[uday]

As you all probably know, we currently flag some players with "gold stars". This means, variously, that the player is (in Fred's opinion) a world class player, or that the player is worth watching, or that someone has convinced Fred that the player is of world-class calibre.

This system is  sometimes subjective, and undoubtedly we've left out some people who should be stars and included some people who
should never have been stars.

What is your opinion of this practice?   Do you find that it helps your online experience? Hurts it? Doesnt affect it one way or another?

[Cave_Draco]

Mostly, no effect,  .

4 options:

Never played with a Star; no effect,
Partnered a Star; should be a good game.
Opposed a Star; Oooh, a gauntlet.
Kibbed by a Star; honoured.

[inquiry]

1) Do I like the concept of the GOLD STAR System (does it help my online experience)?

Yes. It provides a proven table at which to play or kibitiz where at least a few of the player know enough about the game to make it challenging (often too challenging perhaps). Also, Gold Stars usually seek out good opponents and good partners, so it give you a clue about who might be good amongst the much larger non-starred field.

Heck, even one of the favorite private message chat themes that crop up from time to time is arguing over who deserves (and more improtantly) doesn't deserve a gold star.

2) Should the GOLD STAR system be dropped or changed?

Please don't stop the Gold Star system. Perhpas once tournment play is started on the BBO, you might supplement it with a green or red star for people who routinely achieve high place finishes in the tournment (exaclty how we should leave up to people who know about such thingns). But this should NOT be attendance points (win 10 tourns, get a star is definetly not what I had in mind. Place 3rd or better in 8 of last 10 tournments, something like that... ). Or maybe you could have a multi-level tournment with qualifying rounds, and the top several finishers after going through qualifying and knockout rounds get a star. Sort of a BBO CHAMPIONSHIP Star.

3) Is it possible or even likely that some very good players here do not have GOLD STARS?

I know for a fact some of the non-starred players are better than the majority of GOLD STAR players who play regularily. Of course there is a whole group of gold stars who just visit the bidding tables or play at invisible tables, or play only very sporatically. There is no questioning the ability of a Kit Woolsey or Paul Soloway. I obviously am not talking about them.  

Does the fact that some GOLD STARS are overrated and some non-starred players are slighted by not having a STAR bother me? I suspect if I thought I deserved a GOLD STAR, it might bother me. However, since I make no claim to expert level or above, it doesn't. I can't speak for the really good players who go officially unrecognized. But I think that finding the hidden truely excellent player is like an exciting adventure hunt. I have identified a few well deserving of a Gold Star.

4) Finally do I prefer to play with or against GOLD STARS?

I like it either way. Many GOLD STAR players are kind enough to play as my partner, and even more will occassionally invite me to find a partner and come play against them.  Probably in the later case when they need an ego boost.  :

[csdenmark]

To me the star system is of very little interest. I have understood the stars are a recommendation to me. Good so - I always appreciate someone to help me. Sorry it is not of much help if I don't have an option to say "no thank you". I therefore think I should have an option to remove the star from players which to me seems not worth so.

That said - I really don't understand how it is possible to provide such stars to people violating code of conduct logging in as incognito or maybe completely empty profile. - Such persons are turned into black by me!

Some of the star players have problems communicating in english - and due to the fact that english is the official communication language on BBO, I think that something else than the ability to play cards in a tournament ought to be taken into account.

Those people I prefere to kibitz are those doing either:

a) Playing interesting bridge
Provides relevant comments for kibitzers
c) Running the show
d) Not making too many silly mistakes in minors

Only 2 persons I think are able to fulfill all above requirements(Rado-Star and malucy-nonStar). A 3rd one (goforit-Star) is improving. Others too are often encouraged playing at a table with any of those, and then it is worth to waste a night sleep for.

If the star-system some day will be modified so I can use it I would like the star-players to be gathered at the lobby right after my friends list.

I very much like to see how many of the bulgarian star players really tries to play with and help their countryfellows improving their bridge. Malucy and KLK are doing the same I have noticed. - Hat off!

Claus - csdenmark          

[uday]

Just a note on a side issue;

I don't believe we have any sense that English is the official communication language on BBO.  True, I dont speak any other languages myself, but between the yellows, we have several others covered.

The software is not overly kind to people who don't speak English. That is a reflection of our lack of resources, not of our desire to keep this site mono lingual.

