[nigel_k]

My list of factors that make a good bridge player:

1. Logic. Not necessarily mathematical, but the two often go together.

2. Visualization. Being able to form a mental picture of the unseen hands and understand how that translates into taking tricks.

3. Psychology. Being able to see things from an opponent's perspective and therefore limit the range of possible layouts to those that are consistent with the bidding and play so far. Also understanding how a given opponent will likely react to various bids/plays you might choose.

4. Bidding Skill and Judgment. I don't know if this is unique to bridge, or is a more general skill. But certainly there are some otherwise good players who just don't have it. Essentially I mean the ability to grasp principles of bidding such as not bidding your hand twice, knowing when a hand is 'good' or 'bad', and having the discipline to stick to agreements and the wisdom to know when to depart from them.

5. Collaboration/Communication. Essentially how to be a good partner.

6. Concentration and Discipline.

This is limited to abilities that you might try to detect in someone early on, which I think is what the op was about - so things like practicing a lot or having parents who play are not included but obviously matter.

A competitive attitude might matter at the top level, but I think you can be 'good' (maybe very good) without it. In general, I think the attempt to apply sports psychology to bridge is a bit misguided. The game is really about problem solving and the personal satisfaction of solving puzzles can be a decent substitute for the competitive desire to beat the opponent.

As for how you might detect these factors, I really have no idea that isn't obvious.

[Elianna]

h2osmom, on Dec 20 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

It's interesting, my son (who is 27) has told me on more than one occasion that he thinks it's far more important that I played games with him than that I read to him as a child. He says, "Reading to your kids is fine, but if you don't, they will learn to read in school anyway. If you don't teach them to play games, they might never learn."

Speaking as a teacher whose students played games with their parents, but weren't read to, I think he's just plain wrong.

While they may teach him TO read at school, they can't teach him to LIKE to read.

[lilboyman]

Technical skill in playing cards.
Mastery of bidding agreements.
Good bidding judgement.
Being a good partner.
Be able to read people.

[MickyB]

When I was very inexperienced, but rapidly becoming a system freak, I attended lessons with a maverick teacher. He used to take a suit, deal a few cards at random then discuss the suit combination with us. One time it was QJx opposite Axx; My initial reaction was to play the queen. As a result of this, he informed me I'd never be a good player! While I know I'll never be a world-class declarer, I'd like to think I've done my bit to prove him wrong

Quote

But even if you were a bridge prodigy I think you would never amount to much by playing against random people at the club or local sectionals. To be any good at this game you need to practice a lot, play against people better than you, and talk to people better than you and really think about what they're saying.

When I had been playing about four years, I went through some level five bridge master hands with a ladies international and my housemate, who had been playing for three months. It was slightly disturbing to discover that he was the best of the three of us! When I last played with him, he was decent for the most part, with the odd absurdity, but it seems clear that he has missed out on discussion with top players.

[hotShot]

Anders Ericsson (Florida State University) says that you have to invest about 10000 hours of practice withing 10 years get world class in something.
That is about 3 hours a day.
His prime examples are darts, chess and violin play.

I'm quite sure that it's also true for bridge.

[billw55]

In addition to all the things listed here - which certainly are true - I do believe there is such a thing as talent. By talent, I mean a natural, innate aptitude to a particular task.

This may manifest itself as a lightly interested player who plays off and on for a maybe a few years, and gets much stronger than would be expected for his/her invested effort (although not top level due to lack of such). The lack of talent may manifest itself in a player who does everything else listed here, and who becomes a consistent expert, but doesn't crack the elite level of brilliance.

For an example. consider Michael Jordan, perhaps the best basketball player in history. He had the talent and the work ethic to achieve that. But, he was not able to succeed at the same level in professional baseball - and it wasn't for lack of working at it. He just didn't have that particular talent. Others work as hard at basketball as he did - but don't reach his level - they don't have the talent. Similarly no amount of study, practice, work, and experience is going to turn a journeyman into Albert Pujols. The talent is there or it isn't.

