[onoway]

Would someone with more clout than I have please explain to beginner/novice/intermediate players that they do themselves and their partners no favors by claiming to be advanced?

It gets complicated because there is such a mishmash in main and elsewhere of people claiming to be experts who don't know how to transfer or even what Stayman is. However, I once saw a profile with novice on it which also sported a star. (An extreme example, but I know of other expert players who downplay their expertise). It can be difficult for beginners to find games sometimes, many times they are not welcomed with open arms in the general bridge areas ..which is why BIL!!

But by lying about your knowlege and current skill levels, you annoy people by not knowing basic things you should know if you are advanced or better (whether you play them or not) and you won't learn anything. If you have no concept of flying a plane, sitting in a cockpit of a Boeing 747 as copilot is probably not the best place to start.

I have no problem playing with beginners or novices or anyone else ( even experts if they are willing to put up with me!) if I have a clue what I can expect from them (more or less). Everyone has bad days, but c'mon, let's have a little truth in advertising out there.

[CSGibson]

Ahh, the flaws of self-rating. No perspective to make the comparisons necessary to accurately self-rate.

[sceptic]

the truth is out there, but just what is an expert, clearly the easiest of level to define, is undefinable, because it is based on opinon, be that self opinion or that of others. You will never get agreement

The hardest level to define,(intermediate) what makes someone intermedaite, an experienced beginner or a bad advanced player, with probably millions falling into this catagory

I doubt there will ever be a way to do this properly, that satisfies everyone

[han]

Pretending to be about half a level better than I actually am has served me well in life. I would recommend to all beginning bridge players.

[matmat]

sceptic, on Aug 31 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

the truth is out there, but just what is an expert, clearly the easiest of level to define, is undefinable, because it is based on opinon, be that self opinion or that of others. You will never get agreement

The hardest level to define,(intermediate)  what makes someone intermedaite, an experienced beginner or a bad advanced player, with probably millions falling into this catagory

I doubt there will ever be a way to do this properly, that satisfies everyone

BBO has defined all the various skill levels, and although the definitions are not perfect and merely guidelines, they are much, much more delineated than what you're yapping about

http://www.bridgebase.com/help/english/top...text/intro.html

[jtfanclub]

Because if you don't mark yourself as Advanced, people won't play with you. This includes people who barely qualify as Beginner. Stupid, but true.

Self-rated experts, I don't know what their excuse is.

[sceptic]

matmat, on Aug 31 2008, 07:54 PM, said:

sceptic, on Aug 31 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

the truth is out there, but just what is an expert, clearly the easiest of level to define, is undefinable, because it is based on opinon, be that self opinion or that of others. You will never get agreement

The hardest level to define,(intermediate)  what makes someone intermedaite, an experienced beginner or a bad advanced player, with probably millions falling into this catagory

I doubt there will ever be a way to do this properly, that satisfies everyone

BBO has defined all the various skill levels, and although the definitions are not perfect and merely guidelines, they are much, much more delineated than what you're yapping about

http://www.bridgebase.com/help/english/top...text/intro.html

I dont need the link, I have seen them, but the point is, no rating system seems to satisfy everyone, why do you keep commenting on my posts, you cleary are just being antagonistic, towards me. ho hum, good job I have a thick skin

[manudude03]

I think I've mentioned this sometime before, but if the skill levels are defined as having an overall IMP/MP total.

Something like:

<-200 imps = novice
between -200 and -50 = beginner
between -50 and +50 = intermediate
between +50 and +200 = advanced
between +200 and +500 = expert
>+500 imps = World Class

I'm sure something like that could be done for MPs too, a little complicated, but gets rid of overhyped ratings for the most part.

[pclayton]

We have a thread like this once or twice a year where we discuss how pointless self ratings are. Someone then mentions how they really don't matter and as you meet others, you develop a sense of how they play. In the end, the issue goes away until someone rants about it.

[gwnn]

you can use the option "player notes" and the word "n00b" liberally. together they are a very strong force!

[matmat]

manudude03, on Aug 31 2008, 04:03 PM, said:

I think I've mentioned this sometime before, but if the skill levels are defined as having an overall IMP/MP total.

Something like:

<-200 imps = novice
between -200 and -50 = beginner
between -50 and +50 = intermediate
between +50 and +200 = advanced
between +200 and +500 = expert
>+500 imps = World Class

I'm sure something like that could be done for MPs too, a little complicated, but gets rid of overhyped ratings for the most part.

this is actually a pretty bad idea.
having a ranking system like this would encourage people to go beat up on fish.

