List of BBOF pros

[Jinksy]

Since many players (pro and otherwise) lament the white noise from non-experts, and since it'd be genuinely useful to forum newcomers (and, come to that, to me), to know who the strongest posters are on BBF, I thought it might be worth making a public list. The idea is that these are the people whose opinions carry the most evidential weight, and whose arguments are (hopefully) most likely to be on target.

 

To avoid politicking over who's good enough to be on it though, I figure the inclusion criteria should be simple, something like this:

 

1) Current pros (defined loosely as making a decent though not necessarily primary income from bridge)

2) Former pros

3) People who're non-pro, but have competed (as adults) at the world level

4) People who aren't any of the above, but who two or more people who are nominate

 

(and they should have contributed at least 50 posts to the forums, at least one of which is in the last year)

 

So to my knowledge, the current list would look something like this (prob incomplete)

 

mikeh

PhilKing

PhantomSac

MickyB

wank

FrancesHinden

Fluffy

jallerton

 

Some I don't know about sure about, but who I get the impression might qualify:

 

cherdano

Phil

lamford

sfi

KenRexford

Gerben

 

Who did I miss? Should I remove anyone? (oops!) Should the inclusion criteria change? Is this a worthwhile exercise?

[Elianna]

To avoid politicking over who's good enough to be on it though, I figure the inclusion criteria should be simple, something like this:

 

1) Current pros (defined loosely as making a decent though not necessarily primary income from bridge)

2) Former pros

3) People who're non-pro, but have competed (as adults) at the world level

4) People who aren't any of the above, but who two or more people who are nominate

 

(and they should have contributed at least 50 posts to the forums, at least one of which is in the last year)

...

Is this a worthwhile exercise?

 

For a point in my life, I was making most of my money playing professionally, and made a decent income at that. However, I do not think that I qualify at all. I am just pointing this out, because I think that just making most of your money from bridge (i.e. being a professional) is not enough to actually have a quality position on many bridge issues, and having an opinion that people value, as I'm sure that most of the people on that list, while very polite, would not necessarily view me as their equal, nor would I view myself as an equal of many of them.

 

In other words, I'm not sure that this is a worthwhile exercise. I think that upvoting might solve much of the problem of "white noise".

[mikeh]

I really don't like this idea, tho I'm flattered by being the first name listed, lol

 

We are inviting hurt feelings without, IMO, doing equivalent good.

 

I appreciate that up votes aren't a great solution, since some of the better posters post relatively infrequently, and some have changed names. However, I hope that over time those posters who consistently make sense will be recognized as such, even if it takes a newbie a while to recognize that sort of factor. I just don't like the idea of a 'best of' list, even if I'm on it.

[Jinksy]

The other problem with upvotes is they just recurse the problem - how do we know whose upvotes to trust? As for 'taking a while', I think I've been active for maybe 5 years, and still don't know for sure I'm not over/underestimating some people (the second list being a good eg).

 

I was hoping to avoid the problem of hurt feelings by keeping the criteria objective. It makes the list less robust for the reasons Elianna gave, but a flawed list seems more useful than no list.

[Bbradley62]

The other problem with upvotes is that smart-ass "zinger" posts frequently gather upvotes, including many from me B-)

[mgoetze]

I'm pretty sure some of the people on your first list don't qualify (by your critera), though it may be only because they have sufficiently well-paying non-bridge jobs that they have no need of earning money via bridge. I'm also pretty sure that some of the people on your second list are significantly further removed in skill from the people on your first list than others. Let's just say that being able to come up with good conventions does not necessarily correlate well with other bridge skills.

 

Anyway, I wholeheartedly disapprove of this exercise. I've put in years of hard work for my advantage of knowing which posters are trustworthy, it would be unfair if others could find out more easily.

 

Also, did you know that the forum software includes a functionality allowing you to anonymously rate other users on a scale of 1 to 5?

[Jinksy]

I didn't, but if I used that, it would be for something different - there are some excellent posters who aren't necessarily excellent players, and vice versa.

[nige1]

Additions to Jinksy's 1st list:

• MrAce
• Cascade
• DBurn
• Fred
• Han
• TheHog
• Gnasher
• RHM

(including some suggested below by Zelandakh)

[diana_eva]

I'd much rather see some tips on how to write a good post, guidelines to presenting your argument in an understandable form, even guidelines to reading and thinking before hitting the Reply button and typing in a hasty post. The sort of things that focus on content, not on people.

 

There's nothing wrong with assuming everyone's opinion is equally valid - for start. In time, each can have their own favorites, and my list of favorites isn't necessarily everyone else's list. If posters in your list haven't felt the need to list their bridge credentials in their own profile, why would someone else do it for them?

