[vuroth]

335769, though I might be fooling myself and I'm really a 335709

Still, this format is impossible to read. I have no intuitive sense what HHHLLL means vs LLLHHH vs LLHHLL

[olegru]

773555
Nice idea, but not easy to answer. It can vary a lot.
1. Systems. With permanent partner I have complicated system with number of artificial calls and I would like to make it even more detailed, but with picked up online partner prefer to play KISS.
2. Bidding aggression. Game bidding – yes, slam bidding - no, competitive bidding – yes, preemptives – not, really.
3. Carding. I like to have a lot of agreements. Main of them – signal only when partner need your signals.
4. Leads. Leads are not active or passive. Leads are good or bad. I am bad with them.
5. Competitiveness. Online with stranger? Are negative numbers permitted? It is a very different if we are talking about real games with permanent partner.
6. Discuss or not. It depends...

[daveharty]

 vuroth, on 2010-October-22, 12:23, said:

Still, this format is impossible to read. I have no intuitive sense what HHHLLL means vs LLLHHH vs LLHHLL

What if it were modified slightly, so that the format was: AB CD EF, where each pair included first complexity, then aggressiveness? The first pair would be "Auction/Bidding", the second pair "Defense", the third pair "Philosophy". So:

A=System Complexity (COMPLICATION, as before)
B=Bidding Aggression

C=Carding Complexity (DEFENSIVE PHILOSOPHY as before)
D=Defensive Aggression (LEAD AGGRESSION as before)

E=Postmortem Complexity (i.e., how detailed do you like your postmortems to be? Presumably after the hand is over, I think we all agree that at-the-table postmortems are not usually a good thing)
F=Competitiveness (could sort of be seen as an "overall aggressiveness" metric I guess)

This format change would make me a "77 55 76", which seems a little easier to parse.

[matmat]

 W Kovacs, on 2010-October-22, 08:47, said:

Interesting. I rated myself as 776577 after some internal debate. The post-mortems definitely belong after the session, but all negative hands and some of the postitives deserve scrutiny.


For a good time call!

Someone got it
I think we've established that self rating systems fail.
We really should have our partners fill these out for us. I'll do one for a frequent forum poster.

345682

wonder how much they'd agree with me.

[daveharty]

 matmat, on 2010-October-21, 21:33, said:

8675309

Jenny, Jenny, who can I turn to?

[gwnn]

Does anyone really read/interpret other people's numbers? I wonder if anyone will notice that this post has no numbers in it

[daveharty]

 matmat, on 2010-October-22, 12:51, said:

I think we've established that self rating systems fail.

I certainly agree as far as skill level is concerned, which is why I definitely don't want to use a skill component. But don't you think people would have an incentive to accurately represent their own preferences? The whole point is to be able to determine at a glance whether someone might be PHILOSOPHICALLY compatible as a partner. Finding someone at roughly the same skill level (or a superior player willing to "play down") is an entirely different kettle of fish.

[nige1]

 daveharty, on 2010-October-21, 20:30, said:

