Skill Level

[Wayne_LV]

I was bored this AM so I did an analysis of skill levels by selected countries. Below is a list sorted by percentage of players online at that time professing to be Expert or World Class.

 

COUNTRY % Expert+

Turkey 28%

Italy 21%

Israel 20%

NZ 18%

Greece 17%

Spain 15%

India 14%

France 14%

Germany 13%

England 13%

Australia 12%

USA 12%

Denmark 10%

Canada 9%

 

Average 18%

 

There are either a lot more really good bridge players on BBO than I imagined or a lot of ego maniacs. Go figure.

[wank]

i would have predicted the top 2. i'm surprised india isn't higher.

[jillybean]

what world time time was this snap shot taken? I'm surprised to see NZ so high and the Canadians so modest, maybe they were asleep.

[MrAce]

It all depends how the word 'expert' is defined in each country.

 

In my country (Turkey) if u learn and use any convention beyond stayman and xfers you are promoted to advance level. If you perform an endplay or a simple squeeze that has name in books such as 'coup de vienne' even if accidentally, you become expert.

 

Worldclass level is even easier than all of these, you simply watch a worldclass player in BBO and wait untill they make a mistake that you would not do. As soon as you see this you can claim your world class status but knowing how humble my countrymen are i am not surprised to see most of them settled with only expert status.

[ggwhiz]

what world time time was this snap shot taken? I'm surprised to see NZ so high and the Canadians so modest, maybe they were asleep.

 

On an exit poll for tourists, one noted that we say "Thank You" to ATM machines. :blink:

[MrAce]

On an exit poll for tourists, one noted that we say "Thank You" to ATM machines. :blink:

 

LoL

[BunnyGo]

i am not surprised to see most of them settled with only expert status.

 

His chart was for expert +.

[MrAce]

His chart was for expert +.

 

Oh i missed that detail, ty :)

[paulg]

Unsurprising results and a topic we've discussed many times before but, for a change, I'll defend the hyperinflation.

 

A number of my friends are just ordinary club players. They don't play in national tournaments but, occasionally, do play in local events (c.f., sectionals). They regard themselves as solid intermediates and this should be their BBO level. However months of playing with other intermediates has been frustrating, as it seems a lot of intermediates have barely finished their third bridge lesson. So they upgrade themselves to Advanced. They are quite happy here, as most of the real advanced players have defined themselves as Expert for precisely the same reasons.

 

No-one really likes to put Beginner when they know how to follow suit. Inflation is inevitable. But I still prefer this system to any other that has been proposed or used at other sites.

[Zelandakh]

Inflation is inevitable. But I still prefer this system to any other that has been proposed or used at other sites.

 

The current criteria for Intermediate is basically "Anyone who has played the game for a year up to anyone who is not regularly successful at tournaments." That's probably well over 80% of BBO players if they were judged by the specified criteria. The ratings seem to me to have been devised by someone who concentrated on the higher levels: intermational success -> national success -> local success -> everyone else. The trouble is that it is the "everyone else" grouping that makes up the vast bulk of players.

 

Even if the rating system was applied correctly and (almost) everyone was Intermediate it would not be particularly helpful except for the players at the extremes! The real answer is simple - Intermediate covers too broad a range so just split Intermediate into 2 groups. If there is a limit in the software to only allow 6 groups then it would still be better to have 2 intermediate levels and to combine Novice and Beginner. Something like:-

 

1. Have played bridge for less than a year

2. Played for at least a year but only very rarely successful in tournaments

3. Some success in tournaments. Most club players should rate themselves in this category.

4. Regular success in tournaments

5. Success at State/County/Regional level

6. Success at national level

7. Represented your country

 

would even out the (correct) numbers in each category enormously. They would even mean something for regular BBO users! Obviously it would not stop inflation; some people will consider themselves Expert whatever the criteria say. But it would reduce some of the need for it.

[ArtK78]

I was bored this AM so I did an analysis of skill levels by selected countries.

You must have been REALLY bored.

[billw55]

I'm not sure Zelandakh. It's a good idea in principle, but I think the problem is that hardly anybody pays any attention to the level descriptions. So I don't think making them more representative would help much.

 

Also I agree with paulg about the intermediate level. Almost every "intermediate" I sit down with makes multiple basic errors. This category seems to be mostly populated with novices who don't want to admit that they are still novices (perhaps after years of play).

 

Also, it seems to me that "beginner" should be a lower rank than "novice". To me a beginner is someone still learning the rules and maybe barebones basic techniques (how to count points, play K to drive out A and promote Q, etc). Of course this doesn't matter much since so few players use these ranks. Just a semantic point.

