[Phil]

Yesterday in the District GNTs I played like crap. I can go down this list and pick out about 8 things that contributed. Staying out til 12:30 the night before with a big dinner and a lot of wine was a shitty idea for a 10:00 AM game the next day. I was fine our first match, but I hit the wall about the 10th board in our 2nd and pitched 20 IMPs before the break at 14.

Historically, low blood sugar has been a big problem with me - which is sort of like lack of food. I learned along time ago to keep energy bars in my pocket. "Clif" bars seems to provide a lot of dense carbs that feeds glucose to your brain and helps you think. I also drink a ton of water, which hels a lot. But if I'm a little hungover, as I was yesterday, I simply can't drink enough water.

At Nationals, I will play like ***** after a night out. Its a given. I'm already on high adrenaline mode, and I can't sleep at all - and I refuse to take Ambien or anything else like that. So, I need every hour of sleep I can get, but thats usually only 4-5 hours a night on average. And because I'm manic, I will eat very little. I lose about a pound a day on average at tournaments, which can't be good.

In Reno, I sort of fell into the "didn't care enough about the event" mode. But, I was sort of in the 'detached' zen-like state and it seemed to work. I hope I can find a balance with the attitude somehow.

By the way, I thought of a few more: play too fast / play too slow for instance.

I purposely didn't put (I play my worst when I'm) drunk. This is a LOL, I mean does anyone ever enter a serious event ripped and expect to play well? Are there any full-time alkies among the top players?

[jjbrr]

lol.


also, clif bars are fantastic. i take them with me when i go hiking.

[Jlall]

How about this...

Let's say on average you play as well as a 7.5 (where 10 is meckstroth, 1 is someone who is playing their first session). Everyone has variance in how well they play, for the top players a standard deviation would be very small (part of being a top player is playing consistently well). For non top players, a standard deviation will be higher.

So let's say you play on average like a 7.5, with a standard deviation of .7. When you play like a 6.5, you will feel you've played horribly (and this is quite poor for you but happens every now and then). When you play like a 9 you will think you played great (and this is quite well for you, but happens every now and then).

So when you play like a 6.5 you will think of all the reasons this could happen, for instance you didn't sleep well, or something is happening in your life. Of course stuff is always happening in your life that could contribute negatively to your play. Maybe it was just one of your off days, and despite many possible reasons for it happening, it is just going to happen based on your skill level, and there's no specific reason.


Alternatively, let's say there are certain areas in bridge where you are very good, and certain areas where you aren't, which is also natural especially if you're not a top player. Maybe many boards than usual came up in your weak areas, which caused you to make more mistakes. In reality you will often mess up those boards based on your skill level, or at least have a 50 % chance of making errors on those type of boards, rather than a 10 % chance on a different hand type which would be very hard for others. So, because you ran bad on those things coming up, you feel you made more mistakes than you usually make and search for reasons why you might have played badly (and again, humans are good at finding patterns and reasons where none exists).

So maybe my answer is I usually play my worst bridge because I have natural variance based on my skill level, and when I hit the bottom end of that I am playing my worst bridge.

[Phil]

Jlall, on Apr 11 2010, 09:40 PM, said:

So maybe my answer is I usually play my worst bridge because I have natural variance based on my skill level, and when I hit the bottom end of that I am playing my worst bridge.

While all of this is true, I would argue its less of a factor with regards to performance.

I acknowledge that certain areas of the game are harder than others, and these elements will differ from player to player, especially a developing player (which we all are, to a certain extent).

I do agree that all of us have a 'range of abilities', and it can vary quite a bit from player to player, and that your performance is directly related to internal and external factors, and less of a function of the types of problems you are faced with that might challenge gaps in your game.

Watching USA1 last year on VG from Sao Paulo, you saw many 'uncharacteristic' mistakes. Do Woolsey and Stewart have a flaw in their game where they can't engineer a cash out? I doubt it. Or like Stansby's defense against Bessis' 3N near the end of the Vanderbilt. Don't you think that he would have got this right if perhaps he faced it on Day 2?

When I played on Sunday on Reno, I simply couldn't process, especially early in the session - no matter how hard I tried. This was frustrating and it showed me that there are many things I need to do to prepare myself.

Give me an example of an area in your game that is (relatively) weak, and where you had a challenging session where you played at the low end of your personal spectrum.

[jjbrr]

I agree with Phil. I can easily recognize the sessions where I have more decisions than others and therefore more room for mistakes. But when I legitimately feel like I'm performing poorly, it's almost always a result of being worn out at the end of a tournament, and while the automatic plays are still automatic, some of the other plays become too automatic when they shouldn't be, which results in errors.

