[awm]

pclayton, on Sep 2 2008, 02:21 PM, said:

If I am paying attention, I can give you a good sense of a players ability in one hand. Sometimes it takes two. If you can't recognize good from bad, then you aren't that good yourself.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

Try approaching some of the top players in your area and ask them a question like "who are the ten best players in the district?" or even more difficult "who are the ten best players under 5000 masterpoints in the district?"

You will get radically different answers. And this is from very good, very experienced players who have presumably played a lot more than one or two hands against these folks.

Judging someone's skill based on "one hand, maybe two" is a big part of the reason for this. Anyone can play one hand brilliantly or terribly. This is especially true on bridgebase where people are often tired or distracted when they play. And it also pays to keep in mind that some players (especially young players) improve a lot in a short time -- just because someone seemed "pretty bad" when you played a couple boards against them three years ago doesn't mean they're "pretty bad" now (but many would assume so).

[pclayton]

awm, on Sep 2 2008, 07:20 PM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 2 2008, 02:21 PM, said:

If I am paying attention, I can give you a good sense of a players ability in one hand. Sometimes it takes two. If you can't recognize good from bad, then you aren't that good yourself.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

Try approaching some of the top players in your area and ask them a question like "who are the ten best players in the district?" or even more difficult "who are the ten best players under 5000 masterpoints in the district?"

You will get radically different answers. And this is from very good, very experienced players who have presumably played a lot more than one or two hands against these folks.

Judging someone's skill based on "one hand, maybe two" is a big part of the reason for this. Anyone can play one hand brilliantly or terribly. This is especially true on bridgebase where people are often tired or distracted when they play. And it also pays to keep in mind that some players (especially young players) improve a lot in a short time -- just because someone seemed "pretty bad" when you played a couple boards against them three years ago doesn't mean they're "pretty bad" now (but many would assume so).

Adam:

I never claimed I could zero in with this kind of accuracy after a couple of hands. I simply said I could determine if they were good or not. Everyone gets distracted (especially me), but its still the exception, and not the rule.

Asking a number of players who the top 10 are in any category is a serious LOL. This is very subjective, and you rate to get some very diverse answers.

[jdonn]

You can probably tell their general skill level in one hand, depending how difficult it is, but nothing very specific or exact without watching for longer. If it's a very flat or boring hand you may learn nothing of course.

[NickRW]

mr1303, on Sep 1 2008, 05:02 PM, said:

I know of one person of authority in the EBU who made several statements along the line of "I'm a good player, I have the masterpoints to prove it!" which he used to belittle any argument I came up with against him.

I tried arguing with one such person - could have been the same one for all I know - complete waste of time.

I am not a member of the EBU so do not register masterpoints. Lately the EBU wants to make all of us members so they can register them automatically (and tax us for the privilege - yeah - thanks - not)

Nick

[NickRW]

Mosene, on Sep 2 2008, 08:24 PM, said:

I do not have the time to play much - so I would prefer a system that ranks based on where you place when you play (and who you play against).

That I can agree with.

If (and I think it is definitely a big if despite what is said) the EBU brings in a proper ranking system (as they say they will), then maybe their enforced membership scheme might actually have some worthwhile benefit

Quote

And my guess is that the masterpoint system blocks any attempts to develop such a system.

Quite possibly. It is said that masterpoints make money. 'Nuff said.

Nick

[NickRW]

mr1303, on Aug 31 2008, 08:29 AM, said:

Some people out there care about finishing 19th or 20th in a Green Point event (EBU land) if they win a couple of matches and therefore green points. No doubt there is something similar in ACBL land and other parts of the world.

Do you care?

Please discuss.

Green point events attract better players. They also attract players with more time and money to play in such events who may or may not be better players. Thus they are at least slightly valuable.