[Wayne_LV]

I realize that bridge knowledge does not necessarily translate into performance at the table, but what if .......

 

A rating system was devised based on results of a bridge quiz. This quiz could be broken down into sections such as:

 

1. Basic bidding and play

2. Popular conventions

3. Advanced card combinations

4. Leads and signals

5. Other categories

 

Such a quiz could be online and taken on an honor basis and computer graded. Ratings would then be assigned based on percentage of correct answers in a given category and overall. The quiz could be taken many times as a player learns more about the game and the latest score would used for appying the rating. If you look up all the answers as you take the test, you would at least have read about that aspect of the game once.

 

Personally I would prefer to play with a beginner that knows how the game is supposed to be played and lacks experience than with a player that has been playing 30 years and has yet to master the basics.

[Zelandakh]

Also I agree with paulg about the intermediate level. Almost every "intermediate" I sit down with makes multiple basic errors. This category seems to be mostly populated with novices who don't want to admit that they are still novices (perhaps after years of play).

This is precisely the problem. By definition you are Intermediate on BBO after playing bridge for a year. If you think that Intermediate is stronger than this then you simply do not understand how broad this range is. The "Improver" category, level 2 in my post, would cover this group while allowing the grouping you consider Intermediate to populate level 3.

[billw55]

I realize that bridge knowledge does not necessarily translate into performance at the table, but what if .......

 

A rating system was devised based on results of a bridge quiz. This quiz could be broken down into sections such as:

 

1. Basic bidding and play

2. Popular conventions

3. Advanced card combinations

4. Leads and signals

5. Other categories

 

Such a quiz could be online and taken on an honor basis and computer graded. Ratings would then be assigned based on percentage of correct answers in a given category and overall. The quiz could be taken many times as a player learns more about the game and the latest score would used for appying the rating. If you look up all the answers as you take the test, you would at least have read about that aspect of the game once.

 

Personally I would prefer to play with a beginner that knows how the game is supposed to be played and lacks experience than with a player that has been playing 30 years and has yet to master the basics.

Hey, that's not a bad idea. Probably at least as good as the various rating systems that get proposed from time to time. Better, since it would objectively rate individuals independent of table results (which are strongly dependent on partners and opponents).

 

And there is certainly lots of quiz material out there. Bridgemaster 2000 by itself would provide plenty - as I understand, the problems cover a very wide range of skill.

[barmar]

Do you really think people are going to subject themselves to such a test just to sit down and play some random bridge?

 

Everyone loves to complain about ratings, but I don't think most people really want to see honest ratings on display -- it would be too much of an ego hit. Go to OKbridge and see the games people play with their Lehman ratings, for instance -- either hiding them or resetting them whenever they get too low.

[Zelandakh]

1. Basic bidding and play

2. Popular conventions

3. Advanced card combinations

4. Leads and signals

5. Other categories

 

1. Who chooses the bidding system? Do you really want to make quizzes for every major bidding system in the world? What if I only ever play with one partner and we have a custom system?

 

2. Again, popular according to whom? Where? Popular conventions with me are denial cue bidding, assymetric relay, ZANT, ZANMO and a few others. How well do you think you will do in a quiz on these?

 

3. Single suit or within a whole hand? Fred has said that you can be a great player without knowing all card combinations even in a single suit. For whole hand situations this might be even more complicated.

 

4. Which leads? Do you know Combine carding? Same for signals. Dodds is very popular in the Acol club. Standard carding in Poland is very different from standard in the USA.

 

5. How about a simple category of:

a. How long have you played bridge?

b. What percentage of the time do you finish "in the points" at local club games?

c. Have you been successful at any national level tournaments? Which and how many?

d. Have you represented your country?

 

Silly me, that is the current rating system!

[billw55]

Do you really think people are going to subject themselves to such a test just to sit down and play some random bridge?

Of course not. Only if they want a rating. Which some players will surely want - quite a few, I expect.

 

With a little AI on presenting questions from progressing skill levels, you could get a pretty good rating fairly quickly. Start with say 2-3 questions from the lowest level, moving up a level when all are answered correctly. When wrong answers start to appear, check back with a question from the previous level, etc. I bet you could peg the vast majority of players pretty accurately in 20 questions.

 

Better yet, BM2k has enough questions that you could take the quiz several times without seeing repeats. Thereby reducing cheating.

 

The more I think about this idea the more I like it.

[barmar]

1. Who chooses the bidding system? Do you really want to make quizzes for every major bidding system in the world? What if I only ever play with one partner and we have a custom system?

