pdmunro

I enjoyed doing numerical simulations, but I found there were a few traps for young players. From my limited experience: 1) Make sure the problem is clearly defined: I once spent 3 months solving the wrong problem. My flatmate asked for my help regarding a polymer flow problem, and I spent 3 months trying to solve his problem when I should have working on my own PhD. I misinterpreted the diagram he drew and spent all that time thinking about polymers falling through air, rather than being squeezed through a funnel. A painful memory. 2) If possible have two mathematical methods of arriving at an answer: I solved a blood-clotting problem using (1) a monte-carlo simulation of the final equilibrium position, and (2) numerical solution - using algorithms - of a set of kinetic equations till they reached equilibrium. When I didn't get the same answer, I knew something was wrong. I asked for help and someone showed me how they would use the Monte Carlo approach in method 1. Their code was computationally simpler and, importantly, it gave the same answer as method 2. 3) Find out what simplifying assumptions can be made: I once got engrossed in trying to write a model of gene transcription control that was 10 times more complex than it needed to be. I presented my work a number of times at group meetings, but everyone was too concentrated on their own presentations to really listen to what I was doing. One day I overheard a lab member talking about a simplifiying assumption that they were using to analyse their observed data, and I immediately knew the assumption was both valid and useful for my model. My slimmed down model worked beautifully. I guess you know all this, and a whole lot more, Helene. I just wanted to put a few somewhat painful thoughts on paper.

Have you thought of using Richard Pavlicek's database of double-dummy-solved hands to answer your question? Look for RP Deal Finder http://www.rpbridge.net/rpbr.htm#11

Double Dummy Solver (DDS) http://www.bridgemate.net/downloadDD.html I have been using DDS for some time now, and I find it does all that I want it to do. It loads BBO (.lin) files. It allows me to play the cards in any order. It is very fast. It is free.

Rixi Markus is purported to have said that "lawyers make better bridge players than mathematicians". If true, I wonder why.

I have just read Josh Waitzkin's book, "The Art of Learning", detailing his ideas on chess and martial arts learning. It's focus is on how to create elite perfomance. You can get the flavour of the book from the introduction: http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?...d=526819&agid=2 There are youtube video clips showing Tai Chi Push Hands One of best things for me was his ideas on utilising anger (p 200 onwards): rather than let yourself get upset, channel the anger to stimulate your creativity. This requires practise.

I use the following, which is basically what I was taught, based on Klinger. How you evaulate your hand in terms of points depends on whether you have (a) the hand with the long trump suit, or you have (b) the supporting hand. (a) Hand with long trump suit Determine your total points (TP) using TP = high card points (HCP) + length points (LP) where HCP: A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1; and LP: 1 point for 5th, 6th, etc. trump. (b) Supporting hand Determine your total points (TP) using TP = high card points (HCP) + shortage points (SP) where SP: void=5, doubleton=3, singleton=1. If you have a void, your partner should be able to ruff twice with your hand, so it is certainly as good as a KQ (5 points, 2 tricks). Similarly, if you have a singleton, your partner should be able to ruff once with your hand, so a singleton is certainly as good as a K (3 points, 1 trick). Point Requirements for Game Contracts 3NT 25 HCP 4H/4S 26 TP 5D 29 TP slam 33 TP g. slam 37 TP Example North S: AQxxxx H: xx D: Ax C: KQx South S: xxx H: Kxx D: KQxxx C: xx North evaluates: 15 HCP + 2 LP = 17 TP (total points) South evaluates: 8 HCP + 1 SP = 9 TP Bidding: 1S - 2S - 3S* - 4S** - * Game invite ** Invite accepted Reevaluation of my hand 1) I don't count points for a singleton K or for doubleton Qx, unless my partner has bid that suit. (2) If I have DK but my LHO bids D, I no longer expect to win a trick with that K, so I no longer count it. (3) If I have no support for partner's suit, we have a misfit and I have to be cautious in my bidding. (4) Similarly, if partner has not supported my suit, it is likely the opponents have length in it, so I only continue to bid the suit with extra length. And I only proceed to game in the suit, if the suit is good enough not to need help from partner.

Also xxx is "three babies" I think I've also heard "three puppies". Wow, so many euphemisms for cards we ordinarily don't even care about. :) ... and "children", as in "get the children off the street" (i.e. draw opponents small trumps).

I am reading Paul Mendelson's "100 Tips for Better Bridge". I think it's great. It has a very attractive set-out: large pages, one tip per page, each tip illustrated with a couple of deals, and cards are offset from the text in boxes. Paul is an expert from England and he writes well, with humour added. The book is for intermediate-advanced players. It has sections on bidding, play and defence. It seems a bit quirky that he would give personal background on most of the deals, but it works: most bridge books I only dip into occasionally, but I find I'm reading this one all the way through. For me, it's a kind of revision. Also, I'm looking for ideas for lessons. I would include it in my list of 4 must-have bridge books for intermediates.

