The psychological dynamic is a layer between our actions at the table and our consideration of them in our brain. It has the capacity of affecting either end.
Since it is neither an action nor a thought, its hard to be aware of it.
Delivery is the child of this dynamic.
The following factors impact it.
Before game
Ourselves
Personal station in life
Importance of bridge in life
Amount of rest
Motivation
Physiological state (food/alcohol/sugar)
Our partnership
Belief in partnership
Opinion of partner
Our perception of partner's opinion of us
Belief in teammates
Opponents
Impression about calibre of opponents
Psychological interplay with the opponents' personalities
Expectancy of result
During the game
Ourselves
Attachment to scoresheet
Analysis of completed hands
Tiredness
Motivation
Psychological composition
Preparing for the post-mortem
Analytic Residue
Physical distractions
Our Partnership
Opinion of partner and his actions
Vibes from partner
Opponents
Who is controlling the tempo
The Trend
Psychological interplay with the opponents' personalities
Likely Result
Every bridge player has his own special weighted dynamic. At any point in time, most of the factors will be relevant to our case, a few very importantly so. Some factors may be practically irrelevant.
The relative importance of these factors varies with time.
Next: Some real-life examples.
Showing posts with label Fundamentals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fundamentals. Show all posts
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
The psychological dynamic at bridge
In a recent online discussion,Khokan remarked
In the same thread, he also commented
I totally agree with him on these points. What is of interest is determining the reasons behind the inconsistency of australia's best at the world stage.And similarly the cause behind why those top-dozen Australian pairs dont have many of those golden days when they play at the level of world championship quarter-finalists.
Going by fundamentals, the solution is easy : Our top bunch has a sufficiently strong concept, but our delivery is inconsistent.
While there is an awareness about this assertion,unfortunately, not many seem to know what to do about it.
We continue (relatively) pointless discussions around merits/demerits of preemption, around four versus five card majors, around count versus attitude, around natural bidding versus relay. We continue to put in(relatively) pointless effort in improving our system, documenting our understandings. We continue to misguidedly attach our competitive ego to our concept.
What we need to focus on, for significant improvement is delivery. And, in the next few posts, I will try to understand, for my own benefit, what delivery is all about. Your thoughts are welcome.
I reckon that the best of Australia’s top players are pretty close to the best in the world, but their worst is a lot worse, and the bad episodes happen more often (to them) than to world-class players.
In the same thread, he also commented
... I don’t believe there are three clear-cut picks to make the Australian Team – there are at least a dozen (pairs) that could perform creditably in world competition on their day ie make the quarters of a world championship.
I totally agree with him on these points. What is of interest is determining the reasons behind the inconsistency of australia's best at the world stage.And similarly the cause behind why those top-dozen Australian pairs dont have many of those golden days when they play at the level of world championship quarter-finalists.
Going by fundamentals, the solution is easy : Our top bunch has a sufficiently strong concept, but our delivery is inconsistent.
While there is an awareness about this assertion,unfortunately, not many seem to know what to do about it.
We continue (relatively) pointless discussions around merits/demerits of preemption, around four versus five card majors, around count versus attitude, around natural bidding versus relay. We continue to put in(relatively) pointless effort in improving our system, documenting our understandings. We continue to misguidedly attach our competitive ego to our concept.
What we need to focus on, for significant improvement is delivery. And, in the next few posts, I will try to understand, for my own benefit, what delivery is all about. Your thoughts are welcome.
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Elements of a Bridge Match
Before the match starts
When two teams sit down to play each other in a match, there are three key battles :
a) Our Concept versus Their Concept
b) Our Delivery versus Their Delivery
c) Our Luck versus Their Luck
Concept : Bidding system. Bidding style. Bidding philosophy. Play technique. Play understanding. Play psychology. Concept is a theoretical entity.
Delivery : Being able to demonstrate the concept at the table. Mental toughness. Honesty. Integrity. Delivery is a practical entity.
Luck : Finesses. Percentages. The type of hands that come up. Luck is a random entity.
In a vacuum, the team with the better concept should win.
In practice, the team with the better delivery wins.
The closer the two teams are in the concept/delivery spectrum, the higher the role of luck.
After the match is over
Combination of factors above creates a result. The result is a function of the fundamental truth (concept), the peculiarities of the day (delivery) and the randomness of luck.
How valid is the result
The less the element of luck, the more valid the result.
A team that plays badly (low delivery) has no genuine cause for grievance even if their concept is far superior than the other team.
When two teams sit down to play each other in a match, there are three key battles :
a) Our Concept versus Their Concept
b) Our Delivery versus Their Delivery
c) Our Luck versus Their Luck
Concept : Bidding system. Bidding style. Bidding philosophy. Play technique. Play understanding. Play psychology. Concept is a theoretical entity.
Delivery : Being able to demonstrate the concept at the table. Mental toughness. Honesty. Integrity. Delivery is a practical entity.
Luck : Finesses. Percentages. The type of hands that come up. Luck is a random entity.
In a vacuum, the team with the better concept should win.
In practice, the team with the better delivery wins.
The closer the two teams are in the concept/delivery spectrum, the higher the role of luck.
After the match is over
Combination of factors above creates a result. The result is a function of the fundamental truth (concept), the peculiarities of the day (delivery) and the randomness of luck.
How valid is the result
The less the element of luck, the more valid the result.
A team that plays badly (low delivery) has no genuine cause for grievance even if their concept is far superior than the other team.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
