The Two Groups of Bridge

[rduran1216]

Naturally, professionals, tournament directors, officials, and other groups may each have a slightly different agenda. As ordinary players, however, we regularly played in open competition against Benjamin, Flint, Cansino, Collings, Markus, Harrison-Gray, Omar Sharif, the Sharples Brothers, Reese, Schapiro, Belladonna, Garrozzo, Kelsey, Crowhurst, Zia, Rosenberg, and so on and on and on. There are few games more homogenous than Bridge and we should resist attempts to segregate it.

 

Can't believe I missed this post on first read.

 

One thing I can not stand is stratification levels. All the stories i get to hear from players is the good old days playing against Barry Crane and Lew Mathe and on and on and on, being able to beat them and sit at the table with them. Seeded KO's are a joke, if players with lesser points can't beat the big dogs, then fine, let them lose.

 

You don't hear about the consistent 65% games Crane put up in tourneys, you hear good players talk about the times they got tops off of him. To me, more of that in current bridge would be fun. My very first tournament I pulled off a psyche against Gene Simpson. I could barely follow suit, but it is a hand I will always remember because I beat someone so much better than me, even for one hand. Years from now, this wont be enough. I'm hyper-competitive, and will not stop til I reach the upper echoelon level of play. I've been a C since i started 2 years ago, playing almost exclusively at the club level. I'm lucky enough to have decent players walk through our doors many days out of the year. I've probably played 200 hands against Itabashi, and I've learned and seen more out of his play each time, because I'm improving. I don't think it will crush the spirit of newer players to be up against the best, it will simply force those who want to get better to get better.

 

Yes there are players who are 100% social, but those people will play regardless.

[awm]

There seems to be a bit of contradiction between rduran's posts.

 

In the first, he says that a lot of pros and good players are jerks. He then praises his local club (Long Beach) which has a history of telling good players who are not regulars that they are not welcome (and this includes people who are very "nice guys"). This seems to suggest that he prefers a "sheltered" environment where he doesn't have to compete against the good players he apparently thinks are jerks.

 

But then in the second post, he talks about psyching against Gene Simpson (a full time pro) as a great memorable experience, and suggests that we should not have so many flighted or stratified events so we can go back to the old days when everyone in the tournament potentially "got to play" against Barry Crane and Lew Mathe...

 

The reality is that yes, there are some good players who are total assholes. They are not 95%, and probably not even a majority. But they are a lot louder than the ones who are nice. I can see not wanting to play against these people (or even be in a room with them), and it consistently amazes me that they get paying clients. Having said that, a general ban against good players at the club does not seem like the right solution. It would be better to ban the specific individuals who are acting like jerks, don't you think?

[Bbradley62]

One thing I can not stand is stratification levels. All the stories i get to hear from players is the good old days playing against Barry Crane and Lew Mathe and on and on and on, being able to beat them and sit at the table with them.

As a lower-level player, I loved stratified events when they were started, about 25 years ago. To me, they presented the best of both worlds: (a) since all levels of play were in the same section, you got to play against some stars, and (b) as a lower-level player, your score got directly measured against those in your strata, so you still got rewarded for winning among your peers. Is this not still how it works?

[rduran1216]

There seems to be a bit of contradiction between rduran's posts.

 

In the first, he says that a lot of pros and good players are jerks. He then praises his local club (Long Beach) which has a history of telling good players who are not regulars that they are not welcome (and this includes people who are very "nice guys"). This seems to suggest that he prefers a "sheltered" environment where he doesn't have to compete against the good players he apparently thinks are jerks.

 

But then in the second post, he talks about psyching against Gene Simpson (a full time pro) as a great memorable experience, and suggests that we should not have so many flighted or stratified events so we can go back to the old days when everyone in the tournament potentially "got to play" against Barry Crane and Lew Mathe...

 

The reality is that yes, there are some good players who are total assholes. They are not 95%, and probably not even a majority. But they are a lot louder than the ones who are nice. I can see not wanting to play against these people (or even be in a room with them), and it consistently amazes me that they get paying clients. Having said that, a general ban against good players at the club does not seem like the right solution. It would be better to ban the specific individuals who are acting like jerks, don't you think?

 

Where did I say my club tells good players they are not welcome? I said that I personally have been raised to dislike people who come in and for example badger defenseless players. The only person who has been close to a ban in our club is Stephen Goldstein, but for whatever reason people don't complain about his ridiculous behavior to the right people. I clearly did not convey the meaning I was attempting to.

