Help
CATEGORIES DE COMPETENCE SUR BBO
Le but de définir des catégories de compétence chez BBO est de permettre à un joueur de trouver des partenaires et adversaires qui ont, en gros, le même niveau. La prémisse est que l’on tire ainsi plus de plaisir des parties qu’on va jouer, y compris en apprenant de ceux qui sont un peu plus forts tout en ne pas s’ennuyant avec ceux qui sont un peu plus faibles.
80% des utilisateurs de BBO se classent dans les catégories Intermédiaire et Avancé. Ces catégories sont trop hétérogènes pour réellement favoriser le but recherché. On peut facilement s’asseoir à une table d’Intermédiaires et s’y ennuyer parce que les autres joueurs sont manifestement soit trop forts soit trop faibles. De même pour une table d’Avancés.
Une façon d’améliorer la situation serait de diviser chacune de ces catégories en deux :
• Au lieu de la seule catégorie Intermédiaire on aurait “Basique” et “Intermédiaire”
• Au lieu de la seule catégorie Avancé on aurait “Avancé” et “Avancé +”
Sans doute serait-il aussi nécessaire de donner quelques indications quant à la définition des 2 nouvelles catégories. Voici quelques pistes :
Un joueur est de niveau Basique s’il satisfait à plusieurs de ces critères :
• En tant que déclarant, ne planifie que rarement l’exécution d’un contrat (par comparaison, un Intermédiaire est à même d’élaborer un plan de jeu dans environ 1/3 des donnes). Base son jeu sur, essentiellement, trois techniques : défilement des longues affranchies, encaissement des As et Rois et impasses. Utilise les atouts de la main courte pour faire des coupes – pourvu qu’il en reste après avoir épuisé ceux des flancs. Est souvent tenté de faire des levées en coupant de la main longue
• En défense, connaît les principes-adages “entamer 4ème meilleure à SA / pair-impair à l’atout” “retourner la couleur du partenaire” et “faire un appel avec une grosse”. N’enregistre néanmoins que rarement les cartes que le partenaire joue. N’essaie jamais de reconstruire la main du déclarant
• Connaît dans les grandes lignes un système d’enchères, pas forcément le dernier “standard”. Ne pratique pas d’enchères artificielles à part éventuellement Stayman, Texas Majeures, une (ou deux) ouverture(s) forte(s) à 2T (et 2K) et 4SA demande d’As. S’essaie parfois à la pratique du “2 faible”. Est très à cheval sur le nombre de points requis pour ouvrir, beaucoup moins pour répondre
• Dans ses connaissances, beaucoup d’incertitudes persistent quant à la signification (valeur / distribution / forcing, pas forcing) de bon nombre de séquences d’enchères (tant en attaque qu’en défense ou en réaction à des interventions). Il arrive que les suites à donner aux enchères artificielles ou conventionnelles soient peu ou pas connues
• Pratique un Bridge de “sociabilité”, où la notion de compétition n’a pas de rôle important. N’est pas forcément intéressé par améliorer son Bridge. Ne lit jamais rien sur le Bridge (ou alors il y a longtemps)
• Sans que cela ne soit un critère définissant, est en général une personne d’une grande sympathie, faisant preuve de beaucoup de convivialité
Un joueur de niveau Avancé + satisfait à plusieurs de ces critères :
• A une connaissance et une compréhension claire du maniement de toutes les combinaisons de cartes les plus fréquentes, dans les deux modes possibles : maximisation de résultat ou sécurité.
• Connaît les probabilités des distributions des cartes manquantes dans une couleur. Sait calculer approximativement celles qu’il ne connaît pas par coeur ou celles impliquant plusieurs couleurs. Connaît et applique la théorie des Places Vacantes.
• A une connaissance approfondie d’au moins 5 types de plans de jeu (avec variantes).
• En tant que déclarant, réussi à élaborer rapidement un plan de jeu dans la presque totalité des donnes avant de toucher la première carte du mort. En même temps, pose les premières hypothèses sur la distribution la plus probable des cartes et des forces en flanc.
