[jillybean]

Good news, we can have a ‘club’. If we decide to go ahead, BBO need to know:

- title
- Private or public?

I see the benefits of having a club as being an identity and location for people to attend lessons and play and a means of communicating via Lounge Club News.

I think we should use a public club, set some ground rules or adopt BBO's and hold sessions open to all. The only entrance exam should be for people wanting to run the lessons.
If you agree that anyone should be free to attend lessons, the only benefit I can see in private clubs is the ‘broadcast to all members’ function that isn't avialable to public clubs.
Information could be provided self serve in the lounge club news and forum.

jb

[Mr. Dodgy]

Advantermediates Anonymous?

[bearmum]

No suggestion as to name , but I am glad that as "advanced" (BUT really would prefre to rank myself as Intemediate + -- but that's not an option) I will be allowed to play there occasionally

[ArcLight]

What I would like to see in a club:

1) people (especially my pards!) using count signals. While experts don't always use count signals, they do at select times, and a benefit of always using count signals is it will force us to pay more attention at figuring out everyones distribution. The emphasis in a learning environment should be to LEARN not to win. So by signaling count all the time you may sometimes help declarer, but you and pard will also improve, so when you play else where and only signal at select times, you will be prepared.

2) a brief POLITE port mortem if something goes wrong - "my jump rebid shows a solid self sustaining trump suit." "Oh, I thought it just showed AKQxx, and since I had a stiff I didnt think it would workout" or "P, I was signaling I had an odd number of Clubs, if you held up your Ace one round declarer would be cut off from dummy" or "P, you lead back a low club from KJxx, it would have been better to lead the J through declarer and squash dummys holding, the low card forced my Ace, and declarer ended up making her Queen""

While some people with thin skins don't like to be "lectured", that is how you learn. By having your mistakes pointed out. You may not agree with the criticism, but its something to think about.


3) For me, I get far more out of books than someones on line lesson (which tends to be very slow). What I can't get out of a book is play experience and feed back on my mistakes. "Arc, why did you raise me to game? I was just making a competitive bid." What I would like to see is a mentor using some predealt hands and working with say 4 players, to go over their carding and signaling.

[QuiteACard]

I prefer a private club if for no other reason than to require potential members to register. If people are unwilling to spend the 3 minutes required to submit their registration info and are unwilling to wait the 24-48 hours for their request to be processed then I wonder if they'll have the patience and maturity to be a valued member of such a club. This is similar to the idea of offering something for free vs. charging a nominal fee. Everybody wants something for free; requiring people to pay even the smallest fee deters folks we probably don't want as members anyway, especially when the "payment" is nothing more than delayed gratification.

Regarding ArcLight's suggestions: in general I agree with them. Regarding point 2: I'd find this type of post-mortem info useful when *I* request it and I'm willing to offer it to my partner when *they* request it. Now that I think about it, I'd like to hear our opponents interpret each of our bids; that's really a test of our bidding skills.

Regarding ArcLights's point 3: Hear! Hear! I'm a book learner. I find it necessary to read and re-read material before I "own" it - and that's for *well-written* material - the *poorly written* material takes even longer. Lectures alone don't work well for me unless the speaker is extremely organized and a focused and practiced communicator who writes fluently in English. I'd love to attend lessons based on a particular chapter (or even a couple of specific hands from a particular chapter) of a well-written book that's appropriate for my level. Shameless plug: I just completed shep*'s 30 week group lesson series using William Root's book "How to Play a Bridge Hand" as the textbook. I found the course extremely useful (although you'd never guess it if you've seen my declarer play lately) and I recommend it highly. For those interested shep* is going to offer this course again starting early Jan 2006. In addition she plans to offer another course using William Root's "How to Defend a Bridge Hand" as the textbook. End of shameless plug.

My $0.02.

[inquiry]

I would prefer an "open club" to a priivate one. I think free lessons should be for open for all. The only reason a private club might be preferred is if some royal pain fellow keeps logging in and disrupting the lessons. And even then, a yellow could handle the problem for you.

