[barmar]

"enjoyed success in major national tournaments". On the rare occasions when I'm successful, I enjoy it.

[Gazumper]

It's weird because when BBO began and was growing I had my skill level in my own words as "Hobby level". After some years I changed it to one of the preset levels and regret doing so because I could never change it back.

[Joe_Old]

barmar, on 2020-October-16, 14:37, said:

These terms are all vague, and players are hardly consistent in how they apply them. Adding more gradations will not make things any better.

How about altering the descriptions to something like:

INT - Familiar with a basic bidding system; learning splinters, RKC and other more complex conventions. Can count number of trump played, but fuzzy about the other suits. Learning to watch partner's discards on defense.

ADV - Familiar with a tournament level bidding system. Learning to count out a hand. As declarer makes most routine contracts. As defender learning to construct other hands from the bidding and play.

EXP - Counts out all hands and routinely constructs the hidden hands. As declarer makes all makeable, routine hands and at least 98% of difficult ones (requiring squeezes, throw ins, etc.). Observes and remembers bidding and play, and draws appropriate inferences as declarer and on defense. Has developed instincts and techniques necessary to judge next move in a competitive auction, particularly high level ones. The above is unrelated to the number of gadgets on the convention card, but rather based on a deep understanding of the way conventions interrelate.

WC - Everything the expert does, with flair, better and more accurately.

[Zelandakh]

A better alteration would be:-

Intermediate: honest
Advanced: dishonest
Expert: delusional
World Class: jokester

[thepossum]

Chas_P, on 2020-October-15, 19:59, said:

Paul Soloway (1941-2007), when asked about his 50,000+ masterpoints replied, "It just means I have a good attendance record." I've always admired his humility.

That is wonderful

[thepossum]

Zelandakh, on 2020-October-16, 18:48, said:

A better alteration would be:-

Intermediate: honest
Advanced: dishonest
Expert: delusional
World Class: jokester

You forgot one

Private:embarrassed

[mycroft]

and, referencing another thread currently:

Novice: World class, and of course you know that because everyone recognizes my name (even if you, and many many thousands of people not full-time on the circuit, don't).

[pilowsky]

I've had many titles in my lifetime.
Fellow - * > 5
Professor * > 5
Doctor
***** for brains ++
*****wit ++
arrogant ++
Paul, you've been a good boy *1
pilowsky you have potential - many times.

What I've noticed is that it doesn't matter how hard you try, the person sitting next to you will always be a little better. Just enjoy doing it, getting better, and contributing to the common good. Otherwise, what's the point?

[Vampyr]

Joe_Old, on 2020-October-16, 17:55, said:

How about altering the descriptions to something like:

INT - Familiar with a basic bidding system; learning splinters, RKC and other more complex conventions. Can count number of trump played, but fuzzy about the other suits. Learning to watch partner's discards on defense.

This is more like beginner. Unlike BBO, i don’t think the length of time one has played has any relevance.

Quote

ADV - Familiar with a tournament level bidding system. Learning to count out a hand. As declarer makes most routine contracts. As defender learning to construct other hands from the bidding and play.

Definitely intermediate.

Quote

EXP - Counts out all hands and routinely constructs the hidden hands. As declarer makes all makeable, routine hands and at least 98% of difficult ones (requiring squeezes, throw ins, etc.). Observes and remembers bidding and play, and draws appropriate inferences as declarer and on defense. Has developed instincts and techniques necessary to judge next move in a competitive auction, particularly high level ones. The above is unrelated to the number of gadgets on the convention card, but rather based on a deep understanding of the way conventions interrelate.

Again, this is more like advanced.

Quote

WC - Everything the expert does, with flair, better and more accurately.

I still don’t see the need to put anything at all

[SMN0]

I think there are four skill areas -- bidding I (using the system bids correctly), bidding II (judgment calls), declaring and defense. Some people -- and robots -- are advanced or better in some area(s) and way below in others. So grade yourself on each and then come up with an average.

I suggest that for declarer play, if you've never executed a strip and endplay (like a surprisingly high percentage of the playing population) you are intermediate at best, and that if you've never executed a squeeze on purpose, you don't qualify as an expert. I'll leave it to others to suggest objective tests for the other areas.

