What makes a good bridge player?

[billw55]

In addition to all the things listed here - which certainly are true - I do believe there is such a thing as talent. By talent, I mean a natural, innate aptitude to a particular task.

 

This may manifest itself as a lightly interested player who plays off and on for a maybe a few years, and gets much stronger than would be expected for his/her invested effort (although not top level due to lack of such). The lack of talent may manifest itself in a player who does everything else listed here, and who becomes a consistent expert, but doesn't crack the elite level of brilliance.

 

For an example. consider Michael Jordan, perhaps the best basketball player in history. He had the talent and the work ethic to achieve that. But, he was not able to succeed at the same level in professional baseball - and it wasn't for lack of working at it. He just didn't have that particular talent. Others work as hard at basketball as he did - but don't reach his level - they don't have the talent. Similarly no amount of study, practice, work, and experience is going to turn a journeyman into Albert Pujols. The talent is there or it isn't.

[Gerben42]

The most important things are being able to avoid avoidable mistakes and to learn from mistakes you and others made.

[Deevan]

My list of factors that make a good bridge player:

 

1. Logic. Not necessarily mathematical, but the two often go together.

 

2. Visualization. Being able to form a mental picture of the unseen hands and understand how that translates into taking tricks.

 

3. Psychology. Being able to see things from an opponent's perspective and therefore limit the range of possible layouts to those that are consistent with the bidding and play so far. Also understanding how a given opponent will likely react to various bids/plays you might choose.

 

4. Bidding Skill and Judgment. I don't know if this is unique to bridge, or is a more general skill. But certainly there are some otherwise good players who just don't have it. Essentially I mean the ability to grasp principles of bidding such as not bidding your hand twice, knowing when a hand is 'good' or 'bad', and having the discipline to stick to agreements and the wisdom to know when to depart from them.

 

5. Collaboration/Communication. Essentially how to be a good partner.

 

6. Concentration and Discipline.

 

This is limited to abilities that you might try to detect in someone early on, which I think is what the op was about - so things like practicing a lot or having parents who play are not included but obviously matter.

 

A competitive attitude might matter at the top level, but I think you can be 'good' (maybe very good) without it. In general, I think the attempt to apply sports psychology to bridge is a bit misguided. The game is really about problem solving and the personal satisfaction of solving puzzles can be a decent substitute for the competitive desire to beat the opponent.

 

As for how you might detect these factors, I really have no idea that isn't obvious.

This is the most comprehensive response, I think. I agree with almost every factor identified here; especially, the comment about bidding judgment appears insightful. In my humble opinion, I would like to add the following:

(a) I feel the sports psychology becomes relevant; especially, when one considers the "luck component" that we have all experienced. In spite of best problem solving at the table, "murphy's law" takes hold. Sometimes, we all know that "anything that could go wrong did go wrong". Being able to remain "positive" and "let go", usually a part of sports training, is a part of being a good bridge player.

(:) Another aspect is being "a student of the game". The beauty of this game is that no matter how good a bridge player you are; there is always room for improvement. If you keep an open mind, study and apply the lessons learnt; you can in fact enhance your level. It is something like "pursuit of perfection" which I think is an important attribute of a good bridge player.

[Deevan]

My list of factors that make a good bridge player:

 

1. Logic. Not necessarily mathematical, but the two often go together.

 

2. Visualization. Being able to form a mental picture of the unseen hands and understand how that translates into taking tricks.

 

3. Psychology. Being able to see things from an opponent's perspective and therefore limit the range of possible layouts to those that are consistent with the bidding and play so far. Also understanding how a given opponent will likely react to various bids/plays you might choose.

 

4. Bidding Skill and Judgment. I don't know if this is unique to bridge, or is a more general skill. But certainly there are some otherwise good players who just don't have it. Essentially I mean the ability to grasp principles of bidding such as not bidding your hand twice, knowing when a hand is 'good' or 'bad', and having the discipline to stick to agreements and the wisdom to know when to depart from them.

 

5. Collaboration/Communication. Essentially how to be a good partner.

 

6. Concentration and Discipline.

 

This is limited to abilities that you might try to detect in someone early on, which I think is what the op was about - so things like practicing a lot or having parents who play are not included but obviously matter.

 

A competitive attitude might matter at the top level, but I think you can be 'good' (maybe very good) without it. In general, I think the attempt to apply sports psychology to bridge is a bit misguided. The game is really about problem solving and the personal satisfaction of solving puzzles can be a decent substitute for the competitive desire to beat the opponent.

