ANNOUNCING BBO'S 1ST GOLD STAR CLUB

[Trpltrbl]

Congrat with new club.

 

Now we have one in the bottom (beg-int) and one in the top.

 

The one in bottom I can understand, because it has spesefic goal to make better players.

 

The one in top, I am not so sure of. ~~snip~~

Edvin

 

hi edwin... i can only speak for myself, but i personally love to kib good players... it'd be the same at a major chess event, any golf event, etc, where pros play... it's a learning experience... as for cliques, they already exist :) ... but that's ok too

 

Having a goldstar doesn't mean they r good players ;) I have seen some of these goldstars in action and my mom plays better. And believe me, that ain't a compliment :) I am sure most of the goldstars can hold their own but being a topplayer in a country where they maybe only have 100 players mite not a good qualification. But if that what in r eyes makes a topplayer go for it but leave me out, I know how to find my own good game ;D

 

Mike ;D

[luke warm]

Having a goldstar doesn't mean they r good players ;) I have seen some of these goldstars in action and my mom plays better. And believe me, that ain't a compliment :) I am sure most of the goldstars can hold their own but being a topplayer in a country where they maybe only have 100 players mite not a good qualification. But if that what in r eyes makes a topplayer go for it but leave me out, I know how to find my own good game ;D

Mike ;D

 

mike, the lack of a star doesn't make one a bad player, and having a gold star doesn't make one a good player *every night*.. we all have bad nites, even the best in the world.. but the best in the world have fewer bad nites, and they play a high level of bridge for long periods of time...

 

it amazes me sometimes to see the number of people who put 'expert' by their name.. it makes me want to ask, in whose eyes? i'm personally capable of some very good play AND some incredibly bad play.. the true expert differs in that the bad play is rare... not unheard of, just rare

[Trpltrbl]

I actually think it mite be more of a BBO problem, by selecting certain players. Like I said earlier, having a topplayer in a country with 100 players or so, whereas this player wud play in USA maybe in Flight B. Maybe BBO has to chance the way the give away the stars 8)

 

Mike ;D

[luke warm]

I actually think it mite be more of a BBO problem, by slecting certain players. Like I said ealrier, having a topplayer in a country with 100 players or so, whereas this player wud play in USA maybe in Flight B. Maybe BBO has to chance the way the give away the stars 8)

 

Mike ;D

 

i don't think that's quite fair.. the stars are given (usually - i think there may be a spouse or two where this isn't so) according to results the players have attained... want a gold star? enter a big tourney, enter several, and have good results

 

i don't see any problem, personally.. and if you don't mind me saying so, i think it's a tad on the arrogant side for you (or me, or anyone else without the *recognized* credentials) to be flighting international players... but that's just my opinion

[keylime]

I can't resist, I'm going to just light one up here and let it fly -

 

There are WAY too many people claiming expert status online. Maybe due to fragile personalities, fear of getting "inferior" or "substandard" partners, potential pseudo-exclusion from certain events - you get the picture.

 

I like to give one example, a member who will rename nameless. This member I'd say 2.5-3 weeks ago had a private for their skill level - no biggie, was clear to me the person had a decent amount of bridge acumen. After playing against them however, they suddenly became an "expert", even though we had soundly trounced them. Now, they have retreated, demoted, downgraded, whatever to "advanced". The logic for these actions are beyond my little pea brain to handle.

 

To me, an expert embodies five basic qualities:

 

1. A sound profiency in multiple systems with the ability to think within them to gain maximum results.

 

2. An individual that is NOT selective when it comes to playing with people (advanced players, look at their profiles, MOST of them got the "this is what I play list").

 

3. A person who has had success at multiple levels of the game, in multiple disciplines of the game.

 

4. Someone who is versed in the Laws of the game, and uses them to protect his partner AND his opponents when an irregularity occurs.

 

5. Last one, a BIGGIE: A great overall player, but even a GREATER overall PERSON, one who plays the game to further the people who are trying to acheive "advanced"/"expert" status.

 

Using this criteria, it would eliminate about 90-95 percent of the population who claim "expert" status. In all honesty, I can only name a handful whom I consider a true expert - David Horner (horndog), Ed Groner (edgroner), and a couple of others. They have exemplified all of the needed prerequisites in m eyes.

[luke warm]

what dwayne said is true, but he's talking about those who "self-assign" skill levels.. the gold stars on bbo aren't able to do that, they are given that honor by fred or his delegates...