• A une connaissance et compréhension profonde d’au moins une trentaine de techniques de mise en oeuvre d’un plan de jeu (laisser-passer, flanc dangereux/non-dangereux, coups à blanc, coupe de communications, perdante-sur-perdante, transferts de coupe, impasse-ou-expasse, buffalos, impasses intérieures, …, jusqu’aux Manoeuvres de Guillemard, Contre-temps, Baisers à la Reine, Morton Forks, Coups de Ciseaux, etc., etc., etc.).
• Fait preuve d’ingéniosité, parfois remarquable, dans la mise en oeuvre du plan de jeu, y compris en fonction des éléments nouveaux glanés en cours de donne. Cherche systématiquement des solutions qui combinent plusieurs chances. A une tendance très marquée à ne pas faire d’impasses – du moins à ne faire que celles qui gagnent et à tout mettre en oeuvre pour éviter celles qui pourraient rater.
• A une connaissance pratique d’un certain nombre de fins de coup classiques, à commencer par les 5 types de squeeze simple (y compris avec mise en main) et du type le plus simple du double squeeze.
• Que ce soit en flanc ou en tant que déclarant, fait preuve d’une discipline stricte de reconstruction des mains cachées le plus tôt possible, d’abord et avant tout à partir d’une interprétation correcte des enchères faites et non faites, ensuite des cartes jouées et non jouées, y compris à l’entame. Sait que “longue-attire-courte / courte-attire-longue” et connaît le principe du Choix Restreint. La discipline est aidée par une intuition certaine provenant d’une longue pratique à table. Fait preuve d’un solide raisonnement logique, fait une bonne exploitation des conclusions tirées faisant preuve parfois d’une grande ingéniosité.
• A un jeu en défense basé sur des principes théoriques sains, à commencer par l’entame (a une tendance certaine à faire la bonne entame tant théorique que pratique). A la connaissance tant théorique que pratique d’au moins un système de signalisation riche et précis. Fait une interprétation correcte de chaque carte jouée par le partenaire, fut-elle un ‘x’. Assimile rapidement et exploite de façon logique et ingénieuse les renseignements glanés en cours de donne (construction et exécution du plan de jeu en flanc).
• A une connaissance et compréhension claire des principales techniques de jeu en flanc (quand monter ou ne pas monter sur un honneur, quand insérer un honneur en second, quand prendre ‘dans le vide’, quand entreprendre de raccourcir ou ne pas raccourcir le déclarant à l’atout (en particulier quand un des flancs en possède 4 d’opposition), …, jusqu’aux techniques d’étouffement des longues du mort (ou du déclarant), Coup de Merrimac, Coup de Deschapelles, etc., etc., etc.
• A une connaissance très approfondie, théorique ET pratique d’au moins un – c’est un strict minimum – système d’enchères. Tous les chapitres : attaque, défense et compétitives. Au sein d’un système peut jouer plusieurs variantes/options des conventions les plus usitées (Double Deux au lieu de Roudi, Ghestem ou Copenhague au lieu de Michaels, Puppet ou Romex au lieu de Stayman, Cappelletti, DONT ou MultLandy au lieu de Landy, Lebensohl au lieu de Rubensohl, Cachalot au lieu de Spoutniks, etc. etc. etc.)
• Fait preuve d’un jugement très sain en matière d’évaluation d’une main (utilisation de nombreux critères et facteurs en plus des “points”), y compris en fonction du déroulement des enchères
• A un jugement très sain, théorique ET pratique lors de séquences d’enchères compétitives. En particulier, a une connaissance en profondeur de la Loi des Levées Totales et de toutes ses implications.
• A une ‘culture bridgesque’ d’une certaine ampleur, provenant de lectures régulières de livres et articles tant classiques que récents.
• Fait preuve d’une capacité à ‘plonger’ mentalement dans une partie de Bridge et à rester complètement ‘focalisé’ pendant un long laps de temps.
• Et, last but not least, dans l’application pratique de tout ceci, a un taux d’erreur, d’inattentions et d’oublis relativement bas – oui, un joueur Avancé + fait des erreurs, parfois même des erreurs ‘abominables’ … mais rarement. (Sinon il serait Expert. Enfin, presque, car un Expert en connaît beaucoup plus que ce qui vient d’être énoncé, je suppose)
Un test pratique auquel pourraient se soumettre les joueurs prétendant à la catégorie Avancé + pourrait être de prendre toutes les donnes des 6 livres Pas à Pas de Berthe et Lébely et les résoudre toutes (donnes explicatives et problèmes) sans commettre plus de 20 erreurs. Ceci est un bon test car ces livres ont été écrits avec des joueurs “Intermédiaires / Avancés” comme cible, pas des Experts.
