[1eyedjack]

kaydea, on Sep 29 2009, 01:39 PM, said:

how would my p know this was my suit if we haven't taken part in the auction?

What matmat said. I would add that there are seldom guarantees in this game but that should not prevent you from acting on indications that fall short of certainty. By the same token leading a singleton in partner's suit provides no guarantee of profit even if you are certain that it is his suit.

Another example might be
1C-1H
1S-1N
3N
and you hold relatively short Spades. Doubleton may be preferable to singleton (even at the expense of partner's length) as you may need to lead them twice through dummy, but the principle is the same. You can infer partner's length in the suit from the auction despite his silence.

But even if you are uncertain as to his suit it may yet be best practice to attempt a guess at it despite that your guess will on occasion fail. If you are entryless and partner rates to have more values than you, then it may be your best chance to beat the contract if you happen on his suit rather than plug futilely at your own, only to find yourself unable to enjoy the long cards even if you are fortunate enough to establish them.

[pdmunro]

I use "BBO points" to assess a player's ability. Could we have an average as well as a "total"?

[Quantumcat]

At the Grand Slam club in Australia, there is a very good rating system. You get seeded/have an expected score calculated in every game you play depending on field strength and your partner's rating. If you do better, you get a plus added to your rating (only actually added at the end of the month) and if you do worse, you get a minus. If you play a field of rabbits and only get, say, 59% and win, you will get a huge minus if the rating system expected you to get 70%. So you can't improve your rating by beating up beginners.

You also get no rating when you start. You have to have played a certain number of games with a rated partner (maybe about ten) before you get a rating, so the rating you start with is real, and is never artificially inflated (or else that would affect everyone who played against you).

If anyone is interested this is its website: http://www.bridgecentral.com/

[Mbodell]

Quantumcat, on Sep 29 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

If anyone is interested this is its website: http://www.bridgecentral.com/

I believe this is the same idea as that behind the power ratings from COSprings Bridge. Except their scale is centered on 25 instead of 50 (so divide by 2).

[dlbalt]

jw_rob2, on Dec 20 2008, 04:38 AM, said:

Some people are so wildly out in their profile skill levels that it makes playing with/against them difficult.

This is the internet, where you can make yourself into a Roman Emperor, Dragon-slaying Knight, or a blue-skinned Elf, if you desire, by simply calling yourself such a thing.

Do you really expect people NOT to make themselves into World Class Bridge Players?

[bluecalm]

There are guidelines on BBO. The problem is people don't respect them. Honest players face the dillema. If they give honest skill level other people will think they suck because most other people overestimate their level but if they over estimate their level it won't be in accordance with the guidelines.

I am for example advanced player (I played in 2nd polish division and in many national competitions) but I play better than 90% of experts at bbo. Therefore I set my skill level as expert knowing that I am not as good as "real" experts...

[billw55]

Quantumcat, on Sep 29 2009, 06:00 PM, said:

If you play a field of rabbits and only get, say, 59% and win, you will get a huge minus if the rating system expected you to get 70%. So you can't improve your rating by beating up beginners.

70% is really high to expect, even against rabbits. There is no field protection, after all. A score which ought to be a top often won't be, due to bungling at other tables.

[1eyedjack]

bluecalm, on Oct 6 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

There are guidelines on BBO. The problem is people don't respect them. Honest players face the dillema. If they give honest skill level other people will think they suck because most other people overestimate their level but if they over estimate their level it won't be in accordance with the guidelines.

I am for example advanced player (I played in 2nd polish division and in many national competitions) but I play better than 90% of experts at bbo. Therefore I set my skill level as expert knowing that I am not as good as "real" experts...

In case of honesty dilemma, set as "Private".

[kaydea]

1eyedjack, on Oct 6 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

bluecalm, on Oct 6 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

There are guidelines on BBO. The problem is people don't respect them. Honest players face the dillema. If they give honest skill level other people will think they suck because most other people overestimate their level but if they over estimate their level it won't be in accordance with the guidelines.

I am for example advanced player (I played in 2nd polish division and in many national competitions) but I play better than 90% of experts at bbo. Therefore I set my skill level as expert knowing that I am not as good as "real" experts...

In case of honesty dilemma, set as "Private".

I dislike the Private skill level but perhaps I don't accurately fit into the Intermediate skill level . Maybe the options could be widened and include terms that might better describe my level of play. For instance :- Mediocre, Low Intermediate, Aspiring Intermediate
In any event I am very thankful for this site considering it's free. Thanks Fred.

[mycroft]

Advanced, unless I'm drunk, or practising, or pushing cards while watching the football game?

