[Echognome]

Many (most?) IQ tests are normalized to have a mean of 100 (which I think almost everyone knows) and a standard deviation of 15 (which I don't think many people know). So 156 would be around 3.73 standard deviations above the mean. According to my probability tables that is around .999906, or above 99.99% of the population. I.e. 1 in 10,000. Go Justin!

[MickyB]

Echognome, on Dec 23 2009, 01:47 AM, said:

Many (most?) IQ tests are normalized to have a mean of 100 (which I think almost everyone knows) and a standard deviation of 15 (which I don't think many people know).

Seems that's true of modern tests, but IME the most commonly referenced figure for entry to Mensa (top 2%) is 148, which would be based on a scale with a SD of 22.5 or thereabouts.

[mike777]

"To those whom much is given, much is expected.”

[awm]

My comments were not intended as a slight to Justin; sorry if people read them that way.

My point is that there are a lot of smart people who play bridge without being very successful. Being smart and interested in bridge is not really a guarantee of being a good bridge player.

If we're looking for correlations, I suspect that there is some correlation between IQ and bridge skill. However, I suspect there is much more substantial correlation between:

(1) Number of hands played and bridge skill.
(2) Age when started to play "serious" bridge and bridge skill.
(3) Masterpoint total of parents and bridge skill.
(4) Favorite bridge teacher/mentor and bridge skill.

[rduran1216]

Memory + an ability to reevaluate hands + ability to read situations + ability to count hands + having discipline.

[kenrexford]

Just skimmed a lot here, so I might have missed something already said. But, one thought on perhaps a rarely discussed topic:

One trick to advancing in bridge is contacts. Bridge is a game of communication, whether it be defense or bidding. Even when declaring, you need to understand the opponents' communication. Communication is a resulting language derived from rote agreements but also from applied judgment. It is really difficult to apply judgment, even if excellent, without communicative tools to so express that judgment. I could explain this concept more, but you probably get the premise. The trick, however, is that you need contacts to understand how better players think and interpret. There seem to be levels of this understanding, plateaus if you will, and you cannot effective move into that next level up unless you have someone in that secret society above you to share the inside dirt. So, a "good player" must ALSO be someone who has contacts with the in-the-know crowd.

This has nothing to do with conventions, although they form a foundation. This has to do with something entirely different. It has to do with subtleties in strange auctions where nearly unanimous thinking explains why certain calls are or are not made at a specific point. Why only two or three players in the room open a weak two but then all three bid again as Opener, given the same sequence, despite the "rule," and all three turn out to be the presumed top players in the room. It is why 2♦ ends up doubled for a 200 set only at these same three tables.

[mikeh]

Intelligence and a love of the game are insufficient: the smartest person I ever met was hopeless at the game.

I would say:

1. Intelligence...if you can't visualize positions or learn card combinations (let alone bidding) you will never be good

2. Desire to win: this is critical. it may not make you a nice person, and you may be nearly impossible to live with when you lose, but it will certainly help you win

3. Start relatively young: this ties into intelligence.... we lose the ability to learn and then we lose the ability to number-crunch....this can be offset by acquired experience, but we need to start young in order to acquire the experience

4. Time to play or at least to think about the game

5. Exposure to and preferably playing with players whose skill level exceeds one's own....even if you have more talent that your partners, few people will get far beyond their partners' skill level.

I thought about ranking them, but on reflection I think that most of us (there will be the occasional savant, I suppose, to whom one or more may be irrelevant) need all of them to some degree.

[spwdo]

there been a survey to determine talent. What they did was examine the number of hours medal winners invested in their sport(training, etc). They came to the conclusion that all topathletes invested without exception more time and effort in their sport then the athletes just below them.

i use to do different sports at rather high level. Guys improving faster then me had the advantage of being on a unemployment cheque so they could train while i was working giving them an edge. One of the things several coaches told me was: if you wanna make it, think, eat and sleep your sport. can your job and start training even more.