Ben

[kenberg]

I always prefer open to closed, so I prefer a public club. No particular logic, I just prefer it.

I generally agree with Arc's comments and I'll offer some others. When I play pick-up I do what I can and never comment about partner unless he/she feels the need to tell me what I should have done. Eg Recently a partner explained I should have taken a sac in 5C against 4S, so I took the opportunity to explain that normal (in no way inspired) defense defeats 4S. But in a learning environment more comment should be expected. I have two suggestions: I believe starting a comment with "I intended my bid to show... " produces far better conversation than "My bid shows ...", and I would recommend that partners agree upon a reference. With my current f2f partner we have a source, and if we have a misunderstanding our first attempt at resolution is to look it up. Our agreement is that if it is in our source, then that's what the bid means, at least until we explicitly decide to play it differently.

It is not unusual, playing in an indy, to find a partner who says he plays SAYC but who thinks that 1D-pass-2NT is an invitational bid. Whatever the merits of that treatment, it isn't SAYC. There are more sophisticated variations on this same theme.

Ken

[ArcLight]

Keep in mind, this is a learning room, not a general play area. In a general play area, I would be far less willing to make criticisms.


>Regarding ArcLight's suggestions: in general I agree with them. Regarding point 2: I'd find this type of post-mortem info useful when *I* request it and I'm willing to offer it to my partner when *they* request it. Now that I think about it, I'd like to hear our opponents interpret each of our bids; that's really a test of our bidding skills.


I would request it by default.
If I'm playing with a teacher/mentor I will refrain from criticism, though I may want to ask about something, and let them realize they made a mistake (or not, if they dont want to admit it).

However, in a learning room I wouldn't play with another intermdiate level player who refused to discuss the hands or accept criticism. If someone wants to keep on making mistakes and not improve, I don't want to play with them. I don't care about winning a few meaningless hands, I want to improve.


I'm sure Sheps lessons are excellent, but if they are from Bill Roots books (which I have read and they are excellent) then why sit through a lesson instead of reading the book yourself?


I think one can improve better by reading books and buying the Mike Lawrence software, and Bridge Master with the extra lessons at your level.
Many good bridge books are available at the library, at least in the USA, and probably in Europe. There are "old" declarer play books that libraries will have, so if money is an issue, you can read them for free.


I have no problem with free / open lessons. But I would hope they wouldn't be dumbed down to the level of the lowest player.

My only concern with an open club is since many players overrate their skill, I think there is the potential for many weak players to come to the club. They will have trouble with the card play techniques and fundamentals. For example, it would be frustrating to have a terrible partner. It would also make the game less valuable for the opps.

One improves by playing with and against stronger players not weaker ones.
But if you are much weaker, its not fun for the others.
There needs to be a happy medium.

[Chamaco]

I have a title to suggest:

"BBO expert" Club

[jillybean]

I think concerns about partners’ style and critique techniques are superfluous to this discussion, valid at an open table, not a teaching table. The person who is hosting the session will be setting the style and providing the feedback.


Re: Private vs Public club, I’m not even sure a private club would help to keep disruptive people out. Can you remove a person from a club list and boot them from a club, like you can boot someone from a table?
You may still need help from a yellow.

The way private club membership works really only keep the honest ones out.

[keylime]

I tend to think that private clubs require a lot of work. However open clubs would in theory possibly permit abuse.

Two good examples of open clubs are the Total Points and the WP crew. I've yet to see folks really be that disruptive in there.

I think open is the better way to go.

[Double !]

Just a thought.

Assuming that such a club is for Int+/adv........

What happens when someone represents him/herself as Int. or advanced, but others disagree with the self-rating. Who is to say, "Hey, you're no advanced player, you're an expert and you shouldn't be in the int+/adv club as a member?"

What I really think is great about this idea and what has been going on in the forum is all of the people who have been reaching out for help or discussion, and all of the people who have been willing to offer support and assistance. Contrast this to something that happened to me when I was starting out (age about 20 +/-). I was playing at a good local club game, and I turned and asked a reputed expert for his opinion about what bid should have been made with my hand. Bless him, his response was to inform me that he charged a fee for his advice. Thanks a lot for nothing! I don't get that same sense of arrogance from the members of this forum at this time. It's hard to remember but, for us more senior players, we were all juniors and just starting out at some point. Enough said.

