Luck or Skill?

[PhilG007]

Is bridge a game of luck or skill...or both (?)

[Vampyr]

Is bridge a game of luck or skill...or both (?)

 

Both, of course. In duplicate, I would estimate that the proportion of luck is 10-20%. In rubber a lot more.

[ggwhiz]

With duplicated cards it is definitely a game of skill.... in the long run.

 

Definitely a game of luck in the short term.

 

The occasional stinker paired with a few wins is more satisfying than scoring 53% every time.

[billw55]

I remember the time the top pair at our club - a multiple national champ and a strong A player - failed to get their NAP qualifier in a ten table game. The field was decent for a club, but not great - I was in it, and I wasn't the worst player. An unlikely occurrence (and they got their Q later), but lucky and its brother unlucky do happen.

[Phil]

I get asked this question a lot by non-bridge players.

 

Obviously rubber bridge has a high degree of luck, especially in the short term.

 

Duplicate actually does have elements of luck in the following areas:

 

1. The hands this session fit well with our methods / we had a lot of 'system fixes'.

 

2. We were able to take advantage of the unseeded pairs in our section / all of the boards we played versus the weak pairs were flat.

 

3. We had flat boards against the strong pairs / the strong pairs we played had the key decisions, and got them right, and we didn't have much field protection.

 

There are countless others, and all of these factors are basically random, which can account for the reason that you'll play well and score 54% in one session and 70% in the next.

[Trinidad]

It is simple:

 

If we win, it is skill.

If the opponents win, it is luck.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

If our opponents win, they got a lucky draw.

[barmar]

Duplicate actually does have elements of luck in the following areas:

All of which are why it's important to emphasize that they only matter in the short term. As the number of boards and opponents increase, the influence of luck will be reduced, while skill should dominate.

 

This is why championship events have so many boards. And it's no coincidence that we generally see many of the same players and teams winning from year to year -- they really are the better players.

[PhilKing]

The "answer" is between 0% and 100%.

 

Theoretically, if you play a one board match and slam is on a finesse, you are simply in the lap of the gods - skill does not come into it.

 

In the infinite long term, skill is king - the best player or team will win.

[nige1]

Luck becomes more important, the more the average skill level rises.

[eagles123]

disagree, imo the weaker the field the more luck is a factor as you're more likely to come across opps doing a ridiculous action one way or the other

[aguahombre]

Luck becomes more important, the more the average skill level rises.

Whose skill level?

 

disagree, imo the weaker the field the more luck is a factor as you're more likely to come across opps doing a ridiculous action one way or the other

I think that increases the gap even more in favor of skill vs. luck. Weigh the occasional fix against the bid-fixes where their skill in the play of the hand is as bad as their judgement in the auction.

[silvr bull]

It is 100% skill that a good team will win a session with duplicated boards and that has a field with several good teams. It is near 100% luck which good team will win, depending on the results of their guesses in coin flip situations, and random unlucky or bad choices by their opps.

[KurtGodel]

Is this even a serious question?

[Gerben42]

How do you define a game of skill? Many games have skill elements in them, even if they appear to be very random.

 

Pure games of luck are rare.

 

Lottery is normally defined as a game of luck, however there is a skill element picking numbers that no one else has, so that in case you win, you don't have to share the jackpot.

 

Bridge is on the other side of the spectrum. Although there is a luck element, skill is dominant.

 

Then there are games of pure skill with no element of luck, like Chess.

[barmar]

Then there are games of pure skill with no element of luck, like Chess.

There's luck even in games like chess. It matters which opponent you draw, and things like the weather or personal issues can affect how you or your opponent play on a particular day. If it were pure skill, then you'd expect the same result any time a particular pair of opponents played against each other (assuming not enough time has gone between them for them to get better or worse at the game).

[PhilG007]

How do you define a game of skill? Many games have skill elements in them, even if they appear to be very random.

 

Pure games of luck are rare.

 

Lottery is normally defined as a game of luck, however there is a skill element picking numbers that no one else has, so that in case you win, you don't have to share the jackpot.

 

Bridge is on the other side of the spectrum. Although there is a luck element, skill is dominant.

 

Then there are games of pure skill with no element of luck, like Chess.

Being a chess player,I can only half agree to the above statement.While chess is,primerally a game of skill,there have been more than one

occasion where luck also played its part.

A great chess player of the early 20th Century ,U.S.Champion Frank J. Marshall,won

many games he should have lost. They became known as "swindles". Indeed,so often did a "Marshall swindle" occur,it gradually became part of the

chess lexicon...

[masse24]

Being a chess player,I can only half agree to the above statement.While chess is,primerally a game of skill,there have been more than one

occasion where luck also played its part.

A great chess player of the early 20th Century ,U.S.Champion Frank J. Marshall,won

many games he should have lost. They became known as "swindles". Indeed,so often did a "Marshall swindle" occur,it gradually became part of the

chess lexicon...

