[awm]

How do you decide who the "best players" in your area are? Evaluating bridge talent seems pretty tough, especially in real-life events where you don't have a huge base of statistics to fall back on. Talking to other people in my area, I've gotten some pretty interesting evaluations of who's good and who's bad.

[Echognome]

It's obviously based on a lot of the above (except perhaps the whole yelling bit). I don't think most people have a lot of people around them that have written books, but even so, I don't judge on that so much having seen some of the people that have got published. I mean there are a lot of great bridge authors that were not as great players (e.g. Kelsey) and of course there are others who were. But the point is it's not a great indicator.

You can base on playing with them, but you have to be good enough yourself to get that opportunity and also to build up a reputation of your own. When I first moved to England, I didn't get to play with very many good players at first. It was only after time that I got those opportunities. In the meantime, I learned who was good by hearing what others had to say. (The option I chose.) It took awhile to get to know who were good players and thus, who I wanted to listen to for their opinion!

I didn't really use local events to judge players as some players do pretty well at local events, but not at anything higher. They might know exactly how Millie or George or Margaret bid or play and what their tendencies are, but they don't play that well against strangers. I liken it to the country club golf pro that has a scratch handicap, but gets eaten alive at Q school. He knows every little bounce and green at his local club, but take him away from his surroundings and he's really not that good.

Winning major events would certainly count in my book and that is probably the best indication of the very good players. Of course, most of the players I know do not win major events. I guess if you replaced "win" with "placed well in", I might have selected this option.

Their analysis of the game is an interesting choice. One of the things I enjoyed doing after playing a local session was heading down the road to the pub with a few of the local experts and discussing (debating?) all the hands. It was there when I tagged along originally that I started picking up who the experts were. And it wasn't too long after that I started to join into the debates.

Finally, MP total is kind of considered a joke right? However, there is one MP total in England I respect and that is gold points. You can only get them at Nationals or large congresses (Regionals) where you place very highly. They also depreciate on a straight line over 4 years. Thus, they are the best indicator of who is playing well currently. The only downside to gold points is that they judge national events (how can they do otherwise?). But that means there are plenty of good players that play internationally that do not have as many gold points.

[ArcLight]

The Best are the loudest. Also MPs are a good guide.
MPs times number of times they criticize/analyze per session is the best way overall.


I'd think asking the good players in your area who they think is good
Of course if some of the local players have won the Spingold they probably are not weak


I think I can analyze a hand AFTER the game, double dummy a lot beter than I can play it.

[pclayton]

Assuming they haven't hired anyone, I think the only real test is how well they do in 'real' events. A run-of-the-mill Bracket I Regional KO is a good test, but I have more respect for the teams that win the A/X Swiss on Sunday.

Things that don't count: Bracket II Regionals (unless its Gatlinburg) or lower, Sectionals or Club games, or Flight B events (at any level).

Any overall in an open NABC event is a good indicator too, but there's some reasonably good players that don't make it out to the Nationals.

Obviously a top finish (Round of 16) in any of the big team events nationally (or internationally) would qualify.

[hotShot]

I only judge on personal experience.

If my opps defense does not give me extra tricks and they reach reasonable contracts as declarer. If they do that to me I start to think that they might be good player, if they do it more often then the other player around, they must be the best.

[Apollo81]

A combination of performance in local events and NABC+ events.

[bhall]

It's funny. In my little local area, I'm considered "best" by the club players, but I am definitely inferior to at least two others. One is a frequent partner of mine, Jim Munday.

I couldn't recognize the extent of his expertise by playing against him. The opportunity for excellent plays occurs too rarely, and often they make no difference in the outcome of a given board. But playing with him has allowed me to see how deep his quick analyses at the table actually go. And that is often quite deep indeed.

I have had decades of playing against world-class pairs, and again I have found it difficult to evaluate how good they are. Often, I have seen the limitations of their partnership agreements more clearly than the quality of their play. But on the rare occasions that I partnered such a player, I could appreciate their strengths.

[awm]

This gets even trickier when you're trying to rate the best "up and coming" players -- say you're looking around for people who haven't had major tournament success but might be top-flight in a year or two. How do you pick those people out?

