Help
Late to the thread. I have to agree with Mike, the top players are usually exceptionally kind, helpful and sometimes even humble at the table or quiet and non confrontational. The pro Mike refers to is a well known exception, I roll my eyes and fail to understand why anyone would pay to play with him.
Why so many hooligans in bridge?
#21
- hooked
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,854
- Joined: 2003-November-15
- Gender:Female
- Location:Vancouver, Canada
- Interests:Multi
Posted Yesterday, 19:35
"And no matter what methods you play, it is essential, for anyone aspiring to learn to be a good player, to learn the importance of bidding shape properly. MikeH
"100% certain that many excellent players would disagree. This is far more about style/judgment than right vs. wrong." Fred
"100% certain that many excellent players would disagree. This is far more about style/judgment than right vs. wrong." Fred
#22
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,578
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted Yesterday, 20:53
At a recent regional I got to talking, yakking about with the top players.
One mentioned, how he thought one player may be THE greatest card player and was often a J---
It took me back how matter of fact he said it
--------------------
It reminded me at a national tournament many years ago, talking with one of the top directors. I mentioned how one player
When I was young was and still is a bit of a hero worship for me.
He quickly retorted how all the directors really disliked him. He was a terror to deal with...
One mentioned, how he thought one player may be THE greatest card player and was often a J---
It took me back how matter of fact he said it
--------------------
It reminded me at a national tournament many years ago, talking with one of the top directors. I mentioned how one player
When I was young was and still is a bit of a hero worship for me.
He quickly retorted how all the directors really disliked him. He was a terror to deal with...
#23
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,165
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted Yesterday, 21:56
Wow, this must be the largest category fail I have run into.
I said: one of the failings of smart people is they like to show off, and frequently don't realize how they sound when they show off how they're smarter than the person at the table who just (mis-)played. I also said: in order to play bridge at a decent level, you have to be smart.
Mike comes in with "the best in the world (note: whose livelihoods depend on very rich people they're 'smarter than' at bridge not being turned off by their behaviour (or by hearing the opinions of others as to 'their pros')) are (with some exceptions) unlikely to do this" - in fact, it's the "almost good" players who do this. Funny that. I do not disagree(*).
But if that's the minimum level for "plays bridge at a decent level", there's no hope for The Rest of Us. Even the players who expect to beat average in a reasonable tournament field are at least one "hopeless" level below Mike's "decent". And they're better than say 80% of ACBL players. And most of *those* are better than the hundreds of thousands who play "social bridge" or "kitchen bridge" and won't go to the clubs because they "take it too seriously" or "make everything so complicated".
Somehow I think that's less "decent" and more "near world class".
And, critically, the odds I get hit by lightning in the next 6 months is probably close to the odds OP sees one of those at his table in the same time frame. But about half of them will be "almost good", and many of them (given he's likely in BBO's Permanent Floating Pickup Pool) are going to be the kind that haven't figured out that the reason he can't keep a partner "as good as them" is because he makes it clear how smart he is (read: "smarter he is than partner/opponents").
And wuudturner does the same thing - not "smart", but "the absolute smartest". And he ain't wrong neither - well, some of the time. Many of the best in their field do in fact let their results do the talking. Many of the best in their field - well, it's no fun winning if the losers don't *know* they've lost. If you doubt me, just look around IRL right now... There's a reason The Big Bang Theory (and Sheldon in particular) ran for so long, and it wasn't because nobody recognized the characters.
But again, we're not talking about the top 2%. We're talking "smart". Able to succeed in an academic university. Can be doctors, or lawyers, or engineers, or accountants, or teachers, or CEOs (just off the top of my head of recent high-class opponents).
But okay, sure. Don't believe me. I mean, I'm not a world-famous writer, what do I know?
(*) But I read the Other Site and how they talk about "club players" (and frankly, all the way up to near-expert level) when they think those club players aren't looking. And I've read Machlin's book, two of the more famous stories he repeats that end "I had to bid, I had 12 points." "I'm sorry ma'am, I thought you had three hundred." and "I mean, I know it was today, I meant what time today?" And I remember going to Robert Todd one year to thank him, because "in two sessions Monday, about every second round I played against either a pro, or someone who occasionally plays pro, or someone who reasonably could. Of all those rounds, you were the only one who didn't insult any of the other three players during the round." Or the Spingold match where we were (clearly) one-and-done, and the (very famous) client didn't have a problem saying to the table "I normally sit out the back half, but I'll play this whole match and give the pros a rest for the real games". Or the many many times I have got the (implied, except a few times going by the bar afterwards) "have you asked someone who can play?"/"if you could play, you would rather than directing" (I will admit, this one is much more common with the "almost top"; the pros are more subtle). And there's the story I've told at least twice here (but can't find now) where a "Good C" pair and someone I really liked convinced me to play a third session Swiss, having directed the previous two, and how we blitzed the pro and client round 3 by just sitting quietly while he told her everything she did wrong on the last round and each board on this one.
