ArcLight

I've always wanted to use count signals. I think it would force me to pay more attention. But I almost never see them used below expert level. Perhaps one intermediate pard used them, maybe 10% of pick up "advanced" pards use them. In BIL the emphasis is on things one can learn from books/CDs, such as conventions. I don't think there is enough emphasis on carding, counting, and other fundamentals. So in order to help generate potential partners for myself, I volunteered to help out in BIL. I came up with a number of hands (from various sources) that emphasized Count Signals, counting declarers tricks, figuring out distributions, and using the Rule of 11. In BIL I took groups of 4, and had them play a few hands, privately quizzing them about what they had learned about the unseen hands ever couple of tricks. In one hand, East had to duck their A, so as to kill dummies suit. In another hand, E must not duck; they had to take their tricks to set. The reason I used groups of 4 is I wanted the players to have to think hard, while playing, and not just watch others play and make comments like "notice West play high-low to signal count in Clubs". I think players learn a lot more by doing than watching. All of this takes a lot of time. The dummy has to sit there with nothing to do for 10-15 minutes (as I privately chat with the players). With some hands, one of the defenders is weak, and contributes to the set by signaling. This means the other defender is the one that has to count and draw inferences. Since only 4 players can play at a time, and over 33 people contacted me, it would take many sessions just to cover 4 hands. I have a lot more than 4 hands, and I don’t think a group is going to get much out of playing just 4 hands. So I'm in a quandry. 1) I can continue offering these sessions the way they are, staying with just the same 4, and doing 4 sessions, then moving onto the next group. The problem is scheduling as they may not always be able to make it. 2) I can continue offering these sessions the way they are, rotating the groups, giving another 4 a chance. The downside is playing 4 hands (sitting out 1 as dummy) isn't really much practice. I think playing 12 hands would allow one at least a glimpse/taste of some counting decisions. Even if you miscount, at least you are now aware "Gee, I had the answer at my finger tips, next time I'll try and pay more attention". 3) have a mini-tournament where many players play some hands, and then we go over this. This will allow many hands to be covered quickly. However I hate this for 2 reasons. a - you can get this from books b - By a mentor asking leading questions, you get into the habit of thinking. If you KNOW you are soon going to be asked how many spades are left, you will pay attention. You won’t play in automatic pilot. This wont be possible in a tournament/review session. There is also a big disparity in the level of players. I had intended these to be geared towards Intermediate Plus players. No difficult techniques. There is no bidding; I tell you what to bid. You just play and count. Any suggestions on how to structure mentoring sessions so as to make maximal use of time? I want the players to get something out of this, but I think each one will need to play many boards to benefit. With so many interested, I can’t imagine being able to offer 30+ sessions in a timely manner. How can I do this?

>Of course, Walsh, Swanson and others claim much of 2/1 came out of Roth/Stone. Mike Lawrence says that too at the beginning of his excellent 2/1 CD.

>However, I think you will get a lot more out of Bridge Master - a software facility that we have created that is designed to improve the user's declarer play. This program is suitable for players of all levels. I am serious about this - no matter how good you are (or how good you think you are) this program is certain to make you a better declarer. For example, Eric Rodwell sometimes uses Bridge Master to "warm up" for tournaments. If it is good enough to help Eric... >I have some bias in this area (since I am the programmer!), but in my view Bridge Master is clearly a superior learning medium to reading books. Having read lots of books (>100), and done lots of bridge software programs I agree. The problems with books are: 1) You are asked to make a key play at trick 3. This is a HUGE tip off, that you never have in real life. In Bridge Master you play till you are set (or make). Then you have to think about where you went wrong. Maybe it was a bad discard on trick 3? Or not ducking on trick 1? Should I have tried a squeeze? 2) there are no "incomplete solutions". How often has it happened that in a book you think you have the solution, turn the page, and see you missed somthing? Too late, yiu have seen the answer. In BM "incomplete solutions" don't work. You get set, and have to redo it. 3) It can be hard to follow the card play in books. When all the cards in several tricks are listed, its not always easy to digest. Software is interactive and presents things more naturally. Follow the cards as they are played and PAY ATTENTION. 4) Bridge Master removes cards as they are played, so you can't look up at the top of the book and think, you need to train yourself to remember what was played and waht you started with. The only "Criticism" I have of the Bridge Master product is you are forced to take one set each of level 1-5 problems. I would *MUCH* rather chose the hands I take, say all level 3 and 4, and nothing from level 1 or 2 (or 5). I know you can buy expansions, (very reasonably priced at $10 if you download them on BBO), but the initial package is of limited interest to me because of this. I have done some of the level 3 and 4 hands on my friends BM. If I could buy BM with a tailor made set of hands, say all level 3 and 4, I would buy a copy, plus all the level 3 and 4 expansions. I wish it were possible to buy the BM engine seperately, and then buy and downlaod the expansions (B3 B4 C3 C4 D3 D4). [i would buy B3 B4 C3 C4 D3 D4, plus BM 2000 if I could get it without the initial hands.] P.S. All this is quibling, because the cost of BM ($50 on BBO I think) is not terribly expensive.

