[inquiry]

There is a resourse you may want to take advantage of on the BBO gaming site. IT is "Topflight", a private club on Bridge Base whose full members all must be Bridge Base Gold Stars. Each full member can nominate a single provisional, who while lacks a gold star is thought to be a peer as far as playing ability. Topflight runs a few weekly tournaments with only a few tables, usually with tons of kibitzers at each, including expert players who share commentary with the other kibitzers. So good bridge, useful commentary, and players on the BBO you will get a chance to play with and against in other events .. .and whom you can ask questions, is a great place for beginners to get more insight into the game.

A case in point is the following hand which was played in the topflight event on Monday. This is an interesting hand, when looking at NS hands alone, 7H looks cold, but a lightner double by West asking for a spade lead would defeat the grand slam. This lead to a useful discussion of ligthner double at one table. Analysis on whether 6S could make took had a small discussion before 6NT became the final contract. This lead to useful discussion on if declarer would make the slam or not. Some felt the play would be low the club-Queen and when that loses, hook the club jack on the way back losing two club tricks. Others thought declarer, an excellent gold star, would work the hand out and make it.

Here is the interesting play at one table in topflight.

Quote

        S AKJ72
        H K876
        D
        C AT53

S                   ST9653
H52               HQT3
DQJT543        D982
CK9764          CJ8

        SQ84
        HAJ94
        DAK76
        CQ2

1NT 2NT DBL 3D
Pass Psss 3S Pass
4D Pass 4H Pass
4S Pass 5C Pass
5H Pass 5S Pass
6NT Pass Pass Pass

The DQ was won by the ACE. Before winning the ace, declarer thought for a while This hand is hardly difficult if you can get 5S tricks (5S+2D+1C+ 4 likely H). Declearer was probably thinking about ducking the first diamond to “correct the count” for a possible squeeze should spades split 5-0. But, he didn’t duck for two reasons. First, 7H looks like it would roll home if spades split, in which case a squeeze maybe needed to take 13 tricks. But more importantly, probably, is that the double squeeze (both in diamonds, East in spades, west in clubs) would fail because there is no ENTRY in the both suit (diamonds). A different squeeze needs to be found. A vulnerable stopper squeeze where you correct the count later in the hand.

I forget declarer’s exact sequence, but it was something very much like this. Win DA, cash SPADE QUEEN (find out the “bad news”). Cash heart King, hook a heart, win all top spades, throwing away a diamond. Then win heart ACE, and lead the last heart in this position.

Quote

        S7
        H6
        D
        CAT5

S                ST
H                H
DJ5             D98
CK97           CJ8

        S
        H9
        DK7
        CQ2

On the heart 9. WEST is squeezed In an interesting way. If he discards a high diamond (unblocking), EAST must keep two diamonds, and can’t afford to discard a spade, so he discards a low club. Now south, with full count, cashes Diamond king for a spade discard and then leads club queen, and when WEST covers, ducks in dummy. This allows him to make no matter if EAST or WEST held club jack. On the other hand, if WEST keeps both diamonds and discards a low club, EAST is squeezed. IF he discards a club, south can cash the Diamond king and pin the club jack with the lead of the queen. Finally, if west goes the way of least resistance and discards the low club, and EAST a diamond. South cashes the diamond King – discarding a spade from dummy, and endplays west by exiting a diamond.

For kibitizers, this showed a well played hand fun analysis by the expert kibitzers, that waffled into zones like lightner doubles, why bid 6NT instead of 6H (it was matchpoints), and how to play a difficult hand. Cool, watch for Topflight events and consider "playing along" with fellow kibitizer... another great learning tool on the BBO.

Ben

[Trpltrbl]

Most beginners I know haven't even heard of a sueeze, let alone know what it is.
And they have only heard of some of the very big names in bridge, if you are lucky, and they seem not be playing in Topflight events. And I know only few of the starplayers that play in your Topflight events, and still IMO think that somebody that played in an event 30+ years ago qualifies as a starplayer, is out there And so seem to think many starplayers, since from what I have seen, you get about 2 tables to play a 12 brd teamgame cause you can't get more ? How come when people run regular tourneys they have more stars playing then Topflight ? Abalucy tourneys have more stars playing about every nite then Topflight. Just because somebody has a star doesn't make them a worldclass player, maybe they were long time ago before I was born.

