calling all experts

[jillybean]

Hi,

 

I want to gauge interest in starting an ongoing service to provide lessons, lectures and tournaments aimed at educating BBO players.

 

I would like to see a focus on Intermediate+/Advanced players but lessons would be open to anyone wanting to learn.

 

I know of a few people already who would be interested in running sessions and would like to hear from anyone else. I’m not looking for people to commit to a regular scheduled lesson, one off, as time permits is great.

 

Some idea’s I have:

1. Specific lessons – ie Reverses, Openers rebids with 18-19, 1nt openings

2. Short tournaments with review of hands. Pair up with an ‘expert’

3. Think with ‘____’ sessions.

4. Play of the hand squeezes, end plays, finesse, counting

 

All feeback is welcome, I know this has been tried in various ways before but has not been sustainable, maybe it’s a bad idea to try.

 

So, if you have any comments or ideas please let me know. :)

 

 

tyia

jb

[Guest Jlall]

like BIL but for advanced players?

[jillybean]

like BIL but for advanced players?

tricky question for me to answer.

 

I don't particularly want to start a “club” with all the problems and over heads associated with running one.

 

I do want to see a place where people can receive lessons freely and I think there is a need among intermediate+/advanced players.

I simply want to bring together people who are interested in learning and those who are willing to teach this great game.

 

How it evolves is anyone's guess.

 

jb

[ArcLight]

I think its a great idea. There is tremendous potential.

Could you describe in more detail what would be taught?

 

 

>1. Specific lessons – ie Reverses, Openers rebids with 18-19, 1nt openings

 

Wouldn't that depend on the system? If so, then you may have few people at one time for any system specific lessons. I prefer Lawrence style 2/1 to Hardy style.

SAYC has its own methods. Etc.

 

My preference is to not go heavy on conventions or system, but to focus on card play.

 

 

>2. Short tournaments with review of hands. Pair up with an ‘expert’

 

This would be fine. It would be nice to see a selection of interesting but not very difficult hands.

Is it allowed to use "pre dealt" hands from books? Not reproducing the authors words (i.e. analysis), just using the hand?

 

 

 

 

>3. Think with ‘____’ sessions.

 

Sort of like "over my shoulder" a la Terence Reese?

That would be fun.

 

 

>4. Play of the hand squeezes, end plays, finesse, counting

 

I think most of this is presented very well in books.

What I ask myself is "what is hard to teach in books, and easier at the table"?

Counting!

 

What I think would be extremely valuable from a mentor with 4 students would be for the mentor to ask questions at various points in the play, such as:

 

"East, how many Spades have been played, which is the high Spade and who has it"

"West, how many HCP can pard have left, why?"

"South, what do you estimate declarers distribution"

"North, for you to set this contract, what has to happen"

 

(they would answer privately, so as not to tip off teh others and ruin the hand)

 

What this will do if force the players to pay closer attention. After they miss a few questions they will realize they need to pay more attention, and being aware of this will greatly help them.

 

I KNOW I need to count, etc. But during the card play I invariably get caught up in thinking about some play and forget. I think if I were "forced" to pay more attention (by a mentor saying "you lost track of the HCP played again") that I would become better a lot faster.

 

The mentor won't insult/ridicule a player, but they will gently chide them each time they forget.

The mentor can start simply, with asking the players to count HCP in the 4 hands. Then move onto distribution, and high cards outstanding.

(Or vice versa)

 

 

 

Competitive bidding.

 

When NOT to make penalty doubles (based on high cards at the 3 level, and the opps with fewer HCP but lots of distribution are doubled into game).

[mikeh]

I guess I should look into the BIL <_< But on your idea, Jill, I'd be happy to help out, but not on a basis where I have to come up with a lesson plan, for example. What I see myself being able to do is to adress specific topics, either one on one or, more attractively, with a group: maybe a short 'lecture' followed by answering questions.

 

This could involve play issues: in my case not because I can assure my students that my line is the best, but because I am happy to describe my thought processes.

 

It could also involve either specific bidding conventions or treatments or conceptual matters such as which minor to open with 4=4, or how best to play the sequence 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ etc.

