[cristianm3]

I first played bridge for just a few months when I was in the military, I was 19. I was introduced in this game by other high testosterone mates. As a tennis player, I found strange that (some) partners in bridge were criticizing each other for real or perceived bad play. You never, ever do this in tennis doubles. Well, I said, maybe being all very young, practically noisy kids, plus the military environment were the causes.
Decades later (which is two months ago) it came into my mind to go back to bridge by exploring online opportunities. To my dismay, I realized that back then we were actually better sports than what I see now. Bashing, bullying are very much “valued” in bridge, regardless of age, country, experience, even gender. It’s like hooligans driving half drunk in a place where traffic rules are optional.
I don’t play tennis anymore but man, what a difference between people in that sport and bridge players! Or maybe this happens only online?

[pescetom]

Well I see tennis players smashing rackets, berating the umpire and being banned for doping, so maybe it's just that these kind of people don't choose to play doubles.
But I think you have a point in any case, bridge has chronic problems of behaviour, both online and face to face. It gets gradually better as you move up the pecking order, both because you acquire a thicker skin and you start to play against and with people who realise that they need to trust partner to succeed.

[thepossum]

cristianm3, on 2025-December-21, 22:25, said:

I first played bridge for just a few months when I was in the military, I was 19. I was introduced in this game by other high testosterone mates. As a tennis player, I found strange that (some) partners in bridge were criticizing each other for real or perceived bad play. You never, ever do this in tennis doubles. Well, I said, maybe being all very young, practically noisy kids, plus the military environment were the causes.
Decades later (which is two months ago) it came into my mind to go back to bridge by exploring online opportunities. To my dismay, I realized that back then we were actually better sports than what I see now. Bashing, bullying are very much “valued” in bridge, regardless of age, country, experience, even gender. It’s like hooligans driving half drunk in a place where traffic rules are optional.
I don’t play tennis anymore but man, what a difference between people in that sport and bridge players! Or maybe this happens only online?

Bridge at its best is a wonderful game with wonderful people
Sadly it is ruined by obnoxious people of various types
It could be a wonderful game

Sadly even though I was brought up with the game from young with some fun social experiences there was far too many obnoxious people poluting face to face and online games that the game is unatractive to decent human beings. There are good fun people out there and I cherish the few good moments over my life

I think the world is doomed anyway. Not many would even have the channce of my most cherished Briidge moments any more

It is one of the few privileges I feel I have left. A few cherished moments and pitying people for the rest of eternity

But I am with you and it is sad. I am scared of face to face clubs and online tables. What is the chance of randomly picking 3 other decent humans at the same time
-oops sorry. Not just decent humans but decent at Bridge too
- do we need to add in all the other odds too. Like context and time and mood and everything. Stars aligned
- cards aligned, and in a club setting you need the TD aligned too - silly me in a club that ups the odds a lot. Number of tables times 4 + TD
- sorry (Number of tables times 4) - 1 (you) +TD multplied by the rest
- srry to be fair we have to raise all that to the power of (number of tables times 4)

Anyway you can imprive the odds by reducing N (sorry n) and increase the odds of the context
O honestly do not know what the model is. But it is very low odds over a lifetime

Did you think of rejoining the army? A long shot. I hate to say even that these days has low odds. Staioned far away with 3 other likeminded souls

[Huibertus]

cristianm3, on 2025-December-21, 22:25, said:

I first played bridge for just a few months when I was in the military, I was 19. I was introduced in this game by other high testosterone mates. As a tennis player, I found strange that (some) partners in bridge were criticizing each other for real or perceived bad play. You never, ever do this in tennis doubles. Well, I said, maybe being all very young, practically noisy kids, plus the military environment were the causes.
Decades later (which is two months ago) it came into my mind to go back to bridge by exploring online opportunities. To my dismay, I realized that back then we were actually better sports than what I see now. Bashing, bullying are very much “valued” in bridge, regardless of age, country, experience, even gender. It’s like hooligans driving half drunk in a place where traffic rules are optional.
I don’t play tennis anymore but man, what a difference between people in that sport and bridge players! Or maybe this happens only online?

The point is this actually happens in tennis doubles too!
The result of it in Tennis AND in bridge is partnerships that play at a lower level then they could play if they were supportive of each other, and tend to be short lived partnerships.

[Chas_P]

“Bridge is essentially a social game which, unfortunately, attracts a substantial number of antisocial people.”

Alan Truscott

[HardVector]

Bridge is primarily a game of communication with your partner. You do this within the constraints of bidding and card signaling. Because of the limitation imposed by the game, proper communication is difficult and when misunderstandings occur it can become frustrating when you clearly "said" something that your partner interpreted as something else. Some people do not handle this frustration very well. Online interactions exacerbate this as, in my opinion, online communication tends to be more toxic in general than face-to-face communication.

