[sceptic]

If you had to chose one or the other as a reason why you are so good (if you care to admit it LOL)

is it your bidding skills or your playing skills or your judgement that seperates you from the rest ? or a combination of all or another reason?

[whereagles]

After a player reaches a decent technical level, that person achieves better results by increasing his capacity to cut down on silly errors and keep concentrated for 3 hours.

[cherdano]

sceptic, on Apr 4 2005, 04:24 PM, said:

If you had to chose one or the other as a reason why you are so good (if you care to admit it LOL)

is it your bidding skills or your playing skills or your judgement that seperates you from the rest ? or a combination of all or another reason?

Dunno, but I do know that all of the above distinguish me from an expert in the opposite direction

[hotShot]

In the end it is the playing skill, you have to make what you bid!

[inquiry]

Let me give the opposite side of the coin. That is, I will explain one reason (out of many) why I am not good. I don't have the ability to put a past hand out of my mind. By this I mean, if I am playing a team match and I make a mistake on board 3... I spend the next three boards thinking about board 3 instead of putting my energy into boards 4, 5 and 6.

This is a sure way to blunder not only board 3 (which was already blown), but to botch a few more as well. The Good Players accept that everyone makes mistakes, and they are able to let the mistake go and move on to the next hand. There is always time AFTER the match to review why you blew a hand... no need to waste one ounce of mental activity on it while you have other hands to play.

I am happy to say, I never worry about my partners mistakes on subsequent hands. I have long learned neither to point them out or comment on them during play. But I can't get out of the kick myself mode when I make one. I mull over what clue I missed, what signal I should have sent or interpreted, etc.

So to the energy to finish a session playing strong, add the ability to keep focused on the current hand and not past ones. BTW, I think it was Alan Sontag who points out the importance of the FIRST board, all boards count the same, so buckle down on the first as if it was the last and you need it to win.

[luke warm]

ben said:

I am happy to say, I never worry about my partners mistakes on subsequent hands.

i can attest to the truthfulness of this statement, which is one reason i enjoy playing with ben so much... God knows i make enough mistakes for both of us

[FrancesHinden]

I see two big differences between my game and the really top players.

The first is in what I'd call the "messy" hands, both for declarer play and defence. Give me a double trump squeeze, and I'll get it right (well, as often as most top players, anyway). Give me a defensive problem where there's only one possible layout that will beat the contract, and I'll work it out and play for it. But give me a 3NT contract where it's not clear which of 4 suits is right to play at trick 2 and I will go off more often. It's the hands where you look at it afterwards and say "why did he do A rather than B?" even having seen how the play developed and why it then worked. And these hands don't appear in textbooks (though a few appear in the Bridge World). Nor do they often win "best played/best defended" awards, because they are so difficult to analyse. I just see that's where the game swings out have come from!

The other difference is the one everyone mentions: top players make fewer stupid mistakes (not none by any means, but fewer).

[Fluffy]

PLaying skills make the difference at low level, then when you get very high, everyone plays at least 85% of the deals perfect, so it comes everything at biddings (bidding decisions, compete or not, bid or pass.. not system) and leads.

[fred]

There are 1000s of players you have never heard of (and will never hear of) who are just as good as your "average world class player" at solving technical bridge problems on paper. On any given hand these people are capable of playing or defending just as well as almost everyone, but they are not consistent. There are a handful of world class players who are exceptional from a technical point of view. These people win their share of boards as a result of their technical talents, but the vast majority of successful players are not technically gifted players.

One of the things that separates the men from the boys is that the men are much better at maintaining concentration, avoiding stupid mistakes, not allowing their emotions to impact their decisions, and quickly forgetting about poor results on past hands.

Being able to do these things is partly a function of discipline and partly a function of character. If winning is important to you then you will tend to win more often, especially if you are able to control yourself when you get a bad result.

The other main advantage that the best players have relates to judgment. Top players, when faced with a difficult choice of bids or opening leads, will come up with the winning bid/play more often than "smart and talented amateurs".