[pclayton]

awm, on Jul 13 2007, 11:25 AM, said:

This gets even trickier when you're trying to rate the best "up and coming" players -- say you're looking around for people who haven't had major tournament success but might be top-flight in a year or two. How do you pick those people out?

I think there's several outstanding up-and-coming players around BBF, many of them juniors. There's a few in southern california, too.

How I would evaluate a player like that is if their judgement seems 'way beyond their years'. I think one can become a reasonably good technician after a year or two, but when they show mature competitive judgement, I think its very promising.

[mike777]

I picked events won but even so, all joking aside, winning alot of MP does mean something in terms of "best". You can get alot of opinions about Barry Crane, in fact I wish more were made public on such forums as bbo, but in any case he was a really good player, in terms of "best'.

Many will not really know the names Mark Lair or Bart Bramely, outside of these forums, these are really really good players who won a ton of MP.

Add in non USA players, who are not British or Italian and same could be said, as far unknown but best.

I mentioned the name Rose Meltzer(sponsor) before. Has she done enough to get into the Hall of Fame?

Any event best is always a great fun topic to toss around, every year. Thanks for bringing it up.
1) You win 2 open WC events =best? I say yes, but you?
2) You win one non open WC event ...very close to best? ( I say yes!)

[awm]

I think if you're evaluating people on "major events they've won" you need to consider the number of times they've tried and the people they've had on their team. A lot of us would like to think that if we played on a team with five of the best players in the world, we could win a few things... and I think in many cases we'd be right...

It's pretty hard to win a national event, but I also think there are also a lot of people who could do that once or twice in, say, 300 tries over the course of 30 years. On the other hand, the people who are consistently in contention in these events are certainly quite good.

In some cases this actually hurts people's reputation who may be good players -- I can't really speak to how good a player Rose Meltzer is or isn't for example. I'm sure that a lot of people could win some major championships if they had her spot on that team (not that most of us can afford to do this). Then again, even if Rose is equal in skill level to her teammates (and they are quite good) it's not clear she'd do any better, or that we'd be able to tell. When someone's the sponsor on an elite team, it's easy to discount their success.

[mike777]

So to get into my Hall of Fame or be considered you would:
1) Win 2 open WC events, anyone, you are in.
2) Win one open WC event, you are on the ballot.
3) Win one nonopen WC event, you are on the ballot.
4) You never win a WC event, you get on the ballot if two Hall of Famers or three writers vote you onto ballot.
5) Who gets the ballot vote? Living Hall of Famers, selected bridge writers, (debate who or how later. ..)
6) At the very least every single WBF country gets at least one vote, Hall of Famer or bridge writer.
7) You need some large number(more than 50%) to get in. Pick 66% or 75% for example.
8) If need be we can discuss a Veterans committee for dead players if the need arises and they are not getting in.

[awm]

mike777, on Jul 13 2007, 09:11 PM, said:

So to get into my Hall of Fame or be considered you would:
1) Win 2 open WC events, anyone, you are in.
2) Win one open WC event, you are on the ballot.
3) Win one nonopen WC event, you are on the ballot.
4) You never win a WC event, you get on the ballot if two Hall of Famers or three writers vote you onto ballot.
5) Who gets the ballot vote? Living Hall of Famers, selected bridge writers, (debate who or how later. ..)
6) At the very least every single WBF country gets at least one vote, Hall of Famer or bridge writer.
7) You need some large number(more than 50%) to get in. Pick 66% or 75% for example.

This is too weak a criteria to put people into the Hall of Fame.

We don't put every baseball player who ever won a world series into the hall of fame, or even every player who won two world series. There is definitely recognition that it's easier to win when you have teammates who are superstars. The same is true in bridge.

A Hall of Famer is someone who is in contention to win every time he or she comes to the table, someone who's widely respected and has impact on the game. Not just someone who's won a few events, possibly by spending enough money to get Hall of Fame teammates.

[mike777]

awm, on Jul 13 2007, 09:22 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 13 2007, 09:11 PM, said:

So to get into my Hall of Fame or be considered you would:
1) Win 2 open WC events, anyone, you are in.
2) Win one open WC event, you are on the ballot.
3) Win one nonopen WC event, you are on the ballot.
4) You never win a WC event, you get on the ballot if two Hall of Famers or three writers vote you onto ballot.
5) Who gets the ballot vote?  Living Hall of Famers, selected bridge writers, (debate who or how later. ..)
6) At the very least every single WBF country gets at least one vote, Hall of Famer or bridge writer.
7) You need some large number(more than 50%) to get in. Pick 66% or 75% for example.