Warmest wishes to you all.
DHL.

[jillybean]

Double !, on Dec 28 2005, 11:18 PM, said:

What happens when someone represents him/herself as Int. or advanced, but others disagree with the self-rating.  Who is to say, "Hey, you're no advanced player, you're an expert and you shouldn't be in the int+/adv club as a member?"

If the person isn't breaking any rules of conduct..does it matter?
Lessons available to anyone, material targeted at int+/adv.


I agree with your view of forum members, extremely helpful and patient.

jb

[ArcLight]

>What happens when someone represents him/herself as Int. or advanced, but others disagree with the self-rating. Who is to say, "Hey, you're no advanced player, you're an expert and you shouldn't be in the int+/adv club as a member?"

I think it would be to the benefit of Intermediate and advanced players to have Experts play. Think about it:

1) one improves by playing with and against stronger players

2) the expert opponent will punish your mistakes. If you are willing to take the time to look over the replay later on you may learn from it.

3) the Expert will play the hand well, and may deceive the defenders. Again, study the card play, and how the Expert may have drawn inferences and chosen a different line than what would be normal.

I would love to play with and against experts. (Fred if you need a partner, just give me a call ) It would be great for me (perhaps a bit frustrating at times too!) and I'd learn. It would probably be frustrating for them after a while.

The true expert will get bored playing with weaker players, unless they are mentoring a specific partner.


My concern is the "intermediates" who are not. The ones who:
- make cute leads such as 2 from 3 2 or 2 from 10 9 8 4 3 2
- Holding 3 trump and 15 HCP jump to Blackwood
- cash all their aces on the first 2 card plays then say "WDO" when the opponents make game, scoring declarers 2 kings
- don't lead your suit after you have overcalled when vulnerable
- switch suits all the time, giving declarer all sorts of free finesses
- ruff your winner on defense because they haven't paid attention
- dont want to be bothered with signaling, not even attitude, and play random cards.

[jillybean]

For jb: For the audio the people that want to follow the session will first have to install the product and connect to it. This is no issue for regular readers of this forum, but people that are logged in to BBO and are informed at the last moment of these sessions will not be able to follow it. Maybe this is another reason to have a private club? Then you can send a message in advance - or announce it in the club - that the software will be required?

I am not sure if the benefits of broadcast facilities justify the additional work of a private club. The membership application/approval process is cumbersome and as yet no one has volunteered for the job.

As a method of communicating with members online at the time of a lesson we could use a specific Id “lesson”. If this Id was only used during lessons and included in your friends list, you would have notification that a session was underway. This has other advantages over the broadcast tool in that it is voluntary, non-invasive, can’t be abused and wont store redundant notifications for the next time you logon.

Put the onus on the members to keep up to date with sessions via lounge club news and forum. I think the club will be more autonomous without lists and memberships, people wanting to run a lesson could notify people on forum, signon as ‘lesson’ and run one.

Lets see if someone volunteers to manage the membership, its not something I want to take on.

jb

[kenberg]

As noted, having experts is a good thing not a bad thing, but I doubt they will be flocking to the club. At the other end of the scale I would distinguish two types: Limited knowledge and screw-offs. We all are only so good, I enjoy playing with a strong player and I hope I can provide a good experience for someone not so far along. People who make weird leads/bids/etc just because they think it is fun to screw up the hand are another matter. On any one hand, you may not be able to tell which you are dealing with. Over the course of time it becomes clear, and it may be necessary to address it. I favor waiting to see if it becomes a problem.

I have a starting out story of my own to add to double's: I began in a beginner's game, mostly so I wasn't screwing up the game for everyone else. After a while I and my partner took on the unit game. After a round where we did ok, my RHO announced: I estimate a total of 9 matchpoints this round. Against this pair we should get 17. Twenty plus years later I still remember who my partner was and who my right hand opponent was. Happily I came to find this the exception rather than the rule.

