events would be enough. I would cede expert status to any grand LM & many diamond LM, as long as bulk of points wasn't accumulated as a client on pro team of > 3 pros. It's fairly hard to accumulate 5000 ACBL points without decent skill level IMO, without pros. Below that, you have some experts who haven't played long enough or don't play regularly, and also many merely good players who have played for decades.

[pclayton]

I've won plenty of open (or Bracket I) regionals, but I remember when I was trying to win my first. If you would have asked me 20 years ago, "does winning a regional qualify one as an expert", I would have said yes! Now, I'm a little more cynical <_<

 

I think a lot of us that post on here clearly fit the category of the E-word, and I'm not ashamed to put it on my profile. Do I always play to the level I'm capable of? Of course not, especially when I'm online.

 

I guess all I can offer Wayne is to enjoy the 'process' of becoming better; and not worry too much about the 'end'. Thats what its all about.

[fred]

The USA is unusual because there are MANY events held each year that are below the National level, but that are hard enough to win such that any player who does so more than once or twice is almost certainly an expert.

 

The same is not true for most countries and the definitions we use for the various skill levels are designed to be as country-neutral as possible. It might be appropriate to add a footnote to the definition of "expert" like "if you have won a few top flight ACBL Regional Knockout events then you are an expert, but tournaments that took place is East Dakota don't count because the bridge there is not very good.", but I don't want to go down this road. Last thing we need is for these definitions to be pages long due to the footnotes that might be required to satisfy people from everywhere.

 

The skill levels are older than their definitions. I originally meant "world class" to be something that only truly excellent players would pick. On most other sites "expert" was about the best thing that people called themselves and I had seen a lot of people on these sites (and ours) who called themselves "experts" but were not even close. I expected these people would call themselves "experts" on BBO too, but I was hoping that most would have enough humility to not call themselves "world class".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

I think the best description of your skill level is that what others would give you. In many countries (not USA) there are team leagues and which league you play in is a measure of skill. Experts would be those who play in the top two leagues or so.

 

The Netherlands has an interesting measure similar to tennis ATP ratings. The best MP scores each year are counted. Then for each previous year the weight is lower and lower. And... presto! The strong players are ranked at the top.

 

Masterpoints however are a terrible measure of strength. I just checked on a young Dutch player who reached the Olympiad final in the WBF masterpoint list and the Dutch Bridge Federation MP list. If a player is in the WBF top 100 in Master Points but not in the national top 100 that just shows how accurate the rating is. On the other hand the rating (ATP style) has this player in the national top 10.

[1eyedjack]

In all of this I think you have to remember that master points serve one purpose and one purpose only: to raise revenue for NCBOs. They have (necessarily, to serve the prime objective) an ancillary effect; that of boosting the egos of those so inclined, but there is a not very subtle distinction between that effect and accurate skill measurement.

[mike777]

Thank goodness for that revenue so the 99.9% of the bridge world who are not experts can have fun playing, reading and chatting about this wonderful game. Thank goodness so the .001% of young very bright bridge players can hope to make a living off of bridge.

[blackshoe]

I believe it was Edgar Kaplan who said "That you have a lot of masterpoints does not mean that you're a good bridge player. It just means that you've played a lot of bridge."

 

:)

[the hog]

I can't comment on the US, but in Australia you can become a GM if you play long enough. There are also a number of players who have represented Aust internationally,even recently, who are very ordinary players, but because they have the money to hire excellent partners and teams, have managed to win playoffs. However I guess this is a similar situation in most places except maybe Italy.

[EricK]

In all of this I think you have to remember that master points serve one purpose and one purpose only: to raise revenue for NCBOs. They have (necessarily, to serve the prime objective) an ancillary effect; that of boosting the egos of those so inclined, but there is a not very subtle distinction between that effect and accurate skill measurement.

Why does bridge need this though?

 

Chess manages well enough without any "awards for longevity". What is it about so many bridge players that they don't seem to want to play just for the fun of it, or to see how well they can do in the event they are currently playing in?

[kenberg]

Here is my take on masterpoints: I play mostly in the DC area. Whatever the folks around here think of my ability, they don't base their opinion on my masterpoint total. If some guy in Chicago wants to rate me by looking up my mp total, he is welcome to do so but I can't imagine why he would bother. So for the vast majority of us, masterpoint totals are simply irrelevant, at least for how we are seen by others. It does serve as a sorting tool for events, and this is probably useful despite being a rather blunt tool.

