How did you become an expert

[Rossoneri