Ken

[QuiteACard]

jillybean2, on Dec 29 2005, 10:58 AM, said:

Lets see if someone volunteers to manage the membership, its not something I want to take on.

jb

Fair enough jb. If we want a membership-only club then we need membership criteria. Any ideas on this?

My general suggestions involve three areas: (1) allow people to perform self-assessment of their abilities against objective criteria, (2) state the level of conduct or behaviour expected of all potential members, and (3) require people to identify themselves via e-mail address - preferably using an e-mail address tied to a for-pay ISP.

Thinking off the top of my head for item (1) we might recommend that people work through the Bridge Master samples on BBO and suggest that they need to demonstrate proficiency to a certain level in order to contribute to and to derive benefits from membership. Alternatively we might hold membership application tournaments to assess skill levels and conduct. Or we might publish lists of concepts and techniques one is expected to have mastered in order to join this club and require each potential member to rate their proficiency concerning those concepts and techniques.

Regarding item (2), it should be pretty easy to collect some of the thoughts expressed in this thread as a starting point for desired and expected conduct.

Comments?

[ArcLight]

>People who make weird leads/bids/etc just because they think it is fun to screw up the hand are another matter.

Do people really do this? On a regualr basis? Isn't that a waste of their time?

I would think such a player would be identified rather quickly, and no one would pard them.

If pard makes a really awful lead, in this learning lounge, I think its fair to ask them about it. I think bozos will not last long.


I think the bigger problem will be weaker players, who think they are a lot better than they are. And also players who make a bad/weird play and refuse to answer any questions or discuss anything.

"P, I took your 3 Spade bid to be a Limit Raise with 4 trumps. With only 3 card support I'd rather you make a different bid if we play together. It makes it easier for me to judge the hand"

"P, when you blast into Blackwood like that, you don't give us time to explore the hand, and its easy to get too high and get set when game was cold. Next time please instaed make a 2/1 response or a splinter etc."

"P, when you lead the 2 (from 8 2) it mislead me into thinking you had an honor and wanted the suit returned. Why not intsead lead top of a sequence in Diamonds?"

If the person doesn't reply, then its not someone I care to play with, as they are not serious about improving.

[inquiry]

QuiteACard, on Dec 29 2005, 01:23 PM, said:

My general suggestions involve three areas: (1) allow people to perform self-assessment of their abilities against objective criteria, (2) state the level of conduct or behaviour expected of all potential members, and (3) require people to identify themselves via e-mail address - preferably using an e-mail address tied to a for-pay ISP.

Thinking off the top of my head for item (1) we might recommend that people work through the Bridge Master samples on BBO and suggest that they need to demonstrate proficiency to a certain level in order to contribute to and to derive benefits from membership. Alternatively we might hold membership application tournaments to assess skill levels and conduct. Or we might publish lists of concepts and techniques one is expected to have mastered in order to join this club and require each potential member to rate their proficiency concerning those concepts and techniques.


Comments?

Comment? This is total, utter nonsense. The idea (jilly's) is to form a club where more advanced topics are discussed than what is occuring in the beginner/intermediate lounge.

There is no need for an entry requirement. If a beginner wants to learn about visualizing opponents hands, fine, let him come. If an expert want to sit in and see what is happening, great. What is the problem?

The entire idea that she is pushing for is a free club, with a clear goal. I suspect some of the "teachers" will not be up to the task of providing useful lessons. But the great news is a club that includes advanced players will see right through the unquailified educators quite quickly. All the club needs is a single person who, when hears enough complaints, will not allow the unqualified instructors to teach. That is it.

I can't imagine the need for entry requirements or restricted entries.

[kenberg]

A strong vote in favor of Inquiry's views. I was sitting here thinking that maybe I should respond to jb's call for someone to handle membership but I began to envision myself trying to enforce criteria that I don't even support and I thought Oh the Hell with it.

Give me an estimate of the time and trouble involved here. Perhaps I can handle it, assuming I don't have to boot myself out of the club when I go down in a cold contract.

Ken