That's just off the top of my head - and remember, people will remember one bad experience more clearly than ten good ones...
I said: one of the failings of smart people is they like to show off, and frequently don't realize how they sound when they show off how they're smarter than the person at the table who just (mis-)played. I also said: in order to play bridge at a decent level, you have to be smart.
Mike comes in with "the best in the world (note: whose livelihoods depend on very rich people they're 'smarter than' at bridge not being turned off by their behaviour (or by hearing the opinions of others as to 'their pros')) are (with some exceptions) unlikely to do this" - in fact, it's the "almost good" players who do this. Funny that. I do not disagree(*).
But if that's the minimum level for "plays bridge at a decent level", there's no hope for The Rest of Us. Even the players who expect to beat average in a reasonable tournament field are at least one "hopeless" level below Mike's "decent". And they're better than say 80% of ACBL players. And most of *those* are better than the hundreds of thousands who play "social bridge" or "kitchen bridge" and won't go to the clubs because they "take it too seriously" or "make everything so complicated".
Somehow I think that's less "decent" and more "near world class".
And, critically, the odds I get hit by lightning in the next 6 months is probably close to the odds OP sees one of those at his table in the same time frame. But about half of them will be "almost good", and many of them (given he's likely in BBO's Permanent Floating Pickup Pool) are going to be the kind that haven't figured out that the reason he can't keep a partner "as good as them" is because he makes it clear how smart he is (read: "smarter he is than partner/opponents").
And wuudturner does the same thing - not "smart", but "the absolute smartest". And he ain't wrong neither - well, some of the time. Many of the best in their field do in fact let their results do the talking. Many of the best in their field - well, it's no fun winning if the losers don't *know* they've lost. If you doubt me, just look around IRL right now... There's a reason The Big Bang Theory (and Sheldon in particular) ran for so long, and it wasn't because nobody recognized the characters.
But again, we're not talking about the top 2%. We're talking "smart". Able to succeed in an academic university. Can be doctors, or lawyers, or engineers, or accountants, or teachers, or CEOs (just off the top of my head of recent high-class opponents).
But okay, sure. Don't believe me. I mean, I'm not a world-famous writer, what do I know?
(*) But I read the Other Site and how they talk about "club players" (and frankly, all the way up to near-expert level) when they think those club players aren't looking. And I've read Machlin's book, two of the more famous stories he repeats that end "I had to bid, I had 12 points." "I'm sorry ma'am, I thought you had three hundred." and "I mean, I know it was today, I meant what time today?" And I remember going to Robert Todd one year to thank him, because "in two sessions Monday, about every second round I played against either a pro, or someone who occasionally plays pro, or someone who reasonably could. Of all those rounds, you were the only one who didn't insult any of the other three players during the round." Or the Spingold match where we were (clearly) one-and-done, and the (very famous) client didn't have a problem saying to the table "I normally sit out the back half, but I'll play this whole match and give the pros a rest for the real games". Or the many many times I have got the (implied, except a few times going by the bar afterwards) "have you asked someone who can play?"/"if you could play, you would rather than directing" (I will admit, this one is much more common with the "almost top"; the pros are more subtle). And there's the story I've told at least twice here (but can't find now) where a "Good C" pair and someone I really liked convinced me to play a third session Swiss, having directed the previous two, and how we blitzed the pro and client round 3 by just sitting quietly while he told her everything she did wrong on the last round and each board on this one.
That's just off the top of my head - and remember, people will remember one bad experience more clearly than ten good ones...
Long live the Republic-k. -- Major General J. Golding Frederick (tSCoSI)
#24
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,578
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted Yesterday, 22:23
"take it too seriously"
Boy that rings a bell ..
Coming back to the local club this year, sitting around talking..
I mentioned how one of my goals was to relearn to concentrate at the table as if I were playing in the finals of the Bermuda Bowl..
Definitely the wrong thing to say ..
Boy that rings a bell ..
Coming back to the local club this year, sitting around talking..
I mentioned how one of my goals was to relearn to concentrate at the table as if I were playing in the finals of the Bermuda Bowl..
Definitely the wrong thing to say ..