(I apologize in advance if someone has already suggested something like this.)
If you are like me you get a lot of email spam pushing "personality surveys", Briggs Myers tests, etc. I don't know much about these, other than they purport to boil one's personality down to a short string of characters for classification purposes. I'm not sure how useful they are, but I was considering the problem of partner compatibility in bridge, and thought something like this might be useful for identifying other players that might be a good match for your own "bridge personality" and preferences. If you could look at another player's profile and there was, say, some sort of shorthand code for where they stood along various bridge-related axes, it might be more useful than trying to distill from a list of preferred conventions what sort of player someone is. So I came up with six characteristics which might be useful for this purpose; a player could self-evaluate where they stand on these six axes by assigning a number from 1 to 9 , and come up with a string like 378562, or 294451, or whatever. Someone who was "middle of the road" on all six axes would be a 555555.
Please note that I am not approaching the topic of self-evaluation of SKILL LEVEL. We are all aware of the problems with that. These characteristics are more indications of your bridge "philosophy" in various areas, for the purposes of determining compatibility with potential partners. I'm sure that my list of characteristics could be refined and improved, please don't hesitate to make suggestions. My list (the first two deal with bidding/system issues, the next two with defensive issues, and the last two are more general):
1. COMPLICATION. This would measure how comfortable someone is with depth of agreements in a bidding system. A "1" would prefer very few agreements (maybe Goren Standard circa 1950 or so), while a "9" would enjoy system notes running into the hundreds of pages. There might be some correlation between a higher Complication number and a preference for system artificiality, but I can also imagine someone who prefers natural methods that wants to explore every possible permutation of the auction.
2. BIDDING AGGRESSION. Fairly self-explanatory. A "1" would be ultra-sound, always having full values for overcalls, classic shape for various doubles, textbook preempts, etc. A "9" would be ultra-aggressive, someone who frequently (constantly?) takes "suspect" actions for the sake of causing problems for the opponents; they go for a lot of numbers but think that the tradeoff is ultimately worth it.
3. CARDING PHILOSOPHY. This would measure someone's preference for depth of defensive agreements. A "1" would prefer very few carding agreements, relying instead on judgment and general principles. A "9" would prefer extensive carding agreements where every spot card played has a specific and identifiable meaning.
4. LEAD AGGRESSION. Within the bounds dictated by scoring form considerations, a "1" would almost never make an aggressive or attacking lead, preferring instead to make safe leads that are unlikely to give anything up. A "9" almost always makes attacking leads, even at matchpoints, preferring to go for the set.
5. COMPETITIVENESS. A "1" might regard bridge as a purely social activity, or as a purely cerebral exercise in problem-solving. A "9" regards bridge as a bloodsport, or as a forum to express their intellectual dominance.
6. "POST-MORTEMITIS". This would measure someone's willingness/eagerness to engage in postmortems. A "1" doesn't really care for discussing the hands afterwards; once they are done, it's on to the next game. A "9" prefers to go over their results with a fine-toothed comb, whether good or bad; the post-mortem might last as long or longer than the session itself.
So, that's my list. For what it's worth, I would call myself a 775567.Any opinions

A good idea, Dave! but I'm all at sixes and sevens

 matmat, on 2010-October-21, 21:33, said:

8675309

I found it eventually on Youtube

More scales ....

• SADO-MASOCHIST. No matter who is at fault, most players blame their partners; but a few blame themselves.
• OPT/PESSIMIST. Some play as if they needed a top at match-points. Others search for a sure-trick line as of they were playing rubber-bridge for their life.
• EXTRO/INTROVERT. Some socialise with opponents like long lost lovers. Others behave like Trappist monks to opponents and partner alike.
• SLOW-QUICK. Some players take forever. Others play like lightning.
• BOSS-SLAVE: Some players (like Hugh Kelsey) master-mind the auction, often jumping to a likely contract, in the belief that daisy-picking just helps opponents. Others (like the Sharples brothers), consult partner, happily giving away information, provided they always reach the right contract as a result.

[W Kovacs]

 daveharty, on 2010-October-22, 13:00, said:

I certainly agree as far as skill level is concerned, which is why I definitely don't want to use a skill component. But don't you think people would have an incentive to accurately represent their own preferences? The whole point is to be able to determine at a glance whether someone might be PHILOSOPHICALLY compatible as a partner. Finding someone at roughly the same skill level (or a superior player willing to "play down") is an entirely different kettle of fish.

I'm wondering if the numbers SHOULD match up between regular partners. Obviously some of them should. System complexity kind of has to be agreed between the partners.

But what about bidding aggression. My partner is pretty aggressive. Knowing that, I usually temper my enthusiasm, knowing that he is known to overbid at times in competitive auctions. So that score probably needs a little bit of disparity.

As for the new scales, I am on the masochist side of things, blaming myself often. I am very much on the pessimist side, in life as well as at the bridge table. I am slightly on the introverted side. I'll acknowledge good play, both by our side or by the opponents, but I don't give out kudos on every hand. I play very fast (probably too fast), but my bidding tends to be pretty even unless I need to search the memory banks for a particular bid's meaning. Playing precision, informative auctions are the norm, both to partner and to the opponents.

