[peachy]

Jlall, on Jun 7 2008, 01:20 AM, said:

What causes you to suck at bridge and keeps you from being the best?

For me I think it is lack of focus (at bridge tournaments there are a lot of distractions, social and otherwise), and too much ego.

Making the same mistakes and judgment errors over and over. Seems like I can't make the connection between past bad scores from that mistake to the current similar situation where I ALREADY should know better. As if, by miracle, that decision *THIS TIME* would yield a good score.

At least I have identified this stupidity. Now, if only I could get rid of it LOL

[barmar]

For me I think it's lack of patience. I tend to go with my gut rather than try to work all the possibilities out. I think I have a decent intuition for the game, but when it requires working out a difficult problem I'm not as good. I totally fail on most of the card combination quizzes in bridge books and magazines.

[glen]

I think JL has 2 problems:

1) lack of a 2 am curfew
2) leaving laptop unattended (please check hand history to find all-ins on 72s)

For myself, I play most bridge events on tilt

[skjaeran]

1. Too lazy to put in the needed effort to reach the top of my potential ability.
2. Not talented enough to be really great at bridge.
3. Play too fast.

[pclayton]

I'm pretty sure the root cause of most errors at the events that really matter are a result of just being tired. Whether that manifests itself in a lack or focus, laziness, not counting or tilting (bad doubles and overbidding) doesn't matter.

The next factor is playing too fast. We play a complicated game and you just can't play at your best by rapid-firing cards. I can usually bid in tempo without a problem, but card play can be difficult and needs to be carefully considered.

Playing too slow can cause sominexes or tilting too.

[Vilgan]

Nifty topic. Why I still suck:

Trouble focusing at the table and away. I rarely miss the first discard, but the other methods of communication I will miss if I am not paying attention. Away from the table.. I can read a book cover to cover if it is engaging. However, "dry" bridge books take me a while to read and I don't get as much from them as I could if I actually focused the whole time. If I could take a pill and suddenly concentrate better, my game would greatly improve.

Issue breaking through the plateau from intermediate/advanced into the semi expert realm. Lots of expert type agreements/knowledge that I have trouble finding good sources on. The only "pro" in the state still believes in opening with 13+ HCP and is not fond of any modern styles of bidding. Needless to say, he has not gotten in the ballpark of winning anything in his life.

Distance: favorite partner is like 3 hours away. So since I get very little benefit from online play, how we improve has gone in fits and spurts as we do and don't have time to play together at tournaments.

[helene_t]

Good players talk about "visualizing" the deal. That is something I just can't.

In mathematics, the easiest things to understand are those that can be thought of in terms of two-dimensional geometry. 3D, complex numbers and dynamics is slightly more difficult. Number theory is not really geometrical but somehow I can "feel" numbers anyhow, although not in terms on anything that I could draw or verbalize. But many algebraic topics I cannot visualize at all. For example topology and polynomial rings. So I suck at those disciplines. I can only think of them in terms of mental images of the formulas involved at that is not very helpful.

Same with bridge. I can "visualize" an auction in that I immediately see the inference from it without having to deduce it consciously. Also I can often make the "what inference can partner make given that she must be looking at a hand that looks appr. so" analysis automatically. But during play, I can only do that to a very limited extent. Avoidance play, finesses and count signals I can digest at the subconscious level in some simple situations, but I am very far from visualizing the whole deal.

This means that except for a few routine situations I would have to think through all the inference and possible scenarios and alternative plans by letting my inner voice give a "if a then b and then c etc." lecture, which is an extremely inefficient way of thinking.

My declarer plays sometimes works because I have solved thousands of declarer play challenges in books and magazines so there is a good chance that a deal is so similar to something I have solved already that I can just copy the solution.

Other than that, counting, paying attention to partner's signals, and knowing suit combinations are some of my weak spots.

[georgeac]

barmar, on Jun 7 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

For me I think it's lack of patience. I tend to go with my gut rather than try to work all the possibilities out. I think I have a decent intuition for the game, but when it requires working out a difficult problem I'm not as good. I totally fail on most of the card combination quizzes in bridge books and magazines.

this is one reason why i think i suck at bridge. i tend to play too quickly and do not put enough thought at times into what could go wrong, or how the cards could be split. also i find it hard to get a regular partnership going. i have a few online starting to develop now but f2f, i haven't had a regular partner in a long time. much the reason i don't play live much at all anymore.

[kenrexford]

My major problem is chasing windmills in the defense and while Declaring.

Two classics came up this weekend.

On one, I had a simple line to make my Binsky contract. Had I been in 6♥, there is one line, and it turns out to be the same line to make 5♥, the obvious line. In 5♥, however, I could get to 11 tricks a different way. So, I analyzed the two options based on the opponents' bidding. The opponents seemed to have made no sense during the auction. Thus, I had to decide what was going on. Rather than simply concluding that Opener was light and Responder made a bad bid, I instead decided that Responder had their bid and that, therefore, Opener may have psyched. This caused me to take the riskier end position line where I do not need a finesse rather than the simple finesse, a finesse that makes sense if people fort of had close to their bids. Absurd.