Un test équivalent pourrait utiliser le livre de J.-P. Meyer et E. Conti “Du non-classé à l’expert” avec un critère de réussite similaire. Ou le livre de Frank Stewart “Votre Jeu de la Carte au Banc d’Essai”. Ou encore les 4 premiers niveaux de la série de Fred Gitelman “Bridge Master”. Pour le raisonnement logique on peut ajouter, parmi tant d’autres, “Bridge Magique : Bridge Logique” de Pierre Saporta
NOTES FINALES
Les catégories Débutant et Novice ne sont pas des catégories de compétence. Elles sont définies par référence au temps depuis lequel on joue au Bridge. Si on joue au Bridge depuis 10 ans on n’est sûrement plus un Débutant ou un Novice. Mais il se peut qu’on ne soit pas (encore) Intermédiaire pour autant.
Un effet pernicieux d’avoir introduit dans la hiérarchie des niveaux liés au temps est que certains utilisateurs croient que les niveaux de compétence s’acquièrent “à l’ancienneté” : après 2 ans de Bridge on est Intermédiaire, après 5 ans Avancé, après 10 ans Expert. C’est évidemment faux : on peut rester toute sa vie, si tel est son désir, dans le même niveau de compétence – et trouver du plaisir à jouer au Bridge si on trouve des partenaires et adversaires de même niveau. On peut aussi gravir les échelons plus ou moins vite, en fonction du talent certes, mais aussi des efforts d’étude et apprentissage qu’on est prêt, ou pas prêt, à faire.
Les catégories Intermédiaire et Avancé sont très hétérogènes. Cet article suggère une façon d’améliorer cela.
La catégorie Expert est relativement homogène, du moins chez les vrais Experts (vrai Expert = joue, ou pourrait jouer, en Division Nationale 3 au moins).
Le phénomène ‘faux Expert’ existe bien sûr. Il y a des faux Experts et des vraiment faux Experts :
⁃ Un faux Expert est généralement un habile joueur des cartes mais un piètre connaisseur du Bridge (ne lit jamais), en particulier un piètre enchérisseur (ne connaît que très superficiellement un système d’enchères avec lequel il commet, en sus, des erreurs abominables). Les faux Experts sont vite mis au ban par les vrais Experts. On les retrouve alors aux tables d’Avancés chez qui ils ont l’espoir de marquer quelques IMPs grâce à leur jeu de la carte tout en les abreuvant d’insultes.
⁃ Un vraiment faux Expert n’a, par rapport à un simple faux Expert, même pas une exceptionnelle technique de jeu de la carte. Ceux-ci corrigent souvent le tir d’eux-mêmes après quelques expériences malheureuses en tant qu’“Expert”.
La catégorie World Class présente aussi un certain niveau d’hétérogénéité mais elle ne concerne qu’un petit nombre d’utilisateurs.
Les maux et remèdes identifiés dans cet article proviennent d’une observation des pratiques d’un groupe particulier d’utilisateurs de BBO : les “SEF”. Ils pourraient se révéler moins pertinents par rapport à d’autres groupes.
Si vous partagez le sentiment qu’il faut améliorer la hiérarchie des catégories de compétence sur BBO écrivez-leur en ce sens.
Page 1 of 1
Catégories de Compétence sur BBO
#2
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,594
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2017-June-03, 12:17
I've used translate.google.com.
CATEGORIES OF COMPETENCE ON BBO
The goal of defining skill categories at BBO is to allow a player to find partners and opponents who have roughly the same level. The premise is that one gets more pleasure from the parts one is going to play, including learning from those who are a little stronger while not getting bored with those who are a little weaker.
80% of BBO users are in the Intermediate and Advanced categories. These categories are too heterogeneous to really promote the desired goal. One can easily sit at an Intermediaries table and get bored because the other players are obviously either too strong or too weak. Similarly for a table of Advanced.