 

2. Again, popular according to whom? Where? Popular conventions with me are denial cue bidding, assymetric relay, ZANT, ZANMO and a few others. How well do you think you will do in a quiz on these?

 

If you're trying to use the rating system to find compatible partners, you need to know how to play things that lots of OTHER people play. "Popular" means enjoyed by lots of people, not your personal favorites.

 

If you only play with one partner, then why do you care what your rating is?

[paulg]

Of course not. Only if they want a rating. Which some players will surely want - quite a few, I expect.

Unfortunately everyone who has played for more than a year wants a rating that shows that they are in the upper 50% of the players.

[billw55]

Unfortunately everyone who has played for more than a year wants a rating that shows that they are in the upper 50% of the players.

True, but I don't see what is unfortunate about it. It should be optional, and if chosen displayed in your profile along with your self-rating. If not chosen, then only the self-rating appears.

 

In fairness, this applies only to the theoretical BBO where Fred has plenty of spare man-hours to code things that forums trolls think up. In reality, this would not be a high priority for resources if I was running the joint.

[Wayne_LV]

1. Who chooses the bidding system? Do you really want to make quizzes for every major bidding system in the world? What if I only ever play with one partner and we have a custom system?

 

2. Again, popular according to whom? Where? Popular conventions with me are denial cue bidding, assymetric relay, ZANT, ZANMO and a few others. How well do you think you will do in a quiz on these?

 

3. Single suit or within a whole hand? Fred has said that you can be a great player without knowing all card combinations even in a single suit. For whole hand situations this might be even more complicated.

 

4. Which leads? Do you know Combine carding? Same for signals. Dodds is very popular in the Acol club. Standard carding in Poland is very different from standard in the USA.

 

5. How about a simple category of:

a. How long have you played bridge?

b. What percentage of the time do you finish "in the points" at local club games?

c. Have you been successful at any national level tournaments? Which and how many?

d. Have you represented your country?

 

Silly me, that is the current rating system!

 

The purpose of a rating system is to find a temporary or pick up partner for a casual game, not to find a lifetime partner to play an exotic system with a gaggle of obscure conventions.

 

A bridge quiz should cover basic bridge knowledge that applies to all systems. Specific bidding questions could be limited to ACBL SAYC, which after all was intended to allow strangers to sit and play with NO discussion. Funny how so few seem to know the basics of SAYC yet expect partner to play Exclusion Blackwood, lebensohl, and other complex conventions. The play of the hand and basic defensive techniques are system independant for the most part.

[gnasher]

Unfortunately everyone who has played for more than a year wants a rating that shows that they are in the upper 50% of the players.

That's easy enough to address: just give each player a rating that is between 50 and 100. That's the equivalent of what already happens with self-ratings.

[Rossoneri]

The current criteria for Intermediate is basically "Anyone who has played the game for a year up to anyone who is not regularly successful at tournaments." That's probably well over 80% of BBO players if they were judged by the specified criteria. The ratings seem to me to have been devised by someone who concentrated on the higher levels: intermational success -> national success -> local success -> everyone else. The trouble is that it is the "everyone else" grouping that makes up the vast bulk of players.

 

Even if the rating system was applied correctly and (almost) everyone was Intermediate it would not be particularly helpful except for the players at the extremes! The real answer is simple - Intermediate covers too broad a range so just split Intermediate into 2 groups. If there is a limit in the software to only allow 6 groups then it would still be better to have 2 intermediate levels and to combine Novice and Beginner. Something like:-

 

1. Have played bridge for less than a year

2. Played for at least a year but only very rarely successful in tournaments

3. Some success in tournaments. Most club players should rate themselves in this category.

4. Regular success in tournaments

5. Success at State/County/Regional level

6. Success at national level

7. Represented your country

 

would even out the (correct) numbers in each category enormously. They would even mean something for regular BBO users! Obviously it would not stop inflation; some people will consider themselves Expert whatever the criteria say. But it would reduce some of the need for it.

 

By all means, this looks logical, but you'll find that people coming from small countries will have 4 to 6 being the same thing.

[Vampyr]

Do you really think people are going to subject themselves to such a test just to sit down and play some random bridge?

 

Everyone loves to complain about ratings, but I don't think most people really want to see honest ratings on display -- it would be too much of an ego hit. Go to OKbridge and see the games people play with their Lehman ratings, for instance -- either hiding them or resetting them whenever they get too low.

 

Yes, people do this, but it doesn't affect the fact that the ratings do give you an idea of a potential partner's recent-ish performance.