Also, you could easily have a group of (real) world class players, who play almost exclusively amongst themselves, their scores averaging out to near 0 -- so they'd be marked intermediate?

hmmmm

[onoway]

Quote

I think I've mentioned this sometime before, but if the skill levels are defined as having an overall IMP/MP total.

etc.

The problem with this is then you really will have a hard time finding people to play with you if you are of a "lesser' standing. Sometime take a look and see how people who are superb players fare when they play in the BIL tourneys with BIL members..often it is carnage. One session could easilly lose you a whack of imps. This would tend to make it extremely difficult for people to advance, I think. Unless once you crossed the magic line there was no going back?

It might lead to a degree of abuse of beginners with people trying to whomp them to raise their imp scores..there already are a number of people who freewheel through main looking for 'easy ' marks and who leave as soon as they see they may not win. So you would have "experts" who really did have x number of imps, but all or mostly gained at the expense of novices and beginners. As a result the newby's are demoralized and disheartened.

A half a level would be fine, it's when people jump a couple of levels it is frustrating! Perhaps a couple of levels within intermediate...brown, blue, and green? c b a? 3 2 1?

When playing in main, I change to private..so far no problems and at least that way I am not leading people to believe I have skills I don't have. So far, there has been no problem finding a game, and no complaints. However, I don't go out of my way to sit at a table with all experts, either. After all, isn't the point of all this to have fun? Sometimes it's as though you are presented with a shiny new Porsche and when you go to drive it you find the motor has been replaced with one from a washing machine...perfectly valid and worthy in itself, but not in that context.

[manudude03]

If they're playing amongst some elitist group, then there's not really any problem. I doubt they would care what the automated rating would be. With that ranking I posted (obviously the values could be changed).

There was a chess website that I was once a member of where you stated what you believed your rating was, and naturally if you overstate it, high levelled players would beat you and that rating would lower to the point where it is where it should be. So maybe if you stated a value (and have a limit of like 1000 imps base or 75% MPs). It might be a little late to implement something like that though.


As for not being able to get a game because you have a lower rating, its not a perfect system by any means, and I have found this effect already happens to some extent as it is (though this would increase the frequency admittedly).

[pdmunro]

manudude03, on Aug 31 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

There was a chess website that I was once a member of where you stated what you believed your rating was, and naturally if you overstate it, high levelled players would beat you and that rating would lower to the point where it is where it should be.

On BBO, the above probably applies: just change the word "beat" to "berate".

[matmat]

manudude03, on Aug 31 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

If they're playing amongst some elitist group, then there's not really any problem. I doubt they would care what the automated rating would be. With that ranking I posted (obviously the values could be changed).

suppose they occasionally venture out and play with clients. bad clients. now their imp score goes down (the clients really suck) and their site rating goes to beginner... or... novice...

Quote

There was a chess website that I was once a member of where you stated what you believed your rating was, and naturally if you overstate it, high levelled players would beat you and that rating would lower to the point where it is where it should be. So maybe if you stated a value (and have a limit of like 1000 imps base or 75% MPs). It might be a little late to implement something like that though.

Bridge, unlike chess, is a team sport. You have a much more direct measure of the relative skill of two players from one (or a few) chess games, than you do from 10-15 bridge boards. This would work a little better if we used IMPs to judge teams on the basis of team matches (instead of individuals)...

Self rankings are OK imo, you just have to learn to figure out to adjust for ethnicity, age and inflation. Or find a group of friends to play with whose skill level matches what you're looking for.

It may be worthwhile, IMO to try to educate people about what the accomplishments for the various levels are. I mean, a kitchen bridge player who routinely takes money from their opps at their weekly game might think they're advanced even if they've never heard of some of the most basic conventions or doesn't know what squeezes are (by name or function). Anyhow, part of the overranking is ignorance, part ego.

I fly the beginner flag on my profile. (my game's been regressing). It has been my experience that I can get better random partners (not good, mind you, just better) that way than under the intermediate/advanced rating. Granted it is harder to get someone to sit down that way...
I suspect there is a mild correlation between over-ranking and a bad attitude at the table. i.e. people whose game is decent and who have confidence in it don't mind sitting down opposite a B/I.

[PedroG]

Hi All,

This is very interresting post and a real issue in BBO.

I for long time thought about myself has Novice, and all the intermediate/advanced players would almost refuse to play with me... It was really hard to find a table with those player... and filling in a place in a table that I hosted was a real problem...