>Are there any books, articles, pdf files, whatever that describe the way a true expert should handle declarer play? There are quite a few books: Master Class: Lessons from the Bridge table by Fred. His deals of the week are quite good too. Terence Reese has some good books: Play These Hands with me Play Bridge with Reese The hidden side of bridge Hugh Kelsey: Bridge for the Connoisseur (I didnt find it useful to me) Advanced Play at Bridge Adventures in Card Play (insane) Imagination and Technique (in Bridge /at the Bridge Table) Play These Hands with Brian Senior Win the Bermuda Bowl With Me Play Swiss Teams with Mike Lawrence Play Bridge with Mike Lawrence

>If it becomes apparent that they are operating on undisclosed agreements, or are goofing around in a destructive manner, then I leave the table (social game) or I call the director (serious game). In the latter case, I am quite prepared to push hard, as anyone who knows me in real life will attest I've never played in any high level events. Are there restrictions on destructive bidding? I think the ACBL has levels of restrictions on some types of bids like the Polish 2 Diamonds (spelling is something like Wilcoz). In other words, is ther any restriction to one making ill advised weak overcalls, provided they do not have any undisclosed agreements? On what basis can one complain to a director? I am amazed at the crap people overcall on, like a bunch of queens and a 5 card suit. Or an expert "balancing" with 4 hearts like K972. Probably the best way to deal with then is play good defense and set them a lot. Unless you are familiar with their style, you may do poorly at first. The ridiculous overcalls may work in BBO pickup games, I wonder how they do in longer tournaments against people who can play defense. I think too much destructive (some might call it psych) bididng makes the game less interesting. It demphasizes deductive reasoning, and makes it more of a bluffing game.

>Under which circumstances might it be ok to underlead an Ace vs a suit contract ? Terence Reese metntions this in one of his books (I don't remember which). When Dummy opened 2NT. Its very likely they have the K, rather than declarer, and its possible this may allow pard to make the Q and return the suit. Or pard may have the K. Do this with a specific reason, such as other leads are worse.

We have 21 HCP so opps have 19 and almost half the deck, and didnt compete. Probably the hearts and diamonds and HCP are semi-balanced. Short of entries for a dummy reversal, I'd still try and establish clubs. Maybe opps will play into your hand and "force" you. Maybe you can establish clubs. VERY IMPORTANT, RUFF HIGH FROM HAND! You need the lower trumps as entries into dummy. With that trump holding you can always fall back on the heart finesse.

>People who make weird leads/bids/etc just because they think it is fun to screw up the hand are another matter. Do people really do this? On a regualr basis? Isn't that a waste of their time? I would think such a player would be identified rather quickly, and no one would pard them. If pard makes a really awful lead, in this learning lounge, I think its fair to ask them about it. I think bozos will not last long. I think the bigger problem will be weaker players, who think they are a lot better than they are. And also players who make a bad/weird play and refuse to answer any questions or discuss anything. "P, I took your 3 Spade bid to be a Limit Raise with 4 trumps. With only 3 card support I'd rather you make a different bid if we play together. It makes it easier for me to judge the hand" "P, when you blast into Blackwood like that, you don't give us time to explore the hand, and its easy to get too high and get set when game was cold. Next time please instaed make a 2/1 response or a splinter etc." "P, when you lead the 2 (from 8 2) it mislead me into thinking you had an honor and wanted the suit returned. Why not intsead lead top of a sequence in Diamonds?" If the person doesn't reply, then its not someone I care to play with, as they are not serious about improving.