Wow, I have just stumbled on a Blog, with many comments, detailing a development scenario that's straight out of the wild west. And it is happening in North St Louis, right there, right now, 2007. http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/?p=2996 The crux of matter is that one of the oldest parts of St Louis, namely North St Louis, has been economically-depressed for many years. And as the area has become more and more run-down, some developers have seen a big-buck opportunity. Looking at the map they have purchased perhaps 10% of the old city. http://www.eco-absence.org/blairmont/map.htm One of the intriguing aspects of the situation is that the developers are doing little developing for now, simply letting buildings decay further. Plus they are not saying what their future plans are. Is it a giant gamble that may lose someone a fortune? Is it something sinister? The comments to the Blog include: " ... there are vast areas of the city where our industrial base has vacated, and without an employed middle-class, there’s not going to be much of a market for middle-class housing of any sort." # Jim Zaviston 10 Feb 2007 at 12:07 pm "The plan is to simply remove the largely African-American community from a defined geographic area. Starting at Washington Ave, clear out the existing residents all the way up to Natural Bridge. Do not supply replacement housing. Buy it all up and run them out. ... Now you are ready to build WhiteHaven on the northside." # Barbaraon 12 Feb 2007 at 10:04 pm I find the machinations of politics and bridge, equally fascinating.

I came across these webpages of an architect who has a fascination with older St Louis buildings. I am an Australian who lived and worked in St Louis for 3 & 1/2 years. I played bridge 4 or 5 nights a week which really helped me to make friends. Loved it. But from the moment, I arrived I was advised not to enter North St Louis. (I don't know if it is still the same.) I ended up there late one night by accident. I was scared from all the stories, and in my mild panic did something a bit a silly. I ran a few red lights thinking that 1) I wasn't going to stop and get car-jacked; and 2) If the police pulled me over, then I would be safe. There is an easier and safer way to see what all the fuss is about. Take a virtual tour of North St Louis, the badlands of the 1990's, where time has stood still. Of course, there are lots of glitzy newer areas in the city. But it is just fascinating to see a part that has been just allowed to sit, frozen-in-time. I would love to go back and play bridge there. Both the home bridge and the club scene were most enjoyable.

These are some of the thought processes that are involved in playing bridge for me. ---------------------------------- Long-term Memory Tasks ---------------------------------- Some years back, I set myself these long-term memory tasks: - Memorize hand/suit patterns: e.g. 5431 5332 6331 6421 - Rephrase SAYC in terms of Aces, Kings and Queens (AKQ) Once at the table, there are a number of short-term memory tasks to be fitted into the 5-7 minutes involved in playing a hand. I have listed some of them below. ----------------------------------- Short-term Memory Tasks ----------------------------------- During the bidding - guess at each players' suit distribution and AKQ holding As declarer, on the opening lead Guess at the facts - guess the distribution of the AKQ's of the opponents - guess the distribution of trumps around the table - make a mental note of the opening lead, and guess the distribution of that suit Make a plan - work out my losers - work out the missing key cards (Klinger hint) - work out whether to ruff or to promote As declarer, at the end of each trick pause to do a mental check list (Klinger hint) Take in the facts, improve my guesses - check off which key cards have been played and which remain - same with trumps Modify my plan if necessary As defender, prior to the opening lead Guess at the facts - guess declarer's suit distribution - guess partner's AKQ's Make a plan - if declarer wants to ruff, lead trumps - imagine cards in p's hand that can defeat the contract As defender, at the end of each trick Take in the facts, improve my guesses - countdown the remaing cards in declarer's hand in all suits - guess who has the missing key cards Modify my plan if necessary ---------------------- I have indicated two types of tasks: guessing at the facts; and making a plan. In the past, I have been concentrated on making a plan. But the more I first make educated guesses about the distribution of AKQ's and the suits, the more I feel that I am playing good bridge. Part of my problem is that I am not consistent. I wonder if I should have a particular sequence of steps that I should go through. I am trying to work out how to train my mind.

I find what helps me to count the cards is to think in terms of Aces, Kings and Queens (AKQ) during the bidding. I have rephrased SAYC in AKQ terms for myself. For instance, if my partner opens at the 1-level, I place 4+ AKQ in his hand. And if my RHO makes a vulnerable overcall at the 1-level, I place 3 AKQ in his hand. I find that thinking in terms of Aces, Kings and Queens, rather than just points, helps my bidding and play.

Has anyone made a movie file with annotations of their thoughts during the play of a hand?

What do you do to help you count the cards?

