Revisiting "Bridge Personality", part 2

[daveharty]

This is the second part of the poll, covering the "Information" trait pair. The first question, regarding "post-mortemitis", refers to post-mortems AFTER a session is over; I think we are all in agreement that discussion of hands at the table is something else, and usually undesirable. For the second question, the numerical references I provided are completely arbitrary, so if you think I am way off-base, feel free to say so.

 

Parts 3 and 4 will follow later this evening.

 

EDIT: I've finished inputting the poll. Part 1 is here.

 

Part 3 of the poll is here.

 

Part 4 of the poll is here.

[Trinidad]

I like to go through all the hands that are played, up to the level that I keep stats with serious partners.

 

I actively hate talking about a hand immediately afterwards.

 

Rik

[Antrax]

What should I do if I read bridge books very often but own very few? My club has a library and my partner buys a ton of them too.

[gnasher]

What should I do if I own many bridge books but haven't got around to reading all of them yet?

[daveharty]

What should I do if I own many bridge books but haven't got around to reading all of them yet?

Give them to me.

[daveharty]

I would suggest paying more attention to the "reading" part of the description than to the "owning books" part, if they are in conflict. The only reason I included both was in case you are like me, and go through periods where you read a lot of bridge literature, and then go through extended periods where you read almost none. In such a case I thought the number of books owned might provide a decent metric.

[dustinst22]

These are interesting, but I don't think critical for partnership compatibility. I think 2 people on opposite spectrums in many of these categories can still be a great partnership -- perhaps better than if they were exact replicas of each other. For example, there are many top level players who have read/studied very little on theory and instead relied on other methods of getting to where they are, and then there are others who read a great deal. Would the above really matter to form a partnership? I also don't think its such a bad thing if one player is a more aggressive bidder than his/her partner, in fact sometimes that can be optimal. In the Meckwell partnership, Rodwell is obviously the member heavily into bidding theory, etc. Meckstoth is the opposite of this. This obviously works great for them.

 

So I think it's a mistake to simply look for someone who closely resembles yourself. Sometimes the best compliment is a partner who has many differences. Imagine using this approach to try and find a compatible spouse. You'd end up dating yourself. I think the old fashioned approach of parding a wide variety of people and then seeing if you click is probably the best option. In my opinion, the most critical factor is always how competitive each of you are.

[daveharty]

These are interesting, but I don't think critical for partnership compatibility. I think 2 people on opposite spectrums in many of these categories can still be a great partnership. For example, there are many top level players who have read/studied very little on theory and instead relied on other methods of getting to where they are, and then there are others who read a great deal. Would the above really matter to form a partnership? I also don't think its such a bad thing if one player is a more aggressive bidder than his/her partner, in fact sometimes that can be optimal. So I think it's a mistake to simply look for someone who closely resembles yourself. Sometimes the best compliment is a partner who has many differences. I still say the best way to find a partner is simply to use the old fashioned approach of parding a wide variety of people and then seeing if you click. In my opinion, the most critical factor is how competitive each of you are.

I agree almost completely with this (not sure about "many" top level players not reading/studying but I'm sure there are some). The point is not to find someone who closely resembles yourself; it is rather to find someone whose tendencies align with your expectations for a partner. If that is someone who matches yourself, fine, but that certainly won't be true for everyone. I agree that strong and enduring partnerships can be formed between people who would have very different BPs, but I think the key is that each partner would know how the other differs from themselves in consistent and identifiable ways. I can enjoy playing with someone who is a less aggressive bidder than myself, as long as I know it and can allow for it. Also, I would argue that each of us might have different "deal-breakers" as far as partnerships are concerned. I am definitely not suggesting that people with divergent BPs shouldn't partner each other; I am simply suggesting that having a shorthand method of viewing information about a potential partner's tendencies and philosophy might provide a useful tool in narrowing the field, according to whatever criteria each person sets for them self.