One way to improve the situation would be to divide each of these categories into two:
• Instead of the single category Intermediate one would have "Basic" and "Intermediate"
• Instead of the only Advanced category we would have "Advanced" and "Advanced +"
It would doubtless be necessary to give some indication as to the definition of the 2 new categories. Here are some ideas:
A player is Basic if he meets several of these criteria:
• As a declarant, rarely plans a contract (by comparison, an Intermediary can develop a game plan in about 1/3 of the data). Base his game on, essentially, three techniques: scrolling long franked, cashing Aces and Kings and dead ends. Use short hand tricks to make cuts - as long as it remains after exhausting those of the flanks. Is often tempted to make levies by cutting the long hand
• In defense, knows the principles-adages "start 4th best at SA / even-odd to the trump" "return the color of the partner" and "make a call with a big". Nevertheless rarely records the cards that the partner plays. Never try to rebuild the hand of the declarant
• Maintains an auction system, not necessarily the last "standard". Do not practice artificial auctions except possibly Stayman, Texas Major, one (or two) strong opening (s) at 2T (and 2K) and 4SA asks. Sometimes try to practice the "2 weak". Is very riding on the number of points required to open, much less to meet
• In his / her knowledge, many uncertainties persist regarding the significance (value / distribution / forcing, not forcing) of many auction sequences (in attack, defense or reaction to interventions). There may be little or no known follow-up to artificial or conventional auctions
• Practice a bridge of "sociability", where the notion of competition has no important role. Not necessarily interested in improving his Bridge. Never reads anything on the Bridge (or so long ago)
• Although this is not a defining criterion, is generally a person of great sympathy, showing a lot of conviviality
An advanced player + meets several of these criteria:
• A clear knowledge and understanding of the handling of all the most common card combinations, in both possible modes: result maximization or security.
• Knows the probabilities of distributing missing cards in a color. He can calculate approximately those he does not know by heart or those involving several colors. Know and apply the Vacant Places theory.
• A thorough knowledge of at least 5 types of game plans (with variants).
• As a declarant, managed to quickly develop a game plan in almost all of the data before touching the deceased's first card. At the same time, it poses the first hypotheses on the most probable distribution of maps and flank forces.
• A profound knowledge and understanding of at least thirty techniques for implementing a game plan (pass, dangerous / non-hazardous flank, clear-cut, communication cut, loser-over-losing , Transfers of cut, dead-end, buffalos, inner impasses, ..., up to Guillemard's Maneuvers, Counter-time, Kisses to the Queen, Morton Forks, Scissors, etc. etc.) .
• Demonstrates ingenuity, sometimes remarkable, in the implementation of the game plan, including the new elements gleaned during the game. Systematically searches for solutions that combine several chances. Has a strong tendency not to make dead ends - at least to make only those who win and to do everything possible to avoid those who could miss.
• A working knowledge of a number of standard end strokes, starting with the 5 types of simple squeeze (including with handwriting) and the simplest type of double squeeze.
• Whether in flank or as a declarant, demonstrates a strict discipline of hidden hand reconstruction as soon as possible, first and foremost from a correct interpretation of the bids made and not made, then Played and unplayed cards, including at the start. Knows that "long-draws-short / short-draws-long" and knows the Principle of Restricted Choice. Discipline is assisted by a certain intuition from a long practice at the table. Demonstrates sound logical reasoning, makes good use of conclusions drawn sometimes showing great ingenuity.
• A defensive game based on sound theoretical principles, starting with the start (has a certain tendency to make good start both theoretical and practical). To both theoretical and practical knowledge of at least one rich and precise signaling system. Makes a correct interpretation of each card played by the partner, was it an 'x'. Quickly assimilates logically and ingeniously the information gleaned in the course of giving (construction and execution of the flank game plan).
• A clear knowledge and understanding of the main flanking techniques (when to go up or not on an honor, when to insert a second honor, when to take 'in a vacuum', when to undertake to shorten or shorten the declarant To the asset (especially when one of the flanks possesses 4 of opposition), ..., up to the techniques of choking the long ones of the dead (or declarant), Coup de Merrimac, Coup de Deschapelles, etc., etc. .
