[beowulf]

I've really had it with individual tournaments and random tables on BBO. I've had more than my share recently of people who just learned to play bridge yesterday and/or don't play transfers, etc. Even speedballs can be frustrating when your opponents haven't a clue. Why can't we have a section of BBO where you have to qualify to play? Perhaps it wouldn't be free. That's OK. My time is valuable and I really hate to waste it.

What would the qualification be? That's a tough one. For ACBL events we could require players to be Life Master perhaps. Not exactly a mark of great accomplishment but I'd think most would know what a transfer is. Or perhaps there could be some sort of BBO threshold to meet (but not BBO points--those can be won quite easily by people with tons of time on their hands but who can't follow suit).

I would particularly enjoy individual tournaments where everybody must play a standard card. It doesn't matter what the card is--just so long as it is published in advance. (I've suggested that before without much success). If it's good enough for Cavendish-type competitions, surely it's good enough for us on BBO?

Now, I really should apologize for sounding elitist. I don't mean to and that's not my normal way. I just want to get to play with my peers. I will even volunteer to play mentor sessions with newer players who really want to learn. I certainly want to encourage new players! I'm sure it's as frustrating to them when I do something they don't understand.

Ideally, I like to play team games because the standard there is generally so much higher. But far too many team games are ruined by players quitting when they don't like what their partner did. And then of course there's the impossibility in pick-up team games to actually sit down with a partner of your own choosing.

What do other people think?

[helene_t]

I have sympathy for the suggestion but the problem is that it boils down to "how do we define 'advanced' players?". As you said, BBO total points is not the answer.

We have had that discussion hundreds of times before and there is no clear concensus.

I think the best you can do is only to play with friends. If you are generous in assigning "friend" labels (label everyone who appears to know how to play bridge and is not rude), you friend list will soon be long enough that it won't be difficult to find three friends to fill a table.

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2015-December-01, 02:37, said:

I have sympathy for the suggestion but the problem is that it boils down to "how do we define 'advanced' players?". As you said, BBO total points is not the answer.

We have had that discussion hundreds of times before and there is no clear concensus.

I think the best you can do is only to play with friends. If you are generous in assigning "friend" labels (label everyone who appears to know how to play bridge and is not rude), you friend list will soon be long enough that it won't be difficult to find three friends to fill a table.

Also you might try to introduce some of your friends and partners to BBO.

[johnu]

Wow, in one sentence you don't want to play with randoms, and then you say would like individual tournaments. As the saying goes, that does not compute, even if the players meet some kind of arbitrary standard.

Best to find a solid partner(s), develop a system, and play with them exclusively. Start your own table, and advertise for established partnerships to play, or players at least a certain proficiency. If the players are delusional about their ability, mark them as enemies and bounce them from your table. This may sound cold hearted, but if they are beginners or intermediate players masquerading as advanced players (as an example), they are deliberately wasting your time and deserve no considerations IMO.

[nullve]

I'm a vastly better bridge player than chess player, and I really prefer bridge to chess, but I still prefer rated games against randoms on, say, chess.com than unrated games against randoms on BBO. Why? Well, on chess.com the rating system is used to match me against against equals, give or take a couple of hundred rating points, so the play will usually be at least a little bit challenging, but usually not too challenging, either. But if I play against randoms on BBO, there will nearly always be at least one player at the table (not necessarily my partner!), but usually three, who is/are so far below by level that I'm completely unable to enjoy the game. For example, it's not fun (not in the sense I'm after when I decide to play a game of skill, anyway) to declare a difficult contract when I know that LHO will provide me with the miracle needed to make.

I know the solution for many is to play with or against friends only, but I don't want bridge to be so much about social skills.

[helene_t]

 nullve, on 2015-December-01, 03:52, said:

I don't want bridge to be so much about social skills.

It's a little like saying "I don't want water to be wet", isn't it?

[nullve]

 helene_t, on 2015-December-01, 05:21, said:

It's a little like saying "I don't want water to be wet", isn't it?

Although I can certainly appreciate the social aspect of ftf or online bridge, I don't think bridge is essentially a social game, if that's what you mean -- computer bridge is still bridge, isn't it?

More to the point: I want to be valued as bridge player not because of my social skills but because of my (other) bridge skills.

[beowulf]

 johnu, on 2015-December-01, 03:40, said:

Wow, in one sentence you don't want to play with randoms, and then you say would like individual tournaments. As the saying goes, that does not compute, even if the players meet some kind of arbitrary standard.

No, you misunderstood. I'm more than happy to play with random people. Sometimes I only have a short time to play and I don't see anyone I know who isn't in a tournament. So, I click on "take me to the first table." Occasionally, I get paired up with someone who's played before and can follow suit. But that's rare. Then there's the opposite problem with the novices who think they are experts. I do something that (I think) most good players would do and, even though we may have gained IMPs, my partner doesn't like it and, if he's the host, he will summarily boot me off the table.

[helene_t]

 beowulf, on 2015-December-01, 08:47, said:

Sometimes I only have a short time to play and I don't see anyone I know who isn't in a tournament. So, I click on "take me to the first table."

This will never work. If you want a decent game and none of your friends are available and you don't want to play with robots, I think only one option remains:

Check partnership desks for goldstars and other players with known credentials. Pros obviously ask for money but sometimes you will find true experts who are happy to play with anyone who pays their entry fee.

If you can't find a true expert on a partnership desk, then register as a sub. This will sometimes get you paird up with a lunatic but on average it is a lot better than "take me to the first table".