This is too weak a criteria to put people into the Hall of Fame.

We don't put every baseball player who ever won a world series into the hall of fame, or even every player who won two world series. There is definitely recognition that it's easier to win when you have teammates who are superstars. The same is true in bridge.

A Hall of Famer is someone who is in contention to win every time he or she comes to the table, someone who's widely respected and has impact on the game. Not just someone who's won a few events, possibly by spending enough money to get Hall of Fame teammates.

I am not putting every player who won one open in the hall of fame.

I am putting every player(sponsors) who won two open events in. I assume they played the required number of boards.
btw I think this is a very small number.
btw there are 25 players in baseball most do not play the required number of boards. Sure they get a ring, but the comparison is hardly the same.
In bridge I assume they do.

I repeat you play the required boards, and win two opens, you are in.

[mike777]

awm, on Jul 13 2007, 09:22 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 13 2007, 09:11 PM, said:

So to get into my Hall of Fame or be considered you would:
1) Win 2 open WC events, anyone, you are in.
2) Win one open WC event, you are on the ballot.
3) Win one nonopen WC event, you are on the ballot.
4) You never win a WC event, you get on the ballot if two Hall of Famers or three writers vote you onto ballot.
5) Who gets the ballot vote?  Living Hall of Famers, selected bridge writers, (debate who or how later. ..)
6) At the very least every single WBF country gets at least one vote, Hall of Famer or bridge writer.
7) You need some large number(more than 50%) to get in. Pick 66% or 75% for example.

This is too weak a criteria to put people into the Hall of Fame.

We don't put every baseball player who ever won a world series into the hall of fame, or even every player who won two world series. There is definitely recognition that it's easier to win when you have teammates who are superstars. The same is true in bridge.

A Hall of Famer is someone who is in contention to win every time he or she comes to the table, someone who's widely respected and has impact on the game. Not just someone who's won a few events, possibly by spending enough money to get Hall of Fame teammates.

why too weak....how many players get in automaticly with my criteria, whatever the number I let them in.

btw I guess open events means:
open pairs
bermuda bowl
Rosenblum cup
open transnationals.

Not:womens, juniors, mixed or seniors.

[the hog]

Events won is too dodgy a criteria. I can really only think of a couple of sponsors I would regard as top players. Eg we have had a few sponsors wh have done well in Aust National events and even made to Oz team who are ordinary to say the least.

[BebopKid]

I voted for Other. There's no one easy test for who is better.

Once my partner and I (both less than 20 master points at the time) got a higher percentage at MP than a pair totaling well over 10000 master points between them.

I can tell you that I am nowhere near their league.

I could have stopped playing bridge that day, thinking I had reached the top. Just lucky that day I guess.

[mike777]

The_Hog, on Jul 13 2007, 11:55 PM, said:

Events won is too dodgy a criteria. I can really only think of a couple of sponsors I would regard as top players. Eg we have had a few sponsors wh have done well in Aust National events and even made to Oz team who are ordinary to say the least.

i am only letting a few sponsers in. In my Hall of Fame over the past 90 years.
If more get in the next 90 years so be it..they played the boards.

If 6 super players cannot beat 5 super players and a sponsor...too bad..you lose.
You lose match after match after match at the world class level.
The sponsor gets in if she can do that twice, geez.
If you disagree cool, just a sponsor a team and get in yourself, twice.

[skjaeran]

It's very easy to decide who's the best player in my area (southeastern part of Norway) - ask any player, it's unanimous: Tor Helness (with Erik Sælensminde 2nd). The best part when it comes to Helness (except for his great ability as a player of course) is his ability to explain his reasoning in such a way that intermediates (mostly) can understand it and learn from him.

Same for what was my area (middle Norway) before moving to Oslo, and still unanimous: Geir Helgemo (with Terje Aa, Glenn Grøtheim and Ulf Tundal (not very close) behind).

Of course, with one World Star in an area, it's very easy to determine, and whatever method used would give the same result.