 

Newcomers aren't babies, they're just new to this page, but otherwise they are thinking human beings who can draw their own conclusions IMO.

- They can google / look up on BBO those people they are curious about

- They can look at the number of posts from each person

- They can look at ratings / upvotes received

- They can choose to not care about any of the above and just read the posts/replies and think about whether they make sense or not in the context.

[whereagles]

I object to any thread that is likely to create prejudice.

While I realize the author obviously matters, I firmly believe that ideas and opinions should primarily be judged by their content, not their source.

[fourdad]

you can read or ignore any post from snybody you wish.

this idea is just silly.

[Zelandakh]

I think such a list would be very worthwhile and should even be stickied, with the proviso that it contains some clause about not bothering those on it directly on issues that could be put in a thread. My criteria would be simple: List 1 = players that have played at a World Championship (after a certain specified stage if deemed appropriate); List 2 = players that have represented their country below WC level. This information could probably be gathered from the WBF website for the majority of posters (those where the full name is known). I do not consider this a "best of" list so much as "get to know the BBF experts" list. As such I would add the real name next to the BBO login and perhaps even a short bio of major achievements. Having the real names stickied would also make it easier to follow BBFers in major competitions. A List 3 of everyone else that wants to provide their name could also be there for this purpose.

 

As has been said, not being on such a list does not make someone's contributions worthless. As an obvious example, my guess is that Rainer would not be on List 1 or 2 but everyone values his posts on cardplay. Similarly it is possible to be a top quality bidding theorist without being able to count to 12, let alone 13. Finally, fred and dburn should be on the list, even if neither posts here regularly. Perhaps Han and Josh too depending on the criteria actually used - maybe they will come back to us one day...

[NickRW]

I agree it is silly. People need to judge a post for themselves. Over time you get to know who is worth listening to and who isn't - and who maybe has good opinions on some subjects but perhaps have daft ideas on others.

[the hog]

I think a more worthwhile exercise is to make a list of posters whose posts are best ignored for their bridge content except for their occasional amusement value. That might be offensive to some though.

[diana_eva]

I think a more worthwhile exercise is to make a list of posters whose posts are best ignored for their bridge content except for their occasional amusement value. That might be offensive to some though.

 

That's pretty funny :)

[jillybean]

But has a lot of merit, don't you think? :)

[The_Badger]

Jinksy. How dare you even suggest an "elite" list of posters to an open forum! This will offend many, including me, and this will be the last post I shall write for BBO. I give my time, effort and bridge knowledge that I have acquired over 30 years for free, and now some selection of the "fittest" is suggested. What makes it even worse is that it has ended up on BBO's main site for discussion - why? I thought eugenics went out of fashion with the Third Reich!

 

No, I haven't been drinking, or had a bad day, it's just that I dislike intolerance intensely. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and we may not agree with them, but that's what democracy is all about. Even on a bridge forum.

 

I recently started writing on this forum as I used to write chess and bridge columns for local newspapers, and even had a few articles published in national ones (The Telegraph, Daily Mail) in years gone by. A lot of my competitive bridge in my teens was against Life Masters and soon-to-be Grandmasters, including a few world championship contenders. I learnt fast!

 

Bridge players are competent enough to sort the wheat from the chaff on forums. They are intelligent as they have endeavoured to learn and play this difficult card game. Let them decide for themselves and make their own judgements on the content of the forums. Period.

[Vampyr]

Don't stop posting because of one misguided person. Perhaps this thread should be deleted. Mods?

[PhilKing]

Jinksy. How dare you even suggest an "elite" list of posters to an open forum! This will offend many, including me, and this will be the last post I shall write for BBO.

 

Yes - this is an open forum. That's exactly why barking mad ideas like this occasionally surface, but why on earth should they put you off posting?

[diana_eva]

Jinksy. How dare you even suggest an "elite" list of posters to an open forum! This will offend many, including me, and this will be the last post I shall write for BBO. I give my time, effort and bridge knowledge that I have acquired over 30 years for free, and now some selection of the "fittest" is suggested. What makes it even worse is that it has ended up on BBO's main site for discussion - why? I thought eugenics went out of fashion with the Third Reich!

 

No, I haven't been drinking, or had a bad day, it's just that I dislike intolerance intensely. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and we may not agree with them, but that's what democracy is all about. Even on a bridge forum.

 

I recently started writing on this forum as I used to write chess and bridge columns for local newspapers, and even had a few articles published in national ones (The Telegraph, Daily Mail) in years gone by. A lot of my competitive bridge in my teens was against Life Masters and soon-to-be Grandmasters, including a few world championship contenders. I learnt fast!