So since talent is overrated i think motivation and the possibility to invest a lot of time and effort into your sport combined with a winners mentality (most of the topathletes we see really cant stand losing, whether they show it in public or not) are key for getting on top and staying on top.

[bluecalm]

Quote

So since talent is overrated i think motivation and the possibility to invest a lot of time and effort into your sport combined with a winners mentality (most of the topathletes we see really cant stand losing, whether they show it in public or not) are key for getting on top and staying on top.

There was old saying in chess (originated from soviet players from 70's i believe) that talent is willingness to work.

[nige1]

EricK, on Dec 20 2009, 04:37 AM, said:

The one set of people you shouldn't ask "what makes a good bridge player?" is good bridge players.

Then I may be well-qualified to answer the question. For example, I can quickly recognize Bridge talent in other people. After playing two boards against Elizabeth McGowan, when she was learning the game, I predicted that she would be a great player. IMO ...

• Card-sense is a specific ability, different from other abilities although it correlates with general intelligence. Thus, Carolyn Peploe, plays more quickly and accurately than I do, although, away from the table, I can usually talk as good a game as she can. Other relevant traits, in order of importance are:
  
• Dedication and concentration. This is more than mere enjoyment. The best players seem to have become addicted to the game, on first contact, usually at a young age.
  
• Communication and empathy. Like a good lawyer or programmer. Because Bridge is a true partnership game.
  
• Arithmetic skill. This is over-rated. (Even I can sometimes count to thirteen).

[jonottawa]

awm, on Dec 22 2009, 07:17 PM, said:

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), ...

Justin's dad is Bob Hamman?

[pirate22]

An interesting topic---where does a good bridge player,come from,
firstly if one is fortunate to have parents,that play cards simple games, such as snap/beat your neibours out of doors,thenprogress to whist/solo,which can lead onto blackjack/bragg,but this can cost money,then the bridge game appears on the Horizon-but the advantage here is Duplicate no wagers involved.
Find a partner, play with a Senior person,Discipline comes in, also invite a person of similar age,play a simple system,not to many widgets,but discuss after the game,any mishaps constructively,and build a wavelength,learn to walk before you run-there are so many things to do at the beginning,
Partnership compatability is very important,one of you has to be a leader,be flexible,if partner takes over the mantle,you be the follower.
As at any time, the top players of today,had an added bonus, a sponsor came along,early on,this takes away,the chore of having to earn a living,and support a family,private sponsorship was not around 50 years ago.
it would be interesting if 30/40+ top players gave an input to this theme.
to sum up there are many good points in this theme,
from my point of view-I wish i knew what i know now,40 years ago,but im still learning,and above all i enjoy my bridge with certain partners.
regards

[peaceman]

Jlall, on Dec 20 2009, 03:35 PM, said:

I don't believe this you must have ego thing to be a good player. I think that:

1) People who are good are very likely to be smart and competitive.

2) People who are smart and competitive are likely to have egos. This is for obvious reasons.

3) The population of good bridge players that have a big ego is no different than the population of smart+competitive people that have egos.

The fact is, most people have ego for a reason. Sure it may be inflated, but it is completely backwards to say something like "The top 100 players in the world all have ego, ergo ego is necessary to become one of the top 100 players in the world." More like they all have ego because they have been able to achieve a level that very few people can, and because they probably have succeeded in other areas of life because they are smart and capable and have good work ethic (obviously, since bridge takes so long to get good at), and because they have been looked up to on their rise up the bridge world, and because they are looked up to now...etc etc etc.

Big egos definitely seem to go along with bridge, and game players generally.

Bridge seems to suffer particularly accutely (along with poker) from individual players greatly exaggerating in their own mind how good they are.

A classic ego sign. By no means confined to expert players (who obviously have some excuse to think they r great, but still tend to overextimate their position on the expert gradient.)

Many experts r nice, but not that many r truly humble in my experience, and the weaker the player, the more they seem to think they know what is going on... pure ego.