I have read lots of beginners books. The two that stick in my head are Paul Marston "The Principles of Card Play" and Mike Lawrence "How to Read your Opponents' Cards" Paul Marston's is the simplest book on card play that I have read. One of the few where I read every page. Here is a sample from page 15. Do you agree that the set out is simple enough that the beginner is not intimidated? Plus the repetition helps to reinforce the ideas. Such simplicity and clear setout is a treasure to find. But a warning. Perhaps it is only me, but I find certain standard techniques intimidate me. E.g., I wiggle and squirm before I take a finesse. So it is one thing to read it in a book, it is another to take the plunge at the table. It is only after many years playing, now that I can usually work out who has what cards, that I take my finesses fearlessly. See I'm still a chicken, I'm only fearless when I know it's going to work! The reason that Mike Lawrence's book sticks in my mind is because it encapsualtes the key idea of bridge: one has to imagine scenarios. This key skill comes from playing lots of hands. It especially comes from losing. The hands I stuff up are the ones I go back over. For me, the memory of the embarrassment lasts longest. Certainly longer than anything I have read in a book. Mike's book gave me the key: imagine where the cards need to be for you to make your contract. That is not always possible. But the beauty of BBO is that you can look later and find the answer. Thank you, thank you, BBO. There is one other book that everyone recommends: Mollo and Gardiner "Card Play Technique". It is a book I have never been able to finish. I have perhaps started it 4 times. I typically get 3/4 of the way through. The major benefit of this book for me is that it tells me that I am improving. Each time I read it, I find I get more examples correct, more easily. But I honestly cannot remember anything from the book, except for two small ideas. 1) Lead up to your high cards. For example, lead from dummy towards the K in your hand. You may find RHO puts up his A, sparing your any procrastination. 2) You might have Kxxx opposite Qxxx. You lead towards the K and it wins. Consider playing a small card from both hands and watch the doubleton A capture nothing but an x. And the rest of the suit is yours! Oh, and there was a third idea. 3) If your partner's opening lead is a middle card, say the 8, consider ducking even though you hold the A. When you do get in, play the A and give him a ruff. He lead a doubleton, not a singleton. And 4). With Axx of trumps, consider leading a trump x at trick one. And win with the A when trumps are played again, then play your third trump to deny declarer ruffs in dummy. Of these 4 points, point 1) I use every hand; point 2) I use once a year; point 3) twice in 20 years; and point 4) I saw a chinese expert use to great effect 3 years ago. And the question I have is: Did he learn it from Mollo and Gardiner? I guess this is the general problem with bridge. So many ideas. Some used on every hand, so that they become instinctive. Some rarely used. Congratulations to Al (aka xx1943). I think you are really getting your instructional material together with Lesson Hands. Click "Lesons on play the cards", then click Lesson 7 "Movie improved by Mihailo". Great format. Well done.

One resource that I have not seen utilised is Richard Pavlicek's "Deal Finder". http://www.rpbridge.net/rpbr.htm#11 It is a database of 2 million deals that he has thoroughly double-dummy analysed.

Fred and Uday, Is it possible to program NetBridgeVu.exe to voice the annotations that have been added to a MOVIE? I am thinking of something similar to the facility that exists for voicing table chat. Hopefully, it would be a useful teaching device, enabling the student to look, listen and learn.

Have you tried setting up a teaching table and using MOVIE? When you are online at BBO in the Main Bridge Club, click "Start a new table" and make it a teaching table (and maybe invisible). Now click MOVIE and then open your BBO hands. Then click the "Annotate" button down the bottom of the Bridge Movie. This will allow you to add comments to both the bidding and the play.

I read this one in a bridge book, believe it or not. It's probably better for older adults. It's Don's 80th birthday. So the residents of the old people's home, where he lives, put in some money. And hire a lady of the night to make it a really special occasion. The lady arrives dressed only in a fur coat. Standing at the door of Don's room, she flings open her coat, revealing all her assets, and says in a sexy voice: "Tonight's your lucky night, big boy. I'm here for super sex. What's it to be?" Don replies in a shaky voice, "I'll take the soup, thanks."

