Skill level description

[quiddity]

Hate the idea of a rating system for regular play, for all the reasons awm mentioned. I do think rated robot-races could work.

[olegru]

But re the singleton lead against a NT contract, the only situation that might make sense to me would be leading a singleton in a suit that my p had bid.

If your partner did something you would never do there are at least two explanations possible.

First. Partner does not know what he is doing.

Second. You are not good enough to understand what your partner is doing.

No guaranties, of cause, but there is a method how to get some ideas which case is more probable. Press this link: http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/index.php

Type your nickname and look at your summary for a month. If in average you are losing ~0.5 imps per board - chances are there is something in this game you do not understand yet.

You can also check your partner’s stats to see if he is the person you would like to learn from or his ideas does not appear to be very successful.

 

BTW: Cases when bidding and cards require to lead singleton in unbid suit against a NT contract are exist.

[kaydea]

But re the singleton lead against a NT contract, the only situation that might make sense to me would be leading a singleton in a suit that my p had bid.

If your partner did something you would never do there are at least two explanations possible.

First. Partner does not know what he is doing.

Second. You are not good enough to understand what your partner is doing.

No guaranties, of cause, but there is a method how to get some ideas which case is more probable. Press this link: http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/index.php

Type your nickname and look at your summary for a month. If in average you are losing ~0.5 imps per board - chances are there is something in this game you do not understand yet.

You can also check your partner’s stats to see if he is the person you would like to learn from or his ideas does not appear to be very successful.

 

BTW: Cases when bidding and cards require to lead singleton in unbid suit against a NT contract are exist.

The person who lead the singleton was a partner in an indy tourney so it is unlikely that we would ever play together again. In retrospect perhaps the only circumstances in which a ratings would be useful would be in tourneys and I would think most people who play in ACBL tourneys play with regular partners anyway.

 

But thanks for your comments, I will certainly pursue NT leads which for me up until now have consisted of top of a sequence, 4th highest of longest and strongest or my p's suit. Obviously I still have a ways to go. :P

[Trinidad]

There are situations where I would lead my void against NT, if it weren't for the fact that... ;)

 

Rik

[billw55]

eh, thread too long to read all posts.

 

But I can describe how my own BBO self-rating process worked:

 

Started with "intermediate" which seemed reasonable. Was overwhelmed by the astonishing quantity of gross incompetence by players rated "advanced" and "expert". Noticed that most "intermediates" seemed fairly weak. Adjusted myself to "advanced" on basis of comparison to others in the BBO population. "Expert" was tempting but I felt that would make me part of the problem.

 

Even now, a couple years later, I still mark ops and/or pickup partners as "not advanced" or "not expert" almost every time I play. IMO it is way too rampant to be mostly honest errors.

[1eyedjack]

I will certainly pursue NT leads which for me up until now have consisted of  top of a sequence, 4th highest of longest and strongest or my p's suit.

I realise that it is rather moving away from the subject of the thread, but have you not just answered your own point here? Emphasis added by me, but the point being - if it is your partner's suit, it is OK to lead it even if it may be singleton. Sure, there may be other factors in play.

[Quantumcat]

I don't understand why people feel the need to self-rate above their actual skill level. You'd think it would be better for people to be pleasantly surprised at your ability rather than disappointed in it.

 

Another advantage to self-rating below your skill is that if you say you are a beginner when you're not, is that your false-cards will work. An expert won't think a beginner capable of making it and then fall into your trap.

 

Another example could be this. Imagine defending a slam where you win the first trick and have to decide the next card. If declarer has a large range of hands compatible with the bidding, you'll be squeezed later. You have to knock out an entry so the squeeze can't work. But if declarer has one or two particular hands there's no squeeze, and you will give away the contract by leading that card. If you know the person is capable of executing the squeeze, there are more hands he can have where the squeeze happens so you'd try to stop it. But if declarer is a beginner you'd just do your best to not give away the contract since they probably will just cash 11 tricks and be disappointed when they realise there's no twelfth. So if you are not really a beginner you will make the hand!

