Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
age and bridge progression
159 views
Skip to first unread message
Adam Lea
Nov 5, 2012, 7:25:17 PM11/5/12
to
I've been having a debate with someone at my bridge club regarding the
lack of progression of the novices and what could be the reason(s)
behind this. Their view was that the age of the people when taking up
bridge for the first time was the primary factor, and that people in
their late 60's and older find it so much harder to pick up the game
that it is inevitable that the vast majority will never progress beyond
novice level. My view is that 70 is not that old and that people of
around this age are perfectly capable of progressing at bridge to at
least average club level and that the reason they don't progress is
primarily because they are more interested in the social side than the
competitive side of bridge, or that they become comfortable in the
novice evenings and feel intimidated at the thought of playing and
getting (as they see it) thrashed by the more experienced players.
What do people here think? Is the average 70 year old likely to find
bridge too difficult to get to a reasonable club standard (by
"reasonable club standard" I mean having a solid grasp of the
fundamentals and being able to comfortably hold their own on the
intermediate duplicate evenings)?
lack of progression of the novices and what could be the reason(s)
behind this. Their view was that the age of the people when taking up
bridge for the first time was the primary factor, and that people in
their late 60's and older find it so much harder to pick up the game
that it is inevitable that the vast majority will never progress beyond
novice level. My view is that 70 is not that old and that people of
around this age are perfectly capable of progressing at bridge to at
least average club level and that the reason they don't progress is
primarily because they are more interested in the social side than the
competitive side of bridge, or that they become comfortable in the
novice evenings and feel intimidated at the thought of playing and
getting (as they see it) thrashed by the more experienced players.
What do people here think? Is the average 70 year old likely to find
bridge too difficult to get to a reasonable club standard (by
"reasonable club standard" I mean having a solid grasp of the
fundamentals and being able to comfortably hold their own on the
intermediate duplicate evenings)?
Barry Margolin
Nov 5, 2012, 8:53:41 PM11/5/12
to
In article <UsidndMXJbJY1wXN...@bt.com>,
I think this is probably true, and there are two main reasons.
1. It takes time. Malcolm Gladwell claims that it takes about 10,000
hours to become an expert at anything. Even if it takes only one tenth
of that time to become reasonably competent, that's still 300 sessions
of bridge. And the hours he's talking about are "deliberate practice":
studying, taking lessons, etc., not just casual playing.
2. As we age, I think our brains lose some of their plasticity, since
it's simply harder for them to learn new things.
Other factors may be that their lives are already pretty full, so it's
hard for them to devote the kind of time it takes to really learn the
game.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
1. It takes time. Malcolm Gladwell claims that it takes about 10,000
hours to become an expert at anything. Even if it takes only one tenth
of that time to become reasonably competent, that's still 300 sessions
of bridge. And the hours he's talking about are "deliberate practice":
studying, taking lessons, etc., not just casual playing.
2. As we age, I think our brains lose some of their plasticity, since
it's simply harder for them to learn new things.
Other factors may be that their lives are already pretty full, so it's
hard for them to devote the kind of time it takes to really learn the
game.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
derek
Nov 6, 2012, 12:58:00 PM11/6/12
to
On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:53:42 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <UsidndMXJbJY1wXN...@bt.com>,
>
> Adam Lea <lea...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > I've been having a debate with someone at my bridge club regarding the
> > lack of progression of the novices and what could be the reason(s)
> > behind this. Their view was that the age of the people when taking up
> > bridge for the first time was the primary factor, and that people in
> > their late 60's and older find it so much harder to pick up the game
> > that it is inevitable that the vast majority will never progress beyond
> > novice level. My view is that 70 is not that old and that people of
> > around this age are perfectly capable of progressing at bridge to at
> > least average club level and that the reason they don't progress is
> > primarily because they are more interested in the social side than the
> > competitive side of bridge, or that they become comfortable in the
> > novice evenings and feel intimidated at the thought of playing and
> > getting (as they see it) thrashed by the more experienced players.
>
> > What do people here think? Is the average 70 year old likely to find
> > bridge too difficult to get to a reasonable club standard (by
> > "reasonable club standard" I mean having a solid grasp of the
> > fundamentals and being able to comfortably hold their own on the
> > intermediate duplicate evenings)?
Definitely not. The average 70 year old may not (as noted below) become an expert, but is certainly able to grasp the fundamentals and compete well in intermediate games.
