[georgeac]

Phil, on Oct 5 2009, 02:02 PM, said:

I just stole..er, borrowed Kelsey's Advanced Play at Bridge from one of our clubs.

I haven't read it in at least 20 years, and not only do I remember nearly all the hands, I remember a lot of Kelsey's comments when he gives the answers.

is this why you suck at bridge or just a brag about having an awesome memory?

[JoAnneM]

I don't think I "suck" at bridge. In my own bridge world that I inhabit I am considered an excellent player, in your world probably not. I enjoy bridge tremendously and am always tweaking my game. I don't worry about being as good as world class players because bridge is only part of my life.

I also don't think any of you suck at bridge.

[fred]

JoAnneM, on Oct 7 2009, 01:17 AM, said:

I also don't think any of you suck at bridge.

A quote from Michael Rosenberg that shocked me at the time I heard it:

"Nobody is any good at this game. It is just a question of how bad we all are."

Now, many years later, I have come to believe that Michael was right (as usual).

Why do we all suck? Because the game is too hard!

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Phil]

georgeac, on Oct 6 2009, 07:30 PM, said:

Phil, on Oct 5 2009, 02:02 PM, said:

I just stole..er, borrowed Kelsey's Advanced Play at Bridge from one of our clubs.

I haven't read it in at least 20 years, and not only do I remember nearly all the hands, I remember a lot of Kelsey's comments when he gives the answers.

is this why you suck at bridge or just a brag about having an awesome memory?

LOL; I still suck. Fred sucks. We all suck.

I guess this book was just imprinted in my brain after reading it 20 times when I was younger.

[NickRW]

fred, on Oct 7 2009, 01:37 AM, said:

Why do we all suck? Because the game is too hard!

Well, if it was easier at least a few people would be near perfect - then it would be boring.

Nick

[MattieShoe]

NickRW, on Oct 6 2009, 09:01 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 7 2009, 01:37 AM, said:

Why do we all suck? Because the game is too hard!

Well, if it was easier at least a few people would be near perfect - then it would be boring.

Nick

I agree -- I love that Bridge is a blend of several skills. There's always something to improve upon, new ideas to try. And the incomplete information and luck aspects makes it always challenging, no matter who you're playing or how good or bad you are.

[gnasher]

JoAnneM, on Oct 7 2009, 02:17 AM, said:

I don't think I "suck" at bridge. In my own bridge world that I inhabit I am considered an excellent player

That doesn't sound much fun.

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on Oct 7 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

JoAnneM, on Oct 7 2009, 02:17 AM, said:

I don't think I "suck" at bridge.  In my own bridge world that I inhabit I am considered an excellent player

That doesn't sound much fun.

If I make my own world "little enough" I am also an excellent player. Just too bad that in that little own world I can never find a fourth.

Rik

[HeavyDluxe]

Interesting that this thread has gotten new legs...

I suck. And I suck enough I'm not sure all the reasons I suck so bad, but I suspect:

• Impatience -> I tend to be a "let's get on with it" kinda person. So taking the time to form a plan, think it through, etc seems difficult for me.
  
• Laziness -> Related to the point above, expending the effort to go slow, count carefully, think deeply could be better spent typing ?????s at pard on the next hand where he blows a cold contract. ;-)
  
• Lack of experience/mentors (particularly live) -> Living up here in the boonies means that there's no local game aside from the rubber at the local senior center. I think online bridge can promote the 'fast and loose' play that I'm prone to. Plus, I have never had really good players to talk with in the post-mortem and learn.

But, I do love playing... I think I've gotten consistently better, to the point that ADV players won't get a total headache sitting with me. I just wish I could go back and discover the game in college.

[NickRW]

gnasher, on Oct 7 2009, 09:04 AM, said:

JoAnneM, on Oct 7 2009, 02:17 AM, said:

I don't think I "suck" at bridge.  In my own bridge world that I inhabit I am considered an excellent player

That doesn't sound much fun.

Not necessarily. There are still challenges - for example I do well enough in the circles I play in and frankly there is a duplicate on a Tuesday eveing at another club a few miles away that has the reputation of being the toughest game around here which I would like to go to - but I feel that my partners (actually my teenage & early 20s kids) would get beaten up a bit too badly to make it a good learning experience at this point in time - so I work mainly on improving both my own and their game - with varying degrees of success it has to be said! When I can get our average percentage into the 57 or so level, rather than the 54/55 it is at the moment I'll make the move - then we'll suck again.

Nick

[pirate22]

well well the originator is in Dire trouble,think how your partners feel,
1 learn to crawl before you start running
2 apply discipline
3 never play bridge if one is tired
4 kibbitz,and see how they play and bid (systems do not come into declarer play or defence)
5 discus problems you have with your partners,and get some consistency going.
6 never dwell on passed hands,if you boobed its water under the bridge

regards

[dlbalt]

Phil, on Oct 4 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

dlbalt, on Oct 3 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

I find the terminology offensive. To Suck should not mean To Perform Badly.

No one laughed the last time this was posted.

