Recently, a lot has been said on chemistry in the USBC Google Group, and a bit on Bridge Winners. Many smart people suggest with well-reasoned arguments that chemistry is of little concern. Well, I am going to try and lay out the other side of the argument.
First, an analogy. As a handicapper I can tell you with mathematical certainty that home-field advantage matters in all of the major U.S. Sports. In some cases like where a football team plays in a dome that was specifically constructed for them, it is easy to see why home-field advantage matters. Yet, even in sports where the home field is consistently the same, every team still plays significantly better at home than on the road. Why? Is it being at home instead of in a hotel? The lighting? The crowd? If a team is unused to the arena, maybe. Long travel, perhaps. But let's take an example like the Yankees and the Red Sox. They play about 20 times a year, so they are familiar with the enemy field. They are also geographically close together so long travel is not an issue either. Yet each team still performs significantly better at home.
Surely the crowd must be part of it. Again, why? When the hitter and the pitcher are facing each other, why should 40,000 people rooting one way or the other matter? I say it is because we are human beings, and even professionals (the best at what they do) are affected by such things.
As far as bridge goes, the reasons why chemistry matters are more tangible. The expert community is small and can be "catty". There is a lot of money at stake as well as pride: we have all invested enormous time to bridge. When things go wrong, as they do for all of us, some teammates are supportive, while others are concerned with how they come off to the sponsors or to other experts. This can and does affect the way people play at the table. It is more defensible to take a "safe" approach rather than something off the trail, even if it means doing something you might perceive as inferior. Sometimes it might not even be a conscious choice.
These tendencies get exacerbated when playing with people who second-guess and are looking for ways to look good rather than just wanting to win. The bridge world has seen many great pairs whose success at teams never matches their success at pairs. Perhaps they don't get the most out of their teammates, or perhaps, the reason is chemistry. Conversely, we have pairs whose results are far better than their expertise might lead one to expect. Perhaps this is also because of chemistry, both within the partnership and within the team.
I believe personal chemistry and team chemistry matter. There are always questions of sit-outs and respect, and some people perform better with turmoil while others do not. Sure, poor teammates affect some pairs more than others, but we are all human and we are all affected by such things. It is just a matter of degree. Sometimes teammates mesh and sometimes they don't -- and that's chemistry.
John Lowell
Jan. 20
On the other hand, on chemistry, I couldn't agree with you more whether it be at the professional level, the lower expert level or the novice level. Some people just want to compare scores; they'll leave the analysis for the bar. Others want to untangle every last trick and see if they can shift the blame for a bad set to someone else.
I feel much better about the former group. I'm sure that everyone on the team is trying to win. We all have our good days and our bad days, our lucky days and our unlucky days. The opposing auction goes 1nt-6nt and you are on lead with a yarborough. At your table, you pick on of the 3 wrong leads. At the other table, your counterpart happens on the right lead. In my opinion, the good teammate laughs it off. But, I have seen plenty of players who would somehow find a way to criticize your choice.
Again, read the book, you'll enjoy it.
Peg Kaplan
Jan. 20
There's also plain old chemistry among people. And yes; it happens when you play on a team with them and how you're able to pull together. I'm sure that randomly putting 3 top pairs together on a team would yield a good team. Still - I also believe that 3 excellent pairs with matching chemistry would be better.
Good write up!
Michael Kamil
Jan. 20
A while back Mike Becker, who was aware that I tend to be both conservative and instinctive, gave me a lifetime lesson. He told me that no matter what, always “play your own game”. From my experience, this was the best advice I ever got. I invariably have trouble when I go outside of my comfort zone.
Now imagine if I had a teammate who just happens to keep “noticing” that we're losing points because of my lack of aggression. As much as I might steel myself in the next session to “play my own game”, at some point, that teammate's voice will be gnawing at me…and I'll likely do something silly.
To play bridge well one needs to be calm and focused. That's so much harder to do when negative thoughts intrude, no matter how slight they might be.
Randy Breuer
Jan. 20
The best player in our area and could be a top player anywhere has very limited social skills, no one wants him on a team.
l do wonder though Brad when you are playing is your mind set what are they doing other table?
Do you try to keep track where u are in a match after each hand?
when u have a 6 person team who decides who plays when? l mean do u have a different plan if after 3/4 u are down 30 or up 30?
l apologise sort of off topic but same time may give us more insight why the 6 need to get along.
thanks
Brad Moss
Jan. 20
1) imo you must always be thinking how the match stands while you are playing, though i also think people tend to over do it. i have been lucky enough to have great teammates, and unless the situation is really really dire, the best swing move tends to be just assuming they are doing really well.
2)i greatly prefer to have set rotation that only changes when a pair needs out because of things like fatigue or illness. imo it helps to know beforehand. most dont agree with that, and it usually works by committee or the captain will decide. to me up 30/ down 30 wouldnt be nearly enough to effect lineup.