From the bidding diagram supplied, North opened 1 Diamond with A9, is this correct? Are the opponents complaining that the alert "Could conceivably be 3 cards but that is rare" was deceiving, that it "guaranteed" 3+ diamonds? (I find it difficult to follow some of the hands/bids on other folders because they are gfrequently poorl;y laid out or unclear)

>What happens when someone represents him/herself as Int. or advanced, but others disagree with the self-rating. Who is to say, "Hey, you're no advanced player, you're an expert and you shouldn't be in the int+/adv club as a member?" I think it would be to the benefit of Intermediate and advanced players to have Experts play. Think about it: 1) one improves by playing with and against stronger players 2) the expert opponent will punish your mistakes. If you are willing to take the time to look over the replay later on you may learn from it. 3) the Expert will play the hand well, and may deceive the defenders. Again, study the card play, and how the Expert may have drawn inferences and chosen a different line than what would be normal. I would love to play with and against experts. (Fred if you need a partner, just give me a call :) ) It would be great for me (perhaps a bit frustrating at times too!) and I'd learn. It would probably be frustrating for them after a while. The true expert will get bored playing with weaker players, unless they are mentoring a specific partner. My concern is the "intermediates" who are not. The ones who: - make cute leads such as 2 from 3 2 or 2 from 10 9 8 4 3 2 - Holding 3 trump and 15 HCP jump to Blackwood - cash all their aces on the first 2 card plays then say "WDO" when the opponents make game, scoring declarers 2 kings - don't lead your suit after you have overcalled when vulnerable - switch suits all the time, giving declarer all sorts of free finesses - ruff your winner on defense because they haven't paid attention - dont want to be bothered with signaling, not even attitude, and play random cards.

Keep in mind, this is a learning room, not a general play area. In a general play area, I would be far less willing to make criticisms. >Regarding ArcLight's suggestions: in general I agree with them. Regarding point 2: I'd find this type of post-mortem info useful when *I* request it and I'm willing to offer it to my partner when *they* request it. Now that I think about it, I'd like to hear our opponents interpret each of our bids; that's really a test of our bidding skills. I would request it by default. If I'm playing with a teacher/mentor I will refrain from criticism, though I may want to ask about something, and let them realize they made a mistake (or not, if they dont want to admit it). However, in a learning room I wouldn't play with another intermdiate level player who refused to discuss the hands or accept criticism. If someone wants to keep on making mistakes and not improve, I don't want to play with them. I don't care about winning a few meaningless hands, I want to improve. I'm sure Sheps lessons are excellent, but if they are from Bill Roots books (which I have read and they are excellent) then why sit through a lesson instead of reading the book yourself? I think one can improve better by reading books and buying the Mike Lawrence software, and Bridge Master with the extra lessons at your level. Many good bridge books are available at the library, at least in the USA, and probably in Europe. There are "old" declarer play books that libraries will have, so if money is an issue, you can read them for free. I have no problem with free / open lessons. But I would hope they wouldn't be dumbed down to the level of the lowest player. My only concern with an open club is since many players overrate their skill, I think there is the potential for many weak players to come to the club. They will have trouble with the card play techniques and fundamentals. For example, it would be frustrating to have a terrible partner. It would also make the game less valuable for the opps. One improves by playing with and against stronger players not weaker ones. But if you are much weaker, its not fun for the others. There needs to be a happy medium.

What I would like to see in a club: 1) people (especially my pards!) using count signals. While experts don't always use count signals, they do at select times, and a benefit of always using count signals is it will force us to pay more attention at figuring out everyones distribution. The emphasis in a learning environment should be to LEARN not to win. So by signaling count all the time you may sometimes help declarer, but you and pard will also improve, so when you play else where and only signal at select times, you will be prepared. 2) a brief POLITE port mortem if something goes wrong - "my jump rebid shows a solid self sustaining trump suit." "Oh, I thought it just showed AKQxx, and since I had a stiff I didnt think it would workout" or "P, I was signaling I had an odd number of Clubs, if you held up your Ace one round declarer would be cut off from dummy" or "P, you lead back a low club from KJxx, it would have been better to lead the J through declarer and squash dummys holding, the low card forced my Ace, and declarer ended up making her Queen"" While some people with thin skins don't like to be "lectured", that is how you learn. By having your mistakes pointed out. You may not agree with the criticism, but its something to think about. 3) For me, I get far more out of books than someones on line lesson (which tends to be very slow). What I can't get out of a book is play experience and feed back on my mistakes. "Arc, why did you raise me to game? I was just making a competitive bid." What I would like to see is a mentor using some predealt hands and working with say 4 players, to go over their carding and signaling.

