[W Kovacs]

Scoring: IMP

P-P-1♠-2♠
AP

---

I was dealt this "gem" just a bit ago, and I made what I thought was a reasonable Micheals Cuebid. Imagine my surprise when my partner, listed as an intermediate player, passes.

The ops didn't double (mercifully), and despite the 2-1 spade fit I only went down 2.

Now, I have played a lot of different conventions, and I don't expect everyone to know everything, but isn't Michaels one of those standardish conventions? Especially for an intermediate player.

If Michaels isn't something I can expect someone to know, what conventions CAN I assume a partner knows, preferably broken down by skill level.

[jjbrr]

this is not a reasonable Michaels Cuebid r/w opposite a passed partner. In fact, it's pretty sick.

On the other hand, your bid showed, to most people, ♥ and a minor. Your partner just happened to be hopeless.

Edit. He changed the vulnerability. it's still not reasonable.

This post has been edited by jjbrr: 2010-August-19, 15:57

[vuroth]

A bit confused as to whether OP is vuln or not. But yeah, whatever people think of your 2♠, partner's pass is probably much worse.

[jillybean]

W Kovacs, on Aug 19 2010, 11:26 AM, said:

If Michaels isn't something I can expect someone to know, what conventions CAN I assume a partner knows, preferably broken down by skill level.

Don't assume anything, especially opposite experts. Build up a friends list and play with people you know otherwise expect this sort of thing to happen on a fairly regular basis.

[W Kovacs]

jillybean, on Aug 19 2010, 02:46 PM, said:

Don't assume anything, especially opposite experts. Build up a friends list and play with people you know otherwise expect this sort of thing to happen on a fairly regular basis.

Great. My 1 hour a day is going to make finding friends a bit difficult. I'll learn to take my lumps.

vuroth said:

A bit confused as to whether OP is vuln or not. But yeah, whatever people think of your 2♠, partner's pass is probably much worse.

We were white, opponents were red. I was more worried about opponents finding a vulnerable spade game (they were short a HCP or three, but had a 10-card fit, though I didn't know it at the time), which is why I trotted out the Michaels in the first place. At even or unfavorable vul, there's no way I compete (well, maybe at even; I've been known to bid aggressively).

You know what, I wrote the first post wrong. I'll fix that now.

[neilkaz]

Yes I would think Michaels is standard if playing with a North American partner. Anyhow, I can't imagine pard with a hand with 2♠ that somehow was good enough for you to take 6 tricks in you're 2-1 fit, passing. My guess is that pard had an opening bid or the defence was awful.

Here's my advice after playing many hours in MBC when it comes to playing with pickups and finding new pds. If my advice and lack of political correctness offends anyone, I appologize in advance.

1) I make notes under the profile of almost anyone who sits at my table or whom I watch. This is to both make sure that I don't sit opposite someone clueless and also to make sure that when I have a good game with a regular partner, that our opps aren't clueless. I also note the treatments and conventions I play with semi-regular pds that they don't list in their profile. I probably have notes on a couple thousand players and often it might be simply "Adv-". Of course my perception may not be spot on, but someone who passes three times vulnerable opposite a passed partner and then bids 5♣ over the opps 4M and goes for 1400 isn't going to get too good of a rating from me.

2) Don't partner anyone at your level, int/adv who can't bother to at least mention somewhat of what they play in their profile. No profile= no play for me, since many of these players aren't serious and have not a clue how to bid better than novices.

3) If the no profile player sits opposite you and you can't get agreement with what you are playing don't stick around and wait for the bidding disaster, just leave after the hand and find another table. Of course, you can always assume SAYC and standard crading in a pinch.

4) When you find a compatable player who also can play the cards decently, mark them as a friend, or better yet, thank them and ask them if you may mark them as a friend and if they say yes, suggest that they mark you. Soon you should be able to find a few players to play with during your time frame, and if all are busy and you can't find a game, just watch.