[Mbodell]

Jlall, on Apr 11 2010, 06:40 PM, said:

Alternatively, let's say there are certain areas in bridge where you are very good, and certain areas where you aren't, which is also natural especially if you're not a top player. Maybe many boards than usual came up in your weak areas, which caused you to make more mistakes. In reality you will often mess up those boards based on your skill level, or at least have a 50 % chance of making errors on those type of boards, rather than a 10 % chance on a different hand type which would be very hard for others. So, because you ran bad on those things coming up, you feel you made more mistakes than you usually make and search for reasons why you might have played badly (and again, humans are good at finding patterns and reasons where none exists).

So maybe my answer is I usually play my worst bridge because I have natural variance based on my skill level, and when I hit the bottom end of that I am playing my worst bridge.

I agree that people in general vastly underestimate the roll of luck/randomness/variance in life (and in cards).

Another place for variance is if your mistakes cost or not. We are all more likelyto notice mistakes when they cost, especially for non-top players, and if we misplay a bunch of contacts taking 60% lines when 70% lines were available some days there will be no negative downside in our score and we may not even notice. Other days we will play exactly the same but every mistake will cost, the blind guess 2-way finesses will always lose, and it will feel very different even though we are playing our normal 7.5 game each time.

[gwnn]

Seriously 7 people blame their partners for their poor bridge?

It has happened a few times that my motivation evaporated when I felt that my partner doesn't care about the game but to say that my pd is the main reason is a little off limits in my view..

[cherdanno]

Agree with Phil and Jeremy. Actually I think watching go players is more instructive than watching bridge players, because in every single game of go both players are faced with extremely challenging problems all the time. When I watch go games of players around my level or worse, it is always quite apparent to me whether they are playing at their best ability. If I start noticing little mistakes that someone usually wouldn't make, then usually they continue to make mistakes (and I would love to be able to bet on them losing the game at that point...)

[Jlall]

Obv there are things you can do to prepare yourself, and things you can do to maximize your chances of playing well. Obviously if you are tired to the point where you can't think, then you are going to play badly.

I think it is less obvious that there is generally only so much you can do, and sometimes you're going to play badly. Even if you get a perfect amount of rest, and eat the perfect amount, and do every little thing right, all you have done is increase the average skill level that you'll play at, and possibly decrease the variance. But variance will still exist, and you will still play at the lower end of the spectrum sometimes. I think people do not put enough weight in this.

Obviously if you can analyze your game perfectly, you will know exactly when you did something like Mbodell said (taking a 60 % line instead of an 80 % line) and even if it doesn't cost you will give yourself a charge and feel that you played badly, and you know exactly the average # of decisions you'll have, and will adjust how well you think you played according to that, and you will be a completely rational human being...

Or maybe not. Sorry but I think a lot of people make more mistakes than they realize and only charge themselves when they cost, or at least only realize it was a mistake because it cost.

But that is a seperate issue.

Quote

Watching USA1 last year on VG from Sao Paulo, you saw many 'uncharacteristic' mistakes.

See, which mistakes would be characteristic in your opinion? Almost all mistakes made at the top level are mistakes that could have been avoided. That being said, there are ALWAYS mistakes at the top level. I do not think "wow that particular mistake was uncharacteristic," I would think "wow given his skill level if he made 2 bad mistakes in 64 boards, that's approximately what he rates to do."

Look at it this way. Say there was a player who was 10 % to make a mistake on any given board. This is constant. Let's say he played 10 boards. If he made 0 mistakes, did he play great? What if he made 1? What about 2?

The reality is, he played his normal game, and was always 10 % to make a mistake. Whether he made 0, 1, 2, or 3 will determine whether he thinks he played well or not. If he made 3, he might think back on something that happened, and blame that "I was tired." But in reality, he played the same game he always plays, it was just variance.

Quote

Give me an example of an area in your game that is (relatively) weak, and where you had a challenging session where you played at the low end of your personal spectrum.

I have no weak areas and always play perfectly obv.

I am not trying to say there aren't things you can do to increase your chances of playing well.

I AM trying to say that no matter what you do, you're still going to make some mistakes, and that people do not consider the variance/luck in how often they blunder nearly enough.

Most likely we all play our worst when we are in our worst conditions (hungry, tired, depressed, hungover) and then we run badly on top of it

[Jlall]

Also, all of the things listed in the poll are either mental or physical weaknesses.

As far as the mental weaknesses go, if those kind of things are going to affect you, that is a weakness you have as a bridge player. There is probably x (high) % chance that you are going to be distracted by something going on in your life, and y % chance of that being something that hurts your game in a big way. Part of the reason the best players are better and more consistent than worse players is because they arent going to be distracted by stuff like that, and thus are going to eliminate that element of variance.

The ability to focus despite what is going on in your life is as important of a skill as a bridge player as knowing suit combinations or whatever.

