BBO Skill Level Description

[thepossum]

A better alteration would be:-

 

Intermediate: honest

Advanced: dishonest

Expert: delusional

World Class: jokester

 

You forgot one

 

Private:embarrassed

[mycroft]

and, referencing another thread currently:

 

Novice: World class, and of course you know that because everyone recognizes my name (even if you, and many many thousands of people not full-time on the circuit, don't).

[pilowsky]

I've had many titles in my lifetime.

Fellow - * > 5

Professor * > 5

Doctor

***** for brains ++

*****wit ++

arrogant ++

Paul, you've been a good boy *1

pilowsky you have potential - many times.

 

What I've noticed is that it doesn't matter how hard you try, the person sitting next to you will always be a little better. Just enjoy doing it, getting better, and contributing to the common good. Otherwise, what's the point?

[Vampyr]

How about altering the descriptions to something like:

 

INT - Familiar with a basic bidding system; learning splinters, RKC and other more complex conventions. Can count number of trump played, but fuzzy about the other suits. Learning to watch partner's discards on defense.

 

This is more like beginner. Unlike BBO, i don’t think the length of time one has played has any relevance.

 

 

ADV - Familiar with a tournament level bidding system. Learning to count out a hand. As declarer makes most routine contracts. As defender learning to construct other hands from the bidding and play.

 

 

Definitely intermediate.

 

 

EXP - Counts out all hands and routinely constructs the hidden hands. As declarer makes all makeable, routine hands and at least 98% of difficult ones (requiring squeezes, throw ins, etc.). Observes and remembers bidding and play, and draws appropriate inferences as declarer and on defense. Has developed instincts and techniques necessary to judge next move in a competitive auction, particularly high level ones. The above is unrelated to the number of gadgets on the convention card, but rather based on a deep understanding of the way conventions interrelate.

Again, this is more like advanced.

WC - Everything the expert does, with flair, better and more accurately.

 

 

I still don’t see the need to put anything at all

[SMN0]

I think there are four skill areas -- bidding I (using the system bids correctly), bidding II (judgment calls), declaring and defense. Some people -- and robots -- are advanced or better in some area(s) and way below in others. So grade yourself on each and then come up with an average.

 

I suggest that for declarer play, if you've never executed a strip and endplay (like a surprisingly high percentage of the playing population) you are intermediate at best, and that if you've never executed a squeeze on purpose, you don't qualify as an expert. I'll leave it to others to suggest objective tests for the other areas.

[Zelandakh]

I think there are four skill areas -- bidding I (using the system bids correctly), bidding II (judgment calls), declaring and defense. Some people -- and robots -- are advanced or better in some area(s) and way below in others. So grade yourself on each and then come up with an average.

 

I suggest that for declarer play, if you've never executed a strip and endplay (like a surprisingly high percentage of the playing population) you are intermediate at best, and that if you've never executed a squeeze on purpose, you don't qualify as an expert. I'll leave it to others to suggest objective tests for the other areas.

Some of us regularly exercise squeezes and are nonetheless intermediate, even with their bidding way better than their card play. This bar is way too low for being classified as Expert.

[bberris]

I...

It doesn't affect how I play against you.

It affects how I play. Someone with a low ranking is more likely to:

Pass a forcing bid

Lead low from 2

leave in a takeout double

pull a penalty double

play high from equals opp opening leader

lead low from equals as declarer

pass a responding hand

overcall and open crap

pass an opening bid

open a weak 2 with 7 or 8 cards

cover an honor lead

grab an ace

lead the low sequence card

reverse with a minimum

criticize a good play that results wrong

 

I'm sure I forgot somethings.

[SMN0]

Some of us regularly exercise squeezes and are nonetheless intermediate, even with their bidding way better than their card play. This bar is way too low for being classified as Expert.

 

Note that I phrased this as a minimum requirement only, and declarer play is only one element out of four. But congratulations on your squeezes -- it puts you significantly above average for that element.

