[pbleighton]

Caution: non-technical post follows:

I started playing bridge 3 years ago. Things went fine for a couple of years, I progressed well, became a somewhat above average club player, then I started to (shock! horror!) plateau. I'm improving, but pretty gradually.

This was difficult for me to accept. I'm successsful in an intellectually challenging field, have exceptional math ability, SO WHY CAN'T MY 50 YEAR OLD BRAIN REMEMBER HOW MANY DIAMONDS EAST HAS PLAYED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Grrrrrrr.......

I know what I have to do to get substantially better fairly quickly. I have to learn how to count out hands. The problem is, I don't want to expend the effort. I have a reasonable count when I declare, and usually have a rough idea when I defend, but if it comes down to having two winning cards left, and having to discard one, I'll get it wrong 25-30% of the time. This obviously has other ramifications for my (quite mediocre) defense. My declarer play has its limits, as well.

I struggled with this for months. I began to enjoy bridge a lot less. I finally realized that
1. I wasn't motivated to learn how to count out hands.
2. I'm not really all that interested in playing defense.
3. While I'm a reasonable player now, and think I will improve, I will never be a strong A player, much less play at a national level (moaaaaannn). Not gonna happen. I'm a good bidder for my overall bridge level, and remain quite interested in bidding systems, but my card play skills are permanently limited by my decaying memory cells and my lack of motivation.

I took a month off, then started playing again, but just online (no tournaments). As it happens, my primary partner came to a similar realization at the same time, so it worked out well.

We are playing regularly again, with considerably less intense attitudes, and considerably more enjoyment. I will probably start up again with my other two pds, so I can have the privilege of playing three quite different bidding systems, which is the part of the game which really interests me.

I post this to:
1. Inquire as to anyone else who has gone through a similar process, and
2. If anyone is going or will go through this micro-crisis, to let them know that there can be life after bridge ambition.

Peter

[pigpenz]

when i was at the same stage you talk about a local player Mike Albert had just started playing with Paul Soloway and another friend had started playing with Alan Stouts regular partner.....the one thing they both did as they were learning was that they counted out loud during each hand. You have to count, count count

[kenberg]

Seems familiar!

I enjoyed Michael Rosenberg's book "Bridge, Zia, and me" a lot. In it, he mentions that he first realized he could succeed in bridge not because he was so good, but because even the very good players made lots of mistakes. Getting better at this game seems to mean that you begin to count more and more things as mistakes rather than as bad luck.

Anyway, I have come to a reasonably peaceful truce balancing my ability, my desire to play well, and my willingness to work at it. It sounds as if you have also. A cause for celebration perhaps.

BTW, I am (as of yesterday) 67 and I can tell you that it isn't all that much different from 50.

Best wishes,
Ken

[Winstonm]

Brother have you said a mouthful and said it well. Really top quality bridge is exceptionally hard work - I think what you are talking about is "focus", not aptitude or intelligence - but the drive and for most of us "forced" concentration on every card, every time that is required to play really well.

I know I either cannot do it or am simply unwilling to do it time after time after time - the brain gets frazzled and the shoulders begin to ache.

I had a similar experience to yours in that when I was young I really wanted to play in the Bermuda Bowl - then over a period of 7 or so years came to the conclusion that I either did not have what it took to play at that level or was unwilling to put that much mental energy into the game and would therefore never reach my dream - it made me feel somewhat like a failure and I stopped playing...for years.

After many years it has dawned on me that bridge is simply not my priority in life, and as for me it is a lesser priority I, unlike some it seems, cannot play part time and expect to play at a really super high level.

But at the same time just "pitching cards" is a bore for me - I think everyone wants to play well - so I found the best approach was only to play when fresh and only play as long as I could pay attention. I think a better approach is shorter matches with lots of breaks for respite - if you could arrange it, you might try playing three 8-board sessions or four 6-board sessions with a 15-20 minute break in between.

Even if you don't want to go this road, I understand where you are coming from and wish you well. Bridge to me, though, is only rewarding when I play well - winning or losing isn't the issue, but no other game for me brings the feeling of satisfaction of having played solidly and well - it just won't ever happen in the Bermuda Bowl and you know what? That is OK.