And that damn song is now going through my mind now. Thanks a lot. Eight Six Seven Five Three Oh Niiine!

[daveharty]

 nige1, on 2010-October-22, 13:30, said:

A good idea, Dave! but I'm all at sixes and sevens

More scales ....

• SADO-MASOCHIST. No matter who is at fault, most players blame their partners; but a few blame themselves.
• OPTIMIST-PESSIMIST. Some play as if they needed a top at match-points. Others search for a sure-trick line as of they were playing rubber-bridge for their life.
• EXTRO/INTROVERT. Some socialise with opponents like long lost lovers. Others behave like Trappist monks to opponents and partner alike.
• SLOW-QUICK. Some players take forever. Others play like lightning.
• BOSS-SLAVE: Some players (like Hugh Kelsey) master-mind the auction, often jumping to a likely contract, in the belief that daisy-picking just helps opponents. Others (like the Sharples brothers), consult partner, happily giving away information, provided they always reach the right contract as a result.

LOL, nice scales

The Slow/Quick scale is an especially good idea I think. It can be a real partnership-killer when two people's tempos are wildly unmatched. Also it might cut down on all the "Faster plsssssssss" if people could look at your profiles and see that you and your partner are both 1's!

[olegru]

 gwnn, on 2010-October-22, 12:55, said:

I wonder if anyone will notice that this post has no numbers in it

Actually it is no correct
I see numbers 777 at the end of your post.

[dustinst22]

Great thread, Dave.

I'd rate myself a 77788.

Of course lead aggression vs lead passivity? is completely dependent on the scoring mechanism and situation. When the situation is right, I tend to lean towards the aggressive side. Same goes with bid aggression. Both are situational.

p.s. How do you rate number 5 if you regard Bridge as a bloodsport and you like the social aspect?

[whereagles]

I can do a principal component analysis on the data later, so that we can identify typical player profiles. The questions asked could probably be improved for this matter, but let's not make it too hard

[cloa513]

Bidding Aggression: 1 should be even more conservative than that doesn't preempt, only opens with 13 HCP and sometimes not even that.

[gwnn]

I don't think number 3 in particular warrants such a large scale. I don't think there are many pairs who have more carding agreements than, say, 2 or 3 pages. I don't think there is any pair out there who believe all their spots mean something.

[daveharty]

 gwnn, on 2010-October-22, 17:27, said:

I don't think number 3 in particular warrants such a large scale. I don't think there are many pairs who have more carding agreements than, say, 2 or 3 pages. I don't think there is any pair out there who believe all their spots mean something.

Yeah, I think I agree about this one; I just kept the same scale to keep it consistent with the others. Maybe it would be more meaningful to follow wyman's suggestion and use a five-point scale for everything, with "3" being average. My 77 55 76 would then translate into: 44 33 44.

[matmat]

 daveharty, on 2010-October-22, 17:59, said:

Yeah, I think I agree about this one; I just kept the same scale to keep it consistent with the others. Maybe it would be more meaningful to follow wyman's suggestion and use a five-point scale for everything, with "3" being average. My 77 55 76 would then translate into: 44 33 44.

That's a pretty extreme hourglass.

[whereagles]

Preliminary PCA data: (obtained out of software PASW 18)

	Rotated Component Matrix(a)
		Component
	1	2	3
complication	,660	,460	,286
aggression	,775	-,351	-,025
carding	        ,054	-,034	,951
leads	        -,779	-,017	-,019
competitiveness	-,092	-,780	,219
postmortem	-,197	,767	,180
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 
 Rotation Method: Equamax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

Not quite sure what to make of this, though The PCA identifies 3 main profiles, which we could perhaps classify as...

1. the "aggressive bidder", who focus on scientific, agressive bidding but tends to be conservative in card play
2. the "results merchant", conservative player, mainly worried of winning the post mortem
3. the "card play freak", who doesn't care much about bidding but tracks every spot card

But the data is still insufficient. For higher confidence we need more input

[Siegmund]

Quote

The PCA identifies 3 main profiles... the agressive bidder, the results merchant, and the cardplay freak

No, it doesn't. You misunderstand PCA.