I would bid 3♠ showing a long running self sustaining trump suit/source of tricks According to Mike Lawrences 2/1 CD, a jump rebid of your suit (to 3♠) shows either a solid or semi-solid suit (depending on partnership agreement, Mike prefers the second) plus a little something on the side, which you have. I would discount a single bad result, as that can happen any time and shouldn't cause one not to use an effective response.

Someone suggested this bid by the takeout doubler in response to pards 1H bid. - 2H 16-17. Room for judgment here. - 3H 18-20 Room for judgment here too. - 4H 21 + I asked an expert and he thought it was worth jumping to 4 hearts, because so little was needed to make game (and there is no way pard can know taht his J 10 of Spades and 5 hearts to the 9 are worth going on to game. You will go down occasionally, but the game bonus is worth the risk.

3♥ With a little bit of help, say 5 hearts to the Q, or 4 hearts to the Q, with hearts 3-2, and some fillers in Spades (J 10) 4 ♥ can make. There will be no way for pard to know the J 10 of Spades are important, but the trump Q and J and length will be obvious. I don't think 4♥ opposite a Yarborough with 4 hearts will make. You have a club loser, a dimaond loser, and will need 3 leads from pards hand to pick up the KQ of diamonds for no loss plus take the Spade finesse. RHO probably has at least 12 HCP. There are at most 6 HCP outstanding. Pard may very well have only 4 Hearts and 3 HCP( maybe the Queen of Clubs, ouch). Pard is showing around 0-7 HCP and 4+ hearts. Its not uncommon to overbid with monster hands, only to go down when pard doesn't have enough.

>Be very agreeable and understanding. Nod sagely and tell them that you, of course, wish that it were otherwise but you are obliged to follow 'THE' rules. These people have no clue and can't understand but they do know about human dignity and will appreciate your effort. Then they will 'gossip' about other things and people because you are 'so nice'.... I agree. Off Topic I had never heard of this expression before seeing it here. "The mother of idiots is always pregnant." It's pretty funny. I googled it and found that its Italian proverb "La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta."

A while back Fred commented that in a part score forcing declarer (with long trumps) was not always the winning stretegy. Declarer needs 8 tricks, and is happy to score his small trumps as ruffs. If decalrer has the AQJTxx of Spades (non unreasonable since he rebid his unsupported suit), he can take all but one of your Spades. I can see the argument for Hearts, but I will lead the 10 of diamonds. Finesse through dummy

>He said that- even at IMPS - the cost/benefit of these safety plays does not justify them, the reasoning being: say that a game is worthwhile 11 imps or so, and an overick 1 imp, these safety plays would be justified only if the risk they want to avoid is equal or higher to more or less 1/11. 1/11 = about 9%, and if we want to be conservative, we can reduce the % to 5% , meaning that a safety play will be chosen if it avoids a 5% risk, but not to avoid a risk of, say, 2-3%. This was addressed in one of Kelsey's (or maybe was it Klingers?) books. Obviously the state of the match is of paramount importance. Other than that, you can reason: my expected gain by not taking the safety play is + .X (some small number of IMPS) However, if you go for the over trick, and go down, you may damage your partners morale, the teams morale, and harm your relationship with the team. Most other teams will have gained many IMPS on you, this one time. That may be enough to lose this one match. While gaining an expected 0.5 IMPS is unlikely to be important unless you have the chance to make many such decisions over a large number of hands. In short, the author (I think it was Kelsey) sugegsted taking the safety play, for the interest of long term partnership and team morale.

>You are in 1st seat and hold: Jxxx AJx KQJ10xx void Dr. Roth suggests opening 2 diamonds, weak. Roth is orders of magintude better than me, but I think 2♦ is a terrible bid. In general I find his answers terse and cryptic. Why bother making a reply to a question if its not clear?

>If she has the ace, then attitude is obviously redundant, as declarer would never duck with the ace there. I'm not so sure I agree. The declarer may want to retain control of the suit and hold up. Maybe West can give East a third round ruff? If Declarer ducks, West can't continue the suit. If you lead K from KQ you really want to know if pard has the A or not.

