[sceptic]

Just a thought here,

I learnt how to play bridge in Yahoo social lounge and it was rubber bridge and I loved it, I left because I watched a lesson with shep in BBO and realised in the 3 years I had played the game, I knew very little, that is why I am here, anyway back to my point, rubber is so much more social than duplicate, why not try out a rubber/social bridge lounge scoring in the same fashion as yahoo

Just see how it is received and see if it is a more relaxing environment

[csdenmark]

sceptic, on Oct 22 2006, 09:39 PM, said:

Just a thought here,

I learnt how to play bridge in Yahoo social lounge and it was rubber bridge and I loved it, I left because I watched a lesson with shep in BBO and realised in the 3 years I had played the game, I knew very little, that is why I am here, anyway back to my point, rubber is so much more social than duplicate, why not try out a rubber/social bridge lounge scoring in the same fashion as yahoo

Just see how it is received and see if it is a more relaxing environment

Give me a call Wayne - I am interested. What I remember from Yahoo was 'all 1-level contracts was skipped'.

[matmat]

csdenmark, on Oct 22 2006, 06:35 AM, said:

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.

Well, presumably when you accepted someone you looked at their profile and they matched what you were looking for. after a couple of hands it becomes evident that neither their bidding nor play matches the stats that were advertised. Do you not see this as a form of rudeness as well? is there any particular reason why you should be forced to suffer this person at your table?

If that sounds a little bitter and disgruntled... well... that's because it is.

[csdenmark]

matmat, on Oct 23 2006, 07:24 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Oct 22 2006, 06:35 AM, said:

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.

Well, presumably when you accepted someone you looked at their profile and they matched what you were looking for. after a couple of hands it becomes evident that neither their bidding nor play matches the stats that were advertised. Do you not see this as a form of rudeness as well? is there any particular reason why you should be forced to suffer this person at your table?

If that sounds a little bitter and disgruntled... well... that's because it is.

My comment only refer to opps. Partnerships are agreed in quite a different manner. - I advertise in lobby for partner and until I have a partner NO opps. to be accepted at all.

[helene_t]

david_c, on Oct 22 2006, 03:50 PM, said:

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.

Yes, it won't make the buttheads any worse, just concentrate them in the advanced/expert room.

[Gerben42]

So let them play there, and we'll play somewhere more nice then, Helene. Okay?

[julie5607]

I think I am a bit of a different case than most, because I have always, and only, played online. I learned the game at Yahoo in the beginner's lounge and slowly ventured out to Social. I still have friends from the beginner's lounge at Yahoo who have never moved - I disagree strongly with anybody who thinks such a club at BBO wouldn't have many occupants.

By the time I might have thought of playing in the Advanced lounge I was getting into duplicate, so I moved first to Zone, then Swan, then OKB and finally settled with the rest of us at BBO. There is no question in my mind that BBO is the finest site of all of these. To compare BBO to Yahoo or Zone is impossible, mainly because those sites were unsupervised free-for-alls. Apart from the lack of any moderation at those sites, there are no hand records kept, so it is very easy for someone to jump in for one hand or two hands, piss off a bunch of people, and then just jump to the next table. You can't even look up the player ID and see what kind of stability they might have, or have any lasting record of the player's name to complain. At BBO if someone is rude like that they are handled with alacrity, and that is one of the finest features of BBO.

Comparing BBO to the other duplicate sites is difficult too, mainly because BBO is so much bigger and there is no rating system in place. I understand fully Fred's objection to a rating system and operate under the assumption that one will never be implemented. That's fine as well. However, BBO is much larger than any of the other sites, and that leads to difficulties when trying to find an appropriate game.

For all the talk of set games, playing with friends, etc, I would contend that the majority of the thousands of players online at BBO at any given moment are logged on for an hour or two looking for a way to pass some time in a friendly game of bridge. Fred, I would like to ask you if you have ever logged on with an anonymous id and tried to find a good table to settle into. If you haven't, I can assure you it would be a good experiment to try, because it is incredibly difficult to find an appropriate table, no matter what your level.

I play almost exclusively with a regular partner, and we are always looking for good opponents. We settle in for a few hours, advertise for experts (even tho I am not an expert at all but my partner is) and only take players who are self-rated advanced or better. Sometimes I will reject those as well, if they have a profile with something like "weak 2's, stayman, blackwood" on it. We prefer to take regular partnerships if they come along, and much prefer a stable game where opps remain for a long session. Sometimes we get that game, sometimes it seems our opponents turn over every hand. Sometimes we get a player who looked good but then does things like passes his partner's splinter, "transfers" into spades over 1nt when he actually has hearts, or overcalls a jack high 5 card suit at the three level vul vs. non. When we get a player like that we offer an undo or a skip for the hand and ask that player to please find a different table. I personally think it is more fair to retain the partner of that player in a potentially stable, decent level game - not to mention that the partner will leave anyway and then we will get turnover after turnover as new players sit and leave. I know we could just leave ourselves and start a new table immediately, but does't that really send the same message?