[dlbalt]

bluecalm, on Oct 6 2009, 08:24 AM, said:

There are guidelines on BBO. The problem is people don't respect them. Honest players face the dillema.

Agreed. I would call myself an average (intermediate) player in most large bridge clubs or US sectional tournaments; on BBO, however, most of the intermediates cannot count to 13. So I stretch my rating to advanced.

I notice that BBO considers it bad form to tell a player that he has overstated his rating. That's understandable: BBO is in the business of making money, and if the wannabes keep getting told how bad they are, they'll go away and won't buy those BBO dollars.

In a real world club, or on the tournament circuit, the self-deluded bad player gets steered into class-A games, beginner's clinics, and the low-end flights of large events. Sooner or later they get the message (and, perhaps, move into online bridge where they can resume their delusions).

That leaves a void. How to tell a player he isn't as good as he wants to think he is?

Most of the WBEs (pronounced WIBBY, for wanna be expert) on BBO seem to be men, by the way. No surprise there.

To tell a player that he is not an expert, without telling him he is not an expert, I have a few favorites:

For the hand hog: You played that hand every bit as well as you bid it, p

On the hand below, declarer (a true WBE) drew trump (♠) , played off ♣ winners, and was left trying to make 5 tricks with the lead in dummy. ♥KQJxx were still out, along with A♦, and there was no good reason to place A♦ over K♦:

Scoring: IMPs

---

A simple ♦ lead to K would have worked, and at least had the advantage of not requiring the opponents' cards to do anything impossible. From dummy, WBE led a trump to T, ♥ to A, ruffed the low ♥(hoping to drop KQJ, apparently) and lost ♦A and ♥ quack for -1.

(from me) I have to admit I don't understand the expert game. I guess experts like you just don't feel constrained by normal concepts of probability and combinatorial mathematics, p.

Finally, when a bludgeon is needed, there's always It takes a real effort to go down on that hand. Well done P..

[uday]

Quote

I notice that BBO considers it bad form to tell a player that he has overstated his rating. That's understandable: BBO is in the business of making money, and if the wannabes keep getting told

That's completely off base.

It is simply rude to tell someone that he has overstated his (self) rating. Not to mention..."says who?"

U

[ArtK78]

dlbalt, on Oct 7 2009, 11:22 PM, said:

On the hand below, declarer (a true WBE) drew trump (♠) , played off ♣ winners, and was left trying to make 5 tricks with the lead in dummy. ♥KQJxx were still out, along with A♦, and there was no good reason to place A♦ over K♦:

Dealer: n/a Vul: n/a Scoring: IMPs

♠ 98 ♥ ATx ♦ x ♣   ♠ T5 ♥ x ♦ Kxx ♣

       

      A simple ♦ lead to K would have worked, and at least had the advantage of not requiring the opponents' cards to do anything impossible.  From dummy, WBE led a trump to T, ♥ to A, ruffed the low ♥(hoping to drop KQJ, apparently) and lost ♦A and ♥ quack for -1.

I guess I just don't understand. You say that the WBE drew trump. Was there another trump outstanding? If not, you have 5 tricks without scoring the ♦K - the ♥A and four trump scoring separately. Even if there were a trump out, you would want to play a diamond towards the ♦K, winning 5 tricks whenever the ♦A is onside or if it is not LHO does not have the last trump and you can score your trump separately.

But this thread isn't about hands butchered by WBE's.

When I first joined BBO, I read the description of skill levels. I classified myself as "Advanced" since I have not won a North American Championship nor have I played for the US in any international competition. However, I soon learned that the real meaning of "Advanced" was the ability to pull trump and take a finesse when needed (a little bit of an exaggeration, but not much). So I changed my self-rating to expert. Having won dozens of regional tournaments and placed high in the occasional North American Championship, I felt that this self-rating was not out of line.

For those who play in events which award BBO or ACBL masterpoints, there is the cumulative rating shown by a card in the upper left corner of a player's profile. While that "rating" overstates the true ability of those players who spend 10 hours or more a day online playing in tournaments, it is a step up from the self rating. I know that the "card" rating system is not perfect by any means. I have played with some of the highest rated players according to BBO and ACBL masterpoints won, and I find that the skill level of some of them is below expert rank. But, given how much they play, perhaps they were just catatonic at the time.