[barmar]

HardVector, on 2025-December-22, 11:26, said:

Bridge is primarily a game of communication with your partner.

But criticism often goes beyond just communication issues. Haven't you ever seen someone complain about their partner's declarer play ("why didn't you ruff before drawing trumps?") -- or worse, done it yourself?

I think a difference between bridge and tennis is that even if you're an OK tennis player, you probably don't feel competent to instruct others. It takes a special type of expertise to be able to coach someone in physical sports. You can teach a beginner the basics of how to hold the racket, but how many of us can really explain how to properly execute a good serve or a drop shot. So you might get upset that your tennis partner missed the ball, but there's nothing you can really say.

But in bridge, most people think that can advise others, at least those at or below their level of competence. If you made an inference that partner didn't, you likely feel competent to explain how they should have figured it out as well

Of course, we shouldn't be beligerant about it, we should try to be constructive. "My lead was obviously a singleton, how could you not give me a ruff?" is not a good way to maintain a partnership.

[cristianm3]

thepossum, on 2025-December-22, 03:56, said:

Bridge at its best is a wonderful game with wonderful people
Sadly it is ruined by obnoxious people of various types
It could be a wonderful game

Sadly even though I was brought up with the game from young with some fun social experiences there was far too many obnoxious people poluting face to face and online games that the game is unatractive to decent human beings. There are good fun people out there and I cherish the few good moments over my life

I think the world is doomed anyway. Not many would even have the channce of my most cherished Briidge moments any more

It is one of the few privileges I feel I have left. A few cherished moments and pitying people for the rest of eternity

But I am with you and it is sad. I am scared of face to face clubs and online tables. What is the chance of randomly picking 3 other decent humans at the same time
-oops sorry. Not just decent humans but decent at Bridge too
- do we need to add in all the other odds too. Like context and time and mood and everything. Stars aligned
- cards aligned, and in a club setting you need the TD aligned too - silly me in a club that ups the odds a lot. Number of tables times 4 + TD
- sorry (Number of tables times 4) - 1 (you) +TD multplied by the rest
- srry to be fair we have to raise all that to the power of (number of tables times 4)

Anyway you can imprive the odds by reducing N (sorry n) and increase the odds of the context
O honestly do not know what the model is. But it is very low odds over a lifetime

Did you think of rejoining the army? A long shot. I hate to say even that these days has low odds. Staioned far away with 3 other likeminded souls

I did and served for 12 more years.

[akwoo]

I think the big difference is that tennis players who don't like having partners have the option to play singles, whereas you have to play with a partner if you're going to play bridge.

[pescetom]

akwoo, on 2025-December-23, 00:53, said:

I think the big difference is that tennis players who don't like having partners have the option to play singles, whereas you have to play with a partner if you're going to play bridge.

As I implied earlier.

Although an interesting approximation to singles is playing a pairs tournament with a robot as partner.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

anonymity is certainly a factor, playing online you need to build up a fixed group.
There was an old cartoon, I was not able to locate it, but it went like this:
There are 10 leading experts in the country, and 90% of all players partner one.

It is a nice game, if you find a group you enjoy, count yourself lucky.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[AL78]

Speaking as someone who is a bad loser, for me personally it is likely down to self esteem issues. Being framed as a good player in a club setting and repeatedly getting <50% in fields that are <50% NGS hits my self esteem, makes me feel momentarily low and useless. My partner similarly feels down after a run of poor results and she isn't a good player and plays with partners on her level. One issue is that when players talk about other players, they discuss the performance, or lack of it, in an individualistic context, they don't say "Helen and Alan only got 45% last night" they say "Helen only got 45% last night" (where Helen is one of the best players in the club), as though Helen was solely responsible for the poor score and their partner's performance or the rub of the green played no part at all.

Another thing is that it is not just people berating their partners that generates an obnoxious playing environment. Weak players don't help matters when they gloat over good scores and rub their opponent's noses in it, even if the good score was down to poor play that fluked a top. That just fuels the irritation to those on the receiving end and you cannot control your emotions, you can only control how you act on them. I think people (including myself) across the distribution of talent would do well to look at their own behaviour alongside complaining about the behaviour of others, as without a bit of self reflection and effort to own and reign in the negative emotions, nothing will change.

Finally, I don't think bridge stands out when it comes to obnoxious people. Just step outside and interact with the general public, you will encounter plenty of thoughtless antagonistic people whether you look for them or not. Online interaction attracts obnoxious behaviour because no-one can punch you in the face when you are safely anonymous behind a screen.

