more psychology

[42]

Hi!

What makes bridge so exciting, is the variety of aspects like bidding and play theory, different forms of competition and also psychology.

I am very interested in the last part.

We had already a thread about the "perfect" partner. I would like to discuss some other things:

 

I) Table presence

- what is it?

- has it or could it have every player?

- can it be trained?

- how important is it for a good competition?

- has every topclass player a better table presence as for example the average player?

 

II) Intuition

- is it the same like table presence?

- is there a difference between female and male intuition?

- is it just a fe-/male "excuse" for a spectacular bid or play?

 

III) Knowledge of men

- does it help if you have a good "feeling" what kind of opps you face right now?

 

IV) More general: how much can one rely on those points?

V) Do you / your partners accept the above mentioned points as part of the game?

 

to I): I understand it as a sense to recognize vibrations like a slight hesitation or move of opps when for example a finesse is played. Does one or both opps feel uncomfortable in a special play situation?

I do NOT mean the hesitation during bidding which may be an unauthorized information.

 

to II), happened in real life:

a.) You have the feeling that 6 in a minor is the best contract but you have not enough system agreements to ask for everything you want to know, and you cannot not bid 6 yourself. You think to know your partner, in other situations you are on the same wavelength, and so you bypass 3NT, bid 5 in the minor, somehow "knowing" your p bids 6 if he has a bit more than promised (matchpoint tourney, 5 in a minor is most of the time a zero). He bids 6, made :)

 

b.) You play NT, lead is the 7 and you hold

Qxx (dummy) vs. A8x (hand)

Every cell of your body tells you that the K is behind the Q, so the trick is

7 LOW 10 LOW. Next trick:

K A x x

 

c.) RHO opened 1♦ and I held in red AQ9xx Jx Axxx xx. My feeling told me to pass, but I bid 1♠, checking that the suit quality test said I can (=7). I finally played 1♠ dbl -2 :blink:

 

The postmortem in the 2 first cases was funny, in a.) something like "yes, yes, female intuition...", in b.) "How did you play that suit, that was weird". All other protagonists were men, good players.

I do not very often play what my feeling tells me because I do not really love to loose the postmortem ;)

 

To III) Sometimes I read in Reeses books "Play these hands with me" etc. At the beginning he often says something like (I forgot the original text!) "Against 2 little old ladies..." or "Against 2 young ambitious but unknown players.." or so. Is it helpful to create a picture of the opposition? Imo not. I found out that it does not help neither to be overoptimistic of the own skills nor to be too pessimistic or shy when you know you play against strong opposition. The weak may play a top or the strong may get a zero, who knows at the beginning?

 

To IV) I don't think that anybody made an evaluation on this ;) Experience may tell you something, but some remember only the times when it worked, others when it did not.

 

To V) Depends :P With one of my partners I sometimes have the agreement that I bid and play according to my feelings (on BBO or when we play privately). Of course I "calm down" in more important f2f tourneys.

 

This was again a long one... I cannot walk because of a little accident; and I am Creme Brulee right now, what is an obligation :P

 

Caren

[Chamaco]

The issue of "instinct" is a tricky one.

 

Instinct does exist, but the vast majority of low level players (I am not referring to real experts; I include myself in the low level group including, say, intermediate/advanced) seem to invoke "instinct" to explain choices that are not technical.

 

I mean, many times, it is not instinct, but rather "guesswork" because they did not actually try to (or were capable to) work out a better solution.

To make a concrete example, many of the exercise hands in Killing Defense by Kelsey, would be solved by "instinct" attempt, rather than try to work out in depth the solution.

In most cases, as we know, instinct would not be enough- whereas working out the situation could work.

 

Of course, such players usually brag about theitr "instinct" , saying it usually works, but often enough this is just a biased record: they just remember the times that it works and forget when it does not.

So, let's say, that, WAY TOO OFTEN, it's rather a "wannabe instinct", but you cannot tell it to those who are so proud about it ! ;)

 

====

 

My idea is that I like a partner that dares to "take a view", but I feel more comfortable if he "uses his instict" in cases where he indeed knows the "normal" technical solution: in other words, he knows *when and why* he is going against the field.