• Has very thorough, theoretical AND practical knowledge of at least one - this is a bare minimum - bidding system. All chapters: attack, defense and competitive. Within a system can play several variants / options of the most common conventions (Double Two instead of Roudi, Ghestem or Copenhagen instead of Michaels, Puppet or Romex instead of Stayman, Cappelletti, Dont or MultLandy instead of Landy , Lebensohl instead of Rubensohl, Cachalot instead of Spoutniks, etc. etc. etc.)
• Demonstrates a very sound judgment in the evaluation of a hand (use of many criteria and factors in addition to "points"), including depending on the conduct of the auction
• Has a very sound, theoretical AND practical judgment in competitive auction sequences. In particular, has an in-depth knowledge of the Law of the Total Surveys and all its implications.
• A 'bridgesque culture' of a certain magnitude, arising from regular readings of both classic and recent books and articles.
• Demonstrates ability to "dive" mentally into a part of Bridge and remain completely 'focused' for a long time.
• And, last but not least, in the practical application of all this, has a relatively low error rate, inattentions and oversights - yes, an advanced player + makes mistakes, sometimes even 'abominable errors '... but rarely. (Otherwise, he would be an Expert.) Finally, almost, for an Expert knows much more than what has just been stated, I suppose)
A practical test to which the players claiming to the category Advanced + could be to take all the data of the 6 books Step by step of Berthe and Lébely and to solve them all (explanatory data and problems) without committing more than 20 errors. This is a good test as these books were written with "Intermediate / Advanced" players as a target, not Experts.
An equivalent test could use the book by J.-P. Meyer and E. Conti "From the non-ranked to the expert" with a similar success criterion. Or Frank Stewart's book "Your Card Game at the Test Bench". Or the first 4 levels of the Fred Gitelman series "Bridge Master". For logical reasoning we can add, among many others, "Bridge Magique: Bridge Logique" by Pierre Saporta
FINAL NOTES
Beginner and Novice categories are not skill categories. They are defined by reference to the time from which the Bridge is played. If you play the Bridge for 10 years you are no longer a Beginner or a Novice. But it is possible that we are not (yet) Intermediate for all that.
A pernicious effect of having introduced time-related levels in the hierarchy is that some users believe that levels of competence are acquired at "seniority": after 2 years of Bridge one is Intermediate, after 5 years Advanced, after 10 years Expert. It is obviously false: one can stay all his life, if it is his desire, in the same skill level - and find pleasure in playing Bridge if one finds partners and opponents of the same level. We can also climb the ladder more or less rapidly, depending on talent, but also on the learning and study efforts we are ready, or not ready to do.
The Intermediate and Advanced categories are very heterogeneous. This article suggests a way to improve this.
The Expert category is relatively homogeneous, at least in real Experts (true Expert = plays, or could play, in National Division 3 at least).
The phenomenon 'false Expert' exists of course. There are false Experts and truly false Experts:
⁃ A fake Expert is usually a skilled card player but a poor connoisseur of the Bridge (never reads), especially a poor bidder (knows only very superficially a system of auctions with which he commits, in addition, abominable errors ). The false Experts are quickly put out by the real Experts. They are then found at the tables of Advances in which they have the hope of marking some IMPs thanks to their game of the card while they watering them with insults.
⁃ A really fake Expert has, compared to a simple fake Expert, not even an exceptional technique of playing the card. These often correct the shooting of themselves after some unfortunate experiences as an "Expert".
The World Class category also has a certain level of heterogeneity, but it concerns only a small number of users.
The ailments and remedies identified in this article come from observing the practices of a particular group of BBO users: the "SEF". They may be less relevant to other groups.
If you share the feeling that you need to improve the hierarchy of competencies on BBO, write to them.
CATEGORIES OF COMPETENCE ON BBO
The goal of defining skill categories at BBO is to allow a player to find partners and opponents who have roughly the same level. The premise is that one gets more pleasure from the parts one is going to play, including learning from those who are a little stronger while not getting bored with those who are a little weaker.
80% of BBO users are in the Intermediate and Advanced categories. These categories are too heterogeneous to really promote the desired goal. One can easily sit at an Intermediaries table and get bored because the other players are obviously either too strong or too weak. Similarly for a table of Advanced.
