Can playing make you worse?

[awm]

Note that I don't mean "make you worse while you're doing it" -- obviously most people play worse when drunk (for example). The question is whether playing bridge can actually make your skills deteriorate, if you play under certain conditions. Feel free to add other suggestions if nothing on the poll fits.

[kfay]

Playing against weak pairs I think.

 

You start to do crazy things (at least I have) to try to exploit them and then when it works or you think it should have worked it wiggles whatever you've done kinda wiggles it's way into your regular play. I think if you were to play against weak pairs for a long time who never double you when you make some poor overcall (or something of the like) that you'll do the same thing when you play competent opponents and get cracked. You're desensitized to bad actions.

[Guest Jlall]

Playing a certain type of bridge too much can make you worse at a different type of bridge for sure. I don't think it will make you worse overall. So I guess my question is how do you define worse?

 

For instance, playing frequently at the club with clients makes my game against good players/with a good partner less sharp and worse.

 

Does that mean I am a worse bridge player because of it? I am much better at beating bad players with a bad partner because of it, and maybe very slightly worse (and only temporarily) at playing with a good player against good opps, so I am a better player overall.

 

Also I think for most people the experience they gain when playing even against bad players will help them more than enough to overcome any bad habits they learn from playing against bad opps.

[Guest Jlall]

Playing against weak pairs I think.

 

You start to do crazy things (at least I have) to try to exploit them and then when it works or you think it should have worked it wiggles whatever you've done kinda wiggles it's way into your regular play. I think if you were to play against weak pairs for a long time who never double you when you make some poor overcall (or something of the like) that you'll do the same thing when you play competent opponents and get cracked. You're desensitized to bad actions.

Yes but if you never played bridge at all instead of spending your time playing against bad opps how do you think you would do against good opps?

 

To me if the question is playing against weak players or not playing at all in order to improve your game against good opps, for almost everyone I would say playing against weak players would be the way to go since you still learn so much from experience. You will see positions come up that you might not have seen before. If that position comes up when you play against a good opp, you will know how to play it. etc etc. You have to already be learning very little per board on average(meaning you are already a world class player) for the disadvantages of playing weak players to be > the advantages.

[jtfanclub]

My vote was for goulash, especially of the 'pass three cards to your left' variety. When you start to count on a suit splitting 3-0....

[JanM]

My vote was for goulash, especially of the 'pass three cards to your left' variety. When you start to count on a suit splitting 3-0....

I don't know about "counting on" but surely considering possible bad breaks is a good thing to do at any form of the game. I think that anything, whether playing, watching, reading, discussing, even just thinking about possible positions, will make you a better player. Chip used to think I was wasting my time kibbitzing BBO (because when you get to see all four hands you can sort of drift), but changed his mind when we played recently after I hadn't done anything much bridge-related except watch BBO.

[mikeh]

I voted for playing against weak opps. It is not because I do crazy things against them: I assume that I will score well just playing bridge. It is that the opps never challenge one to dig deep. I play a lot, on average more than once a week, at our local club. We have some very good players, but I usually partner the best :P And the bulk of the players are weak. There is almost no need to focus on every card... nor to worry about giving away too much information in either the bidding or the play, since most opps don't even understand that you have given them info, let alone know how to use it. There is little need to look for unblocks or squeeze-breaking plays... while I do try to recognize them, there is little sense of urgency since the opps won't endplay me or squeeze me intentionally.

 

Overall, it is just that one can play against poor players and win, without ever being focussed.. try that against a WC pair, and get eaten alive.

 

While I am sure that there are players who claim, accurately or not, that they bring the same intensity to every game regardless of the opps, I am not one of them. And sloppy habits make it difficult to refocus when it is needed.

 

The only event that I play in semi-regularly where there is a relatively consistent level of pretty strong opps is the Canadian Team Trials, which begin with a long round robin... for which I am always grateful because it takes me a couple of days and 120+ boards before I start to feel that I am really at the table. If I only played Nationals and bigger regionals, I suspect (hope?) that it wouldn't take that long B)

[gwnn]

Whenever I play fast without lots of thinking (and I'm at a stage where I need lots of thinking to get anything right) I feel like my brain is slowly but surely melting down, like the tender snow on the streets of the Cluj of early March.

