[csdenmark]

As already mentioned by others there is a great risk that most players from Main Club will migrate to Masters Club. That's the lesson from ZONE.com supported by the widespread inflation in rating-levels.

Really nothing has been achieved by such a scenario. What is needed is that players will have a real choice of behavior by software and not only in names.

I think that Masters Club must be a place where persons want to be because they have chosen that option and at the same time chosen to be nowhere else. I also think that Masters Club must be a place with software supported solid ethical behavior.

On the other hand I think that Basic Club, or whatever the name is going to be, should evolve into some kind of laboratorium. Using the name laboratorium means to me fx. the ability for software to provide hints(GIB or maybe better via FD).

From discussions here over the years I am aware this tends to be too much for free service. Well - if so - please read this as a plea for such as an option in a paid subscription service.

[Blofeld]

It feels like it might be nice to have a serious room that was only for partnerships ... then you could play there and concentrate on the bridge rather than getting gifted IMPs every other board because the opponents have no agreements.

[hrothgar]

Claus and Blofeld raise an interesting idea...

In theory, its possible to create a playing area in which partnerships are required to load an FD file before they are able to play. Players have the option of loading their own customized card. Alternatively, they could use one of the default cards that BBO provides.

Ideally, this would encourage the use of Full Disclosure and avoid some of the constant arguments about partnership agreement. (Unclear whether this should complement or substitute a skill based ranking system)

I'm not sure if I like the idea or not, but it is intriquing.

[pclayton]

I like Richard's idea. The Master's club needs to be something more than "competitive games for advanced and expert players". Bridge player's have egos and inflated opinions of one's own abilities will lead to a mass migration into the MC.

Require players to at least load cc's. Playing IRL requires partnerships to have a completed card. The MC could require the same thing.

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Oct 21 2006, 07:49 PM, said:

I don't like the idea of making FD mandatory to join a theoretical "partnership" bridge club. I don't like FD and think if the goal is "serious" competition, FD shouldnt even be allowed.

I guess that we differ in our assessment about the FD application.

For what its worth, I also have some concerns about the current implementation of FD for "serious" competition and would prefer to see an option by which the FD application would only provide information to the opponents. (Neither the player making the bid, nor his partner would be able to see any of this information).

Kathryn mentioned that this is an option right now. Potentially, this could be extended such that TDs could disable the self alerting features.

There are still some potential problems. For example, suppose that you and I agree that we are going to play SAYC and load up the convention card.

You open 1♣, LHO passes, and I'm sitting on a balanced 11 count with no 4 card major. Furthermore, I don't actually know SAYC very well (even though I agreed to play it) so I bid 2NT.

The FD card - which does know SAYC - alerts this as 13 - 15 HCP and forcing.

In short, there is still the possibility that the opponents will not receive the correction information. On the bright side, the Director can easily rule that this is a misbid rather than Misinformation which should simplify any adjudications.

(BTW, I'll note with some amusement that the FD file documenting SAYC that BBO provides describes the auction 1♣ -(P) - 2NT as invitational with 11-12 HCP. Here we have the opposite problem. What happens if the partnership knows the system, but there is an error in the FD file)

[csdenmark]

By me this thread was not meant as a re-newed discussion about FD. Much more is needed for serious bridge play - fx. stop the ability to fool others, limit time for bids, penalty cards, stop broadcast, No leaving seat etc.

[fred]

The idea behind the Masters Bridge Club (or whatever we end up calling it) is to provide a place for "strong and serious players" can go to increase their chances of finding a game with other similar players.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that most players who fit into this category care more about their opponents ability to follow suit than they care about whether or not the opponents are a regular partnership or have filled out a convention card properly.

For sure some players who are not strong and/or not serious will play in this club, but forcing people to use a convention card is not going to change this.

And no matter how many players who are not stong and/or not serious play in the Masters Bridge Club, some of these people will play in one of the other 2 bridge clubs where they belong. So a strong and serious player's chances of finding other similar players will be better than they are right now - it is just a question of how much.

Finally, I am sure we can count on our members to provide players who are perceived as being non-strong or non-serious plenty of reminders like "you are not an expert - go play in the relaxed club". Maybe this will chase some of them away (hopefully away from only the Masters Club - not away from BBO or from bridge).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[pclayton]

fred, on Oct 21 2006, 09:35 AM, said:

The idea behind the Masters Bridge Club (or whatever we end up calling it) is to provide a place for "strong and serious players" can go to increase their chances of finding a game with other similar players.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that most players who fit into this category care more about their opponents ability to follow suit than they care about whether or not the opponents are a regular partnership or have filled out a convention card properly.