 

Instead, quite often, I listen to "instict explanations" that clearly reveal the fact that this hides instead some lack of knowledge in technical area.

 

And, with the same frequency, this "instict" is used as an excuse not to study bridge (card combinations or practicing bidding or whatever) because "at the table I get it right by instinct" :blink:

 

 

Of course, this does not refer to expert players, my level is such that I would not be in a position to evaluate their choices.

[shoeless]

Hope you publish a book on the results of this query - would love to use it as a textbook in a sports psychology I teach. I want to upgrade the course material particularly as it applies to mindsports. My intuition says the question about intuition will be answer intuitively by women and men will analyse the heck out of it.

[helene_t]

II) Intuition

- is it the same like table presence?

I think "intuition" refers to theories that are based on subconscience, while table presence is not necesarily subconscious. You may be aware that you draw a certain conclusion based on e.g. the facial expression of an opponent. Maybe there is a psycologist here (Double! ?) who can explain what the established meaning of "intuition" is? I think Pinker defined it as something like "innate knowledge" if I understood him correctly but I'm not sure how established that definition is.

 

- is there a difference between female and male intuition?

Hardly. Some language may tend to have a male and a female term for the same concept (e.g. "gut feelings" vs "intuition"). Also, reasoning (as opposed to intuition) is often in fact post hoc rationalization of conclusion reached by subconscience. So depending on the social context, people may be more or less likely to say that they rely on intuition, and there might be a sex bias here.

 

- is it just a fe-/male "excuse" for a spectacular bid or play?

lol. Maybe an excuse for reasoning that in hinsight turned out to be wrong.

 

III) Knowledge of men

Men are from Mars. Since the latest Martian explorations we know more.

 

V) Do you / your partners accept the above mentioned points as part of the game?

I think intuition is problematic since sometimes I don't know if it's UI or not. But it's part of the game.

[Chamaco]

Hope you publish a book on the results of this query - would love to use it as a textbook in a sports psychology I teach. I want to upgrade the course material particularly as it applies to mindsports. My intuition says the question about intuition will be answer intuitively by women and men will analyse the heck out of it.

You might like to read Krogius excellent book on "Psychology in chess".

Also recently quite a bunch of books on psychology in chess were published.

[shoeless]

Thanks - actually due to a personal bias about chess I think I cover the psycology of it in the course on masochism. Sorry just being stupid. I think I will track it down as I am doing some work in this area with a bridge team, might provide some useful insights.

[shoeless]

What would be interesting for me to hear people talk about is not the psychology of the game but the possibility that men and women need to prepare differently psychologically for brige competition.

[hrothgar]

Hope you publish a book on the results of this query - would love to use it as a textbook in a sports psychology I teach. I want to upgrade the course material particularly as it applies to mindsports. My intuition says the question about intuition will be answer intuitively by women and men will analyse the heck out of it.

My intuition says that that you don't want to touch this topic with a 10 foot.

(Unless of course, your main goal is to generate a lot of sound and fury, without much intelligent discourse)

 

Take a look a what happened to Summers at Harvard when he started a discussion...

[42]

Chamaco 

 

[snip]

Of course, such players usually brag about theitr "instinct" , saying it usually works, but often enough this is just a biased record: they just remember the times that it works and forget when it does not.

So, let's say, that, WAY TOO OFTEN, it's rather a "wannabe instinct", but you cannot tell it to those who are so proud about it !

 

====

 

My idea is that I like a partner that dares to "take a view", but I feel more comfortable if he "uses his instict" in cases where he indeed knows the "normal" technical solution: in other words, he knows *when and why* he is going against the field.