 

I do think that it is important that any expert teaching bidding be willing and able to acknowledge that there are different schools of thought and, ideally, be able to present more than one approach. It is apparent, from the postings here and the play in BBO and real life, that there are many idiosyncratic approaches, and that many of the proponents of those approaches strongly believe that they are 'best'. Maybe they are, but it would be a disservice to the students to teach those approaches, especially if they are not acknowldedged to be fringe views. I have in mind the efforts, in BBO, of XXXXX ( edited by uday) whose intentions seem to be the best, but whose teachings are out-of-the mainstream (I witnessed him adamantly advance the proposition that a holding of AKQJxx was sufficient for a gambling 3N opening bid on the indisputable basis that it was cold if partner held Axxx Axx Axx xxx)

 

And such flexiblity will prevent situations in which students receive contradictory advice from different experts without knowing that both experts may be 'correct' in context: creating rather than resolving confusion.

[jillybean]

I think its a great idea.  There is tremendous potential.

Could you describe in more detail what would be taught?)

 

I don’t have a definite answer for that. I have some ideas such as Reverses, going through hands demonstrating when a reverse is showing extra values, forcing, non forcing would be very useful. I struggle with rebids of balanced 18-19 hands, rebids after 2C opening with off shape hands. I think there would be interest to listen to experts discuss the bidding on random hands with the opportunity for questions.

 

Then there is the play of the hand.

 

What is taught may best be decided by supply and demand. If a session is a sucess it may well be worth repeating.

What do you think intermediates+ should be learning, what do people want to learn?

 

 

>1. Specific lessons – ie Reverses, Openers rebids with 18-19, 1nt openings

 

Wouldn't that depend on the system?  If so, then you may have few people at one time for any system specific lessons.  I prefer Lawrence style 2/1 to Hardy style.

SAYC has its own methods.  Etc.

 

My preference is to not go heavy on conventions or system, but to focus on card play. 

 

Yes a lot would be system specific though people who play one system may well be interested in another.

 

>2. Short tournaments with review of hands. Pair up with an ‘expert’

 

This would be fine.  It would be nice to see a selection of interesting but not very difficult hands.

Is it allowed to use "pre dealt" hands from books?  Not reproducing the authors words (i.e. analysis), just using the hand?

 

I don’t know the answer to this, maybe someone else does?

 

 

 

>4. Play of the hand squeezes, end plays, finesse, counting

 

I think most of this is presented very well in books.

What I ask myself is "what is hard to teach in books, and easier at the table"?

Counting!

 

What I think would be extremely valuable from a mentor with 4 students would be for the mentor to ask questions at various points in the play, such as:

 

"East, how many Spades have been played, which is the high Spade and who has it"

"West, how many HCP can pard have left, why?"

"South, what do you estimate declarers distribution"

"North, for you to set this contract, what has to happen"

 

(they would answer privately, so as not to tip off teh others and ruin the hand)

 

What this will do if force the players to pay closer attention.  After they miss a few questions they will realize they need to pay more attention, and being aware of this will greatly help them.

 

I KNOW I need to count, etc.  But during the card play I invariably get caught up in thinking about some play and forget.  I think if I were "forced" to pay more attention (by a mentor saying "you lost track of the HCP played again") that I would become better a lot faster.

 

The mentor won't insult/ridicule a player, but they will gently chide them each time they forget.

The mentor can start simply, with asking the players to count HCP in the 4 hands.  Then move onto distribution, and high cards outstanding.

(Or vice versa)

 

Sounds great, others could kibitz one hand and be silent participators too – with kibitzer chat off :)

[pclayton]

This is an idea that is long overdo.

 

However, given that the BIL is beginners / intermediates, the new group should be intermediate (+++) / advanced. I know so many so-called ints (or even self-proclaimed adv and higher) that haven't graduated from the scope of the BIL yet, and admitting them into a course aimed at advanced players would be a waste of time.

 

I also think players that want to participate should be screened by a moderator before they are 'accepted' into the program. Sort of like having a mandatory pre-requisite before the upper-level coursework.

[luke warm]

sign me up, my card play can use all the help it can get (no snide remarks, regardless of their validity!!)

[pclayton]

A few topics beyond the BIL but appropriate for adv are:

 

Bidding:

 

- 2/1 and forcing NT

- structured reverses

- splinters

- inverted minors

- key card auctions

- advanced NT auctions; transfers and beyond

- extensive discussion about 4th suit and nmf auctions

- unusual / unusual and other defenses to artificial calls

- responsive and support x's

- advanced competitive bidding

 

Play:

 

- intro to squeezes

- trump control plays

- entry-oriented plays and coups

- suit establishment

[ArcLight]

>I also think players that want to participate should be screened by a moderator before they are 'accepted' into the program. Sort of like having a mandatory pre-requisite before the upper-level coursework.