5) Work on your declarer play about 30 minutes a day when you have time. You should be able to managed a cross ruff, time things and manage entries to set up long suits, and do basic endplays. Once your declarer play improves and your bidding experience returns, change to advanced self rating and see how that goes playing with similar. If you're making the most mistakes at the table and players are leaving you complaining, you'll have to work on your game more and go back to intermediate.

6) Don't continue to play once you get tired. As you play only an hour a day, this won't often be an issue. For me, I stop very quickly when I tire since my defence becomes AWFUL.

.. neilkaz ..

[W Kovacs]

neilkaz, on Aug 19 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

Anyhow, I can't imagine pard with a hand with 2♠ that somehow was good enough for you to take 6 tricks in you're 2-1 fit, passing. My guess is that pard had an opening bid or the defence was awful.

Yeah, that surprised me too. Here was partner's hand:

---

Ops helped by leading the Q♦ on opening lead. We took AK♣, a ♣ ruff, A♥, A♦ and the J♦ on trick 13.

neilkaz, on Aug 19 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

5) Work on your declarer play about 30 minutes a day when you have time. You should be able to managed a cross ruff, time things and manage entries to set up long suits, and do basic endplays. Once your declarer play improves and your bidding experience returns, change to advanced self rating and see how that goes playing with similar. If you're making the most mistakes at the table and players are leaving you complaining, you'll have to work on your game more and go back to intermediate.

Thanks for your advice. With the exception of endplays (which I rarely actively think about) I do all of that. Right now I just have to remind myself how to play standard. I've been playing Precision the past two years, and Acol before that. It's hard switching back.

[Gerben42]

And here's me thinking that's Kathryn's partner hand

Apparently this hand is white on red, and in that light it's borderline acceptable to bid 2♠ in my view. Red on white it would be suicidal, though.

Michael's after a major suit opening is pretty standard, but I've seen many meanings for 2m over a 1m opening bid. My observations:

* Americans tend to have both majors for this, some would even bid it on 5-4 (sorry can't get used to that)
* French seem to use 2♦ as cuebid even if the opening suit was ♣
* Some European players use the cuebid as ♠ + other

[helene_t]

Agree with everything Neilkaz says except that I don't think it's necessarily an off-putter if some doesn't list a system on his profile. Some are just flexible and happy to play w/e partner wants. Ask your pick-up partner what he plays and yes, if he doesn't answer then find another table.

Yes, Michaels is what most would assume undiscussed. Your partner was either hopeless or had a blackout.

[el mister]

W Kovacs, on Aug 19 2010, 04:56 PM, said:

neilkaz, on Aug 19 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

Anyhow, I can't imagine pard with a hand with 2♠ that somehow was good enough for you to take 6 tricks in you're 2-1 fit, passing. My guess is that pard had an opening bid or the defence was awful.

Yeah, that surprised me too. Here was partner's hand:

---

Ops helped by leading the Q♦ on opening lead. We took AK♣, a ♣ ruff, A♥, A♦ and the J♦ on trick 13.

neilkaz, on Aug 19 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

5) Work on your declarer play about 30 minutes a day when you have time. You should be able to managed a cross ruff, time things and manage entries to set up long suits, and do basic endplays. Once your declarer play improves and your bidding experience returns, change to advanced self rating and see how that goes playing with similar. If you're making the most mistakes at the table and players are leaving you complaining, you'll have to work on your game more and go back to intermediate.

Thanks for your advice. With the exception of endplays (which I rarely actively think about) I do all of that. Right now I just have to remind myself how to play standard. I've been playing Precision the past two years, and Acol before that. It's hard switching back.

You could try the Acol room on BBO - it's probably the best public club on BBO in terms of behaviour. There will be 20-30 tables a night, everyone is courteous, there's hardly ever any juvenile behaviour / bridge and you can settle down and play a good hour's worth without having to deal with dickheads.

The standard is probably fairly average overall, but there's still some good players in there who you can quickly identify (self-ratings are pretty accurate in the Acol room) if you want a more serious game. Maybe something to check out at least until you learn the ropes of BBO.

The time diff might be a problem, though - I imagine it'll be sparsely populated in the wee hours GMT.