> In article <UsidndMXJbJY1wXN...@bt.com>,
>
> Adam Lea <lea...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > I've been having a debate with someone at my bridge club regarding the
> > lack of progression of the novices and what could be the reason(s)
> > behind this. Their view was that the age of the people when taking up
> > bridge for the first time was the primary factor, and that people in
> > their late 60's and older find it so much harder to pick up the game
> > that it is inevitable that the vast majority will never progress beyond
> > novice level. My view is that 70 is not that old and that people of
> > around this age are perfectly capable of progressing at bridge to at
> > least average club level and that the reason they don't progress is
> > primarily because they are more interested in the social side than the
> > competitive side of bridge, or that they become comfortable in the
> > novice evenings and feel intimidated at the thought of playing and
> > getting (as they see it) thrashed by the more experienced players.
>
> > What do people here think? Is the average 70 year old likely to find
> > bridge too difficult to get to a reasonable club standard (by
> > "reasonable club standard" I mean having a solid grasp of the
> > fundamentals and being able to comfortably hold their own on the
> > intermediate duplicate evenings)?
> I think this is probably true, and there are two main reasons.
>
> 1. It takes time. Malcolm Gladwell claims that it takes about 10,000
> hours to become an expert at anything. Even if it takes only one tenth
>
> of that time to become reasonably competent, that's still 300 sessions
> of bridge. And the hours he's talking about are "deliberate practice":
> studying, taking lessons, etc., not just casual playing.
Not entirely. It's 10,000 hours to internalize everything about the game, to the point where you make the right decisions most of the time, without consciously understanding how. Casual playing could be enough, but (a) you have to be capable of understanding why some of your beginner mistakes occurred, and changing your behaviour yourself - the sort of thing a good teacher would be helping with; and (b) very few people who do _anything_ casually will ever put 10,000 hours into it, and almost none of them who start at 70 (though I know a few players who are certainly getting in 600 hours a year without noticeable improvement).
> of that time to become reasonably competent, that's still 300 sessions
> of bridge. And the hours he's talking about are "deliberate practice":
> studying, taking lessons, etc., not just casual playing.
>
>
> 2. As we age, I think our brains lose some of their plasticity, since
> it's simply harder for them to learn new things.
And memory gets worse - I can think of a few 70-ish players who are not nearly as good as they once were. My father-in-law quit playing in his late 70s because he didn't think he was good enough any more.
>
> 2. As we age, I think our brains lose some of their plasticity, since
> it's simply harder for them to learn new things.
Barry Margolin
Nov 6, 2012, 2:02:35 PM11/6/12
to
In article <1a1fedf1-aee4-47d6...@googlegroups.com>,
derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:53:42 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > 1. It takes time. Malcolm Gladwell claims that it takes about 10,000
> > hours to become an expert at anything. Even if it takes only one tenth
>
> Well, Gladwell only popularized what had already been found in more than one
> study, but he did a good job of it.
> >
> > of that time to become reasonably competent, that's still 300 sessions
> > of bridge. And the hours he's talking about are "deliberate practice":
> > studying, taking lessons, etc., not just casual playing.
>
> Not entirely. It's 10,000 hours to internalize everything about the game, to
> the point where you make the right decisions most of the time, without
> consciously understanding how.
I presume that's the definition of "expert".
> On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:53:42 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > 1. It takes time. Malcolm Gladwell claims that it takes about 10,000
> > hours to become an expert at anything. Even if it takes only one tenth
>
> Well, Gladwell only popularized what had already been found in more than one
> study, but he did a good job of it.
> >
> > of that time to become reasonably competent, that's still 300 sessions
> > of bridge. And the hours he's talking about are "deliberate practice":
> > studying, taking lessons, etc., not just casual playing.
>
> Not entirely. It's 10,000 hours to internalize everything about the game, to
> the point where you make the right decisions most of the time, without
> consciously understanding how.
Adam Lea
Nov 6, 2012, 5:46:22 PM11/6/12
to
which would presumably take somewhat less than 10,000 hours.
One thing we would like to do at my local club is to try and get some of
the improvers to play on the more intermediate nights (primarily for
space reasons) and have noticed that very few of those coming in to the
club seem to progress. I have been wondering how to address this and one
of the suggestions put to me was the newcomers are starting sufficiently
late in life that progression to intermediate level is very difficult or
impossible, hence why I was interested in other opinions here.