Nick

[mycroft]

I don't know what to say. I know that my "who will play with me" ranking is worth more to me than my mumble-hundred masterpoints. I know my BRQs mean more to me, because they mean good results in tough (for me) fields. I know I will never be a JDonn or JLall, but that's okay - they can't do my job, either. Yes, for me, making the second day of a big National event would mean something - mostly because I can only afford to go to one every couple of years. An acceptable - to me - measure of my skill would be "qualified for day 2 of the Blue Ribbons." - and I'm going to try for that. Probably won't make it, but there you go. Makes me what I am - maybe not a Flight A player, but I'm going to play in Flight A anyway.

But I'm good enough to know Great (for my area, anyway) - Good - Reasonable - Up-and-coming - Life Novice reasonably quickly. And I know that 1000 MPs doesn't put you anywhere on that scale, necessarily, nor does 50 (yeah, it's more likely, but it's not a sinecure). And I know the people who care more about 10.xx Gold than First in "X", or more about First in "X" than 5th in "A" are the people I don't care to play with.

I will never be World Class. I am lucky to have played with some, and against others. I am particularly fond of the - occasional - times I have beat them consistently and convincingly. That probably does make me a terrible player in JDonn's book; the bar is that high, and I'm OK with that. But a game where I can say the second sentence truthfully, even though I am who I am - that's a joy that keeps me warm at night.

[FrancesHinden]

I think you can tell if someone is reasonably good/competent/knows what they are doing in the space of a few boards if they are paying attention to the game. How many boards depends on the boards. That's not long enough to decide if they're one of the top 10 in the country or not, but enough to put them into the Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced or Expert category.

You don't always need actually to watch them play at all...

There are some things that if I see them on the convention card that I know that they aren't an expert partnership even before they play a card.

There are some things people say after a deal which tells you they aren't an expert. The most telling (and fairly common) is for declarer to say to dummy "how many points did you have?" after playing a hand. Another one is to be really upset/sound cross/apologise sincerely to partner after taking the percentage line and going off (e.g. taking a normal finesse and losing to a singleton king). Another is not claiming in an obvious claim position.

[matmat]

mycroft, on Sep 3 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

That probably does make me a terrible player in JDonn's book;

I think people might be misunderstanding what Josh means. (or perhaps I am).
I don't think he implies that you are a terrible player if you are proud of your blue ribbon quals, or second day of LMP or whatever. I think what he's saying is that the people who mention this in their profiles don't do it out of pride, but rather as something to impress others and establish an aura of superiority.
Again, that's just my interpretation, and I do kinda agree with it.

[matmat]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 3 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

There are some things that if I see them on the convention card that I know that they aren't an expert partnership even before they play a card.

I'd be curious to know what these are
In my experience online people who put conventions in their profile often list the most advanced stuff that they have learned. If you go by that assumption, anyone who lists stayman/transfers (only) and has their self-rating at "Expert" might be a little misguided. I do suspect you're talking about live play, however.

Quote

There are some things people say after a deal which tells you they aren't an expert.  The most telling (and fairly common) is for declarer to say to dummy "how many points did you have?" after playing a hand.  Another one is to be really upset/sound cross/apologise sincerely to partner after taking the percentage line and going off (e.g. taking a normal finesse and losing to a singleton king).  Another is not claiming in an obvious claim position.

are you implying that experts count HCP?

i have heard (third hand so to speak) at least one person tell their students to never claim at matchpoints.

[Lobowolf]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 3 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

Another is not claiming in an obvious claim position.

With respect to online play, my experience is that it's faster to just play out "obvious claim positions," at least after about trick 9, then to claim and wait for the opps to convince themselves that it's a good claim.

[xcurt]

matmat, on Sep 3 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Sep 3 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

There are some things that if I see them on the convention card that I know that they aren't an expert partnership even before they play a card.

I'd be curious to know what these are

Stolen bid doubles is probably the biggest red flag for me. 2♦ mini-Roman (unless playing classical Precision) is another one. Playing weak jump shifts gives me pause.*

A related class of indicators is the order in which people list conventions in their profile or start ratting off when filling out a card. Better players know that the most important situations to have agreements about are those that happen frequently (and there is more than one reasonable treatment), eg what's a minimum opening in a minor? in a major? what low-level doubles are penalty?, what happens when they overcall our 1NT? What does an overcall look like? when is a card attitude and when is it count?