For sure some players who are not strong and/or not serious will play in this club, but forcing people to use a convention card is not going to change this.

And no matter how many players who are not stong and/or not serious play in the Masters Bridge Club, some of these people will play in one of the other 2 bridge clubs where they belong. So a strong and serious player's chances of finding other similar players will be better than they are right now - it is just a question of how much.

Finally, I am sure we can count on our members to provide players who are perceived as being non-strong or non-serious plenty of reminders like "you are not an expert - go play in the relaxed club". Maybe this will chase some of them away (hopefully away from only the Masters Club - not away from BBO or from bridge).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

For me, a 'serious' game isn't just the ability to play well. Its also the expectation that my opponents will have a better understanding of what they play and I'm not regularly capitalizing on their misunderstandings.

There should be some venue on BBO where this takes place. Maybe the MC isn't the spot; perhaps there should be a club for partnerships to practice against other partnerships.

[julie5607]

It has always been my contention that a far more serious problem than players who inflate their abilities has been the difficulty that less confident and knowledgable players have in finding an appropriate game. People who are looking for a serious game and run into a beginner who has inflated his stats and doesn't belong at the table will know within a hand or two that the player is inappropriate for the table level and can ask that player to leave. The bigger issue is the beginning or casual player who logs in to BBO, sits at a random table and immediately gets blasted by a partner, so he moves on to another seat where the same thing happens. He ends up thinking that BBO is a terrible site, or bridge is an impossible game, and gives up.

The division of the main bridge club into three separate clubs will go a long way towards alleviating that issue. Personally I think the divisions should be Beginner and Intermediate Club, Social Club, and Advanced and Expert Club. There will, of course, always be people who place themselves in the wrong group, but the most vulnerable and fragile players will find it easy to just stay in the first two clubs where they can build relationships and gain confidence in their game without as much risk of getting unsolicited lessons or being blasted by an annoyed "world class" partner.

Yes there will always be beginners who think they know everything and sit at an "experts only" table where they don't belong. But it seems to me that anybody who is an expert at this game will be able to expose those people within a hand or two, tag them as enemies, and keep away from them. It is more important to provide basic guidelines to people then to impose strict restrictions - most people will settle at the right level and the quality of everyone's games will be enhanced.

Julie

[cnszsun]

julie5607, on Oct 22 2006, 02:58 AM, said:

It has always been my contention that a far more serious problem than players who inflate their abilities has been the difficulty that less confident and knowledgable players have in finding an appropriate game. 
Julie

I have the same feeling on this part.
From time to time, there are beginner players asking me where they can start game on BBO. For advacned or expert level players, most of time it's not a big problem for them to find right table to play. But, for beginner players, they wish to have a relaxed environment to play bridge. So i think the categorizing of main bridge club is great benefit to beginner and intermediate players in fact.

[barmar]

pclayton, on Oct 21 2006, 01:59 PM, said:

For me, a 'serious' game isn't just the ability to play well. Its also the expectation that my opponents will have a better understanding of what they play and I'm not regularly capitalizing on their misunderstandings.

I regularly kibbitz the set games with Dano, Weedo, Jimmy/Pat Cayne, etc. Do you really think that forcing them to create FD cards will have a significant impact on the quality of their games?

[sceptic]

I think the name main bridge club is good,

I think all that is needed is a room for experts and maybe a room for the beginners and a room for the intermediates, if this is the way forward.

I do not think that beginners and intermediate will make a good room, the difference between a beginner and a good intermediate is to much, I say this as there obviously is an issue with some people playing below thier level and not enjoying the game, as I can only see the complaints being from experts wanting similar opponents and not wanting to play with people of lesser ability

mind you the intimidation beginners feel , I could be wrong in this assumption.

good intermediates may not want to play with beginners (all the time) they may want to play with advanced or expert if the can to improve them selves. where do they go to do this

were do serious improvers go, when you have taken away their stock of socially competant experts, there may not be an issue now, as a great mix of people are here already and some strong social circles have evolved, almost like gangs, but moving forward a few years, how do new people get into the gangs and how welcome will they feel when they come here for the first time

This brings me to another issue I see, how long before the teachers in BBO start bringing thier pupils into the master club, is that really what the masters club is for, if the answer is no, then where do they get better quality opps from, the social room, the beginners room?