 

Hopefully I am not "such player"... I rarely play according to instinct OR I tell my partner BEFORE that I might do so today and ask if it will be ok for him. And I am able to remember both, the good and the bad cases. The point for the discussion is this: IF there is that strong instinct / feeling, AND I KNOW the technics, I must decide if I go beyond 3NT or play in an odd way OR if I do the normal thing. To follow instincts is imo only possible when there is a basic trust between the partners. When there is a 2-way-finesse and you have no hints, you can just follow the rule to finesse against the less liked player or listen to a little bird in your ear or throw a coin or finesse always clockwise or whatever. Or you have the insinct :lol: (yes, it is necessary to make some statistics how often it works well lol) I know I loose the discussion because I cannot prove to be right or wrong, or if I just need an excuse for my unusual decision. Anyway...

 

 

shoeless 

What would be interesting for me to hear people talk about is not the psychology of the game but the possibility that men and women need to prepare differently psychologically for brige competition.

 

My feeling says YES :P

When men play bridge, they play just bridge. Women have a big problem to get rid of family affairs, handle the hormon situation (can be terrible!), and other things. I recently watched a report about brain research. When men had to solve the problem with a turned-around-body in space, they used 3 brain regions, women used 4 (they analyzed first colour and form, which was not really necessary :) ) Nothing can be done against that, and it must not always bad.

[Al_U_Card]

Bridge (successful or otherwise) is all about motivation. From the marginal to the brilliant, I have seen people, that I wouldn't care to associate with, perform in a way that I can only envy.

 

Does psychology beget motivation? Rather, I think that basic underlying requirements for security, validation and acceptance lead all bridge players to the table.

 

The next time you feel the exhilaration of making a tough contract or the disappointment of losing a close match, think about where is the payoff? That is where the psychology comes in.

[mikeh]

I am no student or profesor of psychology, so I am uncertain of the validity of my thoughts on this topic.

 

Intuition is not some form of extra-sensory perception. Intuiton and instinct can, to some degree, be consciously learned, but I think those who possess these attributes to a marked degree probably learned them unconsciously.

 

There are a lot of cues out there at the bridge table, although at the higher level the use of screens diminishes their availability. Online bridge probably diminishes them even further.

 

In face to face, non-screened bridge, we will usually be picking up on even minor tempo breaks, facial expressions, body language and so on, even without being aware of it.

 

I believe that in some part of our mind we gradually build up a correlation between these cues and what happened at the table. This allows us to gauge where a card might be, for example. Oswald Jacoby was famous for (so it was claimed) never going wrong when confronted with a two-way guess for a missing Queen. There was never any suggestion that he peeked :P

 

Now, the correlation may not be accurate, and different opps may give off different signals. I first became aware of the sea of information that exists at most tables when, many years ago, I played for the first time in a knockout match against top players: I remember playing Paul Soloway and Eddie Wold.

 

What struck me then, so strongly that I still remember it, was that they gave nothiing away on defence. Their facial expressions and body language were robotic. Their tempo, in terms of playing the cards, was like a metronome. I suddenly realized that I had no intuitive feel about their holdings and was reduced to pure analysis...

 

Instinct or intuiton may also be the result of subconscious processing, not merely of the ambient cues, but of not-clearly-remembered similar hands.

 

I do not think that instinct or intuition should replace analytical thinking. You will make far more contracts (as declarer) by counting and using secondary and tertiary-level inferences than you will by relying upon a feeling. But do not ignore the feeling: you may, upon further thought, realize that the instinct was, after all, rationally based.

 

 

Another aspect of the question was table presence.

 

It is real.

 

It can be learned.

 

If I am playing in a serius match, I want to feel as if my partner and I own the table. Now, that is not going to work against great players, but equally, I am not going to sit down against anyone and emotionally concede the table.

 

Different players use different tools. Bruce Ferguson and Joey Silver are two examples of one style. They never shut up :)

 

Joey makes all kinds of comments, while Bruce's favourite appears to be to tell you, his opponent, what you hold (and he is usually right).

 

They are, without being in the least rude, exercising control of the table environment, and distracting you from your game.

 

Others are silent and robotic.

 

But they are all acting as if the table belongs to them. That can be learned, altho I do not recommend it for casual play.

