I-ABC Teaching topic wanted

[mikeh]

Hi all

 

Jillybean has asked me to hold a session, and I will be delighted to do so. What I am looking for is guidance on topic(s) of interest. I am open to almost anything: from a short tournament with at-the-table commentary and a post game analysis/feedback session (either with me as a player or as a commentator/analyst) to a lecture/discussion on topics such as defensive signalling (I am a big fan of a method known as Obvious Switch) or specific conventions/treatments or style matters or conceptual topics such as bidding space/tempo etc.

 

Feel free to pm me or to post on this thread.

 

Depending on the number and variety of responses, I hope to schedule something within the next 2-3 weeks: I am proposing a Sunday, probably starting around 9 am PST, which should work for the majority of players.

[Guest Jlall]

I would propose you Mike does NOT talk about a convention/treatment :unsure:

 

Mike is one of the most clear-headed and knowledgable bridge players on this forum (if not the most) and I think anyone could teach a convention. Mike could teach more effectively about bidding or play concepts than almost anyone I am sure.

[Al_U_Card]

I kind of like the vugraph commentator approach. If a few hands could be set up and you would prepare your lesson as:

 

Initial thoughts about the values of the hands and where you think the auction should go and how.

 

Comments during the bidding eg: he shouldn't preempt his pard here etc....

 

Comments during the play, from good technique to psychology to what the analysis of the bidding and play so far would indicate.

 

Ideally the participants will be regular pards using common systems and will NOT have seen the hands before play.

[cherdano]

What I would really love to see once is a "think with ..."-kind of session where we can watch someone on defense with a familiar partner. Ideally with some kind of pre-selected hands where the defense is actually an interesting problem...

 

If someone would be interested in doing this, I think I could be persuaded to do some preselection of deals (I would imagine automatically extracting vuegraph hands where both contract and lead was the same at both tables, but the result wasn't).

 

This wouldn't have to be Mike, of course. I would also appreciate something on bidding, if its not about a specific convention.

 

Arend

[inquiry]

I like think with's also. It is particularily useful when the "think with" thinker is dead on right, or horribly wrong. The horribly wrong isn't a bad thing. It is very useful to see why the logic the "think with" person used went really bad. Often is due to unusual bid by someone else, or bizarre line of play chosen by his/her partner. And that is useful in and of itself as it shows great insight into the hand and helps point out why something was odd.

[luke warm]

yeah, fred has done some of that in the past and it was *very* interesting (and entertaining)... how he could think and type what he was thinking is beyond me, but it was very informative

 

as for mike's proposed lesson, i'd like him to do a vugraph type thing also... maybe with different pairs/different hand, ask why such and such was or wasn't done, then say why it should or shouldn't have been :unsure:

[pclayton]

The "think with" concept was going to be the focus of my session, but with audio. The audio would be a real enhancement if that can be figured out.

[kenberg]

I suggest:

 

Stage I: Play a few (perhaps six) hands, random, whatever comes up.

 

II: After all six have been played, review the boards one at a time.

 

IIa: Players are asked to think the hands over, and to comment.

 

IIb: mikeh, or the leader of the day, comments.

 

 

Textbooks provide pre dealt hands. Bridgemaster provides interactive pre dealt hands. When we actually play, we face randomness including bad things happening to good bids and good things happening to bad bids.

 

For example: Playing a BAM Sunday, pard opened a heart, I held four hearts and an unattractive 12 count. 3H or Jacoby 2NT? I chose wrongly: 2NT, 3H (michaels) on my left, pass, 3N on my right, double, 4D, pass, pass. I still have a chance to get it right by hitting this, but I bid 4H. I would love to have had the thoughts of more advanced players in the postmortem. Should I have gotten this right or was I unlucky? (I am not giving the hand because this thread is not the place to discuss this specific hand. I refer to it to describe the lessons I envision). My partner thought my choice right (in principle, not in result), I wasn't sure then and I am not sure now. This was bidding judgment, the next hand may present a lead problem or a declarer play problem or whatever. This is bridge life in real time.

 

It's a fact that in real life there are often no clearcut answers. Students would need to accept this. But expert opinion is extremely valuable, in fact most valuable exactly when the answer is not wholly clearcut.

 

Ken

[ArcLight]

How about this?

