(no subject)
Aug. 10th, 2007 11:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackFairly recently I was a bridge beginner again. At school and in the first year I learnt in a more teaching session where the majority of people were equally amateur, but recently it's really been social, with two different groups.
But both as a beginner, and now as someone talking to beginners, I've noticed a tendency to pile someone with advice to the extent that they feel very put upon and did everything wrong. From both sides of the fence. I wasn't sure if it was just me, but watching other people's expressions makes me think it isn't. (FWIW, with sgo bridge player friends, there's been less advice but occasional groaning or telling off; with ubc bridge player friends, there's been no criticism, but sometimes reams of advice.)
I think, since you could say a lot to any of us about a particular hand, people get the impression they don't get any less wrong, because they get the same amount of advice when they improve, it just gets more specific :)
Does that sound familiar to anyone?
Of course, standard advice is *never* to criticise and simply always be polite, which makes for a social game. If you're playing with people categorised as bridge "little old ladies", or simply someone who wants some fun and not to navel-gaze every hand, don't try and impose your views, let everyone have fun playing the way they want to!
But most people I know are always seeking to improve, so *do* always welcome *some* feedback, as well as choosing to play with friends. But it's still good advice not to post-mortem unless there's a reason for it.
If you agree, I thought I'd try to articulate some tips for how to give and take advice. Do you agree? What would you add?
For the expert:
* Start with a general overview. This is probably always welcome and polite and useful. Eg. "Thank you partner! Well played. You might have got an extra trick if [], " Don't necessarily do this, but I think it's a mistake to give any more specific advice without letting them know how well it went overall.
* Put advice in context, what's absolutely basic, and what's more situational? How often have you/have you seen someone leading a singleton at no-trumps?
* Make it clear what someone should see and someone should know. You can explain taking a finesse, and they should see when and where to do it. But don't say "when you bid 1nt, that meant...", say "Actually, we assign a specific meaning to that bid."
* You can't explain something to someone unless you get where they are. The advice that may be useful might not be "You needed an extra trick, you should have finessed the king", but "When you start the deal, you should try to form a provisional plan on how you're going to take tricks". The former alone won't help until they deduce they need the latter.
* If you want to post-mortem a hand and consider how you might have been able to make the most tricks, make it clear that this is not "you did it wrong and here's how to do it" but "well done partner, can I have a look, I'm curious".
* If you happen to have tact at your disposal, try employing it. Perhaps *offering* advice first, so someone is grateful to have it, rather than imposing it and making them resent it.
* Adding more to someone else's advice, even clarifying advice, can sometimes just make more overload.
* If someone seems to be feeling overwrought, move on.
* Play sometimes in a casual pub-type way, so everyone can have a laugh and experiment.
For the beginner:
* Be aware of the distinctions drawn above. The vast majority of advice isn't criticism.
* If you feel put upon, SAY SO! Most probably no-one's criticising, they're just not as good as they could be at giving helpful advice.
* Don't be scared away. It doesn't matter! Bridge is fun! Play bridge! Be proud of the things you go right! I remember my first successful squeeze (it wasn't even in bridge!) :)
* Ask for advice! It's probably more helpful than letting it be given. Say what you saw, bring people on-line, and see where you should have gone. "I knew you had 16pt, and I wanted to bid game, but I wasn't sure if we had a fit. I [] but what...? Oh, I see. And if I'd done that, then []..."
I definitely need to get on some regular partners :) And want to go to the UBC proper next term, and see how things come into perspective with proper duplicate scoring :)
By the way, Ghoti, Colin -- did Benedict enjoy bridge?
But both as a beginner, and now as someone talking to beginners, I've noticed a tendency to pile someone with advice to the extent that they feel very put upon and did everything wrong. From both sides of the fence. I wasn't sure if it was just me, but watching other people's expressions makes me think it isn't. (FWIW, with sgo bridge player friends, there's been less advice but occasional groaning or telling off; with ubc bridge player friends, there's been no criticism, but sometimes reams of advice.)
I think, since you could say a lot to any of us about a particular hand, people get the impression they don't get any less wrong, because they get the same amount of advice when they improve, it just gets more specific :)
Does that sound familiar to anyone?
Of course, standard advice is *never* to criticise and simply always be polite, which makes for a social game. If you're playing with people categorised as bridge "little old ladies", or simply someone who wants some fun and not to navel-gaze every hand, don't try and impose your views, let everyone have fun playing the way they want to!
But most people I know are always seeking to improve, so *do* always welcome *some* feedback, as well as choosing to play with friends. But it's still good advice not to post-mortem unless there's a reason for it.
If you agree, I thought I'd try to articulate some tips for how to give and take advice. Do you agree? What would you add?
For the expert:
* Start with a general overview. This is probably always welcome and polite and useful. Eg. "Thank you partner! Well played. You might have got an extra trick if [], " Don't necessarily do this, but I think it's a mistake to give any more specific advice without letting them know how well it went overall.
* Put advice in context, what's absolutely basic, and what's more situational? How often have you/have you seen someone leading a singleton at no-trumps?