Dave Flower
Nov 7, 2012, 6:14:28 AM11/7/12
to
On Tuesday, 6 November 2012 21:45:57 UTC, Adam Lea wrote:
> On 06/11/12 19:02, Barry Margolin wrote: > In article<1a1fedf1-aee4-47d6...@googlegroups.com>, > derek<de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote: > >> On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:53:42 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote: >>> 1. It takes time. Malcolm Gladwell claims that it takes about 10,000 >>> hours to become an expert at anything. Even if it takes only one tenth >> >> Well, Gladwell only popularized what had already been found in more than one >> study, but he did a good job of it. >>> >>> of that time to become reasonably competent, that's still 300 sessions >>> of bridge. And the hours he's talking about are "deliberate practice": >>> studying, taking lessons, etc., not just casual playing. >> >> Not entirely. It's 10,000 hours to internalize everything about the game, to >> the point where you make the right decisions most of the time, without >> consciously understanding how. > > I presume that's the definition of "expert". > I was thinking more of average club player standard rather than expert, which would presumably take somewhat less than 10,000 hours. One thing we would like to do at my local club is to try and get some of the improvers to play on the more intermediate nights (primarily for space reasons) and have noticed that very few of those coming in to the club seem to progress. I have been wondering how to address this and one of the suggestions put to me was the newcomers are starting sufficiently late in life that progression to intermediate level is very difficult or impossible, hence why I was interested in other opinions here.
There seems to be a 'Catch 22' situation here. The best way to improve is to play against players better than you are, but playing against such players involves losing, which not all players enjoy!
> On 06/11/12 19:02, Barry Margolin wrote: > In article<1a1fedf1-aee4-47d6...@googlegroups.com>, > derek<de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote: > >> On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:53:42 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote: >>> 1. It takes time. Malcolm Gladwell claims that it takes about 10,000 >>> hours to become an expert at anything. Even if it takes only one tenth >> >> Well, Gladwell only popularized what had already been found in more than one >> study, but he did a good job of it. >>> >>> of that time to become reasonably competent, that's still 300 sessions >>> of bridge. And the hours he's talking about are "deliberate practice": >>> studying, taking lessons, etc., not just casual playing. >> >> Not entirely. It's 10,000 hours to internalize everything about the game, to >> the point where you make the right decisions most of the time, without >> consciously understanding how. > > I presume that's the definition of "expert". > I was thinking more of average club player standard rather than expert, which would presumably take somewhat less than 10,000 hours. One thing we would like to do at my local club is to try and get some of the improvers to play on the more intermediate nights (primarily for space reasons) and have noticed that very few of those coming in to the club seem to progress. I have been wondering how to address this and one of the suggestions put to me was the newcomers are starting sufficiently late in life that progression to intermediate level is very difficult or impossible, hence why I was interested in other opinions here.
Dave Flower
derek
Nov 7, 2012, 10:12:22 AM11/7/12
to
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 3:02:36 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <1a1fedf1-aee4-47d6...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:53:42 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > 1. It takes time. Malcolm Gladwell claims that it takes about 10,000
> > > hours to become an expert at anything. Even if it takes only one tenth
> In article <1a1fedf1-aee4-47d6...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:53:42 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > 1. It takes time. Malcolm Gladwell claims that it takes about 10,000
> > > hours to become an expert at anything. Even if it takes only one tenth
> > > of that time to become reasonably competent, that's still 300 sessions
> > > of bridge. And the hours he's talking about are "deliberate practice":
> > > studying, taking lessons, etc., not just casual playing.
> >
> > Not entirely. It's 10,000 hours to internalize everything about the game, to
> > the point where you make the right decisions most of the time, without
> > consciously understanding how.
>
> I presume that's the definition of "expert".
I wasn't arguing with the idea that it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert, but (mildly) with your assertion that casual playing wouldn't do it. Gladwell certainly left me with the impression that if you put 10,000 hours into it, you _would_ become an expert. It's at least somewhat self-fulfilling, as most people who aren't improving will stop putting in the effort to reach their 10,000 hours.
> > > of bridge. And the hours he's talking about are "deliberate practice":
> > > studying, taking lessons, etc., not just casual playing.
> >
> > Not entirely. It's 10,000 hours to internalize everything about the game, to
> > the point where you make the right decisions most of the time, without
> > consciously understanding how.
>
> I presume that's the definition of "expert".
derek
Nov 7, 2012, 10:15:14 AM11/7/12
to
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 5:45:57 PM UTC-4, Adam Lea wrote:
> One thing we would like to do at my local club is to try and get some of
> the improvers to play on the more intermediate nights (primarily for
> space reasons) and have noticed that very few of those coming in to the
> club seem to progress. I have been wondering how to address this and one
> of the suggestions put to me was the newcomers are starting sufficiently
> late in life that progression to intermediate level is very difficult or
> impossible, hence why I was interested in other opinions here.
No, I think that's just down to the fact that if you only play with novices, you'll never be anything but a novice. You can't learn much when your opponents' play is random. It's always a tough sell to get the minnows to jump in the pool with the sharks, but that's the only way to really improve.
> One thing we would like to do at my local club is to try and get some of
> the improvers to play on the more intermediate nights (primarily for
> space reasons) and have noticed that very few of those coming in to the
> club seem to progress. I have been wondering how to address this and one
> of the suggestions put to me was the newcomers are starting sufficiently
> late in life that progression to intermediate level is very difficult or
> impossible, hence why I was interested in other opinions here.