3)lastly i dont think player NEED to get along, though it is preferable if they do. i think that most of us will thrive in that environment. however, some pairs/players also thrive just as well with tumult or hostility. it is those people will will matchup best with the players/pairs that are most difficult. i think the effect is not often visable to the naked eye. but by the end of a tourny we are tired and the game is very hard; even small differences in comfort can have an impact. also dont underestimate the effect of money/pride.
Randy Breuer
Jan. 20
and in major events who reveals line up 1st, l mean can u wait see where other teams sit before deciding where u will sit against them ?
Josh Sher
Jan. 20
I was wondering how much effect you think Chemistry matters. Say we have a team consisting of say the 4'th, 6'th, and 20'th best pairs who are good friends and have played successfully as a team together for years. We then find the 1'st, 2nd. and 3rd best pairs, who have not ever played together as a team. The two teams play a long match with a lot of money on the line. Who do you think will win?
Josh
Brad Moss
Jan. 20
randy: while some players care a lot about matchups, i tend to care little. but every once in a while… either the seeded team opts for 1/4 or 2/3 or by alternate picks(depending on the event) it is know who has the seed in all segments before the match starts.
josh: to me you are looking at it too narrowly. people have criticized my argument by saying that some of their best results were on teams that didnt get along at all. ignoring the small sample size problem, that is not contradictory to my argument. as i tried to say, chemistry is funny; some people thrive in tumult. they arent negatively impacted by teammates bad mouthing each other; they wont be afraid to make any bid they think best (even if it looks bizarre), regardless of a second guessing teammate that might cost them significant money. in those situations disharmony could be an advantage or no disadvantage.
but in the main, from an e.v. perspective, most people will do best in more harmonious, supportive environments. teammates really wanting each other to do well(as opposed to making themselves look good). for example, willing to mostly play the other teams best pair when its in the teams best interest, even if your butler wont look as good.
as to your question (finally :)), how much of a difference? well its really tough to quantify, and i think it might matter a lot at times and little at others, but all i can say is that you have some pairs/ teams on paper (some of the very best pairs in the world) that won little to nothing for a decade as a team. yet when some of those players finally found the right match, things changed significantly. i know thats anecdotal at best, but in my experience it is very meaningful.
-brad
Allan Tushman
Jan. 20
Allan
Mark McEnearney
Jan. 20
One of the coolest things I ever read on this site was the Levin and Weinstein postmortem on their 7D contract in the Cavendish which they ended up in off the ace of trumps. That's a classic example of what I think of as good partnership chemistry.
In a recent letter to the editor of the NY Times, Ed Donovan describes collaboration as a problem-solving and conflict-resolution technique in which both parties own the issue and seek to fulfill not only their own needs but also those of the other side. That seems like a pretty good place to start to create good chemistry. Winning doesn't hurt of course. And neither does healthy mutual respect.
Michael Bodell
Jan. 20
I can see how if there is a person or pair that you think is unethical you definitely wouldn't want to play on their team. And can see that this could be a problem in a pairs format trial. But I guess my experience at the decidedly non-elite level is that partnership chemistry matters a lot to me, but team chemistry doesn't really. I'd rather get have supportive teammates and get along with everyone and what not, but what effects my play the most is the ability of my teammates. The feeling that if I have a push set at my table we'll probably win makes things so much easier than the times when I know we need to crush the opponents at my table to even have a prayer of winning. But at the levels I play at the difference in ability may be much larger than between the elite teams, so not sure if it is at all the same.
Peg Kaplan
Jan. 21
Surely at some point, a lessening of ability will begin to outweigh any levels of chemistry. But if one assumes some high level of competency (surely above mine, with the discussion above!) - then chemistry does play a more than modest role. I think that this discussion arose originally because of weighing whether trials should consist of pairs or teams…. At that level, most of those competing will be of a very high level of ability.
Sartaj Hans
Jan. 21
Many important decisions in high level bridge are touch and go.
Negativity undoubtedly interferes with instinct. It can sway the choice between the winning and losing view, both of which are reasonably close on paper.
Allan Simon
Jan. 22
I haven't read Scorecasting so I don't know what point the author makes. But i have read a study about the phenomenon of home-field advantage in sports.
The authors noted with interest that in certain sports where you would think that home-field advantage is especially crucial because knowledge of the terrain is very helpful (examples: golf and downhill skiing), athletes playing at home do not perform particularly well.
In fact the reason home teams do well seems to be the refereeing! The researchers played a tape with a scene (for example a borderline violent tackle in a soccer game or a close call at home plate in baseball) to a professional referee, and dubbed a crowd reaction or lack of same. The reaction of the crowd influenced referees enough to make a difference in their call (only when it was close of course).
Not sure what that has to do with bridge.
Carol Frank
Jan. 26
Jing Liu
Jan. 27
Please log in to leave a comment.