 

If you call directors because both opponents don't have a convention card, if you berate your partner at the table then tell your opponents not to talk once the next hand starts so you can "focus", if you call the director on 299ers for hesitations, if you ask questions about your opponents agreements to give clear info to your partner, etc. This is the kind of jackass im talking about.

[mgoetze]

If you call directors because both opponents don't have a convention card, [...] if you call the director on 299ers for hesitations,

 

So you're saying the rules don't apply to beginners, or what?

[Elianna]

Nothing to see here.

 

Move along.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Elianna

[rduran1216]

So you're saying the rules don't apply to beginners, or what?

 

beginners hesitate on every call and every card, usually without reason. If a good player hesitates for no reason thats different, but badgering beginners is really scummy IMO

[gwnn]

Beginners should know the rules of bridge as well.

[blackshoe]

There's a difference between "badgering" and "calling the director".

 

Proper procedure in cases where UI may have been passed by an opponent to his partner is to confirm agreement by the opponents that whatever it was (hesitation is what we're talking about, but there are other things, too) did in fact happen. If they agree, fine, no problem. If they disagree, they are supposed to call the TD. They probably won't know that, of course. Hell, there are experienced players who don't know that. Anyway, I suppose they might consider asking them if they agree there was a hesitation on "every call and every card" would amount to badgering, so I guess you have to pick your cases. But they need to be made aware - by the TD - of the proper procedure both in calling and playing, and in dealing with potential UI. It might also be useful for the TD (not players; it's not their job and could be taken wrongly) to suggest that if they're being called frequently on providing/possibly using UI then maybe they should work on dealing with that. Education, not badgering.

 

As for the "both opponents don't have a system card" thing, well, in clubs you're probably not going to get anywhere unless neither of them has a card, and maybe not even then. So no, I wouldn't bother the TD on that specific thing. I would call if the lack of a SC and a reluctance or inability to fully disclose their methods verbally causes a problem.

[mgoetze]

Well if someone is slow on every call and every card, there is no break in tempo, so in that case, sure, hit the people who are making a fuss about it over the head. But I'll bet that if you pay attention you'll notice that good players are only asking for the TD when there actually is a relevant variation in tempo. And in those cases I fully support ensuring the beginners learn the rules as soon as possible.

[kenberg]

I am definitely not a pro. However, I have, for reasons of geography, lately been playing at a club where I am significantly better than several of the players. My partner and I often come in first, and we rarely come in third or lower. I worried some about the effect. I told the person running it that if people stopped coming because they felt they now had no chance she should just let me know. I suggested to my partner that we sometimes play NS, sometimes EW. It has all worked out fine, we seem to be welcome, and at least some of the players will sometimes ask for advice afterwards. I enjoy seeing and chatting with the other players, many of whom are quite accomplished at non-bridge things. I can't recall ever calling the director except for a revoke or a bid out of turn or something like that.

 

When I first started playing, I played in a novice game. This wasn't because I wanted to beat weak competition, it was because I knew that I didn't have a clue about what I was doing and I didn't want to foul up the game for the people who did know what they were doing. But now I am delighted to sit at a table with, say, Robinson/Boyd. I do my best, they do their best, sometimes I prevail, more often they prevail. But to play against them I have to go to the Washington Bridge League Unit game, I don't find them at the local club.

 

Which brings me to: If a club has mostly beginners/intermediates, what the hell is a big time player doing there? Even with a client it seems tacky. Not illegal or anything, just tacky. When I was in college I agreed to box with another student whom I had just met. After he knocked me silly, he mentioned that he was a local Golden Gloves champ. He enjoyed this? What's the point?

[blackshoe]

Shooting fish in a barrel, or taking candy from babes, or whatever you want to call it, has never appealed to me. I have noted that for the most part, those to whom it does appeal are not people I would add to my friends list.

[awm]

There are a lot of innocuous reasons that pros play in weak club games from time to time.

 

One is simple location; in many places there is only one truly local club. Driving for an hour (or more!) to a stronger game costs time and money. Second, in order to make a living playing bridge, most pros need to have very regular gigs (this is especially true of the lower echelon of pros who make much of their living playing in local club games rather than regionals). Thus they can't limit themselves to the one or two strongest club games of the week in order to make a living -- they pretty much need to play every day even if certain days are weaker than others. Third, the person paying them has a big say in matters. If this person wants to play at his local club on a particular day it's in the pro's best interest to go along with that.

 

Certainly this does not excuse poor behavior on the pro's part. But they're not necessarily trying to "shoot fish in a barrel" just because they show up at a weaker game.