 

As for me, if I am playing in a serious event with a good partner, I have conditioned myself to be convinced that we are going to win. You would think that experience would by now have shown me that I am wrong :D , but I do think that that attitude has helped me win more than perhaps my skill level would seem to warrant.

 

A poker face and still body during the play. Try to play at an even pace. Some players are gifted with incredible speed of analysis. Most are not: I am a grinder. Do not let their pace of pace alter yours. Do as much thinking as possible at trick one: do not let the opps hurry you. Never, ever criticize partner at the table. Never look upset. Never look jubilant. Again, in non-serious event against friends, it is probably socially wrong to do this :lol:

[SoTired]

Many years ago when I was a young player, I went to a Regional and played with an older lady I knew. Against 2 attractive young ladies, I was declarer in a difficult slam. I made the contract. After the ladies left, my partner said, "Amazing that did not distract you."

 

"What did not distract me?" I asked.

 

"You didn't notice?"

 

"Notice what?"

 

"The girl on your right had hiked her skirt past her navel and you didn't even notice!" ;)

[Chamaco]

I do not think that instinct or intuition should replace analytical thinking. You will make far more contracts (as declarer) by counting and using secondary and tertiary-level inferences than you will by relying upon a feeling. But do not ignore the feeling: you may, upon further thought, realize that the instinct was, after all, rationally based.

Totally agree.

 

My view is: use instinct (yes, do it !!) for close/difficult decisions, but not for gross deviation from a standard play/bid.

 

Abnormal play/bids based on solely "instinct" tend to rely on our own ego and might lose partership harmony for such one-sided acting.

[pdmunro]

There is an interesting web site about "male/female" brains. It contains the ideas of the Cambridge research team led by Dr Simon Baron-Cohen. One of their hypotheses is that the autistic brain represents the extreme male brain.

 

Try the Autism Quotient test:

 

http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/tests/default.asp

 

It has helped me to better understand myself and my maths/science colleagues.

 

On the same page you will find the Eyes Test. It tests whether you can read people's feeling from pictures of their eyes. I took the Eyes Test first. I wanted to find I was normal, before I did any other self-testing that might reveal otherwise. :-)

 

================================================

 

I put in the above division to separate off my own thoughts. I find this hard to write. I want to produce something that is perfect, but don’t have the time. So these are just ramblings.

 

I think women are generally more attuned to their surroundings. I could live in a house of grot and not even see it most of the time. My wife has directed the renovation of our house to improve its run down nature. I walk into my computer room and hardly see the mess; my mind is concentrating on the computer tasks I have to do. They say that if the fridge door is closed the male mind has no idea what is in it. That’s why my wife does the shopping. That’s why I have to have things spread out. I can remember where I left them. Tidy them up and put them in a cupboard and I find it harder to remember.

 

I think the evolutionary reason women are more attuned to what is going on around them is for safety reasons. Two responses to danger are either fight or flight. Being the “weaker sex” the female’s first response is flight. The male’s adrenalin rush urges him to fight. For this to be effective he must focus on the danger. He needs to find the enemy’s vulnerable point as he attacks.

 

The females heightened perception of her surroundings gives her nonverbal clues that we guys just don’t pick up. Her intuition is based on information that we guys are not aware of. So it is better than an even-money guess.

 

One idea I read is that a person who is trying to hide something inevitably changes their behaviour. Say a person is trying to hide the fact that they have the missing King. If they normally move about in their seat, they will become still. If they normally sit still, then they will start to move. Perhaps a women knows this subconsciously.

 

I am fascinated by how the brain works. Of most interest to me is how people learn. Thanks 42 for the observations you have made and for raising these issues.

[shoeless]

Liked your post Mike, very thoughtful. The stuff on table presence reminded me of a couple of quotes that rattle around in my brain.

 

"He can who thinks he can, and he can't who thinks he can't. This is an inexorable, indisputable law."

 

"Your visions are the blueprints of your ultimate achievements."