Somday, I hope to have BBO customers be able to select and use the language of theit choice, at least when communicating with the user interface.

By the way, here are the current most popular languages used on BBO


5.4%    Turkish
8.5%    Polish
10.2%   Italian
13.5%   French
40.0%   English

Anyone speak Polish and interested in being a yellow, or helping with translations?

uday

[csdenmark]

Regarding official language maybe you are right. I think you know better about these matters than I do. What I refer to is second page of "The Rules of this Site". Please let me quote:
'We have members from all over the world playing on BBO and this is one of our strengths. While english is the "official language" of this site, plenty of our ........'

I cannot speak polish but due to below web-site I can communicate with poles.

http://www.poltran.com/pl.php4

Maybe the facility will be able to help you too!

Claus - csdenmark  

[Rado]

We have discussed with Fred many times regarding the "star" system. In my view the original Fred idea : "worth watching" already fulfilled its mission and now it's time for change. Remove all stars because they are inflicting too much envy in some of the BBO members and it conraditcts to the main purpoce of BBO as friendly site without ratings, ELO, points......
Instead let Fred assign ne symbol "Crown" to the people won live world or European or American championship or other major world competitions. I'm sure Fred knows all ofthem personally.
:-))))))

[fred]

Quote

As you all probably know, we currently flag some players with "gold stars". This means, variously, that the player is (in Fred's opinion) a world class player, or that the player is worth watching, or that someone has convinced Fred that the player is of world-class calibre.

This system is  sometimes subjective, and undoubtedly we've left out some people who should be stars and included some people who
should never have been stars.

What is your opinion of this practice?   Do you find that it helps your online experience? Hurts it? Doesnt affect it one way or another?

Actually I have tried to leave my opinions out of it. A player gets a star if and only if he/she has won a major national or international tournament or represented his/her country in World Championship for which you have to qualify (like the Bermuda Bowl/Venice Cup or the Olympiad - the World Open Pairs and the Rosenblum Teams would not count).

Yes, I am certain there are plenty of non-stars on BBO who play at least as well as many of the stars. However, I have learned the hard way that assigning stars due to what I think (or what anyone else thinks) of a given player's ability just gets people upset. I am certain that the only way the "star system" can work is to have some kind of objective standard like the one that we are now using.

Very likely I made a mistake with some of the early star assignments. That was before I learned to carefully scrutinize a player's tournament record before giving out a star. That being said, I am not about to "unstar" anyone (as I don't like to hurt people's feelings).

The many fine non-star players on our site should remember that the stars are not meant as a "badge of honor" for the sake of the stars themselves. They are meant so that the lesser players who are members of BBO (many of whom have never heard of Bob Hamman) will have a better idea who to kibitz if they want to see what rates to be "good bridge".

It should be noted that there are several A-1 players who are BBO members who have asked me to NOT give them a star. Most of these wish to remain anonomous.

From the feedback that I have received, the stars are very popular among the "average" players on BBO. I get some complaints from "near stars" or "wannabe stars", but being able to tell these people that you must win a major tournament in order to get a star is usually enough to satisfy them.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[PoorMe]

Quote

1) Do I like the concept of the GOLD STAR System (does it help my online experience)?

Yes. It provides a proven table at which to play or kibitiz where at least a few of the player know enough about the game to make it challenging (often too challenging perhaps). Also, Gold Stars usually seek out good opponents and good partners, so it give you a clue about who might be good amongst the much larger non-starred field.

Heck, even one of the favorite private message chat themes that crop up from time to time is arguing over who deserves (and more improtantly) doesn't deserve a gold star.

2) Should the GOLD STAR system be dropped or changed?

Please don't stop the Gold Star system. Perhpas once tournment play is started on the BBO, you might supplement it with a green or red star for people who routinely achieve high place finishes in the tournment (exaclty how we should leave up to people who know about such thingns). But this should NOT be attendance points (win 10 tourns, get a star is definetly not what I had in mind. Place 3rd or better in 8 of last 10 tournments, something like that... ). Or maybe you could have a multi-level tournment with qualifying rounds, and the top several finishers after going through qualifying and knockout rounds get a star. Sort of a BBO CHAMPIONSHIP Star.

3) Is it possible or even likely that some very good players here do not have GOLD STARS?

I know for a fact some of the non-starred players are better than the majority of GOLD STAR players who play regularily. Of course there is a whole group of gold stars who just visit the bidding tables or play at invisible tables, or play only very sporatically. There is no questioning the ability of a Kit Woolsey or Paul Soloway. I obviously am not talking about them.  