 

for my money, the granting of gold stars is in good hands

[Trpltrbl]

what dwayne said is true, but he's talking about those who "self-assign" skill levels.. the gold stars on bbo aren't able to do that, they are given that honor by fred or his delegates...

 

for my money, the granting of gold stars is in good hands

 

Good enough for me for now, you all have fun with r club. ;D I just disagree witht the fact that y see a Gold Star and think immmediatly we have a good player here, because a lot of time y don't. I agree that a person can be a expert player, but it is a pdship that makes a player worldclass. Someone else already posted that, so I am not taking any credit for that :D

 

 

Mike ;D

[doofik]

If I may respond...

 

What you're not taking into consideration is that if we plan to have a club for World Class we need to look at some common value. The common value in case of Top Flight is the gold star. It is not up to us to assess why a given player has received the star, and I have zero intentions of questioning the qualifications.

 

It's a given that in a country with 100 players the level of a star might be lesser. That being said, I believe that those players who were given a gold star had to have qualified to their country's representation in an international event. You generally don't qualify if you're a Flight B player and I think it might be wise to consider that if BBO feels that a representative of a given country is worthy of a gold star it might be a way to popularize the game so that at the next event there are 200 players vying for the right to represent the country. That's how the game becomes competitive.

 

The truth of the matter is that there are a few power countries with rich bridge tradition and then there are others. If you cared about the game, how would you go about a growing membership? I think BBO is doing it the right way, my humble opinion :)

[uday]

Just FYI - the star process works like this (these days!)

 

FG is the only person who can assigns stars. People who want stars, or who feel other people deserve stars, can send an email to fred - at bridgebase.com - and mention the potential stars username, real name, and qualifications (esp. if the player is not all that well known outside his host country). We also require that a star use a real name in his/her profile (that is, the profile cannot be "private").

 

One thing to be careful of when nominating a star is to be sure that the person being nominated is really Meckstroth, and not some hoser trying to be cute. Every now and again, we run across this sort of thing.

 

We've refined the star process a little over the months. Sure, we've grandfathered in some non-world champs, but i think by and large the std. of stars is pretty high.

[Free]

I think some people are just jalous that they don't have a gold star, and if a star makes a mistake he's a bad player in their opinion. It's a ridiculous logic, but hey, I don't care! If these persons feel fine this way, that's fine by me.

 

Sure I'd like a gold star for myself, but I think I won't get it (yet :)). Who doesn't want to be recognized as a good player? Just a thought...

 

Free

[D9]

Who decides who is worldclass?

• Do the management specify objective criteria?
  
• Do you have to have won a world championship?
  
• Do you have to represent a country like Antarctica?
  
• Do you have to be a friend of the management?
  
• Or must you simply have the energy to tick the top box in your profile?
  

One of the great things about Bridge used to be that snobbishness

was rare in competition. In the UK, as a beginner, you could

play against and learn from Reese, Harrison Gray, the Sharples,

Amsbury, Schenken, Rosenberg, Forrester, Robson, and so on.

 

IMO, the introductuion of apartheid is a retrograde step but if BBO must

have it then..

You should have to demonstrate your class by consistent successful

performance in BBO competitions. Unfortunately I suppose that would

probably make several self-rated "world-class" players ineligible :)

[the hog]

If you are commenting about Top Flight - this is a private club and they can admit whom they like.

If you are commenting about some players having Gold stars - who cares? Some top players will never play against you anyway; they bid with their clients(?). You will find plenty GS who will play against you and you will find plenty of strong players without GS. Having a GS simply means that player is "worth watchin". Frankly I also enjoy watching Misho and Ben and they don't have GS.

[fred]

Who decides who is worldclass?

• 
   
  
• Do the management specify objective criteria?
   
  
• Do you have to have won a world championship?
   
  
• Do you have to represent a country like Antarctica?
   
  
• Do you have to be a friend of the management?
   
  
• Or must you simply have the energy to tick the top box in your profile?
   
  

One of the great things about Bridge used to be that snobbishness

was rare in competition.  In the UK, as a beginner, you could

play against and learn from Reese, Harrison Gray, the Sharples,

Amsbury, Schenken, Rosenberg, Forrester, Robson, and so on.

 

IMO, the introductuion of apartheid is a retrograde step but if BBO must

have it then..