 

 

Sort of like an entrance exam?

 

I have an idea, how about a self-assesment test. Here are (for example) 10 questions, if you don't get 8 right, you are not ready for this class.

I'd have a common problem on each of:

- loser on loser

- dummy reversal

- elimination-end play

- setting up a long suit rather than taking 1 or more finesses

- avoidance play

- safety play

 

I rate myself as intermediate, and I make plenty of mistakes. Most self rated intermediates I've met are weak. Most self rated Advanced players are perhaps intermediate. I've not played with many experts so I can't judge. Thes eproblems wouldn't have to be very hard, they just wouldn't be obvious.

 

I volunteer to help with this if you like. I have quite a few bridge books and quiz books. I can find some good questions.

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakxxxhaxxdxxcxxx&s=sxxhkxdakqjtxcaxx]133|200|Contract is 6♦.

West leads a diamond.[/hv]

 

How do you play?

 

[this is not a hard problem, but if you can't see right away what to do, you belong in BIL not IAL.]

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakxxxhaxxdxxcxxx&s=sxxhkxdakqjtxcaxx]133|200|Contract is 6♦.

West leads a diamond.[/hv]

 

 

[this is harder, but not too hard if you think a moment]

[ArcLight]

My preference would be to not teach conventions because:

 

1) even if you know 100 conventions, if you don't count out the hand and you don't know fundamentals, you will never be better than fair. (in other words there mor eimportant things to learn)

 

2) unless you have an established partnership, it's frequently the case that a pick up pard doesn't know the entire convention, and all the continuation sequences. How many people know Jacoby 2NT? Do they know ALL the responses? Mike Lawrence presents a slightly different version on his CD than is played at the club in New Jersey.

 

3) You can read conventions in an article at your leisure and easily learn them. You dont need a teacher for that.

 

4) Which conventions will be taught? Will most players really benefit from knowing Baron, Exclusion Blackwood, Snap Dragon Double, etc.

 

 

The one thing thats harder to learn is "what did I do wrong"

such as:

 

Cashing your winners early and revealing the hand

 

Grabbing your aces on defense too soon and losing control

 

Making bad leads

 

Not counting and thus not realizing that a player cant have something

[awm]

There's also a lot more to bidding than conventions. For example:

 

Hand evaluation techniques.

What's worth an overcall?

How do you decide whether to bid five over five?

When should you (penalty) double?

When should you balance vs. pass it out?

 

I think a lot of people focus so much on "conventions" and "systems" that they miss out on these important aspects of bidding.

[kenberg]

Sounds interesting.

 

I very much support mikeh's caveat that you have to screen the advice so that it doesn't become advocacy for some favorite but out of the mainstream bidding idea. But anyway, I favor addressing play.

 

In playing on line, the single biggest failing I see in declaring a hand is not making at least an attempted conjectural count of where the required tricks will be coming from. I have often watched players, cold for contract under normal everyday play, go off on some crazy tangent. Inventive plays are great if you need them but if you can see the requisite number of tricks with ordinary play making only reasonable assumptions, you should be wary of any sophisticated approach. Without a doubt, I have made this same error myself.

 

 

The following might work with minimal organizational effort: Have a group meet regularly, play randomly dealt hands, and then have expert comment afterword on some key plays (good or bad). I am betting that about half of the comments will be along the lines of "Did you envision where x tricks would come from by following your line?"

 

I think comment on play is more useful than discussing bidding techniques, since these are readily available in many books.

 

If you want to do bidding instead, I favor discussing standard situations requiring judgment. Necessarily this will mean different people will have different views, but I think it best for on line discussion. If instead you want to learn about snapdragon doubles, you can find them in the literature.

 

Ken

[jillybean]

I also think players that want to participate should be screened by a moderator before they are 'accepted' into the program. Sort of like having a mandatory pre-requisite before the upper-level coursework.

With all due respect I think membership lists and qualification tests create an unnecessary overhead, potential problems and add little value. It will only keep the honest people out. If someone has help to pass the entrance quiz and subsequently does not match up to the level expected will the person be booted, who will decide when a person doesn’t measure up, who would be willing to do this?

 

Perhaps people chosen by the instructors could create smaller, exclusive groups for targeted higher level instruction.