One way to improve the situation would be to divide each of these categories into two:
• Instead of the single category Intermediate one would have "Basic" and "Intermediate"
• Instead of the only Advanced category we would have "Advanced" and "Advanced +"
It would doubtless be necessary to give some indication as to the definition of the 2 new categories. Here are some ideas:
A player is Basic if he meets several of these criteria:
• As a declarant, rarely plans a contract (by comparison, an Intermediary can develop a game plan in about 1/3 of the data). Base his game on, essentially, three techniques: scrolling long franked, cashing Aces and Kings and dead ends. Use short hand tricks to make cuts - as long as it remains after exhausting those of the flanks. Is often tempted to make levies by cutting the long hand
• In defense, knows the principles-adages "start 4th best at SA / even-odd to the trump" "return the color of the partner" and "make a call with a big". Nevertheless rarely records the cards that the partner plays. Never try to rebuild the hand of the declarant
• Maintains an auction system, not necessarily the last "standard". Do not practice artificial auctions except possibly Stayman, Texas Major, one (or two) strong opening (s) at 2T (and 2K) and 4SA asks. Sometimes try to practice the "2 weak". Is very riding on the number of points required to open, much less to meet
• In his / her knowledge, many uncertainties persist regarding the significance (value / distribution / forcing, not forcing) of many auction sequences (in attack, defense or reaction to interventions). There may be little or no known follow-up to artificial or conventional auctions
• Practice a bridge of "sociability", where the notion of competition has no important role. Not necessarily interested in improving his Bridge. Never reads anything on the Bridge (or so long ago)
• Although this is not a defining criterion, is generally a person of great sympathy, showing a lot of conviviality
An advanced player + meets several of these criteria:
• A clear knowledge and understanding of the handling of all the most common card combinations, in both possible modes: result maximization or security.
• Knows the probabilities of distributing missing cards in a color. He can calculate approximately those he does not know by heart or those involving several colors. Know and apply the Vacant Places theory.
• A thorough knowledge of at least 5 types of game plans (with variants).
• As a declarant, managed to quickly develop a game plan in almost all of the data before touching the deceased's first card. At the same time, it poses the first hypotheses on the most probable distribution of maps and flank forces.
• A profound knowledge and understanding of at least thirty techniques for implementing a game plan (pass, dangerous / non-hazardous flank, clear-cut, communication cut, loser-over-losing , Transfers of cut, dead-end, buffalos, inner impasses, ..., up to Guillemard's Maneuvers, Counter-time, Kisses to the Queen, Morton Forks, Scissors, etc. etc.) .
• Demonstrates ingenuity, sometimes remarkable, in the implementation of the game plan, including the new elements gleaned during the game. Systematically searches for solutions that combine several chances. Has a strong tendency not to make dead ends - at least to make only those who win and to do everything possible to avoid those who could miss.
• A working knowledge of a number of standard end strokes, starting with the 5 types of simple squeeze (including with handwriting) and the simplest type of double squeeze.
• Whether in flank or as a declarant, demonstrates a strict discipline of hidden hand reconstruction as soon as possible, first and foremost from a correct interpretation of the bids made and not made, then Played and unplayed cards, including at the start. Knows that "long-draws-short / short-draws-long" and knows the Principle of Restricted Choice. Discipline is assisted by a certain intuition from a long practice at the table. Demonstrates sound logical reasoning, makes good use of conclusions drawn sometimes showing great ingenuity.
• A defensive game based on sound theoretical principles, starting with the start (has a certain tendency to make good start both theoretical and practical). To both theoretical and practical knowledge of at least one rich and precise signaling system. Makes a correct interpretation of each card played by the partner, was it an 'x'. Quickly assimilates logically and ingeniously the information gleaned in the course of giving (construction and execution of the flank game plan).
• A clear knowledge and understanding of the main flanking techniques (when to go up or not on an honor, when to insert a second honor, when to take 'in a vacuum', when to undertake to shorten or shorten the declarant To the asset (especially when one of the flanks possesses 4 of opposition), ..., up to the techniques of choking the long ones of the dead (or declarant), Coup de Merrimac, Coup de Deschapelles, etc., etc. .