 

As for how you might detect these factors, I really have no idea that isn't obvious.

This is the most comprehensive response, I think. I agree with almost every factor identified here; especially, the comment about bidding judgment appears insightful. In my humble opinion, I would like to add the following:

(a) I feel the sports psychology becomes relevant; especially, when one considers the "luck component" that we have all experienced. In spite of best problem solving at the table, "murphy's law" takes hold. Sometimes, we all know that "anything that could go wrong did go wrong". Being able to remain "positive" and "let go", usually a part of sports training, is a part of being a good bridge player.

(b) Another aspect is being "a student of the game". The beauty of this game is that no matter how good a bridge player you are; there is always room for improvement. If you keep an open mind, study and apply the lessons learnt; you can in fact enhance your level. It is something like "pursuit of perfection" which I think is an important attribute of a good bridge player.

[PeterGill]

In addition to all the things listed here - which certainly are true - I do believe there is such a thing as talent. By talent, I mean a natural, innate aptitude to a particular task.

 

This may manifest itself as a lightly interested player who plays off and on for a maybe a few years, and gets much stronger than would be expected for his/her invested effort (although not top level due to lack of such). The lack of talent may manifest itself in a player who does everything else listed here, and who becomes a consistent expert, but doesn't crack the elite level of brilliance.

 

For an example. consider Michael Jordan, perhaps the best basketball player in history. He had the talent and the work ethic to achieve that. But, he was not able to succeed at the same level in professional baseball - and it wasn't for lack of working at it. He just didn't have that particular talent. Others work as hard at basketball as he did - but don't reach his level - they don't have the talent. Similarly no amount of study, practice, work, and experience is going to turn a journeyman into Albert Pujols. The talent is there or it isn't.

When Michael Jordan was a youngster - the best time to learn, did he invest as much time and effort into other sports as he did to basketball?

[mike777]

It is much easier to get by on raw talent in basketball than in baseball.

 

 

Note all the under 21 players in basketball, when there are very very few in major league baseball.

 

IN College there may be many players able to go right from college to starting all season in basketball or football. It is very very rare for a baseball player to go directly from college to starting a full season in major league baseball.

[billw55]

It is much easier to get by on raw talent in basketball than in baseball. 

 

 

Note all the under 21 players in basketball, when there are very very few in major league baseball.

 

IN College there may be many players able to go right from college to starting all season in basketball or football.  It is very very rare for a baseball player to go directly from college to starting a full season in major league baseball.

I think this distiction has more to do with age and physical development. Baseball has a higher premium on upper body strength than basketball. This characteristic tends to develop at a later age, as compared to other physical skills such as balance, speed, quickness, leaping, etc. Therefore, a 19 or 20 year old baseball prodigy is much less likely to be physically ready for the big leagues than a basketball prodigy of the same age.

 

Also, players don't go directly from college to major league baseball because that is generally not the route for the most skilled players. Baseball has an extensive minor league system that basketball and football both lack (they just use colleges for that). Note that plenty of players do go to MLB after 4 years in the minors, at about the same age (~22) as post-college players.

 

[/hijack]

[billw55]

When Michael Jordan was a youngster - the best time to learn, did he invest as much time and effort into other sports as he did to basketball?

I don't know, but probably not, so I see your point.

 

However, there is no shortage of youngsters dedicating themselves to a particular sport, and working for years at it. But only a few reach the top. I definitely think there is talent sieve operating.

 

For example, young girls whose parents want them to be tennis prodigies. Lots of them do the time, get the coaching, etc .. and probably most of these reach a reasonably high level, say college scholarship level. But there are precious few Serena Willams, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati ... why? What's the difference? Physical make up may be part of it, but then you still have peanuts like Martina Hingis. I just can't think of an explanation other than talent.

[awm]

I believe that a lot of the things people have named are overrated.

 

Abilities like "logic" and "bidding judgment" develop from playing a lot of hands. They're skills anyone can develop.

 

As far as becoming a good bridge player, I think the following traits are important:

 

(1) Start young.

(2) Care intensely about being a good bridge player, and put in a lot of time.

(3) Find good coaches/talk to the right people.

 

I suspect that anyone can be quite successful as a bridge player with these three traits. I've seen young players who seemed not to be too bright and who were really not very good, who then blossomed into quite decent players by applying the above rules.

 

For becoming a really elite bridge player, the following additional traits become important:

 

(4) Be a good partner, and find a compatible player who is equally serious about the game.

(5) Move in the right social circles to be able to arrange pro dates.

