Revisiting "Bridge Personality", part 1

[daveharty]

Last year, I wrote a post proposing a descriptor which I called “bridge personality”; basically, a string of numbers which would describe a bridge player's self-rating along various axes, with the goal of providing a rough snapshot of that player's bridge “philosophy” (it did NOT include a self-assessment of skill level). My theory was that it could be used to provide clues about compatibility with potential partners, by allowing one player to see at a glance whether another player's bridge tendencies were in close alignment with his or her own.

 

I always intended to revisit this, because the idea got a lot of very interesting feedback. (The original thread is here.) Many of the suggestions for improving the original scheme fell into two main areas: using a five-point scale rather than the original ten-point scale I had proposed, as the ten-point scale was a little too nuanced on some of the axes; and grouping the resulting numbers in a way that was easier to parse quickly. There were also numerous suggestions for additional axes, and suggestions that a poll be created, since the Forums had recently changed formats and allowed for more complex polling.

 

With all that in mind, I have revised the original scheme and created a poll. I have increased the number of axes measured from six to eight, while reducing the scale from ten points to five on each. I have grouped the eight resulting numbers into four pairs, which can be remembered using the acronym BIDS (Bidding, Information, Defense, miScellaneous). These are explained as follows:

 

Bidding. This pair of numbers describes a player's preference for system complexity, and level of bidding aggression.

 

Information. This pair of numbers describes a player's beliefs or behavior with regard to two common methods of information transfer: the post-mortem, and books about bridge.

 

Defense. This pair of numbers, using the same template as that for Bidding, describes first a player's preference for defensive system (carding) complexity, and next the player's level of defensive (opening lead) aggression.

 

miScellaneous. This pair of numbers describes two behavioral axes that don't fit elsewhere, but are perhaps as important as any for determining partnership compatibility, if not more so: overall competitiveness, and pace of play.

 

The resulting string takes the form: BB II DD SS. My own “Revised Bridge Personality” is: 44 43 33 44.

 

Since there is a three-question limitation for polls, I have broken the poll into four parts, corresponding to the four trait pairs outlined above.

 

Part 2 of the poll is here.

 

Part 3 of the poll is here.

 

Part 4 of the poll is here.

[BunnyGo]

Sounds interesting. Minor question: which meanings are associated to "1" and which to "5" on all the axes?

[daveharty]

Sounds interesting. Minor question: which meanings are associated to "1" and which to "5" on all the axes?

On all of the poll questions, the first answer corresponds to "1", the last to "5".

[Cascade]

Hard to answer the aggressiveness question.

 

Aggressiveness depends on vulnerability and seat and scoring. There are some situations where I am much more sound than average and some where I am much more aggressive than standard.

[daveharty]

Hard to answer the aggressiveness question.

 

Aggressiveness depends on vulnerability and seat and scoring. There are some situations where I am much more sound than average and some where I am much more aggressive than standard.

 

Yeah, I agree that it is tough. I would just ask that you try to take a holistic view of your bidding tendencies and come up with an "average" for the various scenarios that you will face at the table.

[guido]

I find the system complexity question impossible to answer. I tend to play my partner's system. This ranges from Bludgeon (no forcing openings or responses; completely natural) and Churchill style at one extreme to Regres at the other end of the spectrum. I might not be good, but I am flexible <grin>. I get better results when my partner is comfortable with the system AND style.

[CSGibson]

What I have found is that on the first three pairings of numbers, my partners and I tend to be similar. On the last set, my most regular partner is dissimilar in both of the miscellaneous categories, and I don't really think that the miscellaneous category needs to be even considered when determining what would make a successful partnership - other than a slow player shouldn't necessarily play with another slow player because of the potential penalties that might ensue.