Thymallus

If you cannot tell, after half an hour at a poker game, who the fish is ..... it's you.

"Bounce" by Matthew Syed (a book that sets out to debunk the idea of talent with respect to sports and is well worth reading) and "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell suggest that 10,000 hours of purposeful practice, i.e study, teaching and serious play with critical analysis are required to reach true expertise in a given pusuit. This equates to approx 3 and a half years of 8 hours a day 7 days a week, 365 days a year bridge. It's not hard to see why this is nearly impossible to achieve if you start in your 40s.

For all those who think they are not talented I suggest they read "Bounce" by Matthew Syed. He puts forwards a clear and cogent argument that there's no such thing as talent, all you need is hard work, good training and a lot of purposeful practice. Sadly I suck at bridge because I am deficient in all 3. My cynical elderly father says that "The one thing you learn from experience is that you ... don't learn from experience."

I have been wanting to contribute something to the forum that has been so helpful to me in learning to play the game. I find it helpful to look at my mistakes and try to eliminate them yet there is relatively little discussion of errors here; most posts are looking for the right way to do things rather than analysing how and why we get stuff wrong. I wondered about writing a pastiche, a "Muck these hands up with me" sort of blog. Playing in a robot express duplicate I finally found a hand that annoyed me so much I offer it up here. Sitting west in the following hand [hv=pc=n&s=sqt85h4dt65ckq963&w=sak4hkq872d72ca74&n=s963hjtdakq9ct852&e=s972ha9653dj843cj&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=ppp1np2dp3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv] The A♦ was led from north and I duly lost 1 ♠ and 2 ♦ tricks. There didn't seem much that I could have done differently so I settled back to wait for an average-ish score. What I actually got was 20%. There were 8/10 pairs playing in 4♥ and 5 of these had made an overtrick. From a defensive point of view I have found it very helpful to see how this happened. 2 pairs played AKQ♦ and promoted the J♦ in dummy 1 defensive pair doubled a contract of 3♥ then did the above the next north played 2 rounds of diamonds and then 3♠ so south went up with the Q♠ to promote the J♠ 2 norths played 2 rounds of ♦ and then declarer cross ruffed and cashed his winners coming down to an ending with just AK4♠ in his hand but south discarded down to Q 10♠ and K♣ so dummy's J♠ came good. Sad to say that I became so obsessed with not promoting cards in dummy that later on I failed to cash a defensive winner twice in order not to promote a card in dummy and let a contract make that should have gone down 2 .. a hand so shameful I cannot bring myself to post it. The messages though are 1) that one needs to beware of gratuitously promoting / unguarding potential winners in dummy. 2) it is astonishing how easy it is to make such mistakes. When declaring just running the winners out allows the defence the chance to mess things up. Here 2 souths kept a redundant K♣ to defend against a squeeze that didn't exist.

Sorry I can't have made myself clear The competition was a nationwide simultaneous event, not a simple club night. If it had been a club night then I am sure I would have done exactly as you suggest. But for a proper competition I felt it was not right to ignore what happened. John

Playing last night at the ftf club in the nationwide sim the opps bid thus RHO 1♥ LHO 4♣(alerted RHO then pulled out a bidding sheet, ran her finger down it to see what the right response was before bidding 4♥ despite p shaking his head to encourage me to do nothing I felt that we should call the TD who told us to play the hand, which ended up with them completing the sequence to 6 H which made. TD then said she would adjust to an average plus for us. I was just wondering if that was right? John

Why not open with 1♣ as south? 11 points 4315 shape so an easy spade rebid at the one level despite only 11 points. I imagine p would have responded 2 or 3 NT. John

Non vul v vul in 4th seat I held ♠KQT95 ♥QJ62 ♦93 ♣76 Bidding went LHO 1NT (12-14) Partner X (16+ or other strong hand) RHO 2 ♣ I figured, I don't like double since I don't have diamonds and we haven't discussed this sort of auction (scared of a cock up!) I didn't like to go straight to 3 N .. 4 of a major might be better I didnt like to bid 3 ♠ since this would use up lots of space and shut out the hearts. So I bid 2♠ thinking that p would read this as a free bid and therefore a game try Needless to say he passed and we made 10 tricks for a rock solid bottom. What should I have bid? double I suppose. Thanks in anticipation John

Last time I posted there were lots of helpful answers which cleared my thinking temporarily .. at least until the clouds returned. This time I held with no one vul ♠T87 ♥AQ6 ♦AK54 ♣876 P dealt and passed as did RHO. I opened 1 ♦ LHO bid 1♠ and partner Doubled. Now I felt I had no good bid. Assuming p had made a negative double I felt that bidding 1N was out (no spade stopper), bidding 2 ♦ was out (only 4 cards) so I had to choose between 2 ♣ or 2 ♥. I feared (irrationally probably) that 2♥ might be taken as more positive than 2♣ so bid 2♣. P went straight to 3N and was doubled ... going one off. LHO had 5 spades and A clubs P held ♠K2 ♥753 ♦JT98 ♣KQJT so what should I have said in response to the Double of 1♠? Thanks in anticipation John