Winston

[pbleighton]

"You have to count, count count"

Or don't, as the case may be

Peter

[pclayton]

For me its like a 'switch'. When I play online, unless I am in a completely quiet setting without a single distraction; the phone, the radio, other programs, wife, children, co-workers, etc., I can't play as well as I play in real life. Futhermore, looking at a digitial image of a bridge hand is not the same as looking at cards in real life. As a result, my level of play online hovers around the adv- to adv + level.

I've accepted this and it doesn't bother me.

When I play in real life, I let myself get completely absorbed in the process and let all of my mental bandwidth take over. It is a gratifying sensation.

As far as remembering cards, don't think of it that way. If you are 100% dedicated to building a mental image of the unseen hands, you'll make a lot less errors.

And if you just want to play reactive bridge, thats OK too. Thats how I play games like hearts, and its a lot of fun.

[joker_gib]

pclayton, on Jan 3 2006, 07:04 AM, said:

For me its like a 'switch'. When I play online, unless I am in a completely quiet setting without a single distraction; the phone, the radio, other programs, wife, children, co-workers, etc., I can't play as well as I play in real life. Futhermore, looking at a digitial image of a bridge hand is not the same as looking at cards in real life.

I totally agree with that !

It is far more complicated to stay concentrated playing online than behind a screen having the cards in hand !

Don't you also think that the play is a lot faster online so that more mistakes are made ?

Alain

[Chamaco]

Quote

Caution: non-technical post follows:

I started playing bridge 3 years ago.  Things went fine for a couple of years, I progressed well, became a somewhat above average club player, then I started to (shock! horror!) plateau. I'm improving, but pretty gradually.

This was difficult for me to accept. I'm successsful in an intellectually challenging field, have exceptional math ability, SO WHY CAN'T MY 50 YEAR OLD BRAIN REMEMBER HOW MANY DIAMONDS EAST HAS PLAYED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Grrrrrrr.......     

I know what I have to do to get substantially better fairly quickly.  I have to learn how to count out hands.  The problem is, I don't want to expend the effort.  I have a reasonable count when I declare, and usually have a rough idea when I defend, but if it comes down to having two winning cards left, and having to discard one, I'll get it wrong 25-30% of the time.  This obviously has other ramifications for my (quite mediocre) defense.  My declarer play has its limits, as well.

Sounds familiar.
More or less what happened to me.

Quote

I post this to:
1.  Inquire as to anyone else who has gone through a similar process, and
2.  If anyone is going or will go through this micro-crisis, to let them know that there can be life after bridge ambition.

Yes, I went through this in Chess.
Became Master and got good results, but sooner or later you get to a point where you are neither a pro nor a real amateur, and you have to reconcile with other goals.

But I think in bridge it is nicer, you can find motivation in the pleasure of the partnership play, after all bridge is like dancing, gotta be in tune with pard (I used to have in profile "Bridge is like dance, technique is important but what really matters is not to step on partner's feet!") and when this succeeds, no matter the level you play, it's like magic no ?

[pbleighton]

"As far as remembering cards, don't think of it that way. If you are 100% dedicated to building a mental image of the unseen hands, you'll make a lot less errors."

Well, I'm about 67.84% dedicated...

Seriously, thanks for the advice. I try to figure out what suits my
pd is likely to have from the bidding, and make some effort to
use the play to enhance or confirm it. It's not counting, but it's
better than nothing, and I'm (slowly) getting better at it.

Peter

[Flame]

I wont be able to make the change you did, i must be the best i can at any game i play.

[pclayton]

pbleighton, on Jan 3 2006, 03:29 AM, said:

"As far as remembering cards, don't think of it that way. If you are 100% dedicated to building a mental image of the unseen hands, you'll make a lot less errors."

Well, I'm about 67.84% dedicated...

Seriously, thanks for the advice. I try to figure out what suits my
pd is likely to have from the bidding, and make some effort to
use the play to enhance or confirm it. It's not counting, but it's
better than nothing, and I'm (slowly) getting better at it.

Peter

I find myself writing in cryptic sometimes when its late

What I mean here by constructing the unseen hands isn't so much because its a worthwhile exercise; its because building a matrix of the unseen cards makes it easier to remember whats been played and whats left.

Without a matrix, its tough to remember anything.

[Al_U_Card]

Bridge and the human condition.......concentration and motivation and the ability to count to 13. Get all three up to 99% and ANYONE will play at a professional level.

Not having a(nother) life helps. Kids, job, house, car, pets etc. I like the puzzle of each hand, the swiftness of the game and the diversity of the players. My results, good or bad, are directly attributable to factors over which I only have partial control so I can therefore come to grips with my imperfection.