[chigal64]

i would have to agree about the level of play and the way some describe their ability. Many who say they are intermediary dont know some of the most common conventions and dont have profiles to note this fact. I have always thought a profile should be mandatory so a partner and opopenents can understand the bidding.

[chigal64]

here's an instance where beginners shouldn't play in tournaments-I responded to my partners 1nt open with a transfer of 2ds and she left me there. Of course everyone was in 4h and making it. Very frustrating when you are trying to get pts and pay to play

[johnu]

i would have to agree about the level of play and the way some describe their ability. Many who say they are intermediary dont know some of the most common conventions and dont have profiles to note this fact. I have always thought a profile should be mandatory so a partner and opopenents can understand the bidding.

Having conventions listed on your profile doesn't mean you know how to play them, or that you play the standard meaning, or if you are any good. Not having conventions listed on your profile doesn't mean you don't know them, or that you aren't an expert or better.

[Zelandakh]

I'm sure I forgot somethings.

Probably the most significant practical point in playing against weaker opponents rather than strong ones is that they never false card, so you can always rely on a given card being the lowest that they hold if they are not trying to win the trick. This can significantly cut down on the amount you need to guess.

[Zelandakh]

here's an instance where beginners shouldn't play in tournaments-I responded to my partners 1nt open with a transfer of 2ds and she left me there. Of course everyone was in 4h and making it. Very frustrating when you are trying to get pts and pay to play

Did your partner also have transfers listed on it? If you are talking about the hand I think you mean then your partner's profile suggests they play Basic Acol. If you do not agree anything with them before the tournament starts, why would you think that they will assume anything other than that that is the system being used? Your partner probably found your lack of communication at least as frustrating as you found the Pass. After all, they were presumably also paying. Oh yes, and you did not even alert the 2♦ response, so your opponents will have assumed it was natural too. If you actually had an agreement to play transfers then not alerting them is unethical.

[seagorilla]

did you kibitz zia?

 

he says he is beginner. I think that is the only class that is accurate.

 

on a more serious note:

 

WC - should be winners or finalists of international tournaments

 

expert - should be not self declared - should be accorded by more than say 10 players

 

advanced - eliminate this

 

intermediate - eliminate this

 

novice - experimenting with bridge

 

beginner - have played for less than say 3 years, and has not won a club game

 

experienced - wins consistently, say 30% of the club matches

 

student - gunhole tries hard, studies

 

play for fun - ok player but not serious

[johnu]

Some kind of analytical results based rating system would be the way to go IMO if you want to get the most accurate system of ratings.

 

BBO has consistently been against numerical rating systems but that was under the old ownership. I don't recall seeing anything about rating systems from the new owners.

 

No matter what descriptive rating system you use, as long as it is a self rating it won't be worth much.

[pilowsky]

Some kind of analytical results based rating system would be the way to go IMO if you want to get the most accurate system of ratings.

 

BBO has consistently been against numerical rating systems but that was under the old ownership. I don't recall seeing anything about rating systems from the new owners.

 

No matter what descriptive rating system you use, as long as it is a self rating it won't be worth much.

 

I have a friend who plays on Funbridge - he tells me that they do use a ranking/ladder system.

Of course, it is a somewhat different game.

[sfi]

Some kind of analytical results based rating system would be the way to go IMO if you want to get the most accurate system of ratings.

If - that's the big question. OKBridge had one and it turned the place into a fairly toxic environment. In fact, from memory that was at least one of the triggers for the creation of BBO. It's not clear what problem an accurate rating system would solve, but we do have at least one good example of the problems it creates.

[pilowsky]

If - that's the big question. OKBridge had one and it turned the place into a fairly toxic environment. In fact, from memory that was at least one of the triggers for the creation of BBO. It's not clear what problem an accurate rating system would solve, but we do have at least one good example of the problems it creates.

 

Couldn't agree more. If there's going to be a solution, it's a good idea to know exactly what problem you are trying to solve first.

The people that don't like self-describing of 'talent' don't like it for a number of reasons.