[matmat]

i led a singleton against NT yesterday in a suit p didn't bid... it led to declarer going down 4!

[matmat]

i led a singleton against NT yesterday in a suit p didn't bid... it led to declarer going down 4!

it just struck me that this is actually an argument that only bad players do this.

[billw55]

Rating systems are not good, people don't like to fight for a %. I won't like beginners being hunted down by advanced plaers to improve their rating.

Several people mentioned this. From my experience in other games (chess, Go) I would expect this plan to backfire. Consistently playing against substantially weaker opponents will make oneself play weaker. And the small rating gain from trouncing the lowbies may well be less than the loss from subsequent bad play against one's former equals.

[kaydea]

I will certainly pursue NT leads which for me up until now have consisted of  top of a sequence, 4th highest of longest and strongest or my p's suit.

I realise that it is rather moving away from the subject of the thread, but have you not just answered your own point here? Emphasis added by me, but the point being - if it is your partner's suit, it is OK to lead it even if it may be singleton. Sure, there may be other factors in play.

Not necessarily..how would my p know this was my suit if we haven't taken part in the auction?

[matmat]

I will certainly pursue NT leads which for me up until now have consisted of  top of a sequence, 4th highest of longest and strongest or my p's suit.

I realise that it is rather moving away from the subject of the thread, but have you not just answered your own point here? Emphasis added by me, but the point being - if it is your partner's suit, it is OK to lead it even if it may be singleton. Sure, there may be other factors in play.

Not necessarily..how would my p know this was my suit if we haven't taken part in the auction?

x

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

 

 

1N-2C;

2D-3N

 

where are the spades?

[gnasher]

With a properly designed rating system (which is what the Lehman system is claimed to be) playing against weak players shouldn't help at all. If the system predicts that you will score 60% against a given pair, and you do score 60% against them, your rating won't improve.

 

To artificially inflate your rating, you have to find players who are currently overrated. One category of such players is beginners who are also newcomers to the rating system, and have been given an average rating to start with. The solution to that is easy: after a new member has been playing for a few weeks, recalculate the ratings of everyone he has played against, but assume that his rating at the time was the same as his current rating.

[Fluffy]

To artificially inflate your rating, you have to find players who are currently overrated. One category of such players is beginners who are also newcomers to the rating system, and have been given an average rating to start with.

Or beginners who play against beginners.

[pooltuna]

With a properly designed rating system (which is what the Lehman system is claimed to be) playing against weak players shouldn't help at all.  If the system predicts that you will score 60% against a given pair, and you do score 60% against them, your rating won't improve.

 

To artificially inflate your rating, you have to find players who are currently overrated.  One category of such players is beginners who are also newcomers to the rating system, and have been given an average rating to start with.  The solution to that is easy: after a new member has been playing for a few weeks, recalculate the ratings of everyone he has played against, but assume that his rating at the time was the same as his current rating.

StepBridge has the best (most usable?) rating system I have seen. Basically when you join you are assigned a rating of 1-1(MP-IMP) with rating corrections after every 20 hands (increase or decrease 1) and no bunny bashing here if you had a 5-4 rating playing with a like partner against 2 newbies you would be spotting 1.5 IMPS/hand (difference between IMP ratings * 0.25) and you need to average more than 0.5 IMPs/hand to increase.

[Trinidad]

i led a singleton against NT yesterday in a suit p didn't bid... it led to declarer going down 4!

it just struck me that this is actually an argument that only bad players do this.

Yes, it would have gone down 5 if you would have lead your void.

 

Rik

[1eyedjack]

how would my p know this was my suit if we haven't taken part in the auction?

What matmat said. I would add that there are seldom guarantees in this game but that should not prevent you from acting on indications that fall short of certainty. By the same token leading a singleton in partner's suit provides no guarantee of profit even if you are certain that it is his suit.