This is partly a function of experience. The more hands you see, the better your judgment gets. Having the right attitude is also important. Most of the world's best players are willing to admit how little they really know about bridge. They are constantly trying to learn and improve. This approach is in sharp contrast to the many people who consider themselves experts but never win anything. Many of these people think they know it all already and are unwilling to really listen to the opinions of others. This attitude makes it difficult or impossible to get any better.

I believe that there are many players who have the potential to be great but never realize that potential because they get too involved in trying to learn fancy conventions and systems early (ie in the first 10 years or so) of their bridge careers. Choice of system contributes very little to success in my view, but spending a lot of your (limited) mental resources on such things will make it harder for you to focus on what is really important (not making stupid mistakes and devoloping good judgment).

Hope this helps.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

I should probably state where I think fit into the grand scheme of things:

I am good enough that I have a reasonable chance to beat anyone on any given day. I have won long matches against everyone who is worth beating (the top Italians, Poles, Meckwell and other leading Americans, etc.).

However, I am not "one of the very best players in the world". There are roughly a couple of dozen players who are definitely better than I am and, in all likelyhood, I will never play as well as these people. I am referring to the truly gifted players like Hamman, Meckwell, Helgemo, several Italians, and handful of other players from other countries. I can (and have) beat all of these people, but they are clearly favorites to beat me when I face them and likely always will be. There are probably a couple of hundred other players in the world that fit into the same category that I do (ie world class, but 2nd tier players).

I believe I have a fairly good insight into what it takes to get yourself into the category that I belong in (I wrote about that in my last post). I also believe that making it into the 1st tier involves exactly the same things plus one additional factor: exceptional natural talent. Only a few players in each generation of bridge players are dealt such a gift. Unfortunately (for me at least) I was not one of these.

So if you want to know what it takes to get to the VERY top, you should probably ask someone who has made it there. I am not one of those people.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[sceptic]

thx for answering fred

[dogsbreath]

HI .. Fred has missed one important detail .. LOOKS .. the only way for Fred to reach the next tier is to deal with that receeding hair-line. Still, he is reasonably photo-hygenic .. without this you will never be recognised as a class player, since noone will take your photo.

Rgds Dog

[Walddk]

fred, on Apr 4 2005, 03:01 PM, said:

I should probably state where I think fit into the grand scheme of things:

I am good enough that I have a reasonable chance to beat anyone on any given day. I have won long matches against everyone who is worth beating (the top Italians, Poles, Meckwell and other leading Americans, etc.).

However, I am not "one of the very best players in the world". There are roughly a couple of dozen players who are definitely better than I am and, in all likelyhood, I will never play as well as these people. I am referring to the truly gifted players like Hamman, Meckwell, Helgemo, several Italians, and handful of other players from other countries. I can (and have) beat all of these people, but they are clearly favorites to beat me when I face them and likely always will be. There are probably a couple of hundred other players in the world that fit into the same category that I do (ie world class, but 2nd tier players).

I believe I have a fairly good insight into what it takes to get yourself into the category that I belong in (I wrote about that in my last post). I also believe that making it into the 1st tier involves exactly the same things plus one additional factor: exceptional natural talent. Only a few players in each generation of bridge players are dealt such a gift. Unfortunately (for me at least) I was not one of these.

So if you want to know what it takes to get to the VERY top, you should probably ask someone who has made it there. I am not one of those people.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Nothing new. This is exactly what one would expect from Fred, and characteristic of the very best players: They never call attention to their achievements. So let me do it. Judge for yourselves.


Fred GITELMAN

• Playing Record (Team Events)

1991 3rd WORLD YOUTH TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP
Ann Arbor, MI 1991 - Junior Teams 2 CANADA

1994 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
Albuquerque, NM 1994 - Open Teams 17

1995 WORLD TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS
Beijing 1995 - Open Teams 2 CANADA

1996 10th WORLD TEAM OLYMPIAD
Rhodes 1996 - Open Teams 27 CANADA

1997 WORLD TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS
Tunisia 1997 - Transnational Teams 10 MILNER

1998 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
Lille 1998 - Open Teams 33 MITTELMAN