I think more rooms will make the site more like yahoo and the zone, I think behaviour will actually deteriorate, I do not like freds suggestion, asking someone to leave beacuse they are not good or serious enough, I have seen some of the experts that will use this room and social graces and tact are not their strong points. I think that if not handled well, it could also create problems of people deliberately going in the masters club and being a pain, just like they do in other sites

[Dwingo]

Take my word, after a year, every one in BBO would have improved so much, that every one will be in the Master Club.

[csdenmark]

sceptic, on Oct 22 2006, 11:04 AM, said:

I think the name main bridge club is good,

I think all that is needed is a room for experts and maybe a room for the beginners and a room for the intermediates, if this is the way forward.

I do not think that beginners and intermediate will make a good room, the difference between a beginner and a good intermediate is to much, I say this as there obviously is an issue with some people playing below thier level and not enjoying the game, as I can only see the complaints being from experts wanting similar opponents and not wanting to play with people of lesser ability

mind you the intimidation beginners feel , I could be wrong in this assumption.

good intermediates may not want to play with beginners (all the time) they may want to play with advanced or expert if the can to improve them selves. where do they go to do this

were do serious improvers go, when you have taken away their stock of socially competant experts, there may not be an issue now, as a great mix of people are here already and some strong social circles have evolved, almost like gangs, but moving forward a few years, how do new people get into the gangs and how welcome will they feel when they come here for the first time

This brings me to another issue I see, how long before the teachers in BBO start bringing thier pupils into the master club, is that really what the masters club is for, if the answer is no, then where do they get better quality opps from, the social room, the beginners room?

I think more rooms will make the site more like yahoo and the zone, I think behaviour will actually deteriorate, I do not like freds suggestion, asking someone to leave beacuse they are not good or serious enough, I have seen some of the experts that will use this room and social graces and tact are not their strong points. I think that if not handled well, it could also create problems of people deliberately going in the masters club and being a pain, just like they do in other sites

I agree Wayne to most of your message. Main Club is a good word - and I think it ought to stay as a Main Club with solid resolutions for the segments above and beneath.

To me and several opps. at my tables the poor standard of ID's is a plague we will not accept for a partnership. They often looks rather hostile and I assume it is mostly the less well skilled persons using such. In this way they have disqualified themselves. From those persons I am contacted by I see they mostly have no intensions to qualify their skills - they assume routine will do.

Freds comments about asking persons to leave I dont like either. According to my definitions that's rude. A person accepted to play at my table are accepted as long as he is polite - no matter his real skills in bridge. Solid skills in personal relations are what really matters.

[helene_t]

I don't like the idea of dividing the main room at all.

At Yahoo!Bridge there's such a division and it really sucks. The advanced/expert room is full of buttheads who consider themselves experts. The other rooms have similar skill levels but a slightly better atmosphere.

Of course, BBO players are better and nicer than Yahoo! players (no joke), but I don't see why the general trend should be qualitatively different here. I predict that self-rated advanced/experts will go to the advanced/expert room etc.

Now the real experts are supposed to tell the fake experts to go to the novice room. I see a couple of problems with this:
- Some "expert" tells another "expert" that (s)he's not an expert and should go to the appropriate room. From this description it's imposible to say which (if any) of the two "experts" deserves the tittle. From IRL bridge it's my experience that fake experts are more likely to give unsolicited lessons and disapprove other players' bidding decisions than are real experts.
- Within the current system, "experts" can tell other "experts" to chose a realistic skill level. Personally, I consider this rude and most of the players on my enemy list are there because they gave such comments to their partners (I rate myself "intermediate" which to some extend shields myself against such comments). I'm surprised to see that such "policing" is being encouraged. It won't make the "expert" room a friendly place to play.

I think the only solution to this problem is a rating system, but that is a discussion for a different thread.

[david_c]

helene_t, on Oct 22 2006, 02:29 PM, said:

I don't like the idea of dividing the main room at all.

At Yahoo!Bridge there's such a division and it really sucks. The advanced/expert room is full of buttheads who consider themselves experts. The other rooms have similar skill levels but a slightly better atmosphere.

Wouldn't these buttheads continue to exist regardless of how the club is divided? I don't see how splitting the main bridge club would make this problem any worse, as opposed to just moving it around.

I feel that splitting the main bridge club is a good idea, not so much for the experts (who will have to put up with fakes wherever they play), but rather for the beginners / intermediates who will hopefully find it easier to find a game which is appropriate for them.