[Little Kid]

I would suggest looking at someone's profile instead of their listed skill level, it is usually a better indicator of what they play and how well. If they list conventions like Gerber, Jacoby transfers, Splinter, Stayman and Blackwood; chances are they don't know many other conventions and are not very strong. A regular intermediate player would probably list some of the following in their profile: 2/1-SAYC, NT defence, carding and leads, nmf/2wcb, 1403/0314, Jacoby 2NT, drury/rev. drury, 4-way xfer... If I see these conventions I'd assume the player opposite me also plays Michaels.

If you host a table try locking seats so that you can 1) find compatible players and 2) avoid some people joining who only play until they get one bad result and then leave.

Oh an Pass of 2♠ is pretty insane

[billw55]

W Kovacs, on Aug 19 2010, 01:26 PM, said:

isn't Michaels one of those standardish conventions?  Especially for an intermediate player

In my experience, "intermediate" on BBO is code for "bad". Almost without exception. These seem to be the players who style themselves as non-novices, but who are still so unskilled that they cannot bring themselves to self-rate as advanced, even in the context of grossly inflated BBO ratings.

In fact, I think you are more likely to find a competent (but humble) player with a self-rank of novice or beginner. They can hardly be worse than the intermediates anyway, so there isn't much to lose.

[W Kovacs]

All of this became moot (for the most part) this weekend. My f2f partner is joining BBO, so I won't have to worry about a pick-up partner.

Except when my regular partner is unavailable, of course.

Thanks for all the advice. I'll keep it in my back pocket.

[Zelandakh]

billw55, on Aug 23 2010, 03:16 AM, said:

In my experience, "intermediate" on BBO is code for "bad". Almost without exception. These seem to be the players who style themselves as non-novices, but who are still so unskilled that they cannot bring themselves to self-rate as advanced, even in the context of grossly inflated BBO ratings.

and

Once your declarer play improves and your bidding experience returns, change to advanced self rating and see how that goes playing with similar.

These 2 posts are a good indicator of why self-ratings are so ridiculous on BBO. You should only rate yourself as 'Advanced' when you are having "consistent success in tournaments". If you do not enter tournaments, or if you are only winning them occasionally, then you are by definition Intermediate. Your rating is not what about how good you think you are, it is about what level of success you have had in actual play in your local (or national for expert) area.

You might regard Intermediate as "bad" Bill but personally I see most intermediates as being truthful and the majority of Advanced and Expert ratings as being totally bogus. If I want to get an independent idea of someone's ability then I typically look at the monthly average of bridge hands - anyone who is genuinely advanced will be at least +0.5imps/bd up on random tables. If they play in a country with a high standard (USA, Poland, Italy, etc) then this figure is likely to be higher, while you can obviously adjust downwards if they play against better opps.

A quick look at Bill's current record says +0.19imps/bd. I don't recognise the opps but it does not fill me with shock and awe that the person declaring all intermediates are bad is not himself an intermediate with a jumped up ego. Again, this is the problem with self-rating on BBO...

[mgoetze]

billw55, on Aug 23 2010, 04:16 AM, said:

In my experience, "intermediate" on BBO is code for "bad". Almost without exception. These seem to be the players who style themselves as non-novices, but who are still so unskilled that they cannot bring themselves to self-rate as advanced, even in the context of grossly inflated BBO ratings.

In fact, I think you are more likely to find a competent (but humble) player with a self-rank of novice or beginner. They can hardly be worse than the intermediates anyway, so there isn't much to lose.

Yeah, great attitude there. It's people like you who force intermediates like me to self-rate as advanced...

[billw55]

mgoetze, on Aug 28 2010, 05:15 AM, said:

Yeah, great attitude there. It's people like you who force intermediates like me to self-rate as advanced...

Nonsense. It is the weak players who declare as intermediates that cause it. The fact that I have stated the problem is irrelevant.

Furthermore, even if everyone were honest and objective in their self-rating, I think an extra choice is needed between novice and intermediate. Perhaps "casual". Then maybe intermediate could take on its real meaning.