My 2 cent's worth. One of my older partner's learnt to play the cards using Bridge Baron, a computer program. He plays 20 or so hands a day. Yes, try Audrey Grant's books. I read the 1990 editions she coauthored with Zia Mahmood. Audrey has thought a lot about how to present ideas to beginners. The ideas are clearly set out. Other books that might suit your students' needs are: Edwin B. Kantar 1) Introduction to Declarer's Play 2) Introduction to Defender's Play These are both fairly short books. Paul Marston "The Principles of Card Play". Paul is an Australian author. The book is the clearest, simplest explanation of how to play the cards that I have read. It's always hard to know how much we remember from reading books. And when we are tired, everything that we have learnt seems to fly out the window. Bridge is learnt by playing lots of hands. The more we play, the more scenarios we start to recognize. I find making mistakes is part of the learning process. I find a bad loss is often the best lesson. It makes me more alert, when I face a similar situation the next time. Then I play better, just from being alert and thinking harder. ***************************************************************** Flame, I think you know all the above. I am interested in how people learn, as I can see you are. I know I haven't really answered your question about an alternative way of teaching card play. Sorry. I am a High School mathematics teacher. I find the hardest ideas to teach are those that I found easiest to understand. And I find it easy to teach those concepts that I had to really struggle to understand myself. I can anticipate the problems the student's will have. It's probably similar for bridge. In any mathematics or bridge class there is a whole range of abilities. In all four mathematics classes that I have at the moment, the results range from 100% to 1%. All students have been exposed to the same classroom experiences over the last six months, and some brains get it and some don't. It is obvious to me that experts process a lot more information at bridge than I do. I guess I am somewhere in the middle ability range. There must also be people who struggle to manipulate a simple play sequence in their head. My wife didn't like bridge because she felt the pressure of people waiting for her to make a play. This stress drove all ideas out of her head. I didn't mean to end on a negative note. I guess I simply wanted to clarify for myself that there are different reasons why a person may find it difficult to see a particular card play: lack of experience, tiredness, lack of ability, stress, the idea was never properly explained to them, etc. Of course, we are all on a learning curve. We can only hope it is an upward curve. :-) ********************************************************************

Two interesting links re simulation are "How Computers Play Bridge" by two Bridge Baron programmers, and an extended interview with Yves Costel the programmer who wrote WBridge5, the winner of the 2005 Computer Bridge Championship. I downloaded the zip file and then used Google translator to get the gist of his ideas.

Minibridge software There is free MiniBridge software available. You play against the computer. Might be a good way to learn card play.

I not sure if I want to be declarer whenever our side wins the contract: I seem to need the mental break I get from being dummy. I played 9 hands, then 8 hands, on money-BBO. Both times against an obviously talented opponent. I did OK, but it was certainly quicker than the usual BBO. At the end, I felt punch-drunk. This is just a first impression. It can change.

Rain, That link to the GIB system didn't work for me. Also I was unable to search using GIB as a term: I was given the message that "search keywords were below 4 characters".

Here is what I might try with some students, if I get a chance. I have restructured the mini-bridge system in terms of Aces, Kings and Queens (AKQ). I want to prompt the students to picture each other's hands. Mini-AKQ Bridge Adapted from mini-bridge. http://www.cacbf.com/MINIBRDG.htm Dealer announces how many AKQ he/she holds, followed in turn by each of the others. For example, a player with ♠ A K x x x ♥ K Q x x ♦ K x x ♣ x announces, or writes down, "5". The total for the four players will be 12. The partnership with the higher AKQ count wins the contract, and the individual in the partnership with more AKQ's becomes declarer. (Need a rule for the case where the counts are tied: my feeling is that the person who has had least to do should be declarer in that situation.) Dummy now goes down, before the first lead is made. With dummy visible, declarer announces the contract: number of tricks, trump suit or No Trumps. The opening lead is made and play proceeds as in bridge. The scoring is simplified. As usual, only tricks in excess of the first 6 (the book) score points. In ♣ or ♦ they are worth 20 points, ♥ or ♠ 30 points. In NT, the seventh trick is worth 40 points, subsequent ones 30. The part-score bonus is 50 points, game 300, and slam 300 plus an extra 500. Undertricks score 50 points for the defence. Each deal is scored independently and the game lasts for a fixed number of deals. A possible analysis Dummy ♠ x x x ♥ A x x ♦ x x ♣ A x x x x Declarer ♠ A K x x x ♥ K Q x x ♦ K x x ♣ x Consider the hand with long trumps to be the master hand. Lose to the ♠Q. Expect to lose a ♥. The problematic suit is ♦'s. Lead from dummy towards the ♦K and hope the ♦A is onside. Ruff the third ♦ in dummy. Lose just one trick in ♦'s. Contract to take 10 tricks with ♠'s as trumps. With dummy visible, declarer is learning to think through a line of play. And, if say 4 of the missing AKQ are on his left, he knows that the ♦A is most likely to be there, and may choose to contract for only 9 tricks. He is learning to make an adjustment, similar to what he would have made if that player had bid diamonds. Could the defence learn to signal to let their partner know where their AKQ are? Could some players learn common suit distributions such as 5332, 6331, 5431, 7321 and keep track of what declarer has left in their hand? Maybe declarer should be required to announce how long the trumps are in his hand. This would be known from the bidding in normal bridge. Let's see what happens.