On another one, partner played a card that made no sense to me. Rather than just assuming that he was sloppy, I read some mystical inference, one that could actually exist, into the situation. However, that inference required me to assume a very strange (but possible) layout, to assume that partner had figured out that this strange layout might exist, had accurately assessed my likely hand, assumed that I could read the situation also, and made a play that I could read if this was all going on. Plus, however, Declarer must have falsecarded with a pip, perhaps because he realized that we both would guess this strange layout. Or, partner just played a careless card. Silliness.

[MickyB]

Think I'm similar to Helene - I need to work a lot of cardplay stuff out consciously, following it through card-by-card, whereas some people seem to just 'see' it.

It's odd, I go through phases where I make few mistakes, and phases where I make many. In some ways, I'm much better than I was 8 months ago, but then my bridge was almost error free, well, at least of errors I was good enough to spot; But for the past couple of weeks, my f2f bridge has been sloppy, and my online bridge even worse.

[mike777]

"It is important to realize that the frequency of the sounds that the source emits does not actually change"

http://en.wikipedia..../Doppler_effect



I could blame my declarer play and lack of counting but will blame the Doppler effect.

"Doppler effect describes an apparent-as opposed to actual-change in frequency or wavelength....Being aware of this distortion of perception allows (bridge players) to take advantage of the distortion itself in order to gather accurate data about the actual, and not just the perceived world...Doppler effect refers to these distorted interpretations of these distortions that, properly understood, enable a more accurate understanding of the real world (of bridge)." (Galchen)

[MarkDean]

Two areas I suck at are opening leads and competitve decision: should I bid 3 over 3, should I double 5C or bid 5H?

Why do I suck at those things? Not really sure, but I do.

[FrancesHinden]

1. not bidding enough
2. spending too much time at work

[blackshoe]

I don't suck at bridge. I'm not that good.

[sceptic]

I spend to much time worrying about my cell phone going off when I should be concentrating on playing

[EricK]

I can't hold and manipulate the relevant data in my mind.

I think all good bridge players can imagine where the hidden cards lie and play through the hand in their mind. I just can't do that. In fact I normally can't play through the hand in my mind even if I know where all the cards are.

I used to play bridge at a local club with my father. The next day we would normally have a conversation which started something like this:
Him: Do you remember the 5th hand last night where they made 3♥?
Me: Vaguely. What did I have?
Him: ♠KJxx ♥xx ♦xxxxx ♣Qx. You led a ♦ which was OK but when I got in with a trump I should have switched to a ♣ not a ♠.
Me: What did dummy have?
Him: [recites dummy's hand]. It was obvious really, because...

And so it would go on. He could recall and accurately play through the hand in his mind but I would need an actual diagram and would have to cross out the cards as I go.

As an aside, I think this kind of mental manipulation ability is more common in men than women (but not in me, unfortunately), which might be a reason why men excel at chess and bridge more often than women do (and why some women have to rotate a map as they are following directions, whereas most men don't).

[han]

I played my first live hands of 2008 last week. While BBO is wonderful, I think it is hurting my game to never play in games that I really care about. Taking this into account I am happy with the progress I have booked over the last few years.

[paulg]

In the Portugal vs Cayne match last night, both Portuguese players that I was kibbing shouted "goooooooooooolaaaaaa" to the table when Portugal scored against Turkey.

As they were 70 IMPs down at the time, I'm willing to bet that they were not totally focused on the bridge.

p

[david_c]

My problem is laziness in the play, particularly defence. I rely far too much on instinct rather than calculation. I can count the cards ... provided that I actually bothered to look at what everyone played. Perhaps about 50% of the time when declarer runs a suit I don't even register which cards my partner discarded. I also tend to give incorrect signals, either because of some groundless fear that it would help declarer, or (more likely) because I already had the card in my hand before I'd thought about whether it was the correct card to play.

I also don't care enough about winning. When I played for the junior team I hated the way everyone took it so seriously.

[NickRW]

I've tried to think of a good answer for this thread. I used to think I bid much better than I could play. However, after a couple of bidding decisions that didn't work out too well the other night, I'm not so sure. And especially so after I went through the results and noticed the hands I declared we scored better than those than my partner did. Maybe I'm less sucky than I thought at declarer play and worse than I kidded myself into thinking with some of my judgement calls in the auction.

EricK, on Jun 8 2008, 07:55 AM, said:

....And so it would go on. He could recall and accurately play through the hand in his mind but I would need an actual diagram and would have to cross out the cards as I go.

I've thought about this one. There is no doubt in my mind that those who can, in some sense, visualise the play of the hand as it is happening have an advantage. But I am not sure that the ability to recall a hand in detail afterwards has much to do with it. The reason I say this is that, when I was younger, I had quite a good recall the next day of hands played the day before. These days, with the exception perhaps of one or two notable hands, I do not recall detailed events the next day. But I do not think my play has got worse.

The question, however remains, how to improve one's ability to visualise a hand. I think most of us are just simply lazy when it comes to taking note of partner's signals, counting and so on. And I don't see any cure for laziness other than discipline. One has to force oneself to count a hand. If necessary arrange some training sessions and keep note with pen and paper first if necessary - every hand - note every card, every inference from the bidding and play - work out the distribution of the unseen hands - work out the likely/possible placement of the unseen high cards and do this for every hand. Don't worry if you don't see the possibility of some exotic squeeze or whatever - you will, I'm sure, see more opportunities than you did without doing this exercise. That is what's next on my agenda anyway.

Nick