 

Again, I don't think it's "native talent" that's so key. It's more about playing a lot of hands with the right partner, the right opponents, and the right people to discuss with afterwards. In fact you don't really need (5) except that at some point it becomes necessary to make a living, and a non-bridge job prevents some people from putting in the necessary hours of play and analysis to progress from "good player" to "elite player."

 

While some degree of analytical intelligence and/or people-reading skills can certainly help on the way to the top, I know plenty of top players who are rather lacking in one or even both of these dimensions (as well as some who lack the "good partner" ability). Perhaps there is some sort of mystical "talent for bridge" but honestly I'm not sure I believe it.

 

Take Justin for example. I suppose it could be that he inherited some magical talent from his dad. And he's certainly a bright guy, although there are plenty of weaker bridge players who might be closer to the genius level on an IQ test. However, I suspect that the secrets to his success are that he really cares about being a good bridge player and puts in a huge amount of time, that he started very young, that he was talking to the right teachers even early on (his dad, Bob Hamman), and that for a variety of reasons (young start, dad's connections, junior program, personality, effort) he was able to get pro dates when he needed them and continue playing bridge full time.

[Jlall]

And he's certainly a bright guy, although there are plenty of weaker bridge players who might be closer to the genius level on an IQ test.

Not sure if I took this the right way but FWIW the last time I took a legit IQ test it was 156. There are obviously many people with higher IQs than me but I would say I am above the genius level lol. It is amusing to me that so many people think they know anything about me.

[pooltuna]

And he's certainly a bright guy, although there are plenty of weaker bridge players who might be closer to the genius level on an IQ test.

Not sure if I took this the right way but FWIW the last time I took a legit IQ test it was 156. There are obviously many people with higher IQs than me but I would say I am above the genius level lol. It is amusing to me that so many people think they know anything about me.

oh so those of us who thought you were a rocket scientist were right :P

[fred]

And he's certainly a bright guy, although there are plenty of weaker bridge players who might be closer to the genius level on an IQ test.

Not sure if I took this the right way but FWIW the last time I took a legit IQ test it was 156. There are obviously many people with higher IQs than me but I would say I am above the genius level lol. It is amusing to me that so many people think they know anything about me.

You may be too young to know that, at matchpoints, 156 is exactly average :P

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Lobowolf]

And he's certainly a bright guy, although there are plenty of weaker bridge players who might be closer to the genius level on an IQ test.

Not sure if I took this the right way but FWIW the last time I took a legit IQ test it was 156. There are obviously many people with higher IQs than me but I would say I am above the genius level lol. It is amusing to me that so many people think they know anything about me.

Yeah, I was lol a little at this. "Genius level" is 2 standard deviations, which means 1 out of every 50 people you trip across as you go about your day to day life. I'd've offered good odds that JL was on the right side of that border, but I thought it might be in poor taste. And now he's gone and spoiled what would have been a winning bet. At least there's BYU tonight.

[jdonn]

Adam two comments on Justin. One, not to fuel any perceived lack of modesty or anything like that, but Justin is WAY more/smarter/whatever than just 'a bright guy'. It's not even close.

 

The other is that he was a fantastic player even very very young. Your logic seems to (partly) be that he started young which helped him be better by the time he was older. But he would have been in the top 10% of players on the current forums when he was quite young and had been playing for a not-particularly long time.

 

Honestly I think it's backwards, of course anyone can improve, learn, work on their game, but I think there is a huge factor that is just inherited. Call it natural talent, your way of thinking, or whatever, but I'm convinced it's there.

[PaulLanier]

Good (not great!) bridge player... One of the three guys who taught me to play bridge 40 years ago: "skill and love of the game." To this I would add: one whose respect for partner and fascination with card play exceeds the obsession to win.

Regards, Paul

[Echognome]

Many (most?) IQ tests are normalized to have a mean of 100 (which I think almost everyone knows) and a standard deviation of 15 (which I don't think many people know). So 156 would be around 3.73 standard deviations above the mean. According to my probability tables that is around .999906, or above 99.99% of the population. I.e. 1 in 10,000. Go Justin! :lol:

[MickyB]

Many (most?) IQ tests are normalized to have a mean of 100 (which I think almost everyone knows) and a standard deviation of 15 (which I don't think many people know).

Seems that's true of modern tests, but IME the most commonly referenced figure for entry to Mensa (top 2%) is 148, which would be based on a scale with a SD of 22.5 or thereabouts.

[mike777]

"To those whom much is given, much is expected.”

[awm]

My comments were not intended as a slight to Justin; sorry if people read them that way.