Some of them are physical things that obviously you can improve on (don't eat too much or too little, don't be dehydrated, build your stamina).

[MarkDean]

For me it is definitely being tired.

I have a hard time sleeping at tournaments, not sure why, but it really can affect my play...I will miss cards occassionally, play somebody for 4422 hand etc.

I always play (for me) really well in local events where I can sleep in own bed, then not so great at tournaments where I travel.

[jillybean]

Most of the above, and I'm finding when we start the first 4-5 rounds with no cards, defending against part scores I lose interest and concentration. A few good hands as declarer to pique my interest and start the brain cells working are best.

Nerves and distractions were the main problems at first.

[Siegmund]

Quote

I purposely didn't put (I play my worst when I'm) drunk. This is a LOL, I mean does anyone ever enter a serious event ripped and expect to play well?

That's perfectly sensible. I just wanted to clarify I wasn't talking about being drunk, I was adding to your list my observation that (for instance) a glass of wine at dinner causes a great deal more "foggy" than the dinner itself does- about on par with getting 5 hours of sleep instead of 8 - though people will deny any impairment.

[matmat]

when i don't care.

[MFA]

Jlall, on Apr 12 2010, 04:40 AM, said:

How about this...

Let's say on average you play as well as a 7.5 (where 10 is meckstroth, 1 is someone who is playing their first session). Everyone has variance in how well they play, for the top players a standard deviation would be very small (part of being a top player is playing consistently well). For non top players, a standard deviation will be higher.

So let's say you play on average like a 7.5, with a standard deviation of .7. When you play like a 6.5, you will feel you've played horribly (and this is quite poor for you but happens every now and then). When you play like a 9 you will think you played great (and this is quite well for you, but happens every now and then).

So when you play like a 6.5 you will think of all the reasons this could happen, for instance you didn't sleep well, or something is happening in your life. Of course stuff is always happening in your life that could contribute negatively to your play. Maybe it was just one of your off days, and despite many possible reasons for it happening, it is just going to happen based on your skill level, and there's no specific reason.


Alternatively, let's say there are certain areas in bridge where you are very good, and certain areas where you aren't, which is also natural especially if you're not a top player. Maybe many boards than usual came up in your weak areas, which caused you to make more mistakes. In reality you will often mess up those boards based on your skill level, or at least have a 50 % chance of making errors on those type of boards, rather than a 10 % chance on a different hand type which would be very hard for others. So, because you ran bad on those things coming up, you feel you made more mistakes than you usually make and search for reasons why you might have played badly (and again, humans are good at finding patterns and reasons where none exists).

So maybe my answer is I usually play my worst bridge because I have natural variance based on my skill level, and when I hit the bottom end of that I am playing my worst bridge.

I think this is surely correct and important to realize. A corollary is that one should expect oneself to make mistakes and not allow that to have a further bad influence on the following hands.
[A cliché is that for really to be able to shine, you'll first have to show the world also how bad you can be. To win one must not have any fear of losing.]

But there are times when I'm really struggling. Where it's just so hard to figure out even the simplest situations, because I simply don't think as clearly as normally. That's not just variance but being on a mentally/physically low point.

Say my general level is 7.5. Then at those bad periods it may drop to 6.5 for instance. I might get lucky and make few mistakes (playing like 7.2) but I also might play like 5.8 if things really go bad.
The variance effect 'comes on top' of the mental/physical thing, so to speak.

[gnasher]

... not the one with the spade suit.

[Little Kid]

There isn't really a set of reasons that will cause me to 'play my worst bridge'. When I'm really trying to focus I'm pretty confident I can play my best game. Usually it isn't too much of a problem to block out everything except for the cards in front of me and devote all my attention to that.

The only exception is when it feels like partner is not making a genuine effort to do well and the game starts feeling like 2v1v1. Skill level is irrelevant for me in this, as long as I feel like the person opposite me is making a genuine effort to play as good as they can. If they start playing with an air of apathy it really gets to me and is distracts me from the game even when I try to ignore it. It probably has to do something with the fact that I am way too competitive in everything

[helene_t]

Love Justin's post. Justin, if you get fed up with bridge you could always take up teaching applied statistics. I suppose I have said that before.

Given it some more thoughts I think I play the worst bridge when playing online and doing other things at the same time like reading bbf.

But on top of the problem with spurious patterns is the fact that it is difficult (at least to me) to assess one's performance. Results aren't really indicative since they are influenced by things like partner's performance, strength of the field, and luck. Perceived errors aren't indicative either since the worse my attention the smaller the chance that I will note my own mistakes.

[billw55]

It would be nice if a poll could accept multiple answers. There are surely more than one of the responses that have affected me from time to time.

[PrecisionL]

Tilt because of me! Mistakes because I didn't think long enough trying to keep tempo even, because I am afraid of a bad committee decision.