[Phil]

nigel_k, on 2012-May-08, 13:59, said:

You may be right. I don't know much about these guys apart from what I have seen watching them play. But I wanted a concrete example and I tend to think Hamman and Meckstroth are ahead of everyone else so I tried to choose one of the two most highly skilled members of the Diamond team so it would be comparing like with like. I didn't intend it as an insult to anyone, though I agree it could easily be taken that way.

What a flaccid response.

To be clear:

1) Han is right and you are wrong.

2) You insulted anyone with the reading ability over a 3rd grader.

[JLOGIC]

rduran1216, on 2012-May-08, 11:50, said:

I think what makes justin so successsful especially lately is the level of confidence and having the skill to back it up.

Well, I never lacked the confidence lol. If I lacked one it was always the skill not the confidence.

[mike777]

Interesting question.

I guess I would first ask does Bob win more than random would say?

To put it another way does Warren Buffet win more at investing than random says he should?

If the answer is yes, and I dont know what the correct answer is, then what does he do differently from say meckwell or Bobby Wolff or you add your fav player from Italy.

[dave_w]

JLOGIC, on 2012-May-08, 09:16, said:

No, I am not. I think I was wrong about that. I did start this thread 7 years ago or so so you can cut me some slack on that one

lol. I didn't notice that someone bumped a really old thread. I don't expect I'll agree with everything I've written 7 years from now.

[MrAce]

dave_w, on 2012-May-08, 22:57, said:

lol. I didn't notice that someone bumped a really old thread. I don't expect I'll agree with everything I've written 7 years from now.

I dont take responsibility for the things i said 7 hours ago

[y66]

re: mental toughness, I think the most amazing story I ever heard in sports was the one about Paul Soloway shuttling back and forth between the hospital and the bridge table during the 2000 Vanderbilt, which he, Hamman and the rest of the Nickell team won by 1 IMP. Talk about pard being there.

[CSGibson]

Winners have the bigger final score at the end.

[y66]

Jlall, on 2005-September-23, 12:57, said:

good replies so far... let's look at some things suggested:

-Strong desire to win
-Ability to stay focused
-Mental toughness, ability to move on to the next board
-Good (competitive) attitude
-Ability to find the essence of a problem
-Ability to compete while under intense pressure
-Self belief

Things that helped in specifically Hamman's case:

-Having a real captain
-Not playing pro.

I think this is a great list! Everything in the first list can be found in ALL of the top players that consistently win. Obviously a high level of skill is needed as well, but these qualities are what seperate the true champions from the others.

I also was thinking (before this post) that the desire to win was the single most important factor. Hunger, as I call it, often seems to be the fine line between winning and losing. Whoever wants it deep down inside of themselves the most seems to come out on top when the skill level is pretty equal. I have played with and on teams with Hamman in sectionals. He was always aching to win, which really amazed me. I always thought that's what seperated people like him, Versace, Meckstroth etc. Thanks for your responses.

I don't personally know any top bridge players. But I'll bet a lot that winners are more honest with themselves about their strengths and weaknesses and smarter about making good use of time to work on weaker parts of their games. Hamman sort of makes this point in the chapter about Joe Musemeci in At The Table. Maybe that's just a generalization of "the ability to find the essence of a problem" to other types of problems, including thought process problems and communication problems.

[Zelandakh]

JLOGIC, on 2012-May-08, 16:51, said:

Well, I never lacked the confidence lol. If I lacked one it was always the skill not the confidence.

I could be wrong but I think confidence (or self-belief as you wrote 7 years ago) is incredibly important in bridge. Much higher on the list than the bottom rung. It is so easy to go conservative when playing against great opponents, playing "safe", even when your experience has shown that this is not the winning bridge style for a partnership. It can be rationalised as "these guys are good enough that it is not the right play" when it is really an inner voice saying "if I do this and it is wrong I will feel like a sardine in a sharkpool".

OK, perhaps that is going too far but you see it time and time again in a variety of sports that a team changes its winning ways when competing against a top opponent. That even makes sense in some sports, football (soccer) for example, but I think the nature of bridge argues against doing this too much. I am convinced that this natural confidence you mention, naturally in combination with a lot of talent and hard work(!), has been a major factor in your quick rise to the highest level. Oh yes, and I disagree with you strongly about the lack of skill - a lack of experience sometimes perhaps (with a new partner for example) but no deficit of skill.

[dboxley]

Jlall, on 2005-September-22, 15:04, said:

I've been thinking lately about my personal bridge hero, Bob Hamman. He certainly has won a bunch of stuff. Is he really that much better than other really really top players who haven't won alot? Has he just gotten onto better teams (perhaps by virtue of him not playing professionally)?

Since when does Bob Hamman not play professionally? I remember a hand against him and an obvious client at matchpoints over 25 years ago. I was in a shaky 3C which happened to make, playing with a partner who, like me, was inexperienced. When the hand was over he said in a not very friendly tone "Well, you brought that one in, didn't you?" He then handed me the score slip to sign, he had recorded 3C down one, -50. Of course I pointed out the discrepancy and he corrected it.