Or check the partnership desk for people with sensible profile info and a real-name that is reasonably unique. If you google "Helene Thygesen" bridge
you may find some of my club, league and tournament results and you can judge if you think my skill level is appropriate. Of course I could be a rude bastard who only gets reasonable results by playing in weak clubs, paying good players to partner me, and cheat, but at least it gives an indication.

You can also play in the IAC or, second choice, WP Refuge (or the Acol club if you play Acol). No guarantee for good bridge but again it is a lot better than take-me-to-the-first-table.

[beowulf]

 helene_t, on 2015-December-01, 08:58, said:

This will never work.

Exactly. And I don't expect it to work, either. But all of your alternatives (most of which I've tried of course: team games, substituting, partnership desk) all require some effort which isn't worth it when all I have time for is a few hands. Thanks for your post.

[mycroft]

So, what's "advanced"? Again, "man, you're hopeless, don't you know that 4♣ is Gerber?" (in the auction p-(3♠)-4♣-p, for instance. Yes, I have seen that.)

Having said that, everybody (but about 50 players or so) is hopeless to somebody. It may be as small as "but about zero players or so" - I recall a quote of "I'm a bad bridge player. It's just that everyone else is worse." from a number of years back.

[Bbradley62]

Check out BBO Fans. They're a club that has a few daily tournaments on BBO, generally called "Rock Around the Clock". They also have tournaments that they call "Rock's Best Dancers" that are restricted to players who have an average MP score of >50% in their tournaments. At least they're trying to do something along the lines of what you're suggesting...

[kontoleon]

I am an amature player but i just thing that have some problems on rating.

At the begin of the game all player must have the some score(looks like 50 on match point, and 0 on Imp tamble).

After some tours the system can put points on average finished on match point ( average of all tours) and the some on Imp with + or - Ev.

But 1rst of all the bridge is not a clear skill game looks like chess. Many times an error move is the only way to contact the bridge!

Anyway. After some tournament of radom player we have some player with 70 or more score(MP) and some other maybe 20-. Fine. The real broblem is here. on the next tours, If the players puted by skills level the lowest players always raised up on avarage score and the skills player goes down.

So maybe THE ONLY REAL SYSTEMS CAN WORKS, is no the finisher score but the finisher PLACE. (1st 2nd 3rd...) raised up the top player (with hundicap or not by the deference elo). But again the bridge must be free. And the only free tournament is the free week...

[barmar]

I'm guessing that when BBOF restricts their tournaments, they do it only based on results in the open tournaments. If you also had to have a 50+ average in the "Best Dancers" tourneys, that would keep limiting the number of eligible players each time.

[Zelandakh]

One of the biggest problems I have with threads of this type is that those starting them are almost always themselves not really advanced. Would the OP, who has a current IMP average of -0.65/bd, still find "advanced-only" tournaments a good idea if he was excluded from them because he did not meet the criteria? I suspect not. Bridge is unfortunately a game where a very large portion of the player base think that "their peers" means players better than they are. A suggestion - join the BIL and you will almost certainly find many players that are peers, who know what transfers are and will also not keep leaving after one hand. But perhaps this is not the kind of peer you are really looking for.

[Charlie Yu]

 helene_t, on 2015-December-01, 02:37, said:

I have sympathy for the suggestion but the problem is that it boils down to "how do we define 'advanced' players?". As you said, BBO total points is not the answer.

We have had that discussion hundreds of times before and there is no clear concensus.

I think the best you can do is only to play with friends. If you are generous in assigning "friend" labels (label everyone who appears to know how to play bridge and is not rude), you friend list will soon be long enough that it won't be difficult to find three friends to fill a table.

Make a test/tutorial on bridge knowledge, you need to score a certain number of points before you can join the advanced group

[nullve]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-December-13, 05:55, said:

One of the biggest problems I have with threads of this type is that those starting them are almost always themselves not really advanced. Would the OP, who has a current IMP average of -0.65/bd, still find "advanced-only" tournaments a good idea if he was excluded from them because he did not meet the criteria?

Are you saying that a negative IMP average is inconsistent with a high (e.g. ELO-type) rating? Or are you hinting that the OP should make himself immune from ad hominem attacks by never playing on BBO under his BBF nick?

[helene_t]

To be fair, someone who frequently uses the take-me-to-the-first-table feature is probably bound to have a love imp average. You will be playing with completely unknown partners, frequently someone who has just been deserted by a frustrated p, and opps will sometimes have at least a rudimentary partnership history.

[Zelandakh]

 nullve, on 2015-December-13, 07:49, said:

Are you saying that a negative IMP average is inconsistent with a high (e.g. ELO-type) rating?

Absolutely not! HanP was one of the best players using BBF a little while back but sometimes had a negative IMP average because he primarily played against extremely strong opponents. Similarly, if you play with very weak partners it will affect the average. My experience is that this monthly average tends to provide a reasonable insight into the level of a player taking part in mostly random games though. Due to the very low standard in such games, an advanced player will typically end up in the +0.5-+1.5 range most of the time. It is possible that the OP truly is very strong but perhaps more likely that he is simply an intermediate player, which is after all by far the most common type on BBO.

[barmar]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-December-13, 05:55, said:

One of the biggest problems I have with threads of this type is that those starting them are almost always themselves not really advanced.

I know him IRL, and he's a fine player. Not an expert, but at least as advanced as I am.