The PCA identified 3 axes along which to classify people, rather than the original six.

The most important classifies people on a spectrum of "complicated and aggressive bidding, and heavy reliance on logic during the cardplay" to "simple and conservative bidding, and heavy reliance on carding agreements during the cardplay".

Secondarily, it classifies people on a spectrum of "serious about the game vs. serious about the postmortem," and asserts that your seriousness about the game is very nearly independent of where you land on the complexity scale.

Thirdly, it classifies people according to their cardplay agreements, separating out the factors which were confounded in the first-level classification

If you also tell us what the mean scores for each of the six categories are, we can get from our raw scores to our factor scores, and find out what our tendencies are in regard to each of the above. (And yes, we do have a very small sample, especially since many of the respondents have similar attitudes to the game.)

[CSGibson]

 daveharty, on 2010-October-21, 20:30, said:

...1. COMPLICATION. This would measure how comfortable someone is with depth of agreements in a bidding system. A "1" would prefer very few agreements (maybe Goren Standard circa 1950 or so), while a "9" would enjoy system notes running into the hundreds of pages. There might be some correlation between a higher Complication number and a preference for system artificiality, but I can also imagine someone who prefers natural methods that wants to explore every possible permutation of the auction.

I'm a 7 here, I enjoy complex bidding agreements, but I also like an underlying structure which is logically consistent, as opposed to "theoretically best" agreements that involve straight memorization.

 daveharty, on 2010-October-21, 20:30, said:

2. BIDDING AGGRESSION. Fairly self-explanatory. A "1" would be ultra-sound, always having full values for overcalls, classic shape for various doubles, textbook preempts, etc. A "9" would be ultra-aggressive, someone who frequently (constantly?) takes "suspect" actions for the sake of causing problems for the opponents; they go for a lot of numbers but think that the tradeoff is ultimately worth it.

This is hard for me to rate. I tend to have full values for my constructive calls, but I can also be an "imaginative" bidder. Probably this makes me a 5.

 daveharty, on 2010-October-21, 20:30, said:

3. CARDING PHILOSOPHY. This would measure someone's preference for depth of defensive agreements. A "1" would prefer very few carding agreements, relying instead on judgment and general principles. A "9" would prefer extensive carding agreements where every spot card played has a specific and identifiable meaning.

Something around an 8. I give lots of suit preference in my spot card play.

 daveharty, on 2010-October-21, 20:30, said:

4. LEAD AGGRESSION. Within the bounds dictated by scoring form considerations, a "1" would almost never make an aggressive or attacking lead, preferring instead to make safe leads that are unlikely to give anything up. A "9" almost always makes attacking leads, even at matchpoints, preferring to go for the set.

Here I'm probably around a 5. I try to listen to the auction, and make leads accordingly.

 daveharty, on 2010-October-21, 20:30, said:

5. COMPETITIVENESS. A "1" might regard bridge as a purely social activity, or as a purely cerebral exercise in problem-solving. A "9" regards bridge as a bloodsport, or as a forum to express their intellectual dominance.

Here, a 3. I try to win every time out, and in every auction, but I tend to want to win on skill and judgment, not intimidation or through lawyering, especially at club events.

 daveharty, on 2010-October-21, 20:30, said:

6. "POST-MORTEMITIS". This would measure someone's willingness/eagerness to engage in postmortems. A "1" doesn't really care for discussing the hands afterwards; once they are done, it's on to the next game. A "9" prefers to go over their results with a fine-toothed comb, whether good or bad; the post-mortem might last as long or longer than the session itself.

Probably like a 6 or something, and one of my biggest weaknesses as a partner - I will post-mortem at the table, or immediately after a round away from a table constantly, if dispassionately. I like going over hand records with partners when we're at a tournament or something, but not after a club game, mostly because I play evenings and work in the mornings

I ended up a 758536