 

You seem to be equating pulling off a "swindle" with luck. If we assume that executing a "swindle" to be a conscious effort, it would be a skillful play (not lucky).

[PhilG007]

You seem to be equating pulling off a "swindle" with luck. If we assume that executing a "swindle" to be a conscious effort, it would be a skillful play (not lucky).

How many times as declarer have you bid to 3 NT only to find one suit is open to the winds? The opponents don't lead the suit

and you run for home.Then listen with interest to the defenders post mortem. Would you not fitly call that luck(?)Then again,you have bid to a small slam missing two Aces but they are both in separate hands and you manage to discard the losers in one of the opposing Ace suits..wouldn't you consider yourself 'lucky' to have made the contract when others,not so'lucky'have gone down?

[Vampyr]

How many times as declarer have you bid to 3 NT only to find one suit is open to the winds? The opponents don't lead the suit

and you run for home.Then listen with interest to the defenders post mortem. Would you not fitly call that luck(?)Then again,you have bid to a small slam missing two Aces but they are both in separate hands and you manage to discard the losers in one of the opposing Ace suits..wouldn't you consider yourself 'lucky' to have made the contract when others,not so'lucky'have gone down?

 

Has anyone said that there is no luck in bridge? While bridge is primarily a game of skill, of course the above are instances in which luck is a factor.

[Zelandakh]

You seem to be equating pulling off a "swindle" with luck. If we assume that executing a "swindle" to be a conscious effort, it would be a skillful play (not lucky).

This is true and there is absolutely an art to swindling in chess but there is also luck to be found. An example for top level play comes in opening preparation - sometimes it happens that you prepare a winning novelty in your opponent's favourite line and they choose on a whim to play something else. At club level, whether your opponent has studied up a difficult endgame (such as R+B vs R) recently can make a huge difference in a game where that comes up. But clearly this is a different type of luck to that that we normally talk about in bridge.

[lycier]

I remembered when I began to learn the bridge, someone spoke highly of the bridge and often said the bridge is 1% luck plus 99% of wisdom.

A few years ago, someone ever said that the bridge might own the highest rate of luck is 33% in many situations,actually luck of the bridge is closed to gambling game (35%+) sometimes.

How do you think of it?

Maybe luck is the garb of the skill (wisdom).

Wisdom (skill) is an emanation of luck.

The bridge is just a pure and gracious crystallization of its divine skill and the luck.

[helene_t]

I remembered when I began to learn the bridge, someone spoke highly of the bridge and often said the bridge is 1% luck plus 99% of wisdom.

A few years ago, someone ever said that the bridge might own the highest rate of luck is 33% in many situations,actually luck of the bridge is closed to gambling game (35%+) sometimes.

Suppose the standard deviation of the imps scored on a board is 4 IMPs. This may depend a little on actual teams playing (if NS play weak NT in the closed room and strong NT in the open room, the SD is bigger. Also, if all eight players are weak and/or crazy, the SD is higher). But let's say for simplicity that it is always 4 IMPs.

 

Now if team USA1 is playing team Monaco, the difference in strength between the two teams is maybe 0.1 IMPs/board. This is a variance of 0.01 square IMPs compared to 16 square IMPs from randomness. So you could say that bridge is 99.94% luck. But suppose they play a 1000 board match. Then the random variance is 16000 while the skill variance 10000, so now it is suddenly only 62% luck.

 

Now suppose Monaco is playing one of the team in the 7th division of the Yorkshire league. They might have a skill advantage of about 4 IMPs/board so on a single board it is 50% luck. On a 1000 board match it will be 0.1% luck. Indeed, the weak team might well win a single board, they could conceivably win an 8-board match, but that they winn a 1000 board match is unlikely.

[hrothgar]

From a practical perspective, back in the weird old days I used to calculate the expected score for the various MOSCITO openings.

 

Some (for example the 2♦ openings) were relatively good

Other - the strong club opening - were relatively bad

 

In fact, it became clear the the variance in the hands that were dealt in a particular session had a not inconsequential impact on our score.

[PhilG007]

This is true and there is absolutely an art to swindling in chess but there is also luck to be found. An example for top level play comes in opening preparation - sometimes it happens that you prepare a winning novelty in your opponent's favourite line and they choose on a whim to play something else. At club level, whether your opponent has studied up a difficult endgame (such as R+B vs R) recently can make a huge difference in a game where that comes up. But clearly this is a different type of luck to that that we normally talk about in bridge.

There is also an art to swindling at bridge although one has to be careful regarding the ethics. False carding is legitimate if partner

is deceived as well as the opponents. But deliberate hesitation when there was no real reason to is a totally different matter.

I didn't think it was possible to cheat at bridge until I read about the 1965 Buenos Aires affair involving the British pair Reese and Schapiro or the Bermuda Bowl 1975 incident where two members of the Italian Blue Team were seen giving foot signals and were subsequently

suspended and later banned following a protest from the American team. This resulted in screens being extended to the floor.