Does the fact that some GOLD STARS are overrated and some non-starred players are slighted by not having a STAR bother me? I suspect if I thought I deserved a GOLD STAR, it might bother me. However, since I make no claim to expert level or above, it doesn't. I can't speak for the really good players who go officially unrecognized. But I think that finding the hidden truely excellent player is like an exciting adventure hunt. I have identified a few well deserving of a Gold Star.

4) Finally do I prefer to play with or against GOLD STARS?

I like it either way. Many GOLD STAR players are kind enough to play as my partner, and even more will occassionally invite me to find a partner and come play against them.  Probably in the later case when they need an ego boost.  :

I think that we have agreed that the STAR system uses some kind of yardstick to determine who is assigned a star or not.
Other than the STAR system skill level has generally been self assigned.The guidelines suggested by Fred seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
Tournaments are now a part of BBO. A cursory look at the results of the tournaments indiacte to me that several EXPERTS skillfully avoid them.I am sure they have expert reasons to do so.However, those who ventured to play seem to me to do badly on a consistent basis.There may be reasons for that too.
Since competition seems to be the universally accepted way to determine level of skill and expertise, I am suggesting that the BBO tournaments be used as the yardstick to assign skill level.

[Erkson]

Hi, PoorMe.
You wrote :

Quote

I am suggesting that the BBO tournaments be used as the yardstick to assign skill level.

In most of BOL pairs tournaments 8 deals are played by a large field of pairs. So a pair only meets a short part of the field.
Doesn't the result mostly depend on luck ?

Erkson

[Codo]

Oh poor me,

A cursory look at the results of the tournaments indiacte to me that several EXPERTS skillfully avoid them.I am sure they have expert reasons to do so.However, those who ventured to play seem to me to do badly on a consistent basis.There may be reasons for that too.


There are reasons not to play:
1. Maybe you don`t want to play a tournement. Funnily, there are about 1.000 players each day, who don´t play the tournements. They surely have a reason. Maybe the same like the experts?

2. I sometimes play tourneys. The abbilities of the field are very wide spread. Sometimes I like to play there, sometimes I don´t. Maybe for an expert it can be even more annoying to play with less skilled opponents.

3. Maybe it does not fit your schedule, maybe you just want to play with friends...

But if they play tourneys and they don`t win.
So what? Do you really believe, that the best players in a field of 120 pairs will win a tourney with 10 or 20 boards?
Sorry, this is silly. To win such a tournement, you need to play bad bridge compared with luck.
It is simply not enough to play perfect bridge to win.

F.e. Playing the last tornement, (unclocked), I was able to view some boards played at other tables.

Really silly things happen, playing 6 Heart where 2 Heart was difficult, playing in the Transfer or in a splinter bid.
So to win such a short tournement in such a weak field, you simply need LUCK to have these opps.

And why should experts have more luck then you or me?
They surely make their opps more often unlucky, give some more chances for wrongescissions. But this is simply not enough.

So please forget your idea.

Kind Regards

Roland

[PoorMe]

As I indicated surely EXPERT reasons have been given.Not that I buy them..The old luck sawhorse continues to get beaten.Surely claim being an EXPERT but do not prove expertise is a great way to go,

[Gerardo]

Play a team match. Almost no luck there.
Play several. No luck at all

[Erkson]

Hi, Codo.
You wrote :

Quote

F.e. Playing the last tornement, (unclocked), I was able to view some boards played at other tables.

Really silly things happen, playing 6 Heart where 2 Heart was difficult, playing in the Transfer or in a splinter bid.
So to win such a short tournement in such a weak field, you simply need LUCK to have these opps.

And why should experts have more luck then you or me?

For whom is interested by the question it is possible to write a program which reads the 55 IMP Tournaments boards stored in "Myhands", and lists the players's names and their results in a text file.
Excel can read the text file and compute, for instance, the average IMP of each player.
The same can be done with the 62 MP Tournaments.

Erkson

PS : Don't ask for conclusions

[Cave_Draco]

Quote

Play a team match. Almost no luck there.
Play several. No luck at all

As in "No luck in Chess?"

Only one game I know with no luck element, it isn't Chess, ;D.

Teams is good, but you have to judge what your other pair will do/are doing! Can be a guess?