 

4 Experts play, and comment to the Kibitzers inferences they draw as the hand unfolds. Thje Kibitzers each Kibitz one player, rather than looking at all 4 hands.

 

Example (assuming 3NT by South):

 

West explains their choice of lead.

Dummy Comes Down.

Based on the Rule of 11 E and S make their comments.

E estimates pards HCP based on the bidding and Dummy.

 

S explains their thoughts on how they will make. Any concerns, etc.

 

Based on the carding the players will explain where the unseen cards are. Ex. W leads a 2 to pards Q, with Declarers Ace winning. Who has the J? What about the K?

 

W opened the bidding, and NW are in 4 Spades. W leads the J, the K is in Dummy, who has the A? East because W wouldn't underlead the A, and since E passed, they probably don't have anything else (maybe a J).

[mikeh]

I have persuaded a friend and new partner (an expert and former Canadian National Team Champion) to play with me. My idea, still tentative, is to play maybe 4-6 hands (or more?) against a good pair, with all players able to speak to the kibs, but the kibs not able to speak to the table: all players encouraged to muse aloud about their thinking. The hands would then be reviewed in a room in which all could speak and ask questions.

 

I need some help with this: I need two opps (preferably a partnership) who play a mainstream system (lots of gadgets are ok, but the systemic approach should be 2/1 or SAYC in order to maximize the relevance to the majority of players).

 

I also need help with (or have to learn) how to set up the analysis room. In particular, how to play back the hands.

 

Finally, I am wondering whether to just do the random BBO hands or to ask someone to come up with hands. I tend to the former, because 'set' hands are a little artificial, especially since they usually render one pair more or less irrelevant on each hand, and the bidding may be such that we don't reach the 'right' contract or we reach it from the wrong side, so the point of the hand is missed.

 

OTOH, random hands may be really boring :P

 

OTOOH, the point made about being realistic is very true.

 

Input appreciated (thanks for the comments so far: I hope Justin got the money I promised him for being nice B) )

[Guest Jlall]

Input appreciated (thanks for the comments so far: I hope Justin got the money I promised him for being nice B) )

LOL...I'm always nice... uh ok maybe not but at least when I'm nice it means something and isn't canned :P

 

Anyways, I always like random hands better than rigged ones. I think this is a very good idea though.

[luke warm]

i love mike's idea about having the players 'think' outloud.. that's what fred did, and it really was nice... i have a feeling it'll help the ones playing, also

[ArcLight]

Random hands can be boring.

Prepared ones give you complete control.

You can tailor them to suit your audience.

Want to include a discovery play? A squeeze? Trump Coup? Etc.

 

 

The thinking out loud is a great idea.

[jillybean]

I also need help with (or have to learn) how to set up the analysis room. In particular, how to play back the hands.

I would be happy to do this, either to teach you or run the table.

I think I prefer random hands.

 

jb

 

ps I could even bring my partner if you are stuck for opps :lol:

[Al_U_Card]

The best thing about random hands is the speculation about what is going on. In a prepared hand, there would be a tendency to spot the issue and that is not what we want to see done.

[KamalK]

It would be interesting if you could have a session on the various conventions of opps interference over 1NT opening by dealer. And your suggestions would be welcome.

 

Regards,

 

Kamal

[Chamaco]

In my top list there are some bidding topics that are rarely covered systematically in literature:

 

1) HAND EVALUATION

Decisions at the 5 and 6 level, immediately at the first or second bidding round, usually when strong preemption occurs.

Example hands should also include "bad preempts" (e.g. preempts that do occur in real life bridge and we should learn to evaluate whether to double them or bid game/slam)

 

2) HAND EVALUATION + GADGETS

How to handle 4M and higher-level openings by opps and 4S and higher level overcalls when pard opens at the 1 level.

 

Especially,

- detailed examples of how to decide to try for slam or not when opps preempt so high

- detailed examples of how to continue the bidding when pard (our ourselves) have shown a 2-suiter with 4NT when opps preempted.

 

===================================

 

As far as CARD PLAY is concerned, I'd like anything about timing in low level partscores.

 

===================================

 

One more question/suggestion:

perhaps, some of these topics could be preceded by sme bidding polls quizzes here on BB Forum ?