Thank you very much for the helpful replies. Having thought and reflected upon this I can summarise the following learning points for myself 1) Apply the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid!) Thus when I am tempted by what seems like a clever bid I should stop and see whether there isn't something blindingly straightforward that's better! 2) With the SAYC 1 club bid opening a response of 1 N implies a club holding (doh , but for an acolite this is something of a revelation!) 3) Personally I lean over backwards to avoid bidding NT as responder and perhaps that is wrong. I should not be averse to it when it is the most descriptive bid available.

Having been brought up on 4 card majors and weak Nt this sort of hand makes a fool out of me more often than I'd like so advice please. Playing in an indie with us vul I hold ♠862 ♥A4 ♦AQ8 ♣95432 P deals and opens 1♣ the opps pass throughout I assume this is a SAYC 1♣ and so this is the sort of hand I feel very uncomfortable with. I don't like raising clubs since this may be one of those 3 Club holdings in p's hands. I don't want to bid NT since I may have a good holding if p has long clubs so I compromise with 1♦ at least this way I will find out what p has. He answers 1♠ so I think Now .. p has 5 clubs, 4 spades, I have an 8 loser hand in support of clubs so I can raise to 3 ♣ and effectively limit my hand. p bids 3 N and we go off 3 for minus 300 and 8% His hand was ♠AKJ7 ♥K6 ♦9632 ♣QT8. Much misery sets in and I stumble from one catastrophe to another. Strange thing .. last week I played this indie and came 2nd out of 300 this week after further tragedies i was 298th! so I'm overall an eventful average! Perhaps I should stick to pairs. So how should I have bid the hand to avoid the disaster?

Re-reading Mike Lawrences programme "Counting at Bridge" I came across a hand in which he stated "pre-empting with a 4 card major is a poor idea." Usually he is extremely good at explaining his thinking but this statement just sits there unsubstantiated. Is it really a bad idea? .. after all how often holding a weak 2 minor hand does your side lose from not showing the major compared with how often your side gain from messing up the opposition? For example ♠8 ♥9653 ♦AKJ753 ♣J6 sitting in first seat non vul v vul looks like a pretty attractive pre-empt to me. Thanks John

The "Think with Fred" session was a jaw dropping demonstration of how to play the game. His clear description of the mechanics counting, how to picture partner's and opps hands and plan accordingly was first class. Sadly I could not watch it all and was therefore delighted at Maureen's e-mail transcript of the whole session. This was a truly superlative way of teaching and I would exhort other experts to take the plunge and use it too. John

The name is derived from the Acol Street, in London, which was the address of the small bridge club frequented by the developers of the system.

The wrinkle our family had for "Oh Hell" was that the total number of tricks bid for was not allowed to equal the total number of tricks available so someone is always going down on every deal!

I have the following problem. 1 x 8 year old who thinks he would like to play bridge and already imagines he is the best in the world at the game (though he hasn't played it.) 1 x Wife who has no interest in the game at all (my fault .. we played bridge with a couple who a) whipped us and :blink: tapped the cards condescendingly as they played winners they liked ... twin insults for which she has yet to forgive me! So the question is: which 2 handed card game would be the best introductory game for an 8 year old boy who would thinks he might like to learn to play bridge? Minibridge seems to be out since it needs a minimum of 3 players. Thanks John

I don't see how one can work out for sure who has the queen of clubs. It seems marginally more likely that East has it. I would play off the remaining trump to see if I get any more info, like a heart/club discard from east. Then play a low club from hand and watch East carefully. If he/she sits there as quiet as a mouse this is a moderately good poker tell for them having the Queen. Similarly if they start reaching for their card as you play from hand they probably don't have the Queen. Without any info I suppose I would play east for the missing Q though the 2 Diamond overcall seems very frisky. I discovered, serendipitously, that if you print a thread then hidden text is revealed. Is there an easier way to see hidden text without destroying rain forests :P Thanks john

Forgot to add line c) why one tries to set up dummies hearts but I didn't like that, looked like there would be problems getting to dummy to cash them if it worked (and an earlier post suggested it didnt anyway!)