 

Bridge players are competent enough to sort the wheat from the chaff on forums. They are intelligent as they have endeavoured to learn and play this difficult card game. Let them decide for themselves and make their own judgements on the content of the forums. Period.

 

There's no need to stop posting because of this one suggestion. As you can see from the replies, it is not exactly popular. Bridge players are intelligent enough to make their own judgements - on suggestions as well as on other subjects :) There are many posters like you who choose not to list their credentials. As I have said before, I believe it is up to each person to reveal their identity or background.

 

As for the topic itself I had mixed feelings on how to go about it. So far nobody reported it. Most times the community is quite effective at policing itself, and moderation isn't necessary. If it derails into something devious we'll be quick to lock it.

[mikeh]

Jinksy. How dare you even suggest an "elite" list of posters to an open forum! This will offend many, including me, and this will be the last post I shall write for BBO. I give my time, effort and bridge knowledge that I have acquired over 30 years for free, and now some selection of the "fittest" is suggested. What makes it even worse is that it has ended up on BBO's main site for discussion - why? I thought eugenics went out of fashion with the Third Reich!

 

No, I haven't been drinking, or had a bad day, it's just that I dislike intolerance intensely. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and we may not agree with them, but that's what democracy is all about. Even on a bridge forum.

 

I recently started writing on this forum as I used to write chess and bridge columns for local newspapers, and even had a few articles published in national ones (The Telegraph, Daily Mail) in years gone by. A lot of my competitive bridge in my teens was against Life Masters and soon-to-be Grandmasters, including a few world championship contenders. I learnt fast!

 

Bridge players are competent enough to sort the wheat from the chaff on forums. They are intelligent as they have endeavoured to learn and play this difficult card game. Let them decide for themselves and make their own judgements on the content of the forums. Period.

 

 

While I was one of the first responders and didn't/don't like the idea at all, I have no clue as to where you find your righteous indignation :D

 

It was an idea. It wasn't, as the community response showed, an idea that landed on fertile ground, but that's all it was, and nowhere did he suggest that ONLY those posters 'elected' to be on a 'strongest poster' list should be able to post or should be seen as the only voices to which attention ought to be paid. I don't see any trace of 'intolerance' in the idea, anymore than I see intolerance in the notion that a professional sports league can have a 'Hall of Fame' or even an All-Star game.

 

Those players who didn't make it into the hall of fame or an all-star game aren't being subjected to intolerance, any more than posters not 'elected' to the 'lists' would be. Many players unchosen had lots of fans who think that their player ought to be in the Hall of Fame or ought to be on the All Star team. And even those who clearly aren't of that calibre often have moments of greatness.

 

Of course, as is obvious from the reaction of the community, this isn't about to happen in real life, but just where was the insult to you, or to the community, that so outraged you as to cause you to stop posting?

 

If I read you correctly, you see your posting as a benefit to the community...you give us the benefit of your expertise for nothing. So why are you punishing the hundreds of readers who have nothing to do with the suggestion?

 

I don't mean, by the foregoing, that your postings aren't a benefit! Personally, I hope my posts often are, but I confess that altruism isn't the only motive for posting. I suspect that both you and I derive some ego satisfaction from the process as well :D

[mgoetze]

What makes it even worse is that it has ended up on BBO's main site for discussion - why?

Wow, I have often thought that the selection of forum threads put in BBO news was kind of random, but this was a really terrible choice, I might have to change my mind and conclude that actually the worst possible threads are the ones that get put on BBO news.

[diana_eva]

Wow, I have often thought that the selection of forum threads put in BBO news was kind of random, but this was a really terrible choice, I might have to change my mind and conclude that actually the worst possible threads are the ones that get put on BBO news.

 

It's automated. Threads with most views/replies get selected automatically for BBO News.

[steve2005]

I think such a list would be very worthwhile and should even be stickied, with the proviso that it contains some clause about not bothering those on it directly on issues that could be put in a thread. My criteria would be simple: List 1 = players that have played at a World Championship (after a certain specified stage if deemed appropriate); List 2 = players that have represented their country below WC level.

Nice but there are a lot of good bridge players that can't write decently or have nothing interesting to say.

[cherdano]

It's automated. Threads with most views/replies get selected automatically for BBO News.

 

I respectfully suggest that this is a bad idea. For one thing, would it really take away too much time to have someone look over the selected thread for 15 seconds? For another, BBO News makes the impression of a manually edited compilation of articles. If you add some automated bits to that (something that many news sites do, as a "Most Read" or "Most Emailed" top ten list etc.), I think it would be better to label them as such.