[rbforster]

MickyB, on Mar 5 2008, 08:56 PM, said:

A one-time NPC of mine said that he had seen teams fail to win tournaments due to playing Barbu the previous night.

Really? What would the reason be? I spent too much time looking at my bridge hand and deciding it would be great for a 4 Fantan instead of just passing? Most of the Barbu games are trick taking, NT-oriented games anyway so I doubt it's that bad practice. Maybe it was because they were up too late the night before since a full game of Barbu takes what, 2-3 hours?

[Gerben42]

Quote

Really? What would the reason be? I spent too much time looking at my bridge hand and deciding it would be great for a 4 Fantan instead of just passing? Most of the Barbu games are trick taking, NT-oriented games anyway so I doubt it's that bad practice. Maybe it was because they were up too late the night before since a full game of Barbu takes what, 2-3 hours?

Lack of sleep, obviously!

I am sure that for me playing against bad opponents hurts my game. If you are not used to get challenged in the auction or tend to play against people who don't know what they're doing, you will miss the sharpness to take the right conclusions playing against good players, which is for me "real bridge".

[MickyB]

Rob F, on Mar 6 2008, 02:05 AM, said:

MickyB, on Mar 5 2008, 08:56 PM, said:

A one-time NPC of mine said that he had seen teams fail to win tournaments due to playing Barbu the previous night.

Really? What would the reason be? I spent too much time looking at my bridge hand and deciding it would be great for a 4 Fantan instead of just passing? Most of the Barbu games are trick taking, NT-oriented games anyway so I doubt it's that bad practice. Maybe it was because they were up too late the night before since a full game of Barbu takes what, 2-3 hours?

It does seem the most likely explanation...the other being that their cardplay resembled misère!

[jvage]

I think it depends on your starting point.

As a relative beginner you normally need to play a lot to improve. While only playing against stonger opponents is best for improving in theory, you also risk losing motivation due to the expected long string of relatively poor results (few beginners get the luxury of a strong enough partner to win in a tough field). Playing at least some of your bridge in weak fields or in more social games is probably good for you. You get to play a lot of boards, and will quickly be motivated by the fact that you beat more and more other players and occasionally get good results.

The situation is very different if you after playing a lot has become an expert, maybe with ambitions to improve into a world-class player (to use the BBO definitions). At this level improvement is much harder, and I actually think playing a significant part of your bridge in poor/social games may make you worse. In my own experience you both learn some bad habits and more importantly lose focus (you don't feel the need to concentrate to do well).

I know several very strong players who no longer play much at all, to me it seems that a break from bridge surprisingly often does not worsen their play significantly. I mention this since several posters have written that the alternative of no bridge-playing activities is much worse. In general I agree, but on the other hand a break can be good for motivation. When these players return they also seem to focus a lot, generally needing more time (things no longer comes naturally), which actually may be a good thing, since focusing is important for learning and improving. Maybe the best example is Ulf Tundal, who returned to bridge after an almost ten years long break, practically not playing at all (focusing on job and family). Granted he was a very strong player before his break, and he worked very hard particularly on system when he returned a couple of years ago, but last summer he won the Bermuda Bowl

[awm]

I continue to be surprised that people are so convinced playing against bad players is worse than playing with a bad partner. It seems that playing with a bad partner, you can develop a lot of bad habits like ignoring partner's signals (because partner won't signal correctly), not signaling yourself (because opponents are more likely to read your signals than partner), not bidding cooperatively (partner will always get it wrong, may as well blast something and hope), not trusting partner's line of defense (often there are substantial inferences based on a good player's choice of lead), and trying to "turn" the hands rather than accurately describing your holding (declaring from your side is worth a couple tricks over partner playing it).

The most annoying thing is, you can't really win by playing good bridge with a bad partner in a strong field. So if you want to win, you have to make bids and plays that would be poor with a good partner. But you can easily win by playing good bridge with a good partner in a bad field. Obviously you might win anyway even if you play bad bridge (i.e. weak opponents are very forgiving of mistakes), but as long as you don't evaluate your actions based on "I got a top so it was a good bid" your game isn't that likely to deteriorate.

[jdonn]

I think playing with a bad partner so you have to figure out the defense on your own without the help of signals is good for your bridge, at least to do so sometimes. It's great practice to figure out a hand on your own based on what the opponents have done. I'm sure we have all had those moments when we blindly followed partner's signal to see it was wrong, but realized we could have worked out it was wrong ourself if we had tried harder.

[awm]

Another random point...