* Make it clear what someone should see and someone should know. You can explain taking a finesse, and they should see when and where to do it. But don't say "when you bid 1nt, that meant...", say "Actually, we assign a specific meaning to that bid."
* You can't explain something to someone unless you get where they are. The advice that may be useful might not be "You needed an extra trick, you should have finessed the king", but "When you start the deal, you should try to form a provisional plan on how you're going to take tricks". The former alone won't help until they deduce they need the latter.
* If you want to post-mortem a hand and consider how you might have been able to make the most tricks, make it clear that this is not "you did it wrong and here's how to do it" but "well done partner, can I have a look, I'm curious".
* If you happen to have tact at your disposal, try employing it. Perhaps *offering* advice first, so someone is grateful to have it, rather than imposing it and making them resent it.
* Adding more to someone else's advice, even clarifying advice, can sometimes just make more overload.
* If someone seems to be feeling overwrought, move on.
* Play sometimes in a casual pub-type way, so everyone can have a laugh and experiment.
For the beginner:
* Be aware of the distinctions drawn above. The vast majority of advice isn't criticism.
* If you feel put upon, SAY SO! Most probably no-one's criticising, they're just not as good as they could be at giving helpful advice.
* Don't be scared away. It doesn't matter! Bridge is fun! Play bridge! Be proud of the things you go right! I remember my first successful squeeze (it wasn't even in bridge!) :)
* Ask for advice! It's probably more helpful than letting it be given. Say what you saw, bring people on-line, and see where you should have gone. "I knew you had 16pt, and I wanted to bid game, but I wasn't sure if we had a fit. I [] but what...? Oh, I see. And if I'd done that, then []..."
I definitely need to get on some regular partners :) And want to go to the UBC proper next term, and see how things come into perspective with proper duplicate scoring :)
By the way, Ghoti, Colin -- did Benedict enjoy bridge?
no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 11:34 am (UTC)[1] Well, I guess they're little old ladies, but not sure they'd be bridge-little-old-ladies.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 11:44 am (UTC)They do say, never play bridge with a relative. I think that comes from the idea of when people do get frustrated and mad, it's so much worse with someone they know so well, though on the other hand, if you do trust each other, that can help a lot with the explaining :)
If you've got one sort of mind, a post-mortem is very interesting (I think for me). Though if you feel like it's dwelling on errors, or can't visualise the play of the hand, it's annoying.
(Quote of the day. A wife and husband are playing bridge. The husband's been teaching the wife, and now she's quite good, but he's not quite yet used to this. They get into a bidding war, finishing when she bids 4H and he bids 5S. When dummy comes down he sees 5S is off and 4H would have been on.
He says "I'm sorry, dear. I should have withdrawn."
And she snaps "Withdrawn? Withdrawn? Your FATHER should have withdrawn!" :) )
no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 11:50 am (UTC)But yes, sometimes people just want to play a few hands of bridge, not to over-analyse everything!
no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 12:05 pm (UTC)Yes, indeed. I think it's been quite interesting to shuttle back and forth between ubc and sgo, because I've got to compare and contrast the systems, and it encourages abstracting and thinking not about the bids you want to make, but the meanings you want to bid.
And I've got to know several people a bit, who plays what conventions, who bids boldly and who bids timidly. With Matt, I just alert 1S every time, as it's always a psych :)
But it would be useful to get to know someone's play better, and be sure, rather than always second guessing :)
But yes, sometimes people just want to play a few hands of bridge, not to over-analyse everything!
LOL. Yes, exactly. Though the thing is, most of the time, we *do* want to analyse everything, just not *over*analyse everything :)
no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 12:39 pm (UTC)<giggle> always good advice.
We played mini-bridge instead, and Benedict seemed to like it but got distracted/frustrated after a while. I'm sure he';ll want to play again, though.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 01:05 pm (UTC)But it's true -- it's about how to say something in a nice way, which is an emotional consideration. But I figure I'll try my best, but someone else might have better more specific advice on how to do so :)
We played mini-bridge instead, and Benedict seemed to like it but got distracted/frustrated after a while. I'm sure he';ll want to play again, though.
That's cool, that sounds promising. I'm pleased. Did Laura go, what did she think?
no subject
Date: 2007-08-24 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-28 01:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 06:43 pm (UTC)It has got to the point where I won't play games with some people in some situations. It was a real revelation to me a while back when I discovered that games could be fun and not just a source of stress and telling off.
I may be a bit over-sensitive about things at times.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 12:56 pm (UTC)You probably won't think of me any better when I admit I can be like that sometimes...
It was a real revelation to me a while back when I discovered that games could be fun and not just a source of stress and telling off.
Yeah, that's unfortunate. I guess games are a balance. Snakes and Ladders can be fun, and you can gloat with abandon because you know it's not personal. At the other end of the continuum is chess or go.
Most games are somewhere in the middle. But it's hard to say what makes it fun. Being able to do what you fancy is good, but you don't get as much satisfaction unless there's something you're doing well.
But if you start something like monopoly, every second is a wave of "why don't you..." :) Whereas with Chess, you're not supposed to grasp it straight off :)