Whenever a player thinks for an extortionate time

[EarlPurple]

I've watched a lot of bridge. Both on vu-graph and tourneys etc.

 

I have found it to be the case - whenever a player goes into the think tank, they inevitably then emerge with the wrong card (or bid).

 

So I will ask the "experts" - why do you think so long when it obviously doesn't help?

[jtfanclub]

I've watched a lot of bridge. Both on vu-graph and tourneys etc.

 

I have found it to be the case - whenever a player goes into the think tank, they inevitably then emerge with the wrong card (or bid).

 

So I will ask the "experts" - why do you think so long when it obviously doesn't help?

I'm not sure that applies to experts.

 

Somebody like me, I've already considered everything I can think of in about 2 minutes. Everything else is repetition, or 'rechecking', and I often get confused at that point about what I was certain about earlier.

 

But it's easy for me to believe that real experts can spend 10 minutes checking lines I wouldn't consider, or every possibility in a hand where my brain simply isn't that big. It's like chess- I can't imagine seriously studying a position for hours. I might study it for five minutes, go away (mentally) for 10, and them come back to look at it afresh. But I couldn't even concentrate on it for that long. But real experts can.

[inquiry]

Perhaps you are watching the watching the wrong people. Thinking really doesn't hurt, everyone should try it more often.

 

I think what you are seeing is thinking occurs at the critical part of the hand, so there is more chances to go wrong there. Nothing more than that.

[whereagles]

No, I believe he's talking about people that spend 5-10 mins thinking about... nothing! I know a few people like that, most of which aren't good players. The reason they manage to waste so much time is beyond me, but I'm sure a psychiatrist can sort it out quickly.

[pclayton]

I've seen it too - sometimes going into the tank works, sometimes it doesn't.

 

I'd say that more poor plays are made due to lack of study, then overstudying a decision, however.

[PriorKnowledge]

I think long think is a loser most of the time. Unless the situation is actually calculating something. Like working out possible card combos or lines of play. Also, some people add slowly, so adding up the hcp they have seen so far takes a little time.

 

Other than that, long thinking spells usually result in the wrong play by overly considering false evidence.

 

My rule (when I remember): If you are not calculating something, your first instinct is usually your best.

[whereagles]

Actually, going into the tank means your subconcious failed to analyze the situation properly. Since your subconcious is usually right, when it fails you're left in limbo so you mess up. That's what happens, lol. And it checks correctly with observational data!!! :lol:

[luke warm]

i can only go by my own experience.... the longer i think, the better i play... usually i play *much* better... unfortunately it tends to make some people antsy...

[slothy]

usually i play *much* better... unfortunately it tends to make some people antsy...

Jimmy that not the only thing about you that makes me , and perhaps the rest of the world , 'antsy'

<_< :angry: :D

 

where the hell did you get that word 'antsy' ????

 

Some Beginners Guide to Entomology or sumtin???

 

Sloffy

[jahol]

In my opinion, bridge game integrates both probabilistic and deterministic elements. From my practice (20 years working on applications of probabilistic methods in risk studies) I am sure that it is very difficult, in restricted and limited time frame, to "solve" exactly probabilistic part of bridge. However, if you would like to be bridge expert, you have to solve the deterministic part as correctly as possible.

 

At he beginning of the board, probabilistic part totally dominates. You hold your cards and each of LHO, CHO, RHO can have any cards remaining. Typically, the nature of problems remains strongly probabilistic during the bidding. You can be almost never sure that the slam you just bid is a good contract before you see dummy (and many times even after that). As a consequence, in my opinion, it is not very productive to spend ten minutes on solution whether to bid slam or not. Actually, in case of slam, it can be of some meaning, but definitely not in case of game. (By the way, your final result after ten minutes of thinking is, I am sure, mostly done by your psychological status just at the moment of the decision and many irracional factors may influence it)

 

During the second part of the game, you are declarer, or defender, the situation is different. Card after card, the probabilistic nature of potential problems shifts to the deterministic one. The problems start having finite number of solutions, some of them wrong, some of the good, some of them the best. Here, there is definitely time for long thinking, since you have something, you can and should really think about.

 

Jahol

[Fluffy]

I have a couple o friends very well known to think too much.

 

When I first played with one of them I was surprised that after very very deep thinking he finally solved most of the problems, when I was expecting him to fail as often happens with long thinkings :), but the difference is they ALWAYS think deeply, not once in a while.

[uday]

For some reason, i feel "pressure" online to make bids/plays quickly. A "tank" of 30 seconds seems like it takes forever online, whereas in real life, i dont mind when someone thinks for several minutes.

 

Does anyone else feel this? In addition to time moving faster, you have to deal with "are you there? " from the table, so you can't think as well :)

[pclayton]

Yes Uday, I agree. At the table, I am known for putting my head down and my thumbs on my ears (to block out the noise) while I reconstruct the opponents cards. I have been accused of stealing sleep during the time. Hard to imagine doing this while playing on line, even against very good opponents, especially since I feel the need to type "THK" every 30 seconds or so.

[ehhh]

The director was called to the table

to address an issue of UI

after a long hesitation.

His addressed the problem with the comment,

"Don't spoil a good game by thinking!"

Ironically there is something deep and philosophical

about his whimsical retort.

[luke warm]

where the hell did you get that word 'antsy' ????