If the theory is that playing against bad players can make your game worse, but playing with a bad partner is still good practice...

How come I fairly frequently see good players (i.e. jdonn) playing hands in the main bridge club with a regular partner against random pickups, but I virtually never see good players playing hands with a pickup partner against any opposition? And how come I frequently see good players playing in the open pairs at the local sectional, even playing with a regular partner (not for money)? But I virtually never see a good player partnering a bad player in any event unless the bad player is compensating the good player financially (or otherwise)?

Take mikeh, he admits that he has played many times with a good partner in a bad field (while bemoaning the "fact" that it makes his game worse) but would he ever even consider playing with some lousy partner against good opponents (if there was no money involved)?

Even the people who are espousing this viewpoint don't seem to me like they pick and choose their games as if they believe what they're saying.

[jdonn]

1 - I don't think anyone has expressed both viewpoints.
2 - It's not fun to play with a far worse player.

[nickf]

pclayton, on Mar 6 2008, 08:07 AM, said:

Not playing at all is obviously detrimental.

Funny you should say that. A few years ago I asked one of my mates who was winning national events and a couple of years later playing in our Open Team what he recommended I do to improve my game to say his level (we began playing at about the same time and as juniors there we were peers).

He emphatically said dont pull a card for 6 months.

nickf
sydney

[andy_h]

This is interesting, because I think it depends on a few things. Some people say that playing with a bad partner/opponents is bad for their bridge but in my opinion I think it depends what level you are on. Playing with a bad partner doesn't necessarily mean you'll become worse, it just depends how you look at things. Like for example, as pointed out, working out problems by yourself and getting the full picture more frequently can be good. But other things tend to happen as well, like not trusting partner or having the need to do things unusual by yourself.

If you're starting to play or just a normal club player, playing against other (weak) average club players can still be good - like you will encounter more and more different situations and still be able to improve.

But if the level you're on really outweighs the bad opponents, then playing against them can be bad for you since you won't be able exercise your thoughts to a higher degree and not be challenged as often as you would like, since that is where the improvements usually comes from.

And yes to the taking a break/not playing for a while can make you play worse. Isn't it just like other sports? If you don't train, you won't be fit. It's just mental exercises as opposed to physical exercises.

[mikeh]

awm, on Mar 7 2008, 01:29 AM, said:

Take mikeh, he admits that he has played many times with a good partner in a bad field (while bemoaning the "fact" that it makes his game worse) but would he ever even consider playing with some lousy partner against good opponents (if there was no money involved)?

Even the people who are espousing this viewpoint don't seem to me like they pick and choose their games as if they believe what they're saying.

The point made by Josh and Justin is the exact reason I rarely play with partners significantly weaker than I am. But rare is not never, and I do on occasion play with players who are not as good. I do not enjoy the bridge aspects because I can't play my game.. I have to dumb it down. I 'know' that with a weak partner, the way to win is to do odd things anf that doing so, habitually, will dull my game. But I don't do them. While I try to be straightforward, rather than expecting partner to work things out when I do a subtle bid, for example, I do not try to hog the hands or generate swings by masterminding. I don't play for pay. When I play with a weaker player it is because of friendship, and it wouldn't be fun for my partner if I fooled around.

[brianshark]

I have seen it with someone I know who plays an awful lot of bridge with loads of different people, mostly weak players. As a result of it, his bidding is erratic and gambling because he is used to not being able to trust his partner to make intelligent inferences and decisions in the bidding and thus has to compensate by making more and more unilateral guesses.

Also, of the list above, I believe playing speedball will make you better at bridge, even in slowball games because you are training your brain to work quicker and if can discipline yourself to using the extra time to do more analysis, then your game will be much better. This is a theoretical opinion though. I haven't played much speedball myself.

[Elianna]

brianshark, on Mar 7 2008, 01:33 PM, said:

Also, of the list above, I believe playing speedball will make you better at bridge, even in slowball games because you are training your brain to work quicker and if can discipline yourself to using the extra time to do more analysis, then your game will be much better. This is a theoretical opinion though. I haven't played much speedball myself.

I voted for playing in speedballs, but it might be a more personal thing.

I tend to play VERY fast(1), and have to work very carefully to not play too quickly. This makes me very susceptible to the sominex coup, btw.

If I play in speedballs, it reinforces my laziness, and I carry that out into regular bridge games.

(1) Those who've played against me online might think that I'm very slow. I am slow online, usually because I'm being a bad person (tv + TWoP + food)