[Gerben42]

The most important things are being able to avoid avoidable mistakes and to learn from mistakes you and others made.

[Deevan]

nigel_k, on Dec 20 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

My list of factors that make a good bridge player:

1. Logic. Not necessarily mathematical, but the two often go together.

2. Visualization. Being able to form a mental picture of the unseen hands and understand how that translates into taking tricks.

3. Psychology. Being able to see things from an opponent's perspective and therefore limit the range of possible layouts to those that are consistent with the bidding and play so far. Also understanding how a given opponent will likely react to various bids/plays you might choose.

4. Bidding Skill and Judgment. I don't know if this is unique to bridge, or is a more general skill. But certainly there are some otherwise good players who just don't have it. Essentially I mean the ability to grasp principles of bidding such as not bidding your hand twice, knowing when a hand is 'good' or 'bad', and having the discipline to stick to agreements and the wisdom to know when to depart from them.

5. Collaboration/Communication. Essentially how to be a good partner.

6. Concentration and Discipline.

This is limited to abilities that you might try to detect in someone early on, which I think is what the op was about - so things like practicing a lot or having parents who play are not included but obviously matter.

A competitive attitude might matter at the top level, but I think you can be 'good' (maybe very good) without it. In general, I think the attempt to apply sports psychology to bridge is a bit misguided. The game is really about problem solving and the personal satisfaction of solving puzzles can be a decent substitute for the competitive desire to beat the opponent.

As for how you might detect these factors, I really have no idea that isn't obvious.

This is the most comprehensive response, I think. I agree with almost every factor identified here; especially, the comment about bidding judgment appears insightful. In my humble opinion, I would like to add the following:
(a) I feel the sports psychology becomes relevant; especially, when one considers the "luck component" that we have all experienced. In spite of best problem solving at the table, "murphy's law" takes hold. Sometimes, we all know that "anything that could go wrong did go wrong". Being able to remain "positive" and "let go", usually a part of sports training, is a part of being a good bridge player.
( Another aspect is being "a student of the game". The beauty of this game is that no matter how good a bridge player you are; there is always room for improvement. If you keep an open mind, study and apply the lessons learnt; you can in fact enhance your level. It is something like "pursuit of perfection" which I think is an important attribute of a good bridge player.

[Deevan]

nigel_k, on Dec 20 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

My list of factors that make a good bridge player:

1. Logic. Not necessarily mathematical, but the two often go together.

2. Visualization. Being able to form a mental picture of the unseen hands and understand how that translates into taking tricks.

3. Psychology. Being able to see things from an opponent's perspective and therefore limit the range of possible layouts to those that are consistent with the bidding and play so far. Also understanding how a given opponent will likely react to various bids/plays you might choose.

4. Bidding Skill and Judgment. I don't know if this is unique to bridge, or is a more general skill. But certainly there are some otherwise good players who just don't have it. Essentially I mean the ability to grasp principles of bidding such as not bidding your hand twice, knowing when a hand is 'good' or 'bad', and having the discipline to stick to agreements and the wisdom to know when to depart from them.

5. Collaboration/Communication. Essentially how to be a good partner.

6. Concentration and Discipline.

This is limited to abilities that you might try to detect in someone early on, which I think is what the op was about - so things like practicing a lot or having parents who play are not included but obviously matter.

A competitive attitude might matter at the top level, but I think you can be 'good' (maybe very good) without it. In general, I think the attempt to apply sports psychology to bridge is a bit misguided. The game is really about problem solving and the personal satisfaction of solving puzzles can be a decent substitute for the competitive desire to beat the opponent.

As for how you might detect these factors, I really have no idea that isn't obvious.

This is the most comprehensive response, I think. I agree with almost every factor identified here; especially, the comment about bidding judgment appears insightful. In my humble opinion, I would like to add the following:
(a) I feel the sports psychology becomes relevant; especially, when one considers the "luck component" that we have all experienced. In spite of best problem solving at the table, "murphy's law" takes hold. Sometimes, we all know that "anything that could go wrong did go wrong". Being able to remain "positive" and "let go", usually a part of sports training, is a part of being a good bridge player.
(b) Another aspect is being "a student of the game". The beauty of this game is that no matter how good a bridge player you are; there is always room for improvement. If you keep an open mind, study and apply the lessons learnt; you can in fact enhance your level. It is something like "pursuit of perfection" which I think is an important attribute of a good bridge player.