Enjoyment, like beauty, is within the beholder, so allow yourself the privilege of your favorite activity at your level of choice with those of your choosing as this is the best that life can offer.

[ochinko]

Very nice and touching post. Perhaps because I recognize myself

In the local club, or in an ordinary tourney at least 80% of the results can be achieved with a 10% effort if a person is intelligent enough. Now, when you know how much harder you have to work for the rest, it just doesn't seem to worth it if you're not a pro.

Sometimes, of course, it's humiliating to hear: "Partner, you knew West had 5 hearts and 4 clubs from the bidding, and he showed 2 spades, so he couldn't have had more than 2 diamonds."

"Ouch! Was it really that easy? Was I really that stupid?"

We must strive to become better players, but not at all cost. Not if the cost is losing the fun, as the others have said. Unfortunately, it's not fun for your partner if he happens to be much better than you.

Apart from my general lazyness, I blame it on the early years of my play when we knew nothing, there was noone to teach us, no books, no internet, we played it by the ear, counting all suits/points was unheard of, and those bad habits die hard.

[barmar]

I also recognize myself in this. For me, the problem isn't counting, it's the tedious process of analyzing the whole hand. When I think about how I play, it's mostly an intuitive process. I just don't have the patience to work out all the possibilities. I can see this most easily when I try to work out card combinations and safety plays.

This same aptitude limitation is why I think I never really cared much for chess, which requires even more of it.

What I think sets true experts apart is that they were able to make it past this analytical stage. All the combinations have become second nature to them, so they can use their intuition to get more things right.

[luke warm]

i think there are many reasons some become expert, or better, at bridge while others of us don't... one big, imo an unappreciated, reason is stamina... i've played with many advanced, and even a few intermediate, players who can actually play the cards almost as well as anyone, for a few hands... the expert can maintain a higher level of play/concentration than most of us

watch dano, et al, almost any night of the week on bbo... they play some very high quality bridge for, on avg, 24 boards... that much bridge of that quality of competition would wear out most of us in 8 or 10 boards

for me personally, i've always been good at almost any game... i never really had to study to improve (chess being the exception), until i actually played with/against people who *had* studied... then i saw my deficiencies.. i still rely way too much on the natural ability i have.. but mainly, i'm just too damn lazy to do what it takes

[DrTodd13]

Counting is boring and at first exhausting. Like almost everything though, if you do it enough times then the brain will build up pathways devoted to that task and it will gradually require less and less energy to do it. Once those pathways are there, even your "I'm lazy now and don't want to count" bridge will be better because you will have developed better instinct. We all know to lose weight you must eat less and exercise more and we all know to play better we must count more but small immediate gain often trumps large long-term gain in our culture which is the apotheosis of anti-patience.

[EricK]

To be good at bridge you need to be able to count AND you need to be a reasonably good double dummy solver. After all it is no good placing all the cards accurately if you then still can't see how to make your contract. Neither of these is easy.

But it is worse than that: To be good at bridge you have to be a reasonably good double dummy solver while only seeing one or two hands properly and imagining the rest. And I just don't believe people who say that "Anybody can get good at these things". People's brains are different. They store and handle data in different ways, and I am sure some ways are more conducive to good bridge than others.

I was a good chess player, but I could never become a really good chess player because my brain was not capable of accurately picturing the postion a few moves down the line, so my analysis would always be full of flaws. Show me a position and I can come up with good moves with no obvious flaws. But if that same position is one I am only picturing in my mind, then the moves I come up with will often have glaringly obvious flaws.

With bridge it is the same. I just can't seem to be able to accurately hold in my head all the necessary inferences about two or three unseen hands and then mentally play through a few tricks to see what end game position I am going to reach.

[barmar]

Hey Eric, what are you doing with my brain?

That's exactly how I feel about my limitations. Where this flaw seems to be most obvious to me is when trying to work out squeezes. I just can't picture all the possible positions, and figure out whether the timing works. Last year I read the book "Bridge Squeezes for Everyone ... Even You!", and while everything in it made perfect sense, I still came away from it thinking "Nope, still not me!"

I can only hope that with time and experience more of this will sink in. I know that there was a time when I had the same problem with end-plays, but now they're not so hard.

[keylime]

I would tend to think that pattern recognition is the key to understand squeezes and endplays. This is how I understood the underpinnings of both concepts.