[fred]

sceptic, on Oct 22 2006, 09:04 AM, said:

I think more rooms will make the site more like yahoo and the zone, I think behaviour will actually deteriorate, I do not like freds suggestion, asking someone to leave beacuse they are not good or serious enough, I have seen some of the experts that will use this room and social graces and tact are not their strong points. I think that if not handled well, it could also create problems of people deliberately going in the masters club and being a pain, just like they do in other sites

I don't like my suggestion either, but it wasn't really a suggestion - I was being sarcastic.

The point I was trying to make was that many BBO members take this too seriously and some are so serious and ego-involved that they don't think twice about being rude to each other.

In my view, anyone, regardless of their skill level, who really wants a "serious game" should either try to arrange it in advance or at least make sure to be familiar with other players at the table. It is not realistic to hope that the 2 or 3 random strangers that you happen to pick up, regardless of what bridge club you play in, will be the perfect partner and/or opponents for you.

If you adopt this attitude and still decide to play at a table with random strangers, your expectations should not be very high. This should make it easier to be polite to these people even if you think they are overrating themselves.

Chances are pretty good that they think the same of you. Maybe your good manners will rub off and they will keep their opinions to themselves.

To make sure there are no misunderstandings, I am horrified when people say things like "you are not the expert you claim to be" and I would never seriously suggest that people do this.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

Few thoughts here:

I think that all of us are in rough agreement about a couple different points:

1. We all seem to believe that the Beginners want their own playing environment. Nearly all the people who agree about this self-identify as advanced or expert, so we probably want to take anything that we say with a grain of salt. Even so, I think that its reasonable to create some kind of social lounge for players who want a more relaxed playing environment.

2. At the opposite extreme, many of the advanced and expert players want some mechanism to ensure that they can enjoy a serious game. For the most part, people can do so already by playing with/against folks that they already know by name or reputation. However, it seems reasonable to try to improve this process...

If you have an accurate rating system, this would certainly do the trick. Indeed, if I wanted to guaruntee a good game with pickup players, I can't think of any better option than sitting down against 3 three random "Stars". (True, they'd never let me sit, but thats another story)...

When I suggested a mechanism that required players to post an FD style convention card, I was attempting to use this as a substitute for level of play. I believe that established partnerships who understand the FD system are likely to be better players than most of the random experts out there.

Here is another suggestion that might accomplish the same goal:

What if the lounges were segregated across two different "dimensions":

The first dimension indicates how formal the game is. One lounge is relaxed, the second lounge is formal.

The second dimension indicates whether a competitor is a

1. Singleton
2. Pair
3. Team

Hypothetically, JLall, Echognome, PClayton, and MikeH could decide to form a team and enter the "Serious" half of the team lounge. Other teams could then challenge them to a game. In a similar fashion, Free and I could decide that we wanted to play some boards as a partnership. We could enter the partnership lounge and challenge another pair to play.

Obviously, we would still have the option to individually sit down at tables as singletons. The advantage of playing in the pairs game is that there is a mcuh better chance of playing against other established partnerships and (presumably) finding a more serious game.

This isn't a replacement for a perfect rating system, but it might be the most practical way to achieve our goal.

[pclayton]

barmar, on Oct 21 2006, 09:45 PM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 21 2006, 01:59 PM, said:

For me, a 'serious' game isn't just the ability to play well. Its also the expectation that my opponents will have a better understanding of what they play and I'm not regularly capitalizing on their misunderstandings.

I regularly kibbitz the set games with Dano, Weedo, Jimmy/Pat Cayne, etc. Do you really think that forcing them to create FD cards will have a significant impact on the quality of their games?

I don't think you understand my point.

Having a FD card, ar at least a convention card at the table minimizes 95% of the 'obvious' partnership misunderstandings (like I thought we played 1430, you thought 0314, you think its Bergen, I took it as a fit jump). When someone 'wins' a board because their opps botched their agreement, no one wins. I admit there are vague situations even if a partnership is prepared (like in the 2/1 auction 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♦; is it a splinter? A good 5-4, extra values?), but I'm talking about a lot of the obvious cases.

Cayne and Co. generally understand their agreements. And the environment is collegial so that when they do botch an agreement an undo is allowed or the board is tossed out. Or they discuss the meaning of a call openly if someone isn't sure of its meaning.

This is well and good, but bridge is competitive. I for one prefer a game where all sides know their systems, and you can focus on the bridge, not wondering if we agreed on puppet stayman or not.