 

Another example might be

1C-1H

1S-1N

3N

and you hold relatively short Spades. Doubleton may be preferable to singleton (even at the expense of partner's length) as you may need to lead them twice through dummy, but the principle is the same. You can infer partner's length in the suit from the auction despite his silence.

 

But even if you are uncertain as to his suit it may yet be best practice to attempt a guess at it despite that your guess will on occasion fail. If you are entryless and partner rates to have more values than you, then it may be your best chance to beat the contract if you happen on his suit rather than plug futilely at your own, only to find yourself unable to enjoy the long cards even if you are fortunate enough to establish them.

[pdmunro]

I use "BBO points" to assess a player's ability. Could we have an average as well as a "total"?

[Quantumcat]

At the Grand Slam club in Australia, there is a very good rating system. You get seeded/have an expected score calculated in every game you play depending on field strength and your partner's rating. If you do better, you get a plus added to your rating (only actually added at the end of the month) and if you do worse, you get a minus. If you play a field of rabbits and only get, say, 59% and win, you will get a huge minus if the rating system expected you to get 70%. So you can't improve your rating by beating up beginners.

 

You also get no rating when you start. You have to have played a certain number of games with a rated partner (maybe about ten) before you get a rating, so the rating you start with is real, and is never artificially inflated (or else that would affect everyone who played against you).

 

If anyone is interested this is its website: http://www.bridgecentral.com/

[Mbodell]

If anyone is interested this is its website: http://www.bridgecentral.com/

I believe this is the same idea as that behind the power ratings from COSprings Bridge. Except their scale is centered on 25 instead of 50 (so divide by 2).

[dlbalt]

Some people are so wildly out in their profile skill levels that it makes playing with/against them difficult.

This is the internet, where you can make yourself into a Roman Emperor, Dragon-slaying Knight, or a blue-skinned Elf, if you desire, by simply calling yourself such a thing.

 

Do you really expect people NOT to make themselves into World Class Bridge Players?

[bluecalm]

There are guidelines on BBO. The problem is people don't respect them. Honest players face the dillema. If they give honest skill level other people will think they suck because most other people overestimate their level but if they over estimate their level it won't be in accordance with the guidelines.

 

I am for example advanced player (I played in 2nd polish division and in many national competitions) but I play better than 90% of experts at bbo. Therefore I set my skill level as expert knowing that I am not as good as "real" experts...

[billw55]

If you play a field of rabbits and only get, say, 59% and win, you will get a huge minus if the rating system expected you to get 70%. So you can't improve your rating by beating up beginners.

70% is really high to expect, even against rabbits. There is no field protection, after all. A score which ought to be a top often won't be, due to bungling at other tables.

[1eyedjack]

There are guidelines on BBO. The problem is people don't respect them. Honest players face the dillema. If they give honest skill level other people will think they suck because most other people overestimate their level but if they over estimate their level it won't be in accordance with the guidelines.

 

I am for example advanced player (I played in 2nd polish division and in many national competitions) but I play better than 90% of experts at bbo. Therefore I set my skill level as expert knowing that I am not as good as "real" experts...

In case of honesty dilemma, set as "Private".

[kaydea]

There are guidelines on BBO. The problem is people don't respect them. Honest players face the dillema. If they give honest skill level other people will think they suck because most other people overestimate their level but if they over estimate their level it won't be in accordance with the guidelines.

 

I am for example advanced player (I played in 2nd polish division and in many national competitions) but I play better than 90% of experts at bbo. Therefore I set my skill level as expert knowing that I am not as good as "real" experts...

In case of honesty dilemma, set as "Private".

I dislike the Private skill level but perhaps I don't accurately fit into the Intermediate skill level . Maybe the options could be widened and include terms that might better describe my level of play. For instance :- Mediocre, Low Intermediate, Aspiring Intermediate :)

In any event I am very thankful for this site considering it's free. Thanks Fred.