People that list three conventions in their profile, and the third one is Namyats, I don't want to play with.

Curt

*I won't argue they are unplayable. I simply argue that there is a Bayesian argument that p(weak|plays wjs) can be lower-bounded in the absence of other information given that p(plays wjs|weak) is pretty high.

[Lobowolf]

xcurt, on Sep 3 2008, 08:12 PM, said:

matmat, on Sep 3 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Sep 3 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

There are some things that if I see them on the convention card that I know that they aren't an expert partnership even before they play a card.

I'd be curious to know what these are

Stolen bid doubles is probably the biggest red flag for me.

As soon as I read the excerpt, "stolen bid doubles" immediately came to mind.

[FrancesHinden]

xcurt, on Sep 4 2008, 02:12 AM, said:

Playing weak jump shifts gives me pause.*


*I won't argue they are unplayable. I simply argue that there is a Bayesian argument that p(weak|plays wjs) can be lower-bounded in the absence of other information given that p(plays wjs|weak) is pretty high.

I deliberately didn't give my list for two reasons.
1. I wasn't in the mood to insult people (by implication)
2. I was thinking of face-to-face play, where regional biases do come into it. Your example is a good one. Where I play p(strong|plays wjs) is actually quite high, because most weak players haven't heard of them.

But here's a few that apply for me in f2f:

- 16-18 1NT opening (yes, I know the top Brazilians play this so it's not totally conclusive)
- Nottingham Club
- A 2S response to a weak 1NT showing exactly 11 points
- strong jump overcalls

Oh yes, and one of the best: Benji Acol

[helene_t]

I don't care but that's just because I am not a very ambitious person in general.

I think masterpoints are ok. They give intermediate players something to fight for and they provide income for the federation.

Of course they are not a serious indicator of playing strength but if someone want a serious indicator they could just compute their own.

[vuroth]

I'm fairly certain that my profile screams lack of skill. Then again, I do possess a certain lack, so that's ok.

Something like: SAYC. Cue = limit raise or better

I'm sure some other B/Is who have "SAYC, Jacoby xfer, Jacoby 2NT, stayman" etc in their profiles think they know more than me. Otoh, I've read the ACBL's SAYC description.

V

[pclayton]

Lobowolf, on Sep 3 2008, 05:46 PM, said:

xcurt, on Sep 3 2008, 08:12 PM, said:

matmat, on Sep 3 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Sep 3 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

There are some things that if I see them on the convention card that I know that they aren't an expert partnership even before they play a card.

I'd be curious to know what these are

Stolen bid doubles is probably the biggest red flag for me.

As soon as I read the excerpt, "stolen bid doubles" immediately came to mind.

Rose Doubles Dan, ROSE!!!!

I'll get flamed a little, but Cappelletti is the bane of the masses too. Agree about mini-roman, although Larsen / Kivel have played it for years but are finally taking it off the cc.

To me, its what bad players focus on first. 20 minutes to fill out a cc? I've seen pairs spend 10 minutes on Capp, and the follow-ups, only to give other areas the short shrift.

[Lobowolf]

pclayton, on Sep 4 2008, 10:51 AM, said:

 

Quote

Rose Doubles Dan, ROSE!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

After stolen bid doubles (actually, maybe before stolen bid doubles), 4 little nails-on-the-chalkboard words...

"I don't play reverses."

[Trumpace]

IMO, determing if a player is good or bad depends on

1) Their bidding judgement
2) Their play and defense.

What conventions they do play or don't play, is irrelevant. There might be a correlation, but I think it is a very weak one. It all depends on how well the convention is used, not how good you think the convention is.

(Note: the above applies to amateur players. Not sure about pros)

I find it strange that people actually seem to ridicule others based on the conventions they play...