[Ken16]

SKILL LEVEL

The skill levels used by BBO do not allow for the best establishing of players of approximate equal skill to play with and against others of the same skills. The time that one has played Bridge does not define their skills. One might have played for years and never bothered to learn one convention. Others might have played only a short time, but had studied to learn conventions and bidding methods. I believe you should adopt something new; I list my thinking on this below and I am sure your experts can improve upon them.
Private. Keep as you have it.

Change Novice to "Non-convention players or Goren players".
This to those who learned Bridge in the Culbertson/Goren era and have never changed.

Beginner. One who plays Modern Standard American or SAYC and plays the following conventions; Blackwood, Preempts and Weak 2s, Strong 2C (All well covered in LTPB). See Note 1 below.

Intermediate. One who plays all in the Beginner and also the following conventions; Gerber, Stayman,, Takeout Double, Overcalls. (Again all covered in LTPB)

Advanced. One who plays all of Intermediate and also the following conventions: Unusual No Trump, Michaels Cue Bid, Jacoby Transfers, Negative Double; Carding. (These Conventions covered in LTPB2)

You can leave the Expert and World Class as is, since this is for a small minority of Bridge players.

Once the skill levels are more rigidly defined the easier it will be for the host to set the table up for the types of players he/she wishes to have play at the table, and the easier it will be for others to find a table that fits their skills. To further this the host should be encouraged to list in the DESCRIPTION column the skill level being played at the table.A host setting up a table playing a special system can use this column to describe the system. You will now find more players willing to venture into playing BBO.

*Note 1. I have put Preempts, Weak 2s, and Strong 2C in the beginning because they work together ; early knowledge of these Conventions makes the bidding more sense, and additional new Conventions easier to understand.

Note 2. It should be made easier to find the explanation of Skills Levels. Right now one is just lucky to find it.

When Fred adapts LTPB to SAYC to fit into his SAYC LTPB2 it would be time to make SAYC the Lingua Franca for on-line Bridge every where.

[the hog]

Ken, a number of comments:

The conventions one plays has absolutely no bearing on skill level at all. You can play Vanilla Buller and be a world class player. At a less abstruse level, look at B. J. Becker. You do have room in your profile to list what you play.

2). "When Fred adapts LTPB to SAYC to fit into his SAYC LTPB2 it would be time to make SAYC the Lingua Franca for on-line Bridge every where. "

With all due respects this is the silliest comment I have ever read in these posts. Why on earth make Sayc, a poorly designed and concocted system, the standard for on line Bridge? There are many who have never ever played Sayc and have absolutely no desire to do so. What about all the Acol players from Britain, why should they be forced to give up their "Lingua Franca" to play on bbo?

Ron

[pbleighton]

"The conventions one plays has absolutely no bearing on skill level at all."

True, of course. However, to digress as threads do, knowing what to expect from pd's bidding is an ongoing problem. In theory, people could spend a few minutes discussing bidding with a new pd. In practice, it doesn't happen.

Perhaps, the profile could be expanded to have a "Systems/Conventions Played" section, in addition to skill level and "Other". People put all sorts of stuff into "Other", leaving it quite unstructured. A lot of the time I'm not sure about 4 or 5 card majors, notrump range, transfers, etc. For this reason I recently changed my "Other" to:
"Assume u play Std Amer w/ Xfers, neg dbls, tell me otherwise. Can play 2/1, homebrew strong club.", not that this really covers it.

There could be a series of check boxes and text boxes, covering what the person can play (ACOL, 2/1, preferred NT range, transfers, etc). "Other" would supplement
this section, and might say what is preferred, as well as other things.

If BBO made the profile box a little wider, so that the flag was to the right of the name, email, and skill level, and about one and a half times as tall, you would have enough space for two columns of 6 check/text boxes (for example).

I think that a good chunk of BBO players would use this. Online pickup partnerships will always be problematic, but this could reduce the level of chaos significantly IMO.

This would do nothing about Experts who can barely take a finesse. It is not intended to do so.

Fred and company would have to make time for this, of course. I know their list of desired improvements is longer than they will ever have time to complete (hey, this is systems development driven by wish lists of non-payors), but this change would be a minor effort, compared to tournament functionality, for example.