 

My point is that there are a lot of smart people who play bridge without being very successful. Being smart and interested in bridge is not really a guarantee of being a good bridge player.

 

If we're looking for correlations, I suspect that there is some correlation between IQ and bridge skill. However, I suspect there is much more substantial correlation between:

 

(1) Number of hands played and bridge skill.

(2) Age when started to play "serious" bridge and bridge skill.

(3) Masterpoint total of parents and bridge skill.

(4) Favorite bridge teacher/mentor and bridge skill.

[rduran1216]

Memory + an ability to reevaluate hands + ability to read situations + ability to count hands + having discipline.

[kenrexford]

Just skimmed a lot here, so I might have missed something already said. But, one thought on perhaps a rarely discussed topic:

 

One trick to advancing in bridge is contacts. Bridge is a game of communication, whether it be defense or bidding. Even when declaring, you need to understand the opponents' communication. Communication is a resulting language derived from rote agreements but also from applied judgment. It is really difficult to apply judgment, even if excellent, without communicative tools to so express that judgment. I could explain this concept more, but you probably get the premise. The trick, however, is that you need contacts to understand how better players think and interpret. There seem to be levels of this understanding, plateaus if you will, and you cannot effective move into that next level up unless you have someone in that secret society above you to share the inside dirt. So, a "good player" must ALSO be someone who has contacts with the in-the-know crowd.

 

This has nothing to do with conventions, although they form a foundation. This has to do with something entirely different. It has to do with subtleties in strange auctions where nearly unanimous thinking explains why certain calls are or are not made at a specific point. Why only two or three players in the room open a weak two but then all three bid again as Opener, given the same sequence, despite the "rule," and all three turn out to be the presumed top players in the room. It is why 2♦ ends up doubled for a 200 set only at these same three tables.

[mikeh]

Intelligence and a love of the game are insufficient: the smartest person I ever met was hopeless at the game.

 

I would say:

 

1. Intelligence...if you can't visualize positions or learn card combinations (let alone bidding) you will never be good

 

2. Desire to win: this is critical. it may not make you a nice person, and you may be nearly impossible to live with when you lose, but it will certainly help you win

 

3. Start relatively young: this ties into intelligence.... we lose the ability to learn and then we lose the ability to number-crunch....this can be offset by acquired experience, but we need to start young in order to acquire the experience

 

4. Time to play or at least to think about the game

 

5. Exposure to and preferably playing with players whose skill level exceeds one's own....even if you have more talent that your partners, few people will get far beyond their partners' skill level.

 

I thought about ranking them, but on reflection I think that most of us (there will be the occasional savant, I suppose, to whom one or more may be irrelevant) need all of them to some degree.

[spwdo]

there been a survey to determine talent. What they did was examine the number of hours medal winners invested in their sport(training, etc). They came to the conclusion that all topathletes invested without exception more time and effort in their sport then the athletes just below them.

 

i use to do different sports at rather high level. Guys improving faster then me had the advantage of being on a unemployment cheque so they could train while i was working giving them an edge. One of the things several coaches told me was: if you wanna make it, think, eat and sleep your sport. can your job and start training even more.

 

So since talent is overrated i think motivation and the possibility to invest a lot of time and effort into your sport combined with a winners mentality (most of the topathletes we see really cant stand losing, whether they show it in public or not) are key for getting on top and staying on top.

[bluecalm]

So since talent is overrated i think motivation and the possibility to invest a lot of time and effort into your sport combined with a winners mentality (most of the topathletes we see really cant stand losing, whether they show it in public or not) are key for getting on top and staying on top.

 

There was old saying in chess (originated from soviet players from 70's i believe) that talent is willingness to work.

[nige1]

The one set of people you shouldn't ask "what makes a good bridge player?" is good bridge players.

Then I may be well-qualified to answer the question. For example, I can quickly recognize Bridge talent in other people. After playing two boards against Elizabeth McGowan, when she was learning the game, I predicted that she would be a great player. IMO ...

• Card-sense is a specific ability, different from other abilities although it correlates with general intelligence. Thus, Carolyn Peploe, plays more quickly and accurately than I do, although, away from the table, I can usually talk as good a game as she can. Other relevant traits, in order of importance are:
  
• Dedication and concentration. This is more than mere enjoyment. The best players seem to have become addicted to the game, on first contact, usually at a young age.
  
• Communication and empathy. Like a good lawyer or programmer. Because Bridge is a true partnership game.
  
• Arithmetic skill. This is over-rated. (Even I can sometimes count to thirteen).