calling all experts

[Al_U_Card]

Given the right impetus and guidance, each level would correspond to a self-rating designation ie level 3 =int. 4= adv. etc. We could even propose elements for the various areas that Fred might incorporate into BM making it even more desirable/useful.

[Al_U_Card]

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

Likewise. I would suggest that the teaching aide (BM or other) be a metric for self-evaluation and determination if you are at an appropriate level to maximize your learning and minimize slowing down the process for others etc.

[hrothgar]

I also think that screening is highly problematic...

 

Case in point: Bridge Master is a wonderful tool. However, its restricted to questions of declarer play. Does the ability to solve Bridge Master deals necessary demonstrate any real competency in defense or bidding?

[pclayton]

Well you have to start somewhere.......

 

I suppose I can bang of the door of MIT's advanced quantum physics department and demand to audit a class. Whether or not I learn anything is immaterial, or whether I don't a quark from a cork (lets be clear - I DONT) doesn't matter. I'm not hurting anything, right? And - hey - I can tell all my friends that I attended such a class - won't they be impressed!

 

And if they turn me away, I can always claim 'discrimination'.

 

________________________________________________

 

I really haven't seen a sensible argument against screening in this thread yet. I don't think its discrimination (but I suppose no one gets hurt if someone audits but has kib chat off) and I don't its a big hassle to set up membership; how hard is it to start a chat room, lay out 3 or 4 BM "int" random deals and see if the person 'gets' the concepts? This can't take more than 10 minutes and I would sign up to be one of the 1st proctors you would need for admittance.

 

One of my 1st bridge partners compared his getting a life master as the same amount of mental energy it took to get a Masters in Chemistry. A lot of us that have been playing a long time have something of a jaded view toward the game; that it really isn't that 'tough'. Baloney - it is. And people like Justin who have an immense knowledge of the game at a young age are true prodigies - no different than a gifted chess or piano player. Bridge is a complex science and should be treated as such.

 

Frankly, I wouldn't want to be involved in a program where the participants weren't screened.

[ArcLight]

>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.

 

I would not suggest requiring anyone to own Bridge Master as a requirement for joining. But people may be interested in buying it as a self assessment.

 

 

I see nothing wrong with "beginners" attending lessons either. But I would not "dumb down" the lessons too much, else you will lose the interest of the primary audience. If you use very simple problems, the more advanced people will be bored. If you use harder ones, the less experienced players may miss many of them and not get that much out of them. And beginners asking many beginner questions will caus ethe others to lose interest.

 

Let who ever want to attend.

But don't dumb down the lessons.

 

 

HOWEVER, if you have mentoring groups of 4, where a mentor discusses the play of the hand as the 4 players play, or afterwards, there is a good case not to have a begiiner play with advanced intermediates. If one player is much weaker tahn the others it will make it less fun for their pard, and make it harder to play using inferences (because the begiiner will make some fundamental errors taht others would be less likely to make).

 

Ex: Pard leads the 2 of clubs, my king is taken by declarers ace. Later I get in and return clubs. Turns out pard lead 2 from 32.

 

I made a takeout double, pard bid 1 Spade. Turns out he had AKxx in Spades and Axx in another suit. (that was an "advanced" player by his profile)

 

Plays like that cause everyone to misjudge things, and the emphasis here is (should be) to learn to count and draw inferences. You will have a chance to play with bad players outside of the class.

[Guest Jlall]

Does the ability to solve Bridge Master deals necessary demonstrate any real competency in defense or bidding?

Once I asked my father if he thought he was better at defense or declarer play. He said he is equal at them because they are the same. I guess he meant he declares while he defends and defends while he declares. He did say they require the same skill sets.

 

I'm not sure if I agree with him, maybe for players of his caliber this is true but most players seem to be better declarers than defenders for whatever reason. I do think there is a high correlation between the two though.

 

Anyways I agree with your point that the ability to solve bridge master deals does not determine your skill level. Other than technical play, there's deceptive play, psychology, laziness/determination, pragmatics, etc that come into play, and of course bidding.

[hrothgar]

I suppose I can bang of the door of MIT's advanced quantum physics department and demand to audit a class. Whether or not I learn anything is immaterial, or whether I don't a quark from a cork (lets be clear - I DONT) doesn't matter. I'm not hurting anything, right? And - hey - I can tell all my friends that I attended such a class - won't they be impressed!

 

And if they turn me away, I can always claim 'discrimination'.