[PeterGill]

billw55, on Dec 21 2009, 08:41 AM, said:

In addition to all the things listed here - which certainly are true - I do believe there is such a thing as talent. By talent, I mean a natural, innate aptitude to a particular task.

This may manifest itself as a lightly interested player who plays off and on for a maybe a few years, and gets much stronger than would be expected for his/her invested effort (although not top level due to lack of such). The lack of talent may manifest itself in a player who does everything else listed here, and who becomes a consistent expert, but doesn't crack the elite level of brilliance.

For an example. consider Michael Jordan, perhaps the best basketball player in history. He had the talent and the work ethic to achieve that. But, he was not able to succeed at the same level in professional baseball - and it wasn't for lack of working at it. He just didn't have that particular talent. Others work as hard at basketball as he did - but don't reach his level - they don't have the talent. Similarly no amount of study, practice, work, and experience is going to turn a journeyman into Albert Pujols. The talent is there or it isn't.

When Michael Jordan was a youngster - the best time to learn, did he invest as much time and effort into other sports as he did to basketball?

[mike777]

It is much easier to get by on raw talent in basketball than in baseball.


Note all the under 21 players in basketball, when there are very very few in major league baseball.

IN College there may be many players able to go right from college to starting all season in basketball or football. It is very very rare for a baseball player to go directly from college to starting a full season in major league baseball.

[billw55]

mike777, on Dec 22 2009, 09:34 AM, said:

It is much easier to get by on raw talent in basketball than in baseball. 


Note all the under 21 players in basketball, when there are very very few in major league baseball.

IN College there may be many players able to go right from college to starting all season in basketball or football.  It is very very rare for a baseball player to go directly from college to starting a full season in major league baseball.

I think this distiction has more to do with age and physical development. Baseball has a higher premium on upper body strength than basketball. This characteristic tends to develop at a later age, as compared to other physical skills such as balance, speed, quickness, leaping, etc. Therefore, a 19 or 20 year old baseball prodigy is much less likely to be physically ready for the big leagues than a basketball prodigy of the same age.

Also, players don't go directly from college to major league baseball because that is generally not the route for the most skilled players. Baseball has an extensive minor league system that basketball and football both lack (they just use colleges for that). Note that plenty of players do go to MLB after 4 years in the minors, at about the same age (~22) as post-college players.

[/hijack]

[billw55]

PeterGill, on Dec 22 2009, 09:29 AM, said:

When Michael Jordan was a youngster - the best time to learn, did he invest as much time and effort into other sports as he did to basketball?

I don't know, but probably not, so I see your point.

However, there is no shortage of youngsters dedicating themselves to a particular sport, and working for years at it. But only a few reach the top. I definitely think there is talent sieve operating.

For example, young girls whose parents want them to be tennis prodigies. Lots of them do the time, get the coaching, etc .. and probably most of these reach a reasonably high level, say college scholarship level. But there are precious few Serena Willams, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati ... why? What's the difference? Physical make up may be part of it, but then you still have peanuts like Martina Hingis. I just can't think of an explanation other than talent.

[awm]

I believe that a lot of the things people have named are overrated.

Abilities like "logic" and "bidding judgment" develop from playing a lot of hands. They're skills anyone can develop.

As far as becoming a good bridge player, I think the following traits are important:

(1) Start young.
(2) Care intensely about being a good bridge player, and put in a lot of time.
(3) Find good coaches/talk to the right people.

I suspect that anyone can be quite successful as a bridge player with these three traits. I've seen young players who seemed not to be too bright and who were really not very good, who then blossomed into quite decent players by applying the above rules.

For becoming a really elite bridge player, the following additional traits become important:

(4) Be a good partner, and find a compatible player who is equally serious about the game.
(5) Move in the right social circles to be able to arrange pro dates.