Anyway - my point is that I think with so many thousands of players online at any given time I think it's a great idea to split the main clubs, and I DON'T think that "everybody" will just migrate to the "Master's Club" or whatever you choose to call it. I think I understand your thought process in not naming clubs by level, but I actually think it would be simpler for the majority of players if you ended up doing just that.

Julie

[Rain]

I like the idea of an obvious divide into relaxed + masters (or doggys + wolf!).

One issue many other sites have is the membership base is too small, such that its barely able to support even 1 club fully. If so, obviously dividing into more sub-clubs is going to hurt numbers and games, since as oft mentioned, the network effect is a factor in sites.

Even 500 is probably an adequate number, and we're likely to have 2000-4000 in the 2 clubs if we divde them.

Comparisons need to be seperated though, otherwise there's no real difference where you play.

Haiz, my only grouse is I'm not sure i like "Relaxed". Masters is a good name, I like it. But not relaxed. Still, I can't think of anything better...

[sceptic]

I am curious how this masters club would work,

experts and starts only?

advanced, experts and stars only?

avdanced with an expert partner or star partner only?

how does someone that is advanced get into the masters club, by invitation of an expert or star?

who determines who is an expert and who is advanced?

if you all allow an expert in with an advanced player, does this not make the masters club pointless?

Why cant you then have two good advanced partners of experts in the club

so this means now we have avdanced,expert and star allowed

so why not just keep the old add a friend and build a list of people that you want to play against and make a note of their competance in your own eyes

[csdenmark]

sceptic, on Oct 23 2006, 09:06 PM, said:

I am curious how this masters club would work,

experts and starts only?

advanced, experts and stars only?

avdanced with an expert partner or star partner only?

how does someone that is advanced get into the masters club, by invitation of an expert or star?

who determines who is an expert and who is advanced?

if you all allow an expert in with an advanced player, does this not make the masters club pointless?

Why cant you then have two good advanced  partners of experts in the club

so this means now we have avdanced,expert and star allowed

so why not just keep the old add a friend and build a list of people that you want to play against and make a note of their competance in your own eyes

The 3 clubs will be working in exact the same way. All have the right to enter that club which please him best at the very moment. Software is working in exact the same way. That's is the real reason for predicting the big migration into more prestigious location.

I see one very important positive outcome. The lobby-chat-line has been overloaded for very long - and I think still more persons turn lobby chat off due to that. That traffic will now have 2 new lines and the information in each are also likely to reach their target more efficient.

I had hoped for, now or maybe later, that the clubs would be created to meet the special interests of different segments. The comments here over the weekend tells me this it not likely to be realistic. Instead I hope for that Fred will consider to create a Premium Masters Club. I think there is good value to be added so it will be worth the money.

[Mike_P]

Just an observation or two on these discussions from those on the other side of the mirror -- the newcomers and novices and rehabilitated kitchen table bridge players such as myself:

It seems to me that the game of bridge is very unique in terms of its demographics -- there is no bell curve of experience/skill as is found in most other activities. Even at your local church basement with 12 tables of relatively informal non-sanctioned duplicate bridge, 90% of the population will be over 50 years old, and 90% of them will have been playing for at least 30 years. To the newcomer, that's pretty intimidating and not very welcoming, no matter how nice the folks are. The competitive environment is simply not appropriate. It's no wonder that so few people are willing to fight their way into this magnificent game -- that's nobody's fault, that's just the way it is.

The on-line community mirrors the FTF environment almost perfectly. Most discussions are related directly or indirectly to buffering the existing experienced player base against substandard play, of protecting against beginners/intermediates inflating their stats, etc.

Sheesh. I think there is a silent population of beginners out here whose major goal is to find a low-level, non-threatening, out-of-the-way hole in the ground where they can learn the game and not feel they are holding everyone up. That's what we're rooting for in this discussion. (I should add here that the BIL club is a magnificent contribution in this regard.)

OKBridge is probably another example of this sort of thing. Although it offers a rating system, it is apparently a kiss-of-death to rate oneself below "intermediate" and so absolutely no one ever does, leaving a proliferation of "unknowns." That is not helpful to a newcomer, so I for one have never used the facility despite the substantial subscription fee.

This is not a whine, just some philosophical musings and pontifications while I drink my morning coffee. My underlying point is that in dreaming up stratification criteria, protecting the newcomer should be just as important as protecting the established base. This is a great site, if anyone can do it Fred can, and it is of course always true that you need to develop a bit of a thick skin to progress in this game, but...... just saying.....

-- Mike