[sathyab]

awm, on 2012-May-07, 20:29, said:

One thing I've noticed is that there are some whose goal seems primarily to avoid blame. In other words, they don't want to make any bid or play that potentially could cost them the match. This may seem the same as trying to win the match... but it really is not. Some of the habits I'm referring to include:

1. Avoiding any "risky" bids or plays, even though they might win, because they could also lead to an embarrassing result.
2. Leaving hard decisions to partner whenever possible (i.e. "do something intelligent doubles"), even if partner's odds of getting it right are not particularly good.
3. Failing to overrule partner even in situations where overruling is percentage (i.e. don't pull partner's penalty doubles ever).
4. Being quick to criticize partner in order to preemptively assign blame whenever any bad result is attained.

These sorts of behaviors seem common to lower-echelon professionals (i.e. players who compete in all the big events but never seem to do all that well in them). Arguments can be made that acting in this way helps a professional's job security even if it doesn't help his results. With that said, there are plenty of amateur players who do these things also... but you almost never see this kind of behavior from the Bob Hammans of the world.

Certainly there are some top players who are nasty to their opponents and some who are pleasant... but I can't think of any who are nasty to partner, and I think that is one key to success in this game.

Excellent observations. One reason why even good players develop these habits is that the issue of accountability is more serious in a team game than a pairs game, even you are not a Pro. You don't want to lose the match at your table, even more than you don't want to be the one who ruined your prospects in a Pairs game. How to deal with failure fairly is a very difficult issue at every level, individual, pair and especially team. I have a feeling sucsessful players deal with this differently than the rest of us.

[Fluffy]

About avoiding blame, I had one of those in China 2008, and it very well could had cost us qualifying.

(1♣)-1♥-(pass)-1♠
(pass)


I had a very strong 4♠-5♥ hand but the simple notion of playing in 2♣ made me very scared. My club holding made 4♣ bid totally poinless so it was out as well, in the end I bid 4♠ and losed 13 to the slam, not sure if even grand was avaible.

[dboxley]

dboxley, on 2012-May-15, 13:11, said:

Since when does Bob Hamman not play professionally? I remember a hand against him and an obvious client at matchpoints over 25 years ago. I was in a shaky 3C which happened to make, playing with a partner who, like me, was inexperienced. When the hand was over he said in a not very friendly tone "Well, you brought that one in, didn't you?" He then handed me the score slip to sign, he had recorded 3C down one, -50. Of course I pointed out the discrepancy and he corrected it.

After giving this some thought, I realize that Justin was probably referring to team games where Bob Hamman may not play professionally.

[dustinst22]

dboxley, on 2012-May-17, 07:16, said:

After giving this some thought, I realize that Justin was probably referring to team games where Bob Hamman may not play professionally.

Really? He isn't paid by Nickell?

[awm]

Perhaps what is meant is that Bob Hamman doesn't play bridge full-time nor is bridge his primary income. This means he rarely ends up playing with weak partners/teammates/opponents.

I'd be shocked if he isn't paid to play on the Nickell team.

[Phil]

LOL exactly. There is hardly a nexus between a professional player's wealth and whether or not he gets paid to play.

[JLOGIC]

He was not paid by Nickell. However, Nickell is the biggest investor in his company. Likewise, he is not paid by Warren Buffett when he has played with him, however Berkshire Hathaway did underwrite a Pepsi win a billion that was too big for bobs company SCA, making SCA the middle man. Likely that would never have happened without the bridge relationship. It seems like it can be very beneficial to your business/networking if you are the best bridge player in the world and play bridge with extremely rich/powerful business people.

When Hamman and Wolff were on the Cayne team, same thing, Cayne was a big investor in SCA.

Dboxley, you mention that you played against Bob 25 years ago when he was playing pro...that is a long time ago. I don't think I ever said he has never played professionally. I think Bob also founded his company about 25 years ago. That said, I know he has played professionally in the last 25 years multiple times (eg, the seniors on the Lynch team), if that makes you a professional bridge player then ok but if bridge is not your primary source of income and you rarely get paid from playing then I do not consider you a professional bridge player (especially if you have been CEO of your company for 20+ years).

[dboxley]

JLOGIC, on 2012-May-17, 19:27, said:

He was not paid by Nickell. However, Nickell is the biggest investor in his company. Likewise, he is not paid by Warren Buffett when he has played with him, however Berkshire Hathaway did underwrite a Pepsi win a billion that was too big for bobs company SCA, making SCA the middle man. Likely that would never have happened without the bridge relationship. It seems like it can be very beneficial to your business/networking if you are the best bridge player in the world and play bridge with extremely rich/powerful business people.

When Hamman and Wolff were on the Cayne team, same thing, Cayne was a big investor in SCA.

Dboxley, you mention that you played against Bob 25 years ago when he was playing pro...that is a long time ago. I don't think I ever said he has never played professionally. I think Bob also founded his company about 25 years ago. That said, I know he has played professionally in the last 25 years multiple times (eg, the seniors on the Lynch team), if that makes you a professional bridge player then ok but if bridge is not your primary source of income and you rarely get paid from playing then I do not consider you a professional bridge player (especially if you have been CEO of your company for 20+ years).

This has turned into a discussion in semantics, playing professionally and being a bridge professional are obviously two different things. If I misunderstood your post then I apologize.