Quote

A quick look at Bill's current record says +0.19imps/bd. I don't recognise the opps but it does not fill me with shock and awe that the person declaring all intermediates are bad is not himself an intermediate with a jumped up ego. Again, this is the problem with self-rating on BBO...

How rude!

Even so .. I have previously stated, and do so again, that in RL I definitely fit the description of intermediate. However, in the context of BBO, advanced is much more accurate. In fact, if I were really trying my best to match up with BBO players self-ratings, I would probably have to go expert. However this would be such a gross distortion of my RL play that I can't bring myself to do it.

A couple of the latest funny things done by "advanced" partners:

(LINK EDITED BY ADMINSTRATOR)

2♦ rebid lol.

(http://tinyurl.com/34ohgwm-- note, it is a violation of the rules of this site to try to humilate bbo members and posting such a link makes it clear who is the "fool" who did the wrong thing. Posting names or links creates problems)

hilarious opening lead.

The bottom line is, playing with random partners is a crapshoot.

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2010-August-30, 10:15

[jillybean]

billw55 , you say you are an intermediate player but on BBO you rate yourself as advanced and could even rate yourself as expert "if I were really trying my best to match up with BBO players self-ratings". I think you are comparing yourself with the wrong BBO 'experts', rate yourself against some true experts instead.

I doubt that your statement "It is the weak players who declare as intermediates that cause it" is accurate. Over rating occurs accross all levels and
imo is a result of over inflated ego's or ignorance.

Having said all that, the only way to gauge a players skill level is to kibitz or play with the person. Forget about 'skill level' .

[billw55]

jillybean, on Aug 30 2010, 08:27 AM, said:

billw55 , you say you are an intermediate player but on BBO you rate yourself as advanced and could even rate yourself as expert "if I were really trying my best to match up with BBO players self-ratings".  I think you are comparing yourself with the wrong BBO 'experts', rate yourself against some true experts instead.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but yes, that's exactly what I meant. I certainly cannot compare to real experts. But BBO experts? That's a different story. I have seen quite a few that are below my level. Anyone who has played much on BBO has observed this.

Quote

I doubt that your statement "It is the weak players who declare as intermediates that cause it" is accurate. Over rating occurs accross all levels and
imo is a result of over inflated ego's or ignorance.

I was speaking about the intermediate group specifically, but of course yes it happens across levels.

As for the "inflated ego" - I'm not sure if you are indirectly accusing me of such. I am sure that Zelandakh directly did. My point is: I don't self-rate as advanced out of ego. I do it to be accurate in context, and to facilitate pairing up with players near my level. It still doesn't always work of course. But it works more often.

Quote

Having said all that, the only way to gauge a players skill level is to kibitz or play with the person. Forget about 'skill level' .

Quoted for truth.

[mgoetze]

billw55, on Aug 30 2010, 04:26 PM, said:

As for the "inflated ego" - I'm not sure if you are indirectly accusing me of such.  I am sure that mgoetze directly did.

And here I was thinking I was just saying that you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Why would any real intermediates put intermediate on their profile if it only leads to other intermediates such as yourself (which I only call you since you admitted it, I have never seen you play) refusing to play with them?

[billw55]

mgoetze, on Aug 30 2010, 10:47 AM, said:

billw55, on Aug 30 2010, 04:26 PM, said:

As for the "inflated ego" - I'm not sure if you are indirectly accusing me of such.  I am sure that mgoetze directly did.

And here I was thinking I was just saying that you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Why would any real intermediates put intermediate on their profile if it only leads to other intermediates such as yourself (which I only call you since you admitted it, I have never seen you play) refusing to play with them?

Exactly. They wouldn't.

I guess I could take the high road, label myself accurately per the definitions, then have a terrible time getting a good game, and as a result rarely play on BBO. Instead I choose to be practical and adopt a method that works. In fairness, I suppose saying that I am part of the problem is true in a way. But I prefer to do what works for me.

Quote

And here I was thinking I was just saying that you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Ack, my apologies, I misread who said what. I meant Zelandakh, and I have fixed it my post above. I'm such a novice forum poster