 

 

I would like the lessons to be open to everyone. I am hoping any trouble could be handled by pleading with people’s sense of reason and the existing ‘abuse’ process for extreme cases. (I have been called naive before.)

 

Many things need to be worked out, including how sessions would be run. Maybe people with experience in this sort of thing can help out, maybe it will be trial and error.

 

jb

[Robert]

Hello everyone

 

I think that the general idea is really great. There are just some bugs that need to be worked out by trial and error.

 

My own experience is that most of my learning has come from books. The most help that I have ever recieved was by going over hands after a session to 'see' where the results could be improved with a partner.

 

Lessons by 'name' players are normally well attended by people at tournaments.

I suspect that the level of the lessons are 'lowered' down 'almost' to beginner level.

 

Defining what level of bridge should be taught is a problem. Players at the top level of world class play make mistakes. Their mistakes are often not even noticed by players of even slightly less experience.

 

Many people tend to overrate their own game. I played against a lady that claimed to 'never' have read any bridge book. I almost drew blood 'biting my tongue' to avoid saying, 'It shows.'

 

Mentors on a 'one' on 'one' level can gear the private lessons directly to what the student 'needs.' I taught 11nd grade U.S. history and had to direct my lessons well below the best students level to 'teach' the entire class.

 

Have you considered adding a discussion 'heading' here addressed to specific areas of concern: reverses, jump rebids, 2C openings with 'problem shapes' etc.

 

Judging by the answers to many posts on these threads, a 'standard' method of bidding does not exist except for the most basic levels.

 

I play my own home rolled version of almost all conventions. I have not seen any real agreement by assorted expert writers. If someone offered their ideas on reverses on a given thread, people that wanted to learn about reverses might be attracted.

 

Perhaps my best advise would be to try something and see how it works. If no one attends, you drop that trial ballon and launch another one.

 

Best regards,

Robert

[Chamaco]

How do you decide whether to bid five over five?

When should you (penalty) double?

 

These 2 questions get my vote: penalty doubles of partscores at IMPS, and high level decisions.

 

This would be a very good initiative by JB: there are plenty of classes in the BIL that would be useful to advanced+, but unfortunately such players are excluded from the club, perhaps such players bring diseases.

 

Hence I think that such initative would cover the gap for eaching/mentoring/help improve players too "strong" for the BIL (or at least rejected from the club) but who still have a long way to go...

 

(Please note I do not consider myself advanced, but I either leave "private" or "advanced" in profiles, otherwise it's almost impossible to be accepted in decent games, given the fact that the rest of BBO also overrate their selfranking.... and the rules of the BIL club are such that if you go around labeling yourself stronger than intermediate, you cannot attend the club even if the classes would useful. )

[pclayton]

I also think players that want to participate should be screened by a moderator before they are 'accepted' into the program. Sort of like having a mandatory pre-requisite before the upper-level coursework.

With all due respect I think membership lists and qualification tests create an unnecessary overhead, potential problems and add little value. It will only keep the honest people out. If someone has help to pass the entrance quiz and subsequently does not match up to the level expected will the person be booted, who will decide when a person doesn’t measure up, who would be willing to do this?

 

Perhaps people chosen by the instructors could create smaller, exclusive groups for targeted higher level instruction.

 

 

I would like the lessons to be open to everyone. I am hoping any trouble could be handled by pleading with people’s sense of reason and the existing ‘abuse’ process for extreme cases. (I have been called naive before.)

 

Many things need to be worked out, including how sessions would be run. Maybe people with experience in this sort of thing can help out, maybe it will be trial and error.

 

jb

JB:

 

Having entrance requirements is for the benefit of the student, and the rest of the class - not the instructor. If truly 'advanced' techniques are being taught, then an intermediate (-) who has a difficult time spotting themes is just going to be lost. I appreciate your thought about 'keeping the honest ones out', but if this is going to get off the ground, those that are running the classes need to know that what they are conveying is being absorbed by the classes.

 

The idea of BIL is important, and it plays its role for the newer player - as well as those that never really bothered to truly 'learn' the game.

 

Arclight's sample hands are a quick and easy way to see if someone has a general grasp of basic concepts. 80% feels right too.

 

Adam: I don't see a problem with having coursework on conventions - people do use them; its the abuse of conventions that hampers people's games.

[hrothgar]

And such flexiblity will prevent situations in which students receive contradictory advice from different experts without knowing that both experts may be 'correct' in context: creating rather than resolving confusion.