Again, I don't think it's "native talent" that's so key. It's more about playing a lot of hands with the right partner, the right opponents, and the right people to discuss with afterwards. In fact you don't really need (5) except that at some point it becomes necessary to make a living, and a non-bridge job prevents some people from putting in the necessary hours of play and analysis to progress from "good player" to "elite player."

While some degree of analytical intelligence and/or people-reading skills can certainly help on the way to the top, I know plenty of top players who are rather lacking in one or even both of these dimensions (as well as some who lack the "good partner" ability). Perhaps there is some sort of mystical "talent for bridge" but honestly I'm not sure I believe it.

Take Justin for example. I suppose it could be that he inherited some magical talent from his dad. And he's certainly a bright guy, although there are plenty of weaker bridge players who might be closer to the genius level on an IQ test. However, I suspect that the secrets to his success are that he really cares about being a good bridge player and puts in a huge amount of time, that he started very young, that he was talking to the right teachers even early on (his dad, Bob Hamman), and that for a variety of reasons (young start, dad's connections, junior program, personality, effort) he was able to get pro dates when he needed them and continue playing bridge full time.

[Jlall]

awm, on Dec 22 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

And he's certainly a bright guy, although there are plenty of weaker bridge players who might be closer to the genius level on an IQ test.

Not sure if I took this the right way but FWIW the last time I took a legit IQ test it was 156. There are obviously many people with higher IQs than me but I would say I am above the genius level lol. It is amusing to me that so many people think they know anything about me.

[pooltuna]

Jlall, on Dec 22 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

awm, on Dec 22 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

And he's certainly a bright guy, although there are plenty of weaker bridge players who might be closer to the genius level on an IQ test.

Not sure if I took this the right way but FWIW the last time I took a legit IQ test it was 156. There are obviously many people with higher IQs than me but I would say I am above the genius level lol. It is amusing to me that so many people think they know anything about me.

oh so those of us who thought you were a rocket scientist were right

[fred]

Jlall, on Dec 22 2009, 10:02 PM, said:

awm, on Dec 22 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

And he's certainly a bright guy, although there are plenty of weaker bridge players who might be closer to the genius level on an IQ test.

Not sure if I took this the right way but FWIW the last time I took a legit IQ test it was 156. There are obviously many people with higher IQs than me but I would say I am above the genius level lol. It is amusing to me that so many people think they know anything about me.

You may be too young to know that, at matchpoints, 156 is exactly average

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Lobowolf]

Jlall, on Dec 22 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

awm, on Dec 22 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

And he's certainly a bright guy, although there are plenty of weaker bridge players who might be closer to the genius level on an IQ test.

Not sure if I took this the right way but FWIW the last time I took a legit IQ test it was 156. There are obviously many people with higher IQs than me but I would say I am above the genius level lol. It is amusing to me that so many people think they know anything about me.

Yeah, I was lol a little at this. "Genius level" is 2 standard deviations, which means 1 out of every 50 people you trip across as you go about your day to day life. I'd've offered good odds that JL was on the right side of that border, but I thought it might be in poor taste. And now he's gone and spoiled what would have been a winning bet. At least there's BYU tonight.

[jdonn]

Adam two comments on Justin. One, not to fuel any perceived lack of modesty or anything like that, but Justin is WAY more/smarter/whatever than just 'a bright guy'. It's not even close.

The other is that he was a fantastic player even very very young. Your logic seems to (partly) be that he started young which helped him be better by the time he was older. But he would have been in the top 10% of players on the current forums when he was quite young and had been playing for a not-particularly long time.

Honestly I think it's backwards, of course anyone can improve, learn, work on their game, but I think there is a huge factor that is just inherited. Call it natural talent, your way of thinking, or whatever, but I'm convinced it's there.

[PaulLanier]

Good (not great!) bridge player... One of the three guys who taught me to play bridge 40 years ago: "skill and love of the game." To this I would add: one whose respect for partner and fascination with card play exceeds the obsession to win.
Regards, Paul