[Zelandakh]

SMN0, on 2020-October-17, 03:10, said:

I think there are four skill areas -- bidding I (using the system bids correctly), bidding II (judgment calls), declaring and defense. Some people -- and robots -- are advanced or better in some area(s) and way below in others. So grade yourself on each and then come up with an average.

I suggest that for declarer play, if you've never executed a strip and endplay (like a surprisingly high percentage of the playing population) you are intermediate at best, and that if you've never executed a squeeze on purpose, you don't qualify as an expert. I'll leave it to others to suggest objective tests for the other areas.

Some of us regularly exercise squeezes and are nonetheless intermediate, even with their bidding way better than their card play. This bar is way too low for being classified as Expert.

[bberris]

pilowsky, on 2020-October-16, 03:31, said:

I...
It doesn't affect how I play against you.

It affects how I play. Someone with a low ranking is more likely to:
Pass a forcing bid
Lead low from 2
leave in a takeout double
pull a penalty double
play high from equals opp opening leader
lead low from equals as declarer
pass a responding hand
overcall and open crap
pass an opening bid
open a weak 2 with 7 or 8 cards
cover an honor lead
grab an ace
lead the low sequence card
reverse with a minimum
criticize a good play that results wrong

I'm sure I forgot somethings.

[SMN0]

Zelandakh, on 2020-October-17, 05:53, said:

Some of us regularly exercise squeezes and are nonetheless intermediate, even with their bidding way better than their card play. This bar is way too low for being classified as Expert.

Note that I phrased this as a minimum requirement only, and declarer play is only one element out of four. But congratulations on your squeezes -- it puts you significantly above average for that element.

[chigal64]

i would have to agree about the level of play and the way some describe their ability. Many who say they are intermediary dont know some of the most common conventions and dont have profiles to note this fact. I have always thought a profile should be mandatory so a partner and opopenents can understand the bidding.

[chigal64]

here's an instance where beginners shouldn't play in tournaments-I responded to my partners 1nt open with a transfer of 2ds and she left me there. Of course everyone was in 4h and making it. Very frustrating when you are trying to get pts and pay to play

[johnu]

chigal64, on 2020-October-17, 12:00, said:

i would have to agree about the level of play and the way some describe their ability. Many who say they are intermediary dont know some of the most common conventions and dont have profiles to note this fact. I have always thought a profile should be mandatory so a partner and opopenents can understand the bidding.

Having conventions listed on your profile doesn't mean you know how to play them, or that you play the standard meaning, or if you are any good. Not having conventions listed on your profile doesn't mean you don't know them, or that you aren't an expert or better.

[Zelandakh]

bberris, on 2020-October-17, 07:24, said:

I'm sure I forgot somethings.

Probably the most significant practical point in playing against weaker opponents rather than strong ones is that they never false card, so you can always rely on a given card being the lowest that they hold if they are not trying to win the trick. This can significantly cut down on the amount you need to guess.

[Zelandakh]

chigal64, on 2020-October-17, 13:05, said:

here's an instance where beginners shouldn't play in tournaments-I responded to my partners 1nt open with a transfer of 2ds and she left me there. Of course everyone was in 4h and making it. Very frustrating when you are trying to get pts and pay to play

Did your partner also have transfers listed on it? If you are talking about the hand I think you mean then your partner's profile suggests they play Basic Acol. If you do not agree anything with them before the tournament starts, why would you think that they will assume anything other than that that is the system being used? Your partner probably found your lack of communication at least as frustrating as you found the Pass. After all, they were presumably also paying. Oh yes, and you did not even alert the 2♦ response, so your opponents will have assumed it was natural too. If you actually had an agreement to play transfers then not alerting them is unethical.

[seagorilla]

did you kibitz zia?

he says he is beginner. I think that is the only class that is accurate.

on a more serious note:

WC - should be winners or finalists of international tournaments

expert - should be not self declared - should be accorded by more than say 10 players

advanced - eliminate this

intermediate - eliminate this

novice - experimenting with bridge

beginner - have played for less than say 3 years, and has not won a club game

experienced - wins consistently, say 30% of the club matches

student - gunhole tries hard, studies

play for fun - ok player but not serious

[johnu]

Some kind of analytical results based rating system would be the way to go IMO if you want to get the most accurate system of ratings.

BBO has consistently been against numerical rating systems but that was under the old ownership. I don't recall seeing anything about rating systems from the new owners.

No matter what descriptive rating system you use, as long as it is a self rating it won't be worth much.