Card Reading by Eric Jannersten 1972 Very good intermediate level book on deductive reasoning, and it also soem good play problems. The book presents around 75-85 non double dummy declarer problems, with bidding. Based on the first few tricks, the reader is expected to figure out distributions and HCP placement. Then make the hand using proper technique. The deductive reasoning part is well done, and the inferences are reasonable (though not always obvious!). There are sections on topics like clues from the bidding, leads, discovery plays, putting yourself in your opponents position, assuming the only distribution that will let you make the contract, etc. I enjoyed it, and it reminded me a lot of Mike Lawrences Counting at Bridge vol 1&2 software (available from Bridge Base) The play part involves a number of squeezes (most are not too hard, though some I missed), plus a few other techniques. Nothing extremely hard, and overall good declarer play problems. Overall I think its a great book, and I enjoyed reading it, though it takes a while to read because of all the thinking you need to do. Because its an older book (1972) it may be available in Libraries (that tend to have older Bridge books as opposed to newer ones). (Funniest quip in the book "If wishes were horses beggars would ride, and you're not riding this one") I also read about a third of Julian Pottages new Clues from the Bidding and didn't much care for it. I think other books on the subject are better, and more worthy of your hard earned money. I felt the problems were of two types: 1. Bidding clues were obvious, but the play of the hand was difficult (and hence it was more of a declarer play puzzle book which is not what I was looking for) 2. Bidding clues were skimpier, and might only slightly increase the odds of a certain break. (Maybe that means its a more advanced book, but I found it inferior to any others on the subject. Kelsey has a book on deductive reasoning called Logical Bridge Play which is better, and he is an advanced writer) I no longer have the book so I can't list some examples of what I consider skimpier clues). Here is a simpler problem, based on the bidding alone, no play skill involved. [hv=d=e&v=n&n=sq4h8652dkt7ck653&s=s62hak3daj9853ca8]133|200|Bidding W N E S 1♠ X - 2♥ 2♠ 3♦ 3♠ 4♦ - 4♥ - 5♦ - - -[/hv] West leads 3♠, taken by Easts J, followed by his K. Then East leads the ♥Q. Plan the play. Hidden card play: Solution: A more difficult problem: [hv=d=e&v=n&n=sq4h8652dkt7ck653&s=s62hak3daj9853ca8]133|200|Bidding W N E S 1♠ X - 2♥ 2♠ 3♦ 3♠ 4♦ - 4♥ - 5♦ - - -[/hv] West leads the ♦3, East playing the K and you win the A. Plan the play: (hidden cards next) A few more cards are played: (hidden) Solution:

Why commit yourself too soon? Try a discovery play. East MUST have exactly 2,3, or 4 HCP if Wests NT range is accurate, and I would make that assumption. Also, east bid 2 Diamonds Vulnerable without good shape 3=4=5=1 shape, as a rescue bid, why? With 2 HCP ( a pair of J) why not pass and let the opps buy the contract. With a weak NT, wont pard redouble for takeout of South leaves in the penalty double? Why did East bid? If East has the heart Q, and a jack or 2, then pass. I think its more likely that he has the Ace of Spades. Win the heart, pull trumps ending in hand. Who had the Club J? If it was East, he can have at most the heart Q and/or the Spade J. In this case, you have a choice: a) play for the squeeze as described by Arrows B) risk the heart finesse. I think your chances are poor. If West had the Club J, then there is room for East to hold the Spade A. Lead up to Dummys K. If it loses to Easts Ace, then the heart finesse is working and teh contract will make. If Dummy ducks, you have a nasty guess. Do you lead back to your Q, or go back to hand and take the heart finesse? OR more likely East has the heart Q, and made a bad 2 Diamond bid and you are now going down :D Since East bid when Vulnerable, with 4HCP and little shape (?3=4=5=1?), I think he has the Spade A

>My theory does not explain why I have not been giving any WBF points (yet) for winning the 2005 Team Trials. Perhaps my theory is wrong, but more likely (I think) someone has made a mistake (or perhaps the USBF has simply been late in filling out the appropriate forms). Fred, I know why! I seem to remember some post you made a few weeks ago where some people in the EBF/WBF were concerned that BBO was getting too big and powerful. They have their eye on you and are seeking to punish you. First there was Microsoft, Then Google, then BBO ... (ok,ok, I have no proof of this, but I love conspiracy theories)

Fred, I'm not disputing what you say. But I always thought that in general a delayed raise as opposed to a direct raise showed a weaker or flawed hand.

LHO is probably something like 4=2=5=2 RHO is something like 3=4=3=3 Their heart finesses will work. Pard has some HCP as well. I'd lead a low club as that is probably their weakest suit. RHO could have 5 hearts. LHO may have only 4 diamonds, and 3 Clubs. I would not lead a spade because we need entries to establish clubs. >Perhaps a more interesting question is one of lead philosophy againt 1nt contracts. Attack or passive? If they have diamond length, passive may give them time to set them up.