Any thoughts?

Peter

[slothy]

The_Hog, on Jan 22 2005, 08:39 PM, said:

What about all the Acol players from Britain, why should they be forced to give up their "Lingua Franca" to play on bbo?

Hear Hear Ron...As a Brit, Long Live the weak NT and 4 card majors (and the ensuing 1100 penalty )

[Double !]

Phew!
Thank heavens that the ability to count to 13 has no bearing on one's ranking or skill as a bridge player.

[xx1943]

Hi Ken

I disagree with your post and imo it is necessary to dissent vehemently.

It is completely wrong to think the skill of a player depends on how many conventions he learned.
Some of the best players in the world (i.e. R. Markus) played only very few conventions.

Technically it is only the play of the cards, that makes a good or a bad player.
More important than conventions are judgement, table presence and pd-ship-cultivation.
It is very important to tell this people, who want to learn bridge or improve their bridge.


Al

[guggie]

Frequently omitted is also the carding and suit preference signals. Quite essential

[spwdo]

The more conventions i learn the more i become aware my cardplay needs work.
i prefer my partners to be "advancing", those who still learning, trying to improve, leaving room for a discussion afterwards, tips ,feedback, those not standing still in a diffrent era and like to play bridge like they always have(nothing wrong with it, just not the way i like it).



Regards

M

[Flame]

Like others said, you can be an expert with no conventions or a novice with tons on them. I would leave the skill as it is today, but consider adding rating system which would be based on all of the player's results in the past.

[pbleighton]

"I would leave the skill as it is today, but consider adding rating system which would be based on all of the player's results in the past."

NO, NO, NO.

Peter

[Free]

Imo skill level has almost nothing to do with the conventions and system you play. Skill level is pure play-technique and defense. If you can play well, you'll usually be able to know the value of your hand, so bidding will be fine as well.

If you don't play any convention, but you're able to pull off any squeeze possible, then imo you're at least expert. If you play all the conventions there are, but you can't manage to make any laydown contract, you're not even a novice! I've seen guys go down because of the complexity of their system, and I've seen guys playing a standard system win big tournaments.

[Free]

pbleighton, on Jan 23 2005, 03:09 AM, said:

This would do nothing about Experts who can barely take a finesse. It is not intended to do so.

Sry but finesse's aren't the best line of play in MANY hands! I noticed that finesses usually just don't work when they have to, and another line of play usually is more successful (like squeeze and endplays). So don't judge someone, just because they didn't take a finesse. There are other ways to spot a fake-expert (if the line he actually takes instead of the finesse won't work in a million years for example)

A few weeks ago, I had a laydown contract and I went down because I was going for an endplay instead of the finesse. Afterwards, my partner could still laugh, he said: "you play too well, the simple finesse was enough"

[Free]

Flame, on Jan 23 2005, 04:29 PM, said:

I would  leave the skill as it is today, but consider adding rating system which would be based on all of the player's results in the past.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Rating systems only attract cheaters. I rather have a 'usually-decent' self-rating system, than one where you have to play good to get high rates and where you'll only have to beat cheaters...

If you play or kibitz someone and you notice his rank isn't what he really is, you can just put a note "fake-expert" or "real-expert" or whatever you want. If you meet this person again, you'll know the real skill level because YOU gave it to him

[Flame]

pbleighton, on Jan 23 2005, 10:50 AM, said:

"I would leave the skill as it is today, but consider adding rating system which would be based on all of the player's results in the past."

NO, NO, NO.

Peter

Why Why Why ?
Im guessing you've seen a rating system before where ppl cheat to get good rating.
Is that it ?

And now Free said it, well iv never seen an online rating system in bridge but gudging from you're responses i guess it doesnt work so well.

This post has been edited by Flame: 2005-January-23, 12:08

[fred]

In my opinion, there are 2 primary problems that would from the introduction of an automated rating system on BBO:

1) More cheating
2) More rudeness

Personally I would be more concerned about rudeness.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

Flame, on Jan 23 2005, 09:04 PM, said:

pbleighton, on Jan 23 2005, 10:50 AM, said:

"I would leave the skill as it is today, but consider adding rating system which would be based on all of the player's results in the past."