[Phil]

I see the hikacking continues in this thread.

 

Re: Pros in small club games. Club games, as a rule, are weak. Unless a client feels like traveling to a particular regional on a Wednesday, this is where the pro+client will play. It isn't "poaching" (do I hear whispers of excluding the pros from club games?).

 

Re:director calls on 299ers. Nice to see our resident directors that cannot separate theory from practice condone an obnoxious pro's habit of

calling the director for breaks in tempo. In my experience, newer players tank because they aren't focused, are nervous, or are just slow in general. Pros that are calling the director for these random tanks aren't doing it because they need protection, they are doing it because they think they can get mileage out of intimidation. Of course newer players need to be made aware of tempo issues, but a loudmouth pro making the director call isn't the most constructive atmosphere.

[nige1]

...Re:director calls on 299ers...

What's a 299er?

[BunnyGo]

What's a 299er?

 

Someone with fewer than 300 masterpoints.

[blackshoe]

Re:director calls on 299ers. Nice to see our resident directors that cannot separate theory from practice condone an obnoxious pro's habit of

calling the director for breaks in tempo.

 

If that's directed at me, you've miss-characterized what I said. I did not and do not condone any "obnoxious" habit, from a pro or from anybody else.

[Mbodell]

Someone with fewer than 300 masterpoints.

 

Which, until very recently, was the cut off for life master status (and still is for those who have been members of the ACBL for more than a year or so). For perspective just over 2 out of 5 ACBL members more than 300 masterpoints, so a 299er is roughly someone in the bottom half of the experience range.

[Vampyr]

rduran1216, it sounds like maybe you need to try harder to follow the regulations rather than criticise those who expect them to be enforced.

 

If 95% of good players, in your experience, are assholes, why has no one else found this to be true? Could it be it is not them?

[phil_20686]

I have actually seen far more bad behaviour from clients than from pros. TBH, I'm not sure how some of the pros put up with it. I have had to twice call the director on a client for what I thought was poor behavior, but I have never had even the vaguest inclination to do so on any of the pros that I know.

 

EDIT:Not my own client, I am obviously not a pro. realised on a re-read that it was ambiguous.

[aurora1920]

I browse around in these blogs about competitive bridge even though I've no interest in ever playing it, because I've written a book, and now have a blog (http://bridgetable.net). My cause is to promote sociable bridge (and that will grow serious bridge as well) and I frequently say "there are two kinds of bridge--serious and sociable." Now I find out here, there's two kinds of serious bridge--friendly duplicate and deadly duplicate.

 

Here's excerpt from recent NY Times article about Dr. Marty Seligman, a psychologist and ardent bridge player, on why some people "keep joylessly playing bridge?" [sounds like category 2 players.] It was a blog by Linda Lee that alerted me to the article's existence.

 

Dr. Seligman noticed them at bridge tournaments, "They never smiled, not even when they won. They didn't play to make money or make friends. They didn't savor that feeling of total engagement . . . psychologists call flow . . . they were quite willing to win ugly, sometimes EVEN WHEN THAT MEANT CHEATING." [caps are mine reflecting my surprise at the statement.]

 

"They wanted to win for its own sake even if it brought no positive emotion . . . They were like hedge fund managers who just want to accumulate money and toys for their own sake. Watching them play, seeing them cheat, it kept hitting me that accomplishment is a human desiderata in itself." That's a fancy word for something needed, wanted by human beings.

 

But how can winning "ugly" by cheating give any NORMAL person a feeling of accomplishment? At some level you must know you're a fraud.

 

Seems to me as total outsider that those willing to cheat to win, and those who've become too friendly in their duplicate games, need to be ignored (or form their own organizations/tournaments and ACBL concern itself with what's left.

[phil_20686]

"They wanted to win for its own sake even if it brought no positive emotion . . . They were like hedge fund managers who just want to accumulate money and toys for their own sake. Watching them play, seeing them cheat, it kept hitting me that accomplishment is a human desiderata in itself." That's a fancy word for something needed, wanted by human beings.

 

But how can winning "ugly" by cheating give any NORMAL person a feeling of accomplishment? At some level you must know you're a fraud.

 

I think your pschologists have misanalysed. These players want to be "respected" and often feel that they do not get the recognition due their skills. You only get recognition as a good bridge player by winnings stuff, so the cheating is not a means to win, but to acheive that respect that they fell is their due. Since they feel that they are wrongfully denied that respect, their cheating is only "righting an obvious wrong" and they class it as a "white lie".