[sceptic]

Quote

i am only letting a few sponsers in. In my Hall of Fame over the past 90 years.

unfortunately Mike, you may have been there to see them all play, some of us do not have that advantage

[mycroft]

Two good questions to ask people that you think are in the "good player" category (whatever you think that is - good player in your area? National champion material?):

-- who would you want to play with?
-- who would you never play with?

If GP1 names names, for either question, they're likely in the "good player" category, themselves (exception being if GP1 ends "I'd never play with <x>" with "even if he paid me twice my rate", of course).

What I've seen is that even for the Never question, the only names good players give are good players and clients (of course, there are several clients who are better than I'll ever be). Nobody else comes to their mind.

Michael.

[bid_em_up]

I think you almost have to choose other, as it will usually be some combination of a variety of these. For me, the choices are (with some modifications):

Based on playing with/against them, even if it's been a while
Based on watching their play (via BBO, other online method, or Vugraph)
Based on which major events they have been contenders in (not necessarily won)
Based on what other good players tell me.
Along with some combination of other factors as well.

So I don't think you can just "list" it in a poll and get a fair interpretation of how to evaluate someones skill level based on any one particular methods.

[awm]

Jlall, on Jul 16 2007, 04:45 PM, said:

Quote

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...

Yes Adam but there's a reason that not just anyone is on these teams as the 6th. If they didn't have a sponsor they would have another player equally as good as them. You have to pay your dues and impress the right people to get on a team like this, and you have to be good. If you are on a team like this and you're not a sponsor it's for a reason.

Mmm sure I don't think that contradicts anything I said.

My point is: how good are the sponsors?

I believe that a lot of us play as well or better than most sponsors. If I had a gazillion dollars and could hire a top-notch team like Rose Meltzer or George Jacobs or Bill Gates, then I think I could win a bunch of events. This is not to say that "I think I'm a world-class player" but rather "I think if I were on a team with five world class players, I would not drag the team down so much that we couldn't win top-notch events." I think there's very little doubt that Meltzer and Jacobs (for example) are good players, but there's also very little doubt that they are at least a notch below the likes of Ron Smith, Lorenzo Lauria, Bob Hamman, etc. (the true world class players).

Of course, when the sponsor plays exclusively on teams with five acknowledged superstars and they do really well, it's hard to say how good the sponsor is. Certainly you can't tell easily based on results.

[helene_t]

Never thought about it. Why would I want to know which bridge players are best? Michielsen/Wortel may be slightly better than Barendrecht/Dekker but that doesn't necesarily mean that they are more worth kibbing.

As for the local club, we have a few players who seem good but somehow get bad results anyway. I could be mistaken. Or it could be that their partners suck. We have one couple who can't bid (let alone explain their bids to opps) but somehow always guess each other's cards by means of table feeling. They are also good cardplayers so they usually win. I seriously doubt that any of them could reach the A-line of the club if playing with someone else.

[Gerben42]

You can only tell who are the best players by playing with them or against them, or possibly by watching them.

Results are an indication.
Masterpoints is just a slight indication at best.
Loudness is usually negatively correlated with skill.

[Fluffy]

helene_t, on Jul 17 2007, 05:35 AM, said:

Never thought about it. Why would I want to know which bridge players are best? Michielsen/Wortel may be slightly better than Barendrecht/Dekker but that doesn't necesarily mean that they are more worth kibbing.

If having to pick I'd always kibbitz Astrid and Rosaline, they are so fun

[awm]

Here are some of the things I've noticed in my local area:

(1) People who lecture parter a lot are often overrated, because they act like they know something and are better than partner. People who are quiet and/or admit occasional mistakes are often underrated for the same reason.

(2) Women are often underrated. Men who play often with women are frequently overrated. These are related phenomena, and often also related to the first point.

(3) There is a general perception that people who play non-standard methods are at the "advanced but not expert" level, because they "obviously know something" to be playing this weird system but "if they were real experts they wouldn't need to play the weird system." I know both some lousy players who are overrated because of this and some good players who are underrated for the same reason.

(4) National (or world) championships in senior events, womens events, and junior events are rated very unevenly. Some people seem to think these wins are relatively meaningless, whereas other people rate them just as highly as an open championship. This leads to dramatic differences of opinion about the skills of some players.

(5) Bridge teachers are often overrated; there is an impression that teaching means they know something when in fact almost anyone can teach. This is also related to the first point.

(6) People are often rated based on who their teammates are. There is a perception that being able to get good teammates means someone is good. While there is some truth to this, getting good teammates often has to do with who you're friendly with and sometimes how much you pay, but these things are not "common knowledge" so don't get factored in.

(7) Rating of young players tends to be very uneven. Part of this is that people often base their opinion on "the last time they played with someone" which could be a few years ago. Younger players are often improving rapidly, so the view of their skills based on a couple years ago is quite likely to be underrating them. On the other hand, "unknown" young players who come to an area and seem to have some clue about the game are often rated (by default) as much better than older players of the same skill level.

[awm]

Of course, getting on good teams depends on a lot of things. For example:

(1) Someone who's wealthy can just buy their way onto a good team.
(2) Getting on a good team has more to do with being perceived as good than actually being good. There are any number of things discussed here that could lead to someone being perceived as better (or worse) than they are.
(3) Having the right friends is a big help. I know plenty of people who play regularly with much better players (no money involved) because they are good friends. I can also think of people who are good players but so unpleasant to be around that no one wants to be on their team.
(4) A lot of times it helps to be organized and ask people way in advance. I know this is a big factor in the caliber of teammates I get for events.
(5) People who are generally available to play often form "regular teams" with one or two other good pairs. People who play only occasionally can have trouble finding good teammates for related reasons.