Funny that you should mention this... MIT is strongly commited to sharing its course materials with anyone interested in accessing its materials. The University's Open Courseware project provides free access to lecture notes and problem sets. In some cases, the Professor's have even made videos versions of their lectures available.

 

You don't get to ask question of the Profs and you don't don't get a fancy diploma. However, if you're "just" interested in learning you can't beat this deal.

 

I'll note in passing that the physics department has posted notes for three different graduate courses on quantum theory:

 

Quantum Theory I, Fall 2002

Quantum Theory II, Spring 2003

Relativistic Quantum Field Theory III, Spring 2003

 

The web site documenting the project is available at http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html

 

I understand that you were trying to create an absurb example in order to support screening. Unfortunately, the example wasn't nearly absurb enough. MIT does allow anyone to electronically audit graduate level quantum physics...

 

I think that the lecture notes and the problem sets will quickly convince you that the level of complexity is a wee bit higher than that of the typical bridge lecture.

[mikeh]

As one of the first posters to express concern re skill levels, let me say that I am not overly concerned about the level of the students. If I were to be a 'mentor' in one or more of these proposed sesions, I would want to invite a topic, and probably select one from (I hope) a modest number of ideas. Those interested in the concept could attend. If the concept seemed to be challenging, then I would probably want to announce that: with the idea that beginners not attend that particular session. If the topic were more accessible (even tho containing elements likely beyond the intermediate or many of the self-proclaimed advanced players) they will see that during the discussion. One or two isolated 'dumb' questions would not rate to be destructive, and if one or more students were clearly out of their depth, the mentor could (politely) tell them so, and ask them not to participate in the discussion, while remaining welcome as observers. This should work if the group announces this as a policy.

 

Screening mentors is more of a challenge :lol: Naturally, I believe that the best way to select a mentor is to see whether they consistently agree with my BBF posts :P

 

Oh well: I suspect that that will not carry the day :D

 

 

Humour can be difficult to grasp in some cases, so just in case, my last comments were only semi-serious :D :D

[Guest Jlall]

Naturally, I believe that the best way to select a mentor is to see whether they consistently agree with my BBF posts :lol:

Seems like a good idea to me, for obvious reasons :P

[jillybean]

Naturally, I believe that the best way to select a mentor is to see whether they consistently agree with my BBF posts :lol:

Seems like a good idea to me, for obvious reasons :P

Does this mean youre putting your hand up Justin?

[luke warm]

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.

 

~~snip~~

 

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

 

Luis

why, luis? doesn't the beginner/int club do that? is it discriminatory? roland has a 2/1 club for int/advanced... is that discriminatory? i don't think it is, any more than any other clubs are...

 

what you say about begginers is true, but why have a "club" for int/advanced if beginners can join? it would be like adv/experts joining the BIL

[kenberg]

Perhaps Arclight is correct that level 4 competence in BM should be what is meant by advanced. Should is a long way from is. Let me give you a (rotated) hand from the acbl/bbo pairs game.

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=saq4haq65dk62cj64&w=s3hk982dt97cak972&e=s975hj4d8543ct853&s=skjt862ht73daqjcq]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

This hand was played 39 times. Six declarer's were in 6S. The A then K of clubs was led, ruffed, trumps drawn, finesse taken, making 6. One pair was in 3NT making 7 (Don't ask).

 

Presumably everyone should be in 4S making 6, at least assuming only that the lead is the club ace followed by a shift. Most were in 4 making 5. Something like this: Win the shift, draw trump, finesse the heart Q, return to hand and lead another small heart hoping for, well, who knows. You need not be a squeeze expert to make 6. Win the shift,draw trumps, finesse the Q, count your tricks. You have 11. You have lost one. Even if you never heard of a squeeze, how wrong could it be to run the spades and diamonds. Maybe someone will pitch wrong. Here there is no right pitch.

 

Perhaps some defender shifted to a small heart at trick 2 offering a losing option, accepted by declarer. I doubt that happend often.

 

 

Typically people who play in the ACBL pairs list themselves as advanced (or expert). I would say that there are a lot of folks out there (I include myself) on BBO who are not beginners but make frequent errors and would profit from an expert drawing our attention to them.

 

This is the sort of hand that everyone gets right if they are reading a book on squeezes. At the table it's a different story. As the scorecard shows.

 

Ken

[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.