Mike

[Trpltrbl]

Maybe start a new star system, where players at national level at their country get certain color and people playing in WBF events get maybe platinum color stars. And just like the WBF if you don't compete at their level anymore you lose the color of your star. I don't get mad very often but this star system is getting out of hand. If you go to websites of WBF or EBL and try to find these people that have a star, very many don't show up and most of others once played in WBF some years ago and came in 78th place or something like that. I really like BBO and am very happy to be part of it, but the starsystem ................ ...................

Mike

[inquiry]

Mike,

I think you very much misunderstand what makes BBO different and how the star system fits into this difference.

What makes the BBO different is that it has been set up to be first and formost, an educational site. OKBridge is set up to be a tournament – money making site (with the problems initiated by the Lehman system). MSN Zone is set up to be a place to play bridge. Other sites are set up for a single language/country, or mechanism of a bridge organization.

Fred has made a great educational tool here. Training rooms, bidding rooms, teaching tables. Kibitizers can chat among themselves and privately back and forth with players, and kibitzers can use DF to see “the winning line.” Uday said that Gold Stars are “players worth watching” and Fred says he uses a rule to pick who gets a star. This doesn’t mean they are all world class. In fact, I know several people without gold stars who are better card players than most of those with the stars. Some gold stars are not very helpful to people here: they go to the bidding room and bid without comments with someone (client?) and then leave. Some gold stars are world class players who come and play here, where we can watch, but don’t interact with the kibitizers. Others are good players who hold court, answer questions, offer advice, and are generally helpful to players of all ability.

Why do some very, very good and friendly players like Mishovnbg not have a gold star? Obviously the system is not perfect, but then it is not meant to be. It is just another way for players who want to use this site as an learning tool to identify a table where kibitizing might be both entertaining and educational. And that is the point of gold stars. They are not lehman's, they don't go up and down with play. They are simply a way to help players/students that want to find a good table to kibitiz to do so.

The fact that you get mad about it suggest perhpas title or recognition is important to you. If so, okbridge might be just up your alley, they have lehmans. Of course, you can get recognition in BBO by playing and winning too. We could take a poll of the "great" BBO players without a star, and you would see it would be quite long indeed. And who would be pointing these players out? Those who have noticed the good players: my own list of players worthy of spending hours watching play has more non-stars than stars.

Ben

[bglover]

If I may explain....

The Gold Star for admission was meant to be some sort of "objective" standard that we could point to, even if it meant some great players would not be admitted through invitation. We hoped (and still do hope) that the other truly good ones would be brought in through the nomination process. We are encouraging our members to help us expand through this method. Daily, I get asked by someone or another for admittance (including, I might add, Trpltrbl). I can say "need a BBO gold star sorry" and at least they understand "why", unlike some other clubs where admitting standards are pretty much at the whim of the owners. Our standards may be rigid (in fact, they are too rigid maybe) but they are also fair and measurable.

There is nothing wrong with small tourneys or team matches if we maintain a high level of play. We certainly didn't expect to run huge tourneys when we started but hoped we would grow through word of mouth. The plan was that if we were able to stage small, high-quality matches, other great players would see this and want to play in our tourneys more.

Indeed, we are experiencing a little growth in participation already. Our last few tourneys have been either 3 or 4 tables and over time maybe we will grow to 5 tables. If that is the case, great. If not, that's OK too.

It is unlikely we would have have many more than 6 or 7 tables given that we have a limited membership. But "size" was never our greatest concern. Rather, maintaining an environment where great players want to compete and where spectators can watch and learn has ALWAYS been our goal. A secondary benefit (we hope) is that we will attract more great players to BBO so they can participate in TopFlight events.

Sure, you can spec another tourney and find as many or more stars playing. But, are they playing against "like" competition? Not usually, unless it's a team match. That's the entire point. For the spectators, watching high-quality opponents engage versus each other can help them learn and improve. We try to have commentators at our matches (often I am the commentator) to explain the processes, much like Vugraph. It is a service we are providing, both to our members and to the BBO community at large. No one would think to criticize OK Bridge's Goldway matches, yet they are just team matches with great players competing. We view TopFlight more as competition to that than as competition to any other club on BBO.