NO, NO, NO.

Peter

Why Why Why ?
Im guessing you've seen a rating system before where ppl cheat to get good rating.
Is that it ?

Here is the simpliest case that can be made against implementing a rating system...

In order for a rating system to provide any value, it needs to achieve two mutually antagonistic ends:

1. The rating system needs to provide an accurate representation regarding the skill level of the entities being rated.

2. The rating system needs to be simple enough that players understand how the ratings are derived. A rating algorithm that isn't completely transparent to "laymen" creates a never ending series of arguments in which players with "low" ratings try to demonstrate that the rating system is flawed.

I have a fair amount of experience with this type of problem space and I absolutely believe that accurate ratings can be developed. None-the-less, I am steadfast in my opposition to implementing any such scheme since I have no desire to spend the rest of my life "defending" digital signal processing models.

In short, implementing a rating system would provide very little value to the user base. Equally significant, as Free noted, there are significant costs to implementing a rating scheme. Rating systems seem to bring out the worst in people. "Good: players refuse to partner novices because they worry about their ratings. Ratings create an incentive for individuals to cheat.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Jan 23 2005, 01:28 PM, said:

2. The rating system needs to be simple enough that players understand how the ratings are derived. A rating algorithm that isn't completely transparent to "laymen" creates a never ending series of arguments in which players with "low" ratings try to demonstrate that the rating system is flawed.

Why does a rating system have to be understood by the players? I rather think it would be better if the players didn't fully understand the rating system.

The ratings of players don't have to be made public, at least not down to four significant digits. Players looking for a pick-up game don't need to know whether they are playing with Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays, but it would be nice to know whether they are playing with Ted Williams or Troy O'Leary. Anyway, the published part of the rating system could place players in broad categories, rather than try to say player X with a 1024 rating is a better player than player Y with a 1017 rating.

Tim

PS I do like rating systems, but I don't feel that BBO needs one, at least not for my needs. I rarely, if ever, play in a pickup game -- the players I partner are almost always known commodities. If I was interested in playing pick-up games, I would appreciate some sort of rating system.

[pclayton]

There's a minor correlation between knowledge of conventions and overall ability. Certainly not enough to base a skill level on however.

Ratings are still (and always will be) a bad idea.

[Trumpace]

Hi!

This is my first post on this forum.

Anyway, about the rating issue, I think intermediate players without regular partners (eg: me) would be most affected by the existence of a rating system.

When someone joins, what would be his/her rating? I guess provisional/beginner something like that. I have played on some sites where there was a rating system and I have had a bad experience. I had a tough time even finding partners of the intermediate/advanced level as my rating was beginner. As a result I usually had to play with complete novices and my rating never improved. A catch22 situation.

I am just speaking from experience, maybe others have had better experiences.

Also, I agree with most others about knowledge of bidding systems not being a measure of the skill level. It is not how large/complex your bidding system is, but how you use it, in addition to your card play.

Trumpace.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Jan 23 2005, 10:37 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 23 2005, 01:28 PM, said:

2.  The rating system needs to be simple enough that players understand how the ratings are derived.  A rating algorithm that isn't completely transparent to "laymen" creates a never ending series of arguments in which players with "low" ratings try to demonstrate that the rating system is flawed.

Why does a rating system have to be understood by the players? I rather think it would be better if the players didn't fully understand the rating system.

Other than Masterpoints, my main experience with bridge ratings was the Lehman scheme that OKB implemented.

The BBO discussion boards had a large number of fierce arguments regarding the Lehman's. In most cases, this occured as follows:

Stage 1: Player A convinces himself that he is god's own gift to the world of bridge

Stage 2: Player A's rating fails to match his own perceptions regarding his skill level

Stage 3: Player A "attacks" the rating scheme as hopelessly flawed for reason XYZ. Not conincidentially, many of the same players with poor skills also appear to lack rumamentary math skills.

I'm not particularly interested in whether the Lehman rating system is particularly accurate, nor whether its possible to design a superior system. Rather, I am simply noting that if people don't understand the underlying math, they won't have faith in the results...

Furthermore, experience suggests that telling people that the following "complex" algorithms says that they aren't as smart as they think they are is just asking for trouble.