Ed Reppert
Nov 7, 2012, 9:31:44 AM11/7/12
to
In article <barmar-7DF1FC....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Good points. One of my regular partners is a novice I've been mentoring.
He's 72, a retired physician. He tells me he has trouble focusing when
reading now, where he did not when he was younger. I've noticed that in
myself, and I'm "only" 65. :-) At the table, he's pretty overwhelmed, to
the point he forgets basic things, like "partner's new suit bid is
forcing", so we get auctions like 1H (partner)-1S (me)- pass. Made 3
spades on a 4-2 fit. 3NT is cold. When the pressure's off, his memory
improves. <shrug>
He's 72, a retired physician. He tells me he has trouble focusing when
reading now, where he did not when he was younger. I've noticed that in
myself, and I'm "only" 65. :-) At the table, he's pretty overwhelmed, to
the point he forgets basic things, like "partner's new suit bid is
forcing", so we get auctions like 1H (partner)-1S (me)- pass. Made 3
spades on a 4-2 fit. 3NT is cold. When the pressure's off, his memory
improves. <shrug>
Barry Margolin
Nov 7, 2012, 11:31:48 AM11/7/12
to
In article <2YidnZ0WCLCJGATN...@bt.com>,
tenth to become reasonably competent".
Adam Lea <lea...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 06/11/12 19:02, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article<1a1fedf1-aee4-47d6...@googlegroups.com>,
> > derek<de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:53:42 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> >>> 1. It takes time. Malcolm Gladwell claims that it takes about 10,000
> >>> hours to become an expert at anything. Even if it takes only one tenth
> >>
> >> Well, Gladwell only popularized what had already been found in more than
> >> one
> >> study, but he did a good job of it.
> >>>
> >>> of that time to become reasonably competent, that's still 300 sessions
> >>> of bridge. And the hours he's talking about are "deliberate practice":
> >>> studying, taking lessons, etc., not just casual playing.
> >>
> >> Not entirely. It's 10,000 hours to internalize everything about the game,
> >> to
> >> the point where you make the right decisions most of the time, without
> >> consciously understanding how.
> >
> > I presume that's the definition of "expert".
> >
>
> I was thinking more of average club player standard rather than expert,
> which would presumably take somewhat less than 10,000 hours.
I thought I addresessed that with my guestimate: "it takes only one
> On 06/11/12 19:02, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article<1a1fedf1-aee4-47d6...@googlegroups.com>,
> > derek<de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:53:42 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> >>> 1. It takes time. Malcolm Gladwell claims that it takes about 10,000
> >>> hours to become an expert at anything. Even if it takes only one tenth
> >>
> >> Well, Gladwell only popularized what had already been found in more than
> >> one
> >> study, but he did a good job of it.
> >>>
> >>> of that time to become reasonably competent, that's still 300 sessions
> >>> of bridge. And the hours he's talking about are "deliberate practice":
> >>> studying, taking lessons, etc., not just casual playing.
> >>
> >> Not entirely. It's 10,000 hours to internalize everything about the game,
> >> to
> >> the point where you make the right decisions most of the time, without
> >> consciously understanding how.
> >
> > I presume that's the definition of "expert".
> >
>
> I was thinking more of average club player standard rather than expert,
> which would presumably take somewhat less than 10,000 hours.
tenth to become reasonably competent".
Adam Lea
Nov 7, 2012, 3:06:15 PM11/7/12
to
On 07/11/12 15:15, derek wrote:
> You can't learn much when your opponents' play is random.
Or partners play, for that matter :-)
> You can't learn much when your opponents' play is random.
Adam Lea
Nov 7, 2012, 3:15:03 PM11/7/12
to
evidenced by those who have been playing on the beginner evenings for
10+ years and still don't seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals.
lowerline
Nov 9, 2012, 3:48:17 AM11/9/12
to
Op dinsdag 6 november 2012 00:24:54 UTC+1 schreef Adam Lea het volgende:
I believe that the attitude towards the game is more important than the age. The willingness to learn and to progress is key.
Age remains a factor though. It is easier for a twenty-year-old to progress than for a sixty-year-old (given same level of intelligence).
In my experience the fastest way to progress is to play with and against better players (but give it two years).
Steven
Age remains a factor though. It is easier for a twenty-year-old to progress than for a sixty-year-old (given same level of intelligence).
In my experience the fastest way to progress is to play with and against better players (but give it two years).
Steven
Nick France
Nov 9, 2012, 10:30:23 AM11/9/12
to
and to me the cause is a social one. Most novices are basically happy
with their lot and like the group they are with. Only a few want to
break away from the group in ability.
Nick France
0 new messages