[mycroft]

There is an issue endemic to smart people, in that they need to show off their intelligence.

It is *very hard* to recognize that trait in oneself, and even harder to catch it in time to turn it off.

Bridge is a game filled with smart people - in fact, you really have to be above-average intelligence to play at a decent level.

This means that there are plenty of opportunities for smart people to show off how smart they are, and plenty of smart people given those opportunities.

The problem is that the perception of the audience is not "look at how smart I am", but "look at how much smarter I am *than you are*". Which to another smart person is - a turn-off?

And leads to many of the other standard behaviours: one-upmanship, masterminding, resulting, "helpful lessons" to opponents, "making your own rulings" rather than calling the director and letting her handle it...

[mikeh]

mycroft, on 2025-December-23, 11:28, said:

There is an issue endemic to smart people, in that they need to show off their intelligence.

It is *very hard* to recognize that trait in oneself, and even harder to catch it in time to turn it off.

Bridge is a game filled with smart people - in fact, you really have to be above-average intelligence to play at a decent level.

This means that there are plenty of opportunities for smart people to show off how smart they are, and plenty of smart people given those opportunities.

The problem is that the perception of the audience is not "look at how smart I am", but "look at how much smarter I am *than you are*". Which to another smart person is - a turn-off?

And leads to many of the other standard behaviours: one-upmanship, masterminding, resulting, "helpful lessons" to opponents, "making your own rulings" rather than calling the director and letting her handle it...

Strange. That’s pretty close to the opposite of my experience. With the exception of one particularly arrogant (and imo not particularly strong) professional I played against recently in Puerto Vallarta, my experience against really good players is that they don’t engage in one upmanship, masterminding, resulting, or giving ‘helpful’ but unasked for ‘lessons’ to their opponents. And they don’t ’make their own rulings’ even when everyone at the table knows what the ruling should be.

OTOH, players who incorrectly think that they’re good, do sometimes exhibit this behaviour. My own take on that is that those players don’t know that they’re actually not particularly good. What’s that old saying? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Obviously, for most, we’re more likely, by far, to play against the latter players than the really good ones.

And on BBO, while I very rarely play against strangers, my experience when I started on BBO was that there are far many self-rated but actually not-very-good players than there are really good ones…and the good ones rarely play except in set games.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2025-December-23, 14:52, said:

Strange. That’s pretty close to the opposite of my experience. With the exception of one particularly arrogant (and imo not particularly strong) professional I played against recently in Puerto Vallarta, my experience against really good players is that they don’t engage in one upmanship, masterminding, resulting, or giving ‘helpful’ but unasked for ‘lessons’ to their opponents. And they don’t ’make their own rulings’ even when everyone at the table knows what the ruling should be.

My only experience in world level bridge is as a WBF official, but I can testify that poor behaviour is very rare at that level.
Which does not surprise me in the least, as I have competed at high levels in other sports and have no doubt that the best players are almost invariably loyal and open to both opponents and team mates, only the wannabies have any fear and make things difficult or unpleasant.
Unfortunately, the curve of expertise is such that the majority do not make this cut and down below it can be difficult, especially if one is impressionable or inexperienced.
Competent Directors with no fear of the players or the consequences can help.

[AL78]

mikeh, on 2025-December-23, 14:52, said:

What’s that old saying? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

https://www.psycholo...g-kruger-effect

[wuudturner]

mycroft, on 2025-December-23, 11:28, said:

There is an issue endemic to smart people, in that they need to show off their intelligence.

I must completely disagree in this.

The truly intelligent don't need to prove it. It is those who THINK they are smart who do. The same applies to bridge players. And I can say, having played at all levels over many years, the very worst offenders have always come from the lower levels. Yes, there will be a few bad apples at any level. And of course, don't forget the Dunning-Kruger affect, where the least capable are the ones who are most likely to overestimate their abilities.

[blackshoe]

After 78 years observing humanity, I have come to the conclusion that people are assholes.

[AL78]

blackshoe, on 2025-December-24, 13:13, said:

After 78 years observing humanity, I have come to the conclusion that people are assholes.

Some people are, not all. If you think it is everyone else, it is you.

[mikeh]

blackshoe, on 2025-December-24, 13:13, said:

After 78 years observing humanity, I have come to the conclusion that people are assholes.

I’m guessing you live in an area where the plurality of people voted from a sociopathic, narcissistic sexual predator. Which sort of proves your point

Those of us who live in more civilized areas…you know…the ones that respect others, treat everyone with compassion even when they don’t deserve it and don’t base political campaigns on othering vulnerable minorities….my own impression is that most people are pretty decent