[pclayton]

Strongly believe playing speedball or fast pairs makes you a worse player. If you do it on a frequent basis to avoid time penalties you have to play by feel instead of actually counting the hand. When this happens, all hell breaks loose.

 

I don't think playing against bad players makes you a bad player, but it can make you a little sloppy, especially at MPs when you start trying crazy stuff to win (and it works), and as a result, you aren't as tight as you should be with taking tricks. At IMPs, I don't know of a lot of good players that really change around their strategy against weaker players. They just expect to win by playing a better game.

 

I haven't played enough goulash to really know, but bidding one more on freak hands is generally a good philosophy and getting seasoning on a frequent basis can't be a negative.

 

Not playing at all is obviously detrimental.

[y66]

I think you have to define "better" or "worse" relative to your individual goals.

 

My goal is to become a competent player against tough opps.

 

If I spend the next 6 months playing a/x competition, I will get better. If I spend the next 6 months playing b/c competition (weaker than a/x), I will get better too, but I will not improve as much and I may further ingrain habits that are hard to undo later.

 

Either way, after 6 months, I expect to be a somewhat better player. But I think I will be worse off, relative to my goal, if I take the b/c route instead of the a/x route.

[han]

Playing on BBO against US juniors hurts my bridge game. I think that every white third seat opener is a psyche.

[cherdano]

Not playing at all is obviously detrimental.

I agree, and I think it is worse than all the other options (which is what this thread should be about IMO).

[Guest Jlall]

Not playing at all is obviously detrimental.

I agree, and I think it is worse than all the other options (which is what this thread should be about IMO).

Yes, I think that is clearly what this thread is about and some people are missing that point.

[rogerclee]

I think that if you analyze the hands after you play them, it is difficult for any session of bridge to make you worse.

[Cascade]

Not playing at all is obviously detrimental.

I agree, and I think it is worse than all the other options (which is what this thread should be about IMO).

If you do not play at all how do you know if you are worse or better?

[mikeh]

Not playing at all is obviously detrimental.

I agree, and I think it is worse than all the other options (which is what this thread should be about IMO).

Yes, I think that is clearly what this thread is about and some people are missing that point.

I disagree.

 

It depends on how you spend your time.

 

Anyone who leaves the game entirely, for an extended time, is probably going to get worse.

 

But say that you stop playing but take up serious kibitzing: you spend many hours per week kibitizing the Cayne matches on BBO, or the finals of the Spingold or the Bermuda Bowl, while reading voraciously and participating in these fora?

 

I'd guess that such would be far better for your game than playing 3 times a week at the local senior citizens' resthome.

[han]

Not playing at all is obviously detrimental.

I agree, and I think it is worse than all the other options (which is what this thread should be about IMO).

If you do not play at all how do you know if you are worse or better?

Do trees fall when there is nobody in the forest? And does that have anything to do with this thread? ;)

[cherdano]

Not playing at all is obviously detrimental.

I agree, and I think it is worse than all the other options (which is what this thread should be about IMO).

Yes, I think that is clearly what this thread is about and some people are missing that point.

I disagree.

 

It depends on how you spend your time.

 

Anyone who leaves the game entirely, for an extended time, is probably going to get worse.

 

But say that you stop playing but take up serious kibitzing: you spend many hours per week kibitizing the Cayne matches on BBO, or the finals of the Spingold or the Bermuda Bowl, while reading voraciously and participating in these fora?

 

I'd guess that such would be far better for your game than playing 3 times a week at the local senior citizens' resthome.

I think you still misunderstand the question. Adam was asking whether a bridge activity would make you a worse bridge player, not if you could improve more by doing another bridge activity (which is what your answer is about).

 

I.e. if you didn't play at all for a year, wouldn't you still be happy that the Canadian trials start with a long round robin?

[pclayton]

What's really weird is that my game elevates after doing a strenuous mental activity like a tough crossword.