I agree very much with these sentiments...

 

There are a LOT of different approaches towards bidding.

Many of them have merit.

 

Players who are reaching advanced status need to recognize that there is no one true path.

[jillybean]

Member only...

 

Once a group becomes ‘member only’ there is extra work, reviewing applications, maintaining membership lists and so on. The benefits may well justify the extra work.

 

Lets see who steps up to be involved, someone said to me you need a minimum of 10 committed people to keep a club like this running properly. I don’t know what it would need, BBOJuniors, Walddk's club seem to be a good models, I will talk with them.

 

 

jb

[Al_U_Card]

Bridgemaster is a great "tool" for self-evaluation. If you can pass level 3 hands then you should be "advanced". I would not suggest this format for your group as it would steal from Fred (we owe him way too much).

 

Perhaps using BM with "expert" assistance to "help" the participants figure out the hands would be a tack. Perhaps the same sort of approach for bidding decisions etc. (Fred might be coaxed to produce more BM problems that are amenable to this type of instruction and would generate some more revenue for him.

[ArcLight]

>Bridgemaster is a great "tool" for self-evaluation. If you can pass level 3 hands then you should be "advanced".

 

Is that really true?

Somehow I think a player who is advanced should be solving most of the level 4 hands. The level 3 hands are for intermedaites. The level 4 hands have squeezes and some trickier hands.

 

 

> I would not suggest this format for your group as it would steal from Fred (we owe him way too much).

 

It would be great for Fred because the implication is you should buy Bridge Master

to evaluate your level to see if you should join the club! :)

[Robert]

Hello Chamaco

 

Doubling partscores at IMPs should be for down 'two' or more. Doubling for 'one' trick sets is just not worth the high risk.

 

You call sometimes gamble to double a 2m overcall for a one trick set 'because' that is not game 'if' it makes.

 

It is slightly outside the partscore tactics, however, I would also suggest that you accept slightly smaller 'sure' penalties rather than bid your own doubtful game.

 

Getting +500 against a 600/620 score game is a good tactic at IMPs. +300 against your 400 or 420 game is also a good idea.

 

You can sometimes 'gamble' doubling them when they are in game. The bonus for making a doubled game is not nearly a disaster. They are unlikey to redouble for penalty 'if' you believe that you were doubling for a possible one or two trick set.

 

Regards,

Robert

[Al_U_Card]

>Bridgemaster is a great "tool" for self-evaluation. If you can pass level 3 hands then you should be "advanced".

 

Is that really true?

Somehow I think a player who is advanced should be solving most of the level 4 hands. The level 3 hands are for intermedaites. The level 4 hands have squeezes and some trickier hands.

 

 

> I would not suggest this format for your group as it would steal from Fred (we owe him way too much).

 

It would be great for Fred because the implication is you should buy Bridge Master

to evaluate your level to see if you should join the club! :)

Exactly. BBO "advanced" and the need to use Bridgemaster in a way that would benefit Fred.

[jillybean]

>Bridgemaster is a great "tool" for self-evaluation. If you can pass level 3 hands then you should be "advanced".

 

Is that really true?

Somehow I think a player who is advanced should be solving most of the level 4 hands.  The level 3 hands are for intermedaites.  The level 4 hands have squeezes and some trickier hands.

 

 

> I would not suggest this format for your group as it would steal from Fred (we owe him way too much).

 

It would be great for Fred because the implication is you should buy Bridge Master

to evaluate your level to see if you should join the club!  :)

Exactly. BBO "advanced" and the need to use Bridgemaster in a way that would benefit Fred.

I like this idea, I will have to dust off my BM.

 

Maybe, with FG's aprroval BM can be used for the basis of lessons. To participate you will need a copy, extra value for BM owners and more sales.

[luis]

I find the "screening" idea repulsive. Who do we think we are to determine who can learn something and who can't?

 

The fact that a player is a beginer doesn't mean he is not able to understand some concepts, capability to learn and stored knoledge are two different things. We can have an advanced player that can't understand anything new and we can have a player that started 2 weeks ago and anything you say to him he learns it.

 

Besides this, what damage can we do letting anybody listen and ask questions? "sorry you can't learn about restricted choice because you went down in 3NT in your exam" this is completely absurd.

 

It's discriminatory and I certainly wouldn't like to be in such an environment.

 

Luis