I am glad this hand was posted as a problem; it is the sort of situation that I struggle with. Far from seeing easy ways to make 12 tricks I see all sorts of ways to fail in the contract. I would be grateful if a strong player would give me a clue since I now see this hand in front of me when driving to work (I'd rather be concentrating on the traffic!) At first sight the hand looks easy Method a) Take ace of spades then ruff a spade, cross to Ace diamonds, ruff a spade, Cash AK hearts tossing the jack of Diamonds from hand. Cross to hand by trumping a diamond and play the remaining trumps from the top dropping the jack of trump if you are lucky and making 12 if not. BUT if I were to play it this way I know exactly what would happen. The second heart trick would get trumped and the Jack of clubs would not drop when I played the clubs from hand. So perhaps one should look for a squeeze (i find these really hard to visualise at the best of times) but that looks unlikely since one would have to give up a trick to set up the squeeze and then the pesky opps might kill the heart entry needed in dummy. :) Method :) If the layout is the one feared in method a) then perhaps ruff one spade, lay down the K of clubs (hopefully preventing the ruff of the 2nd heart trick) and not doing too much harm if the trumps are 2-2). Then if the King of hearts holds up cross back to hand by a diamond ruff, draw trumps and lose the spade at the end. BUT if I were to play the hand that way the trumps would split 4-0 and I would go down again. Even worse the trumps might be 2:2 and I would lose the king of hearts to a ruff and then lose the spade return. Partner responding with a "P ??????????????????????" message because line a) would have worked. Of course, because real life opponents are inclined to get fidgety at the thursday night bridge club when I go into a 48 Hr tank, I would probably play line A and make 11 tricks like everyone else. I have a horrible feeling there must be a Line c) but I find my mind going round and round between the 2 lines above unable to escape from what seems to be doom whichever way I play it. Thanks in anticipation John

In US speak I am a Coloproctologist why? well all surgeons start at the bottom and some of us get no further.

Pass We don't have enough to make game even remotely possible (unless we make 2 Sp X) I think the opps have an 8 card heart fit and will bid it. Partner probably has 6 spades so "The Law" is on our side. We are vul. My kings are well placed defensively so I hope we can get 3 or 4 hearts down. BUT since I live in ACOL land I have little or no idea how to deal with precision so I am probably completely wrong on all possible counts! John

I confess to being deeply jealous of the lucky quartet. In order to cement the learning that takes place in the session the players should make a record of where and how they went wrong and how things could be improved. This can then serve as a permanent reminder of the lesson and a trigger to go out and identify the next area for each of them to work upon. "Reflective Diaries " like this are a powerful, and well validated, tool for adult learners.

I confess to being deeply jealous of the lucky quartet. In order to cement the learning that takes place in the session the players should make a record of where and how they went wrong and how things could be improved. This can then serve as a permanent reminder of the lesson and a trigger to go out and identify the next area for each of them to work upon. "Reflective Diaries " like this are a powerful, and well validated, tool for adult learners.

A wise Man said earlier in the thread "5) *** To me most important *** The expert can watch as 4 players play, asking them private questions to focus their thoughts. If they make a bad lead, he can ask them about it. He can ask players to stop and explain their thoughts on the hand so far. Maybe you don't even need an expert for this, just an intermediate, who can ask some routine questions to help focus the players attention." From an educational point of view this approach is by far the strongest. To get really "deep learning" you need to be involved in the process and to get the teaching at the point of difficulty (education/psych speak : cognitive dissonance) and this promotes the most lasting effects. Watching others simply is not as effective. I can show you how to repair a hernia, but you wouldn't be able to fix one on your own. I can guide you through how to repair a hernia yourself and you will be much more equipped to do it yourself. (btw there is good evidence to show that a trainee hernia repair done in this manner is as good as an expert op!) Reading books, kibbing experts etc is no substitute for real on the job teaching.

One of the attractive aspects of Go is that there is a culture of experts helping upcoming players to learn the game and it would be lovely to see the same in Bridge. I am desperately keen to play some hands with a real expert to discuss them after and learn from my mistakes. Reflecting on random hands in this way puts the learning into the context where it will be used in the future. BIL learning tourneys are great but as a reasonably busy gainfully employed person in europe I find I play in only about one a month ! (I am inclined to agree that they should be open to all .. a recent tourney director commented to the tournament that he felt the bidding, play and defense had been consistently expert so I am sure the BILlies can hold their own!) The problem with set deals or problem deals is that one always knows there is a hook. ie when examining the chess position in the paper start by looking at all the queen sac's then the rook sacs bishops, knights and then if you haven't found the answer go back to the queen sacs. Not the way to play the game at all. I find it quite easy to solve problems of counting in the quiet of my room with a Lawrence programme or BM. There I can take my time and work things out. At the table things go past in a whirlwind of cards, excitement, hopes raised and dashed making keeping count altogether more difficult. (People just will not make their discards in an orderly and memory friendly way!) I really need to nail down the counting and card play in that context. Perhaps and alternative model would be for appropriate experts to play with learners from time to time and to look at the hands afterwards while the scars remain fresh! A list of willing experts could be maintained easily. Clearly such people would have to be protected from being spammed by armies of bunnies like me and should be allowed to play in their own exalted circles when they do not wish to Mentor.