 

I play in the Beginners Intermediate Lounge and describe myself as an Intermediate. I'm pretty sure that many here would think that was over-rating myself.

You absolutely cannot play in the BIL if you rate yourself as anything other than Beginner or Intermediate.

 

This means that many people overwhelmed with modesty constantly self-describe themselves as intermediate or Beginner even if they have a ranking of J or 24 or similar.

These unfortunates are so desperate for masterpoints they'll do anything. If you don't believe me ask the TD's.

 

In Chess, the Elo system is internationally and universally recognised. It has its problems too because, for example, Australian players were disadvantaged by playing in a smaller talent pool. I assume this is no longer the case.

Bridge needs to wake up to itself if it wants to be recognised as a mind sport alongside Chess and Go which have been around for a very long time. At the moment Bridge is still puddling about in the shallows.

I know it's been going for a few decades, but that's nothing compared to the others.

 

The idea is to attract participants not repel them.

[CarolS]

I agree. This year, when I first started playing for real on BBO, I was reluctant to upgrade from the Intermediate status I gave myself when I first joined years ago.

 

I am also a Silver Life Master, and will likely make Ruby in the next year or so.

 

Now that I've been playing against largely Intermediate and Advanced players, I am comfortable with the upgrade, but Advanced is too wide a range before Expert.

[SelfGovern]

i would have to agree about the level of play and the way some describe their ability. Many who say they are intermediary dont know some of the most common conventions and dont have profiles to note this fact. I have always thought a profile should be mandatory so a partner and opopenents can understand the bidding.

 

Profiles mean nothing. Anybody who calls themselves 'advanced' should have a complete system card available to share with a partner, and post an agreed card for the benefit of the opponents. I am fine if people want to use the GIB 2/1 card -- a workable system -- for this purpose.

[Vampyr]

Most Poles and many other Central Europeans

Lead low from 2

Any number of people

lead low from equals as declarer

It is sometimes right to

cover an honor lead

or

grab an ace

One style, when playing 2/1GF is to

reverse with a minimum

After responder’s 2/1

I'm sure I forgot somethings.

Indeed.

[Vampyr]

If - that's the big question. OKBridge had one and it turned the place into a fairly toxic environment. In fact, from memory that was at least one of the triggers for the creation of BBO. It's not clear what problem an accurate rating system would solve, but we do have at least one good example of the problems it creates.

 

Did you find it that way? I never noticed. I even played with strangers when I was in a foreign country and didn’t yet know any bridge players. I met my husband on OKBridge.

 

One other thing is that the U/I was miles better than BBO’s was/is.

[johnu]

If - that's the big question. OKBridge had one and it turned the place into a fairly toxic environment. In fact, from memory that was at least one of the triggers for the creation of BBO. It's not clear what problem an accurate rating system would solve, but we do have at least one good example of the problems it creates.

From the posts made in this very forum, bad behavior is rampant on BBO in the free pickup games. Of course the suggested solution has always been to avoid those games and only play in games with people you know.

 

On the other hand, besides the numerous cheating incidents (and for all I know, the cheaters were very polite people B-)), the online pay to play games run by the national bridge organizations don't seem to have a big problem. There, you have masterpoint ratings (I know, nobody thinks much of them for determining skill) and the EBU has a separate bridge rating system for their players. Colorado Springs has an independent rating system for ACBL players.

[akwoo]

The idea is to attract participants not repel them.

 

The USCF has 93,000 members, and about half of them are under 18.

 

The ACBL has 165,000 members.

 

An order of magnitude more people know how to play chess than know how to play bridge.

 

I don't think chess is a good model for attracting participants.

[nullve]

The USCF has 93,000 members, and about half of them are under 18.

 

The ACBL has 165,000 members.

 

An order of magnitude more people know how to play chess than know how to play bridge.

 

I don't think chess is a good model for attracting participants.

BBO (by far the biggest bridge site, isn't it?) has currently 4,711 players online.

 

chess.com (the biggest but just one of many big chess sites) has currently 93,252 players online.

 

Maybe chess does something right after all.