• Has very thorough, theoretical AND practical knowledge of at least one - this is a bare minimum - bidding system. All chapters: attack, defense and competitive. Within a system can play several variants / options of the most common conventions (Double Two instead of Roudi, Ghestem or Copenhagen instead of Michaels, Puppet or Romex instead of Stayman, Cappelletti, Dont or MultLandy instead of Landy , Lebensohl instead of Rubensohl, Cachalot instead of Spoutniks, etc. etc. etc.)
• Demonstrates a very sound judgment in the evaluation of a hand (use of many criteria and factors in addition to "points"), including depending on the conduct of the auction
• Has a very sound, theoretical AND practical judgment in competitive auction sequences. In particular, has an in-depth knowledge of the Law of the Total Surveys and all its implications.
• A 'bridgesque culture' of a certain magnitude, arising from regular readings of both classic and recent books and articles.
• Demonstrates ability to "dive" mentally into a part of Bridge and remain completely 'focused' for a long time.
• And, last but not least, in the practical application of all this, has a relatively low error rate, inattentions and oversights - yes, an advanced player + makes mistakes, sometimes even 'abominable errors '... but rarely. (Otherwise, he would be an Expert.) Finally, almost, for an Expert knows much more than what has just been stated, I suppose)
A practical test to which the players claiming to the category Advanced + could be to take all the data of the 6 books Step by step of Berthe and Lébely and to solve them all (explanatory data and problems) without committing more than 20 errors. This is a good test as these books were written with "Intermediate / Advanced" players as a target, not Experts.
An equivalent test could use the book by J.-P. Meyer and E. Conti "From the non-ranked to the expert" with a similar success criterion. Or Frank Stewart's book "Your Card Game at the Test Bench". Or the first 4 levels of the Fred Gitelman series "Bridge Master". For logical reasoning we can add, among many others, "Bridge Magique: Bridge Logique" by Pierre Saporta
FINAL NOTES
Beginner and Novice categories are not skill categories. They are defined by reference to the time from which the Bridge is played. If you play the Bridge for 10 years you are no longer a Beginner or a Novice. But it is possible that we are not (yet) Intermediate for all that.
A pernicious effect of having introduced time-related levels in the hierarchy is that some users believe that levels of competence are acquired at "seniority": after 2 years of Bridge one is Intermediate, after 5 years Advanced, after 10 years Expert. It is obviously false: one can stay all his life, if it is his desire, in the same skill level - and find pleasure in playing Bridge if one finds partners and opponents of the same level. We can also climb the ladder more or less rapidly, depending on talent, but also on the learning and study efforts we are ready, or not ready to do.
The Intermediate and Advanced categories are very heterogeneous. This article suggests a way to improve this.
The Expert category is relatively homogeneous, at least in real Experts (true Expert = plays, or could play, in National Division 3 at least).
The phenomenon 'false Expert' exists of course. There are false Experts and truly false Experts:
⁃ A fake Expert is usually a skilled card player but a poor connoisseur of the Bridge (never reads), especially a poor bidder (knows only very superficially a system of auctions with which he commits, in addition, abominable errors ). The false Experts are quickly put out by the real Experts. They are then found at the tables of Advances in which they have the hope of marking some IMPs thanks to their game of the card while they watering them with insults.
⁃ A really fake Expert has, compared to a simple fake Expert, not even an exceptional technique of playing the card. These often correct the shooting of themselves after some unfortunate experiences as an "Expert".
The World Class category also has a certain level of heterogeneity, but it concerns only a small number of users.
The ailments and remedies identified in this article come from observing the practices of a particular group of BBO users: the "SEF". They may be less relevant to other groups.
If you share the feeling that you need to improve the hierarchy of competencies on BBO, write to them.
#3
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,594
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2017-June-03, 12:19
This would be a wasted effort. Most people don't enter their skill correctly, and it has nothing to do with the definitions of the levels. Adding more detailed levels will not help.
#4
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 2017-June-03
Posted 2017-June-04, 02:32
Thanks for the translation.
Good idea to use google translate. I didn't realize it was able nowadays to produce so accurate a translation. Great change when compared to some years ago ...
Good idea to use google translate. I didn't realize it was able nowadays to produce so accurate a translation. Great change when compared to some years ago ...
Page 1 of 1