Also playing against Other novices I would get complaint that I was underestitaming my skill level and was being unfair to them trying to find easy tables to play...

Also if you mark yourself has Novice, you will get all sort of crap from opps and partner about your bidding, playing skill etc etc etc... Because you're Novice and they Adv even if they know the same or even less than you...

Sure thing that staying in the BIL is the best option on this scenarios and where I founf friends and great players to play with and against...

Pedro

[vuroth]

jtfanclub, on Aug 31 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

Because if you don't mark yourself as Advanced, people won't play with you.

That works fine for me. There are probably a lot of people in the world that I would not enjoy playing with - this kind of behaviour naturally filters a lot of them out for me.



V

[smiffy]

I have an "internal" rating for players:

- Novice: Either having no clue at all ("It's a card game, right?"), opens and bids randomly with any kind of hand; or polish players where it seems to be some sort of in-joke (i have yet to meet a true polish novice, no success so far)

- Beginner: Has heard of Stayman and Blackwood, opens with 13 hcp (no less!), plays finesses whenever possible, usually plays another round of trumps after all have been drawn "just to make sure"

- Intermediate: Uses Stayman, transfers and a random assortment of other stuff routinely, opens with 11/12 hcp, usually counts at least the trump suit, most of the times correctly

- Advanced: Is able to recognize and execute a simple squeeze, has a thorough understanding of many bidding systems and a great many conventions, often opens with ~10 hcp, usually tries successfully to count all (important) suits

- Expert (i): Like "Intermediate". To disguise that puts up a somewhat grumpy and/or haughty attitude. Flees the table when caught with something stupid
- Expert (ii): Has been playing Bridge for over 40 years in a remote village in Turkey or Bulgaria, has never heard of bidding sytems or conventions and routinely passes or raises your transfer and cue bids (but when playing often does so faultlessly)
- Expert (iii): Has a very thorough understanding of all aspects of the game, can tell you the propability of the successfulness of a line within 2 digits behind the comma, opens and bids with any kind of hand, avoids finesses (last resort!), Blackwood (last resort!), all non-experts and SAYC ("brute force bidding")
- Expert (iv): Any mixture of the three above

- World Class: My only experience with such a player was a fellow with no name and no profile dropping by at my table (i'm "intermediate" myself). He did not greet anybody and after my "World Class p??" followed by three smilies he immediately left. Left me with the suspicion that he was not, in fact, world class at all.


This self-rating has its downsides but i think the possibility to make yourself a profile where you can state your knowledge of the game and the possibilty to lock the table somewhat evens that out. As far as i've seen on Vugraph even the greatest players can make the most stupid mistakes.
If one self-proclaimed expert makes one mistake after the other it does not necessarily mean that he is not, in fact, one. It might just mean that he's having a bad night. Or that he's had this one glass of Bordeaux too many...
On the other hand: My brother, making software development, is member of a website where you can introduce yourself to potential employers via a profile. There you can self-rate your understanding of software developments various aspects, like html, c++, etc. on a scale ranging from 1 (basics) to 5 (expert). You can also participate in online-tests, the results being displayed in the same manner. An astoundingly high number of people, so he says, give themselves a 4 or a 5 in their self-rating while the test results show them to have achieved just a 2 or a 3...I find it very, very peculiar that, according to my brother, people rate themselves often 2 levels higher than their test results, which are, amazingly, displayed right next to it...
I think that this is something like a "devil's spiral". An abundance of "experts" breeds an abundance of "experts". It might be quite difficult to be "honest" when you keep experiencing disadvantages in doing so. Either in job or in leisure...

[CSGibson]

smiffy, on Sep 3 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

...

I think that your criteria for evaluation of an opening bid is more of a style thing than a true sign of how advanced your play is. Alvin Roth, for example, espoused a very conservative style, and he would be considered at least an expert, and maybe world class in skill level. The reason I mention this is because you make it seem like beginners/intermediates will get immediately better if they open all 10 point hands, and that is not necessarily the case.

[SoTired]

i have a different ranking system for others. It runs 1 to 6.

1 - too poor for me. i cannot tolerate to partner
2 - poor player, but tolerable if i am in a good mood
3 - not as good as me, but a tolerable partner
4 - about equal to me
5 - better than me, but still willing to play with me
6 - much better than me and will not play with me

I think this is a more useful ranking system.

the interesting thing is that players that i might rank a 1, also have players that are too poor for them to tolerate.