You should have to demonstrate your class by consistent successful

performance in BBO competitions.  Unfortunately I suppose that would

probably make several self-rated "world-class" players ineligible  :)

I decide who gets a star, but my decision is made almost

entirely according to a procedure. You need to do something

like this to qualify:

 

1) Represent your country in an event like the Bermuda

Bowl or World Teams Olympiad (ie an event that you

have to qualify to play in, unlike open World Championships

like the Rosenblum Teams or World Open Pairs).

 

2) Win a major national championship or Zonal Championship

(such as an ACBL National event, a European Championship,

a South American Championship...).

 

3) Win a major invitational tournament (like the Cavendish,

the Forbo, the Macallan...).

 

4) Come close to winning events like these described above

several times. This gives me some scope for judgment calls.

 

Granted that in some countries it is easier to do these things

than it is in others, but that is not relevant. For one thing, I am

not about to get involved in judging which countries' best

players should be given stars. More important:

 

95% of BBO members do not play anywhere as well as 100%

of the stars. A lot of those 95% enjoy kibitzing better players.

Many of these people prefer to watch players from their part

of the world (out of a sense of pride, because they play a similar

bidding style, because they might know each other personally...).

I think this is especially true of BBO members from countries

that are not traditional powers in bridge.

 

The stars are not there to "reward" the good players. They are

there for the new players and "average BBO members" who

enjoy kibitzing a strong game.

 

For sure there are stars who are not among the world's very

best players, but all of the stars are fine players and most act

as excellent ambassadors for our game and their countries.

 

We do not recognize success in BBO tournaments by giving

out stars for 2 reasons:

 

1) It is too easy to cheat in online bridge tournaments. I am

sure there is plenty of this going on already and it would get

a lot worse if we offered something of perceived value to the

winners of our tournaments.

 

2) None of our tournaments are of a high enough standard

yet (in terms of level of competition) that they warrent

giving stars to the winners. Given that 1) is an insolvable

problem in my view, 2) will likely never change.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[bglover]

I originally posted this in another thread, but seems apporpriate here:

 

 

If I may explain....

 

The Gold Star for admission was meant to be some sort of "objective" standard that we could point to, even if it meant some great players would not be admitted through invitation. We hoped (and still do hope) that the other truly good ones would be brought in through the nomination process. We are encouraging our members to help us expand through this method. Daily, I get asked by someone or another for admittance (including, I might add, Trpltrbl). I can say "need a BBO gold star sorry" and at least they understand "why", unlike some other clubs where admitting standards are pretty much at the whim of the owners. Our standards may be rigid (in fact, they are too rigid maybe) but they are also fair and measurable.

 

There is nothing wrong with small tourneys or team matches if we maintain a high level of play. We certainly didn't expect to run huge tourneys when we started but hoped we would grow through word of mouth. The plan was that if we were able to stage small, high-quality matches, other great players would see this and want to play in our tourneys more.

 

Indeed, we are experiencing a little growth in participation already. Our last few tourneys have been either 3 or 4 tables and over time maybe we will grow to 5 tables. If that is the case, great. If not, that's OK too.

 

It is unlikely we would have have many more than 6 or 7 tables given that we have a limited membership. But "size" was never our greatest concern. Rather, maintaining an environment where great players want to compete and where spectators can watch and learn has ALWAYS been our goal. A secondary benefit (we hope) is that we will attract more great players to BBO so they can participate in TopFlight events.

 

Sure, you can spec another tourney and find as many or more stars playing. But, are they playing against "like" competition? Not usually, unless it's a team match. That's the entire point. For the spectators, watching high-quality opponents engage versus each other can help them learn and improve. We try to have commentators at our matches (often I am the commentator) to explain the processes, much like Vugraph. It is a service we are providing, both to our members and to the BBO community at large. No one would think to criticize OK Bridge's Goldway matches, yet they are just team matches with great players competing. We view TopFlight more as competition to that than as competition to any other club on BBO.

 

And, given that we are very young (really only 4 weeks old) I think we have been mostly successful. We are still experimenting with days and times. We must be careful not to overlap with other, more established club tourneys. It's still a learning process for us. If we do our jobs well, learn from our mistakes and listen to our members, then we will succeed. If we do not, at least Ben, Ece, Alex and myself can say we tried to do something for the greater "good" of BBO. Better to be a noble failure I say.