2000 1999 WORLD TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS
Bermuda 2000 - Transnational Teams 2 MILNER

2000 1999 WORLD TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS
Bermuda 2000 - Open Teams 9 CANADA

2002 4th IOC GRAND PRIX
SaltLakeCity 2002 - Open Teams 1 CANADA

2002 WORLD BRIDGE CHAMPIONSHIPS
Montreal 2002 - Open Teams 65 WELLAND
Open team


* And as a coach/npc:

1997 6th WORLD YOUTH TEAMS CHAMPIONSHIP
Hamilton 1997 - Junior Teams 4 npc of CANADA RED

2001 WORLD TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS
Paris 2001 - Open Teams 1 coach of USA 2

2004 12th WORLD TEAM OLYMPIAD
Istanbul 2004 - Open Teams 9 coach of U.S.A.

.......

Roland

[fred]

My record is pretty good, but as I said there are a probably a couple of hundred people who have done just as well. If you compiled a similar list of achievements for players such as Meckstroth or Versace, their lists would be a lot more impressive than mine.

But thanks anyway Roland

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[han]

I liked your first post very much Fred, I am going over my own bridge skills now. I won't post them here, because I don't want to brag about my strengths or admit my weaknesses in public .

I will only say one thing: it feels great to do something right that you know you couldn't have done half a year ago. I hope I will never stop having such moments, bridge is great!

[flytoox]

Hannie, on Apr 4 2005, 09:02 PM, said:

I liked your first post very much Fred, I am going over my own bridge skills now. I won't post them here, because I don't want to brag about my strengths or admit my weaknesses in public .

I will only say one thing: it feels great to do something right that you know you couldn't have done half a year ago. I hope I will never stop having such moments, bridge is great!

We are looking forward your good news! inspiration for success is important too:)

[Echognome]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 4 2005, 01:17 PM, said:

I see two big differences between my game and the really top players.

<snip>

The humility of these great players is truly inspiring. You can easily see how they would make fantastic partners. I'm happy to see where in our game of bridge a good character will also make a good player. I can say that in my first year moving over to England, Frances won the pairs at our Nationals with a field that included internationals from several countries.

One thing that I found crucial in the development of my game (and I'm a long way from many of those that posted) was finding a partner that was both roughly my level and that was willing to work on our game. It was a challenge to find good people to partner with that would be willing to work on a partnership game together. Although I can understand Fred's comment on not getting too much into system (a comment I'm guilty of), it certainly helps to talk about some frequent sequences to have an idea of what partner will hold for certain actions.

[Chamaco]

I am not nearly good enough to be able to judge anyone's bridge technical skill.

But I have long time experience in the world of chess and I have read A LOT of bridge books (sadly though: had I not read I would have some excuse for my low standard of play ).

And from my experience I think I can say Fred is for sure a superworld class in clarity of explanation.

The clarity of the Bridgemaster deals is outstanding, and so were the great "Deals of the week".
Such clarity, in my view, is unequalled in most of the bridge (and chess) literature, at least for players of my skill.

Alright, one may say, "Using the electronic medium, and having time to spend to construct deals, anyone could do that".
Firstly, I would disagree with this statement.

Secondly, anyone that had the luck to view Vugraph Shows where Fred was commentator,, will realize that he has this abilty as a natural gift: only a naturally gifted player can decompose the hands so quickly in their main points, and in a few seconds point out immediately to the lesser players the core, the "soul of the deal".

Mauro

[Walddk]

Chamaco, on Apr 5 2005, 04:06 AM, said:

Secondly, anyone that had the luck to view Vugraph Shows where Fred was commentator,, will realize that he has this abilty as a natural gift: only a naturally gifted player can decompose the hands so quickly in their main points, and in a few seconds point out immediately to the lesser players the core, the "soul of the deal".

Mauro

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately Fred has very little time to commentate these days. He would be my first pick every time, because he is the best commentator we have (no offence intended fellow commentators).

It's a fact that when Fred, on rare occasions, commentates he attracts more specs to that particular table regardless of who the players are. That says it all.

Roland