 

~~snip~~

 

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

 

Luis

why, luis? doesn't the beginner/int club do that? is it discriminatory? roland has a 2/1 club for int/advanced... is that discriminatory? i don't think it is, any more than any other clubs are...

 

what you say about begginers is true, but why have a "club" for int/advanced if beginners can join? it would be like adv/experts joining the BIL

Well If there is one thing I don't like about the BIL is that advanced or expert players are not allowed in the lessons. The fact that a player is advanced or expert doesn't mean he won't benefit from a lesson or an explanation. Some expert players are rusty in 2/1 others are rusty in competitive bidding etc etc. But I respect the rules as rules.

 

I believe in the freedom of information and I strongly believe that a lesson on any level or any subject should be open to anybody that feels he can benefit from the lesson.

 

Luis

[Chamaco]

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.

 

~~snip~~

 

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

 

Luis

why, luis? doesn't the beginner/int club do that? is it discriminatory?

Yes, it's discriminatory.

 

Luis classes and OliverC classes would be useful also for advanced +.

 

For instance, OliverC has been teaching Precision, with alfa, beta, gamma, omega, (etc etc) asking bids, and the strategy for chosing one or the other asking bids.

And Luis classes are also of a high standard.

 

Don't you think this would be useful to advanced+ ?

 

yet, an advanced cannot attend the BIL, for the sole reason to be advanced.

 

I think this is STRONGLY discriminatory.

 

But all right, it's a private club, so we have to cope with it.

 

But I don't like it the least bit.

[luke warm]

sorry mauro, i still don't understand... the right to assemble with those of similar (fill in the blank) is basic, to me... is bbo italia discriminatory? not in my view, as long as they aren't hypocritical about it (ie, saying others who do the same are discriminating heheh)

 

i don't know, maybe we just have different philosophies

[paulg]

Luis classes and OliverC classes would be useful also for advanced +.

 

For instance, OliverC has been teaching Precision, with alfa, beta, gamma, omega, (etc etc) asking bids, and the strategy for chosing one or the other asking bids.

And Luis classes are also of a high standard.

 

Don't you think this would be useful to advanced+ ?

 

yet, an advanced cannot attend the BIL, for the sole reason to be advanced.

 

I think this is STRONGLY discriminatory.

 

But all right, it's a private club, so we have to cope with it.

 

But I don't like it the least bit.

 

All the above is true, but as someone who runs sessions in the BIL (that are more aimed at mentoring rather than teaching), I've found that there really needs to be a limit on numbers when you have an interactive class. The BILs insistence on level achieves both its objectives and keeps the numbers reasonable.

 

I would also add, in defence of the BIL and perhaps a mild warning to this group, is that the small number of occasions when "Advanced" players have been invited to my sessions I have found them far more disruptive than any of the Billies. Perhaps this is because they considered I was "dumbing down" for the audience, but many adv players tend to be less tolerant of ideas that are not the same as their own and quite prepared to express that opinion - you probably see the same behaviour at 50% of the pickup tables on BBO.

 

You should also not underestimate the challenge with running sessions with advanced players. As we have all seen on Vugraph, true experts struggle to analyse a hand when there are dozens of kibs chatting to them. Earlier this week one of the best teachers in the BIL missed the simplest show up squeeze in a 4-card ending (all hands visible) just because of the pressure of going through hands and chatting to the audience. So this means greater preparation for the contributors.

 

Although jillybean's aims are laudable, I think it will prove difficult unless you get people who are interested in learning - this is an advantage of the BIL and a reason why a competency test is meaningless.

 

Paul

[Chamaco]

All the above is true, but as someone who runs sessions in the BIL (that are more aimed at mentoring rather than teaching), I've found that there really needs to be a limit on numbers when you have an interactive class. The BILs insistence on level achieves both its objectives and keeps the numbers reasonable.

 

I would also add, in defence of the BIL and perhaps a mild warning to this group, is that the small number of occasions when "Advanced" players have been invited to my sessions I have found them far more disruptive than any of the Billies. Perhaps this is because they considered I was "dumbing down" for the audience, but many adv players tend to be less tolerant of ideas that are not the same as their own and quite prepared to express that opinion - you probably see the same behaviour at 50% of the pickup tables on BBO.

 

You should also not underestimate the challenge with running sessions with advanced players. As we have all seen on Vugraph, true experts struggle to analyse a hand when there are dozens of kibs chatting to them. Earlier this week one of the best teachers in the BIL missed the simplest show up squeeze in a 4-card ending (all hands visible) just because of the pressure of going through hands and chatting to the audience. So this means greater preparation for the contributors.