[MickyB]

A one-time NPC of mine said that he had seen teams fail to win tournaments due to playing Barbu the previous night.

[rbforster]

A one-time NPC of mine said that he had seen teams fail to win tournaments due to playing Barbu the previous night.

Really? What would the reason be? I spent too much time looking at my bridge hand and deciding it would be great for a 4 Fantan instead of just passing? Most of the Barbu games are trick taking, NT-oriented games anyway so I doubt it's that bad practice. Maybe it was because they were up too late the night before since a full game of Barbu takes what, 2-3 hours?

[Gerben42]

Really? What would the reason be? I spent too much time looking at my bridge hand and deciding it would be great for a 4 Fantan instead of just passing? Most of the Barbu games are trick taking, NT-oriented games anyway so I doubt it's that bad practice. Maybe it was because they were up too late the night before since a full game of Barbu takes what, 2-3 hours?

 

Lack of sleep, obviously!

 

I am sure that for me playing against bad opponents hurts my game. If you are not used to get challenged in the auction or tend to play against people who don't know what they're doing, you will miss the sharpness to take the right conclusions playing against good players, which is for me "real bridge".

[MickyB]

A one-time NPC of mine said that he had seen teams fail to win tournaments due to playing Barbu the previous night.

Really? What would the reason be? I spent too much time looking at my bridge hand and deciding it would be great for a 4 Fantan instead of just passing? Most of the Barbu games are trick taking, NT-oriented games anyway so I doubt it's that bad practice. Maybe it was because they were up too late the night before since a full game of Barbu takes what, 2-3 hours?

It does seem the most likely explanation...the other being that their cardplay resembled misère!

[jvage]

I think it depends on your starting point.

 

As a relative beginner you normally need to play a lot to improve. While only playing against stonger opponents is best for improving in theory, you also risk losing motivation due to the expected long string of relatively poor results (few beginners get the luxury of a strong enough partner to win in a tough field). Playing at least some of your bridge in weak fields or in more social games is probably good for you. You get to play a lot of boards, and will quickly be motivated by the fact that you beat more and more other players and occasionally get good results.

 

The situation is very different if you after playing a lot has become an expert, maybe with ambitions to improve into a world-class player (to use the BBO definitions). At this level improvement is much harder, and I actually think playing a significant part of your bridge in poor/social games may make you worse. In my own experience you both learn some bad habits and more importantly lose focus (you don't feel the need to concentrate to do well).

 

I know several very strong players who no longer play much at all, to me it seems that a break from bridge surprisingly often does not worsen their play significantly. I mention this since several posters have written that the alternative of no bridge-playing activities is much worse. In general I agree, but on the other hand a break can be good for motivation. When these players return they also seem to focus a lot, generally needing more time (things no longer comes naturally), which actually may be a good thing, since focusing is important for learning and improving. Maybe the best example is Ulf Tundal, who returned to bridge after an almost ten years long break, practically not playing at all (focusing on job and family). Granted he was a very strong player before his break, and he worked very hard particularly on system when he returned a couple of years ago, but last summer he won the Bermuda Bowl :)

[awm]

I continue to be surprised that people are so convinced playing against bad players is worse than playing with a bad partner. It seems that playing with a bad partner, you can develop a lot of bad habits like ignoring partner's signals (because partner won't signal correctly), not signaling yourself (because opponents are more likely to read your signals than partner), not bidding cooperatively (partner will always get it wrong, may as well blast something and hope), not trusting partner's line of defense (often there are substantial inferences based on a good player's choice of lead), and trying to "turn" the hands rather than accurately describing your holding (declaring from your side is worth a couple tricks over partner playing it).

 

The most annoying thing is, you can't really win by playing good bridge with a bad partner in a strong field. So if you want to win, you have to make bids and plays that would be poor with a good partner. But you can easily win by playing good bridge with a good partner in a bad field. Obviously you might win anyway even if you play bad bridge (i.e. weak opponents are very forgiving of mistakes), but as long as you don't evaluate your actions based on "I got a top so it was a good bid" your game isn't that likely to deteriorate.