I suppose that in the modern climate, it is necessary to spell things out. It didn't make that statement for laughs, although I am glad that at least one other BBOer feels the same way I do.

Using Suck as a pejorative is an implicit (or explicit) anti-gay insult. I object.

[MattieShoe]

dlbalt, on Oct 7 2009, 10:11 PM, said:

Phil, on Oct 4 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

dlbalt, on Oct 3 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

I find the terminology offensive. To Suck should not mean To Perform Badly.

No one laughed the last time this was posted.

I suppose that in the modern climate, it is necessary to spell things out. It didn't make that statement for laughs, although I am glad that at least one other BBOer feels the same way I do.

Using Suck as a pejorative is an implicit (or explicit) anti-gay insult. I object.

Really? It would never occur to me to make that connection, and nobody I know, straight or otherwise, would draw that inference. Then again, I was an adult before I figured out "gypped" refers to gypsies. I think many Americans aren't aware of the origin of that one.

I can't think of a handy one-syllable word that could take the place of "suck" to mean "perform badly". Is there one?

[jdonn]

MattieShoe, on Oct 8 2009, 12:06 AM, said:

dlbalt, on Oct 7 2009, 10:11 PM, said:

Phil, on Oct 4 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

dlbalt, on Oct 3 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

I find the terminology offensive. To Suck should not mean To Perform Badly.

No one laughed the last time this was posted.

I suppose that in the modern climate, it is necessary to spell things out. It didn't make that statement for laughs, although I am glad that at least one other BBOer feels the same way I do.

Using Suck as a pejorative is an implicit (or explicit) anti-gay insult. I object.

Really? It would never occur to me to make that connection, and nobody I know, straight or otherwise, would draw that inference. Then again, I was an adult before I figured out "gypped" refers to gypsies. I think many Americans aren't aware of the origin of that one.

I can't think of a handy one-syllable word that could take the place of "suck" to mean "perform badly". Is there one?

Yes, but even though it's the exact opposite word of 'suck' I don't think it would thwart the objection...

[Trinidad]

dlbalt, on Oct 8 2009, 05:11 AM, said:

Phil, on Oct 4 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

dlbalt, on Oct 3 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

I find the terminology offensive. To Suck should not mean To Perform Badly.

No one laughed the last time this was posted.

I suppose that in the modern climate, it is necessary to spell things out. It didn't make that statement for laughs, although I am glad that at least one other BBOer feels the same way I do.

Using Suck as a pejorative is an implicit (or explicit) anti-gay insult. I object.

What have you been blowing?



Rik

[NickRW]

MattieShoe, on Oct 8 2009, 05:06 AM, said:

dlbalt, on Oct 7 2009, 10:11 PM, said:

Phil, on Oct 4 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

dlbalt, on Oct 3 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

I find the terminology offensive. To Suck should not mean To Perform Badly.

No one laughed the last time this was posted.

I suppose that in the modern climate, it is necessary to spell things out. It didn't make that statement for laughs, although I am glad that at least one other BBOer feels the same way I do.

Using Suck as a pejorative is an implicit (or explicit) anti-gay insult. I object.

Really? It would never occur to me to make that connection, and nobody I know, straight or otherwise, would draw that inference. Then again, I was an adult before I figured out "gypped" refers to gypsies. I think many Americans aren't aware of the origin of that one.

I can't think of a handy one-syllable word that could take the place of "suck" to mean "perform badly". Is there one?

Well, there are slight differences with American and British (and other forms of) English. But, despite that, I am a Brit and I also do not make any particular connection between suck and gayness.

Unless someone can explain how there is and should be such a connection I am inclined to think this is a case of over sensitivity.

Nick

[gordontd]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_mean...9;It_sucks'

[Trinidad]

matmat, on Oct 9 2009, 12:23 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Oct 8 2009, 03:57 PM, said:

hmm...I guess you could say "it hoovers"

electrolux, dirt devil, dyson and a few others might object.



how about "that seriously vacuums."

As a vacuum technologist (you didn't know those existed, did you ), I must object to the term "serious vacuum".

Sucking only leads to a very mild vacuum, probably with a pressure of around 800 mbar (or about 80% of atmospheric pressure). Vacuum only gets "serious" below 10^-3 (0.001) mbar (a million times lower pressure than atmosphere). We speak of UHV (ultra high vacuum at 10^-9 mbar) when the pressure is yet another million times lower. (For reference: The pressure on the moon is about 10^-11 mbar.)



Rik

[Rain]

Sorry, deleted some humourous but off-track posts. I think this is a very useful old thread, and appreciate the recent revival, but since it's so long, we should probably try to stay on topic more, or it'll be hard to wade through.

[JLOGIC]

fred, on 2009-October-06, 19:37, said:

A quote from Michael Rosenberg that shocked me at the time I heard it:

"Nobody is any good at this game. It is just a question of how bad we all are."

Now, many years later, I have come to believe that Michael was right (as usual).

Why do we all suck? Because the game is too hard!

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Winner. Everyone sucks. /thread