guggie, on Feb 10 2005, 05:01 AM, said:
Playing with an expert you get that rocking chair feeling...
Guggs, i have never played bridge in a rocking chair, because
1) it would send me to sleep faster than i would do normally and
2) clicking the mouse is like trying to lick a lollipop in a rowing-boat on a choppy lake and
3) i have to deal with enough swings playing the contracts, so a self-induced pendular motion is unnecessary.
I agree with everyones opinion about what constitutes an expert - except Jimmy of course agreeing with him is painful.
IMO, it is easier to identify an expert in a team game (or similar scoring).
As declarer, they know the safety plays, endplays, other play techniques and thus see their way to X number of tricks taking a
surer line. It may be the wrong one
on a particular occasion, and a lot of people are very willing to point that out (of course to prove their own expertness)
, even though, say, 7 out of 10 times their line would have succeeded.
As defenders they also appreciate the dilemmas facing declarer better than others. They are able to get 'inside their heads', read the possible layouts of the two unrevealed hands better, and thus are more likely to find a defence to either get the contract off or make it more difficult for declarer. They dont tend to defend instinctively - unless it is obvious ( and when it is obvious lesser players tend to think and they dont
) - but think (more) about the potential ramifications of pursuing a particular defensive strategy.
Temperament (if we talking about on line play in particular) of course plays a part in evaluating a true expert, in the sense that no matter how good S/HE is it is the overall performance of both players that determines the eventual result.
A TRUE expert does not spend 8 paragraphs of precious window space saying how unlucky s/he is when a line s/he took is wrong or how if the 9 of diamonds was with West she would have pulled off the coup...
she would apologise and accept that she was wrong (notice SHE
a male expert would use other words that would insinuate he was sorry but never categorically)
hoping that her p understood her line (damn, showing i agree with Lukey
). her philosophy being: if my p didnt appreciate my line of play then why bother explaining??????
When i play with experts, self-confessed or otherwise, who i KNOW are better than me, i am very willing to take criticism and advice but, the thing is, a true EXPERT would say it in such a way that it would be instructive, constructive and non-threatening where the benefactor is you and not an self-ego-massaging opportunity. He appreciates that the more comfortable you are and the more confidence you have the better your scores will be for the remainder of the match. Most of the time he is willing to discuss a badly-played hand or deduction AFTER the match. Of course, he has to be aware that this is what YOU want.
A bad expert doesnt appreciate this...he launches into a tirade of expletives that would make my grandmother turn in her grave, bless her false teeth. He makes one feel like [EDITED - uday] , so one plays like [EDITED - uday] : that simple equation unfortunately seems to elude them. (and this happens when 2 experts, apparently, play together).
SO i think it is a combination of 3 things...technical knowledge, 'card sense' and temperament.
Sloffy