 

I guess I would like it if there were some online tourneys with some floor ability required to enter. Given the world scope of bbo, it would be tough to find criteria. But it would be good to have events where, for example, gross overbidding is more frequently punished. Also it would be good if, when you think for ten seconds, the opponents don't start sending "please play" nessages. Generally I am a happy camper with bbo, in fact I am very happy, but some tourneys with a higher standard of play would be very welcome.

[matmat]

ahhhh . . . monsterpoints.

 

if i could trade them in for something useful (kinda like airline miles) I'd actually bother collecting them.

 

As far as i can tell the only purpose of the darn things is to provide some sort of measure of how much cash an individual has poured into the ACBL (or perhaps some other organization).

 

Also, since the ACBL allows for handicapping, (even at regional level events), knockout wins don't mean as much as they once did -- I mean, if you are a group of advanced/intermediate players and you come into a 28 or whatnot board match up a 30 IMP margin, it isn't that tough to win against a true expert team -- need a bit of luck, but odds are certainly higher than if it started 0:0...

[ehhh]

:rolleyes: You skipped over BRONZE Life Master .... and some of these also perceive themself to be 'expert' though I do find them more down to earth than most others (life master has sunk in and loaftier titles are a long way off)!

[mikeh]

I like to think that I can tell, within a handful of boards, whether an opponent or partner is an expert. It may take longer for me to realize just how good someone is if they are better than me :) But I can recognize someone whose skill level is not as high as mine almost immediately, and knowing how many masterpoints the player has is irrelevant.

 

I suspect that this is a common situation amongst good players.

 

If you are looking at a players' points to determine how good they are, then you are not an expert yourself.

 

I know at at least two Grand Life Masters I would not class as experts: good players, yes, experts no. There are a number of players with far fewer points who are experts: they simply haven't played in enough events to accumulate the points that others may have, without equivalent skill.

[ArcLight]

I don't know how widepsread this is, but I have heard of people hiring pros to help them win colored (gold esp)MP so they can attain "master" status.

 

To me thats a complete waste of money. If you don't earn something on your own merit, you haven't won anything and are just deluding yourself.

 

Why list ones ACBL Master status on ones profile? Either put Advanced or Expert.

[matmat]

I don't know how widepsread this is, but I have heard of people hiring pros to help them win colored (gold esp)MP so they can attain "master" status.

 

To me thats a complete waste of money.  If you don't earn something on your own merit, you haven't won anything and are just deluding yourself.

 

Why list ones ACBL Master status on ones profile?  Either put Advanced or Expert.

heh... let's not forget the other possible options... novice, beginner, intermediate... even private...

[badderzboy]

Ah the wonderful world of masterpoints!

 

I would have to agree with all the posters here. It is primarily an attendance award but is also used by the authorities to segregate some competitions ie with less than 5000 UK Masterpoints (not sure of US conversion ratio) u can play in the National Newcomers Pairs (below rank of master) and so on.

 

To be fair most people can stumble to this figure in the UK or qualify to play in a regional competition where high 100s of MPs are on offer for just turning up!

 

I've learnt fairly quickly that skill/MPs don't correlate more a factor of time served and how much money spent at congresses.

 

In fact when was the last time you asked what rank someone was as a guide to their ability?

 

PS Also how many trust the ranks on BBO lol - I think Adv/Int/Beg are far more accurate ratings by people who don't feel the need to fluff up their feathers...

 

 

 

Steve

[SoTired]

I had one world-class player tell me that he could tell how good a player was in 2 boards... Later, he revised that down to 1 board... Later, he revised that down to just watching them arrange their hand... Later, he said he could tell by just looking at them ;)

 

I think I read a statistic once that 80% of ACBL players think they are above average bridge players.

 

Bridge is not like chess. There are no 6-year-old bridge prodigies making clever, critical q-bids in complex slam auctions. Bridge skill is definitely accumulated. But players accumulate skill at different rates and masterpoint accumulation does not directly relate to skill accumulation. Worse - ACBL MP accumulation has been skewed for marketing needs rather than by difficulty. I read recently that because Sectional tournaments were under attended, they were raising MP awards at sectional events.

 

Looking at masterpoints to determine expert status is like counting drinks to determine if a person is drunk. A person who has had a shot glass of beer is definitely not drunk and a person who has had 10 shots of vodka is certainly drunk. But anything in between is subject to what they drank, how fast they drank, how big they are, how used to liquor, etc. Same with using masterpoints to determine expert status.

 

Certainly, anybody with less than 10 masterpoints is not an expert and almost all grand life masters are expert. Anything in between is subject to more analysis.

 

And that does not even figure in that some players are expert in some phases of the game and not in others.