[Trinidad]

dlbalt, on Oct 8 2009, 06:22 AM, said:

Most of the WBEs (pronounced WIBBY, for wanna be  expert) on BBO seem to be men, by the way.
To tell a player that he is not an expert, without telling him he is not an expert, I have a few favorites:
For the hand hog: You played that hand every bit as well as you bid it, p
(from me) I have to admit I don't understand the expert game.  I guess experts like you just don't feel constrained by normal concepts of probability and combinatorial mathematics, p.
Finally, when a bludgeon is needed, there's always It takes a real effort to go down on that hand. Well done P..

What if you would change from a WBA (pronounced WIBBA for wanna be advanced) to a WBN (pronounced WIBBEN for wanna be nice)?

Rik

[dlbalt]

Trinidad, on Oct 8 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

What if you would change from a WBA (pronounced WIBBA for wanna be advanced) to a WBN (pronounced WIBBEN for  wanna be nice)?

Rik

Sorry, I guess that's another of the many skills I'll never develop.

I just don't have what it takes to sit there and watch a self-styled expert throw away one obvious hand after another. How do you handle it? I try and find a quieter way to express my discontent.

I've heard many players criticize partner's play during the hand in question (before play is over), tell declarer to claim when they are dummy, and so on. I haven't done that in the years I've been here. A statement of fact, made after the hand is over - partner, no expert would play that hand that badly - may not be NICE, whatever that is, but it's within the laws of the game and it's based on fact.

Best I can do.

[dlbalt]

uday, on Oct 8 2009, 08:12 AM, said:

That's completely off base.

It is simply rude to tell someone that he has overstated his (self) rating.  Not to mention..."says who?"

U

If the motives of BBO for the don't tell rule are entirely non-commercial, you have my apologies.

My point was, and is, that BBO (and online bridge in general) is missing the social atmosphere that works to enforce the mores of bridge in the offline world. As a result, it suffers. It may be unavoidable, but it suffers.

At your local brick-and-mortar bridge club, agonize over playing a singleton and you'll be noticed. If a new player does that more than once, one of the senior members will take him aside and make some friendly suggestions about ethical play. If the player continues his errancies, it won't be long before he can't get into a game or find a partner. (True, there are a few Charlie the Chimps who are tolerated here and there, but my point is valid in the main)

The same is true for player's ratings, as I said earlier. If you like fancy terminology, you could say that the social contract of the offline bridge world tends to correct the extreme aherrations of its members.

In online bridge it's a different story; the social contact is missing.

[Trinidad]

dlbalt, on Oct 9 2009, 03:37 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Oct 8 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

What if you would change from a WBA (pronounced WIBBA for wanna be advanced) to a WBN (pronounced WIBBEN for  wanna be nice)?

Rik

Sorry, I guess that's another of the many skills I'll never develop.

I just don't have what it takes to sit there and watch a self-styled expert throw away one obvious hand after another. How do you handle it? I try and find a quieter way to express my discontent.

I've heard many players criticize partner's play during the hand in question (before play is over), tell declarer to claim when they are dummy, and so on. I haven't done that in the years I've been here. A statement of fact, made after the hand is over - partner, no expert would play that hand that badly - may not be NICE, whatever that is, but it's within the laws of the game and it's based on fact.

Best I can do.

It may be based on fact, but it isn't within the laws of the game. Here are Laws 74A1 and 74A2:

Quote

LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE
A. Proper Attitude
1. A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times.
2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

It is also against BBO regulations:

Quote

The following are considered serious offenses. Repeat offenders will be expelled from BBO: []
Insulting your partners, opponents, or any other member of BBO

Quote

If you disagree with another member's assessment of his or her skills, it is completely inappropriate to mention this to them (via chat for example).

And answering your question to how I handle it when I have an "expert" partner who is chucking hands when he is declaring?
I could almost say that I don't understand your question. I simply don't care. I am dummy. I am not involved. I have no influence at all. On BBO I don't even have to play the cards for declarer.
Furthermore, I don't know the guy. To me your question is like asking how I handle it if Scrubbymooshiebongo on Mars butchers a contract. My answer to that would be: "How nice that they play bridge on Mars!"

The situation is a little different if you are involved in the play (as in bidding and on defense). But you have to remember that partner understands as little of what you are doing as you understand of what he is doing. BBO bridge isn't like f2f bridge where you have a real partner and a system book. BBO bridge is Babbelonia, where everybody tries to communicate with partner, with very little common language. It's a miracle that so many things actually go right!

Therefore, poor play doesn't upset me, since I know that for my partner it will be as hard to understand my style as it is for me to understand his.

And if I really start to dislike playing with a partner, I will just stop playing with him (after the hand is finished). I might mark him as an enemy and add a note that he doesn't know the difference between an ace and a deuce. That way, I will avoid playing with him again.

Rik