And, given that we are very young (really only 4 weeks old) I think we have been mostly successful. We are still experimenting with days and times. We must be careful not to overlap with other, more established club tourneys. It's still a learning process for us. If we do our jobs well, learn from our mistakes and listen to our members, then we will succeed. If we do not, at least Ben, Ece, Alex and myself can say we tried to do something for the greater "good" of BBO. Better to be a noble failure I say.

[Trpltrbl]

Ben
I agree with you on almost all your points, I just think the starsystem needs to be updated, overhauled. And I don't need one I am friendly and help others when asked for help. That's all I want to do to keep this game going. And I will and do tell my people that the star system is much overrated, because they used to watch and come to me with horror stories of these so called worldclass starplayers. Next thing I will see is xxxxxx with a goldstar, because he probably deserves it as much as some of others hehehehehe.

Mike

[luke warm]

elsewhere fred has listed the criteria he uses to assign the stars... i very much doubt that anyone who has met those criteria does not have a star, unless he or she declined

bglover - your standards are *not* too rigid... and even if they were, i personally would prefer that to one that is not rigid enough... true, i'm an addicted kibber, but when i kib i much prefer to watch those from whom i can learn (with or without stars)

mike - have you read fred's post where he sets forth his criteria? do you know of anyone who fits into that category and hasn't at least been offered a star? you are an excellent player, and i enjoy kibbing you when i get the chance.. but in my opinion there is a difference between those who have been tested under tournament fire, against the best in the world, and have come out on top and those who have not...

"horror stories" about gold stars are all relative.. in some instances the person doing the reporting may not understand why a result wasn't quite what it should have been, double dummy... in my opinon, the best players play at a very high level *most* of the time.. not always, of course (witness the last board of this year's bb)... we don't know the reasons for this, sometimes online bridge presents its own difficulties (kids screaming, pets yawking, etc)

ben - amen

[bglover]

Well, Mike is not entirely wrong... There are some countries where winning a national title doesn't necessarily mean you are a world class player-- the community is just very small.

Bridge in 3d world countries is undoubtedly a game for the very upper classes, and that could be a very small population. So, under Fred's criteria they might qualify for a star and yet be a so-so player for TopFlight level. But, he implies that many of the stars fall into that category and that is simply not true. MOST of the stars play at quite a high level most of the time. And, watching a tourney where the vast majority of players have one means that you, the kibbitzer, are likely to see a high-level game.

When this idea first was in its baby stages, the other co-founders wanted me to be the sole arbiter of who was deserving to be in the club (because I've been here a long time and know most all the good players). I didn't want that responsibility frankly. Not because I'm not a decent judge of who can play and who cannot, but because that standard would have been way too subjective. After some bashing about of ideas we settled on the "BBO Gold Star" because someone else (Fred) had already determined these people had some noteworthy accomplishments.

The standard is "fair" even if it is not perfect. I cannot stress that enough. It is measurable, it is justifiable. Maybe there was a better method available but we, frankly, couldn't come up with one.

We get tons of thank yous both from participants and spectators every time we run a tourney. We average in the neighborhood of 75-80 kibbitzers every tourney. That's usually for 2 or 3 tables... People ENJOY what we are doing. Isn't that what it is all about?

[uday]

I edited an earlier post to remove a customer's username from within an unflattering context

[Trpltrbl]

luke warm, on Jan 27 2004, 08:40 PM, said:

mike - have you read fred's post where he sets forth his criteria? do you know of anyone who fits into that category and hasn't at least been offered a star?

"horror stories" about gold stars are all relative.. in some instances the person doing the reporting may not understand why a result wasn't quite what it should have been, double dummy... in my opinon, the best players play at a very high level *most* of the time.. not always, of course (witness the last board of this year's bb)... we don't know the reasons for this, sometimes online bridge presents its own difficulties (kids screaming, pets yawking, etc)

ben - amen

I have read Fred's post about the goldstars, and the way he put it is that they are bridge ambassadors and that some deserve the stars more then others. And it is a guiding tool for beginning and/or new bridgeplayers. And I totally agree that experts make mistakes too as we see more than often on the great vugraph here. And as for me playing against the top of world, I have and have beaten them too, but that is irrelevant. With my kinda work I just don't have the time right now to play as much as I like too, but hopefully that will chance, cause I do miss playing at toplevel. Maybe I will win lottery and go from there...

Mike