 

Some Beginners Guide to Entomology or sumtin???

 

Sloffy

heheh... think it means 'nervousness felt by british soldiers during the battle for new orleans in 1814, when confronted with the intellectual and physical superiority of the american soldier'

 

course i could be wrong

 

For some reason, i feel "pressure" online to make bids/plays quickly.  Does anyone else feel this?

 

absolutely, and it's a shame... what i hate the most is the advertisements in the lobby for players, especially the ones that say 'fast expert players needed'... give me a break... watch the real experts play (to win)... they're as fast as they need to be, and quite often that's pretty slow

[Guest Jlall]

In events like club games, online play, and sectionals i am usually on auto-pilot mode. I play quickly and dont think very much. I can get away with this usually, but I will make a mistake or oversight more frequently in this way. If playing a regional or national I will take time to figure out what's going on if I need to. I know for a fact i play much better at nationals than say online, so thinking definitely does help. However, I do dislike when people think on obvious plays or for "no reason." This just slows down the game, and bridge IS a timed event at tournaments and you are expected to finish play within your allowed amount of time.

[luke warm]

you're right, it irritates a lot of us when what appears obvious seems to require a lot of thought from some people... but remember, what might be obvious to you, seen at a glance, may not be quite so obvious to someone else... even someone at your skill level might think at a different speed than you... i'm fairly certain that it would take me longer to reach a solution than it would take you, just as i'm certain that if i don't sometimes take the time i need, the results will bear it out

[EricK]

I think Henry Buckle, the 19th Century Chess player, said it best:

 

"The slowness of genius is hard to bear, but the slowness of mediocrity is intolerable".

 

My partner likes to say "If you're going to make a mistake, at least make it quickly"

 

Last night, our opps were playing in 3NT after my partner had opened a weak NT (thus placing all the points). Dummy had 5♥ to the AT and 3♠ to the Ace but no other high cards. Declarer tries to set up the ♥ (he had a doubleton), and partner gets in and swithces to ♠K from Kxx - A Merrimac coup! Declarer immediately takes dummy's Ace, but because the ♥ don't break, he has no entry to the long ♥. Now he stops and thinks for a fair while, but still misses the obvious throw-in on partner and drifts 1 off.

 

Now this is a guy who really loves his bridge, plays every night of the week, and has done so for many years. But I have no idea what he is thinking about when he lapses into thought. It certainly isn't about the earlier tricks, becasue even after the hand he didn't realise he could simply have ducked ♠K.

 

Eric

[slothy]

heheh... think it means 'nervousness felt by british soldiers during the battle for new orleans in 1814, when confronted with the intellectual and physical superiority of the american soldier'

 

course i could be wrong

Well, if it were true, Jimmy Boy, i can only say that all the proDarwinian theorists will be faced with a certain contradiction :)

 

The only reason why Americans pepper conversation wiz ze Alamo (nothing to do with this but i want to make a certain point) is coz its one of the few battles they have little difficuty in spelling...

 

:D

 

Sloofy

[helene_t]

Whatever the reason, the same phenomena has been oberved in stock market dealers and fire fighters.

 

Presumably, when making conscious decisions, people tend to employ irrelevant information (over-fitting their own experience, "resulting" in bridge jargon) and miscalculate probabilities. Surely intuitive probability calculations are not only faster but also more reliable than high-school math, except if we get the formulars right which most of us don't. It is also possible that reasoning is biased towards decisions that are not necesarily correct but easy to justify intellectually.

[epeeist]

Generally, at least in online bridge (and especially in individual tournaments!) it seems to me that the longer a partner thinks, the more likely he or she is to make the wrong call... :D It's probably true for me also...though I think needing a long time to think is often the sign of an unclear bid or situation not covered by bidding system/partnership agreement. So I would assume the better the player/partnership, the more likely thinking is actually productive, rather than wondering what p's last bid meant... :)

 

It also causes stress, when they're thinking a long time on say a Blackwood response, you start to think "did they forget we agreed to rkcb and are trying to remember..." etc.

 

That said, I disagree to a limited extent with another poster's complaint about people who take too long to think when their bid is obvious/automatic. If it's truly automatic, then that is one of the few times in the bidding when one can pause to think, e.g. about a situation that may be coming up later in the bidding ("Will I double or bid 4♠ if opponents bid 4♥...") without giving one's p unauthorized information; think before the situation arises. Also, I try always to take a few seconds for any bid, even before passing, trying to keep all my bidding in tempo.

 

However, except for some relays, how many bids are truly automatic? Even Blackwood, isn't there at least a modicum of thought as to whether Blackwood or slam-invitational or to play (rare but sometimes retreat from p's 4-level suit bid) rkcb or normal, and if rkcb, what suit was agreed, etc. For transfers, it's possible to "super-accept" (bid one higher than necessary, e.g. 3♠ instead of 2♠) with a particularly good hand for that suit, etc. So even on a so-called "automatic" bid, some thinking may be required (and thus, there's a risk of giving UI).

[luke warm]

Well, if it were true, Jimmy Boy, i can only say that all the proDarwinian theorists will be faced with a certain contradiction :)

huh? dar-who?

 

The only reason why Americans pepper conversation wiz ze Alamo (nothing to do with this but i want to make a certain point) is coz its one of the few battles they have little difficuty in spelling...

 

:D

not true!! i can spell n'awlins