 

Although jillybean's aims are laudable, I think it will prove difficult unless you get people who are interested in learning - this is an advantage of the BIL and a reason why a competency test is meaningless.

 

Paul

All these points are true, however, all these points can be easily taken care of, with some "behavioural rules".

 

Something like: advanced + are allowed to attend silently.

 

The teacher would proceed with his class just assuming as a target the "normal" BIL group, advanced + would be treated as guests, but in his lecture the teacher would not have to tune the level and the tone of the lesson as a function of the advanced players in the audience.

 

=========

 

Finally, one critical point:

I understand the decision of not allowing advanced *if the teacher himself* asks to restrict the audience.

 

But, I am pretty much convinced that there are other instructors (e.g. Luis, OliverC and others) who would not necessarily restrict the level of the audience, at least provided the advanced + shut up.

 

An "a priori" restriction is INDEED, imo a HUGE discrimination.

 

But again, it's a private club, they have the right to do this, just as well as I have the right to say that this seems really bad to me.

[kenberg]

A suggestion about resolving the pre-requisite issue:

 

Mikeh indicated a willingness to help. Other experts I think are willing. If so, they could decide for themselves on this format issue. I would be happy for guidance in either format.

 

My guess is that people will pretty much observe the level of discussion and see for themselves if it is or isn't over their heads, but I may be naive.

 

Ken

[jillybean]

Although jillybean's aims are laudable, I think it will prove difficult unless you get people who are interested in learning - this is an advantage of the BIL and a reason why a competency test is meaningless.

 

Paul

I don't understand this comment at all.

 

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

[paulg]

One format that is used for the BIL a lot, but would be just as appropriate for advanced players, is the tournament critique.

 

The teachers (with a strategy) tend to prepare hands with a theme, but I often just use random hands as it fits my mentoring approach. Get the players to play a 6- or 8-board tourney and then review the hands and plays in a teaching table afterwards. Alternatively get a player to send it an 8-board team match, and review their performance (this works best if you have a thick-skinned mentee).

 

The advantage of this format is it requires little preparation and little follow-up, but it provides value to the attendees as you provide insight into what you think should happen.

 

This works in the BIL as the tournament is not open to all, so people who play in it will tend to come to the follow-up session. This means it tends to be relatively small and so a single TD can cope.

 

It would be nice to open this up to everyone ... but you may need a TD support organisation or a club to restrict numbers. We all know how quickly free tourneys fill up.

 

Paul

 

PS There appears to be sufficient self-rated experts and advanced++ players to assign at least one to every beginner, intermediate and advanced player on BBO - why don't we just go for individual mentors?

[pclayton]

JB:

 

Whatever gets decided, I'll help out. For now I'll exit the screening debate. Unfortunately this thread has become argumentative and I fear it will be counterproductive for what is a worthwhile end. :)

 

If screening is used, I'll assist and if you just want players to have an 'open thinking' session, I'll help out with that too.

 

I'm not in a position these days to put together a full blown lesson plan however.

[andych]

[Thymallus]

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.

[Al_U_Card]

Could we have a mentor go over a hand record (a la deep finesse) commenting about the correct play of the cards and where the declarer went wrong (bidding and play if appropriate)?

[jillybean]

JB:

 

Whatever gets decided, I'll help out.  For now I'll exit the screening debate. Unfortunately this thread has become argumentative and I fear it will be counterproductive for what is a worthwhile end.  :)

 

If screening is used, I'll assist and if you just want players to have an 'open thinking' session, I'll help out with that too.

 

I'm not in a position these days to put together a full blown lesson plan however.

Thanks , I will take you up on your offer of a thinking session :lol:

 

I will just start off with some specific sessions and tournaments+review on a casual, as available basis. I am happy to coordinate, advertise and organize the experts to get these sessions going. I can run tournaments and manage the hands for review at a teaching table afterwards, I could look after a table, organize victims, errr players etc.

 

We have 2 sessions ready to go just waiting for confirmation of date/time.

 

I am painfully aware of some of the pitfalls of running "private clubs" and I want to avoid falling into the same trap. Maybe in time a new club will be created, people like to belong to something and the club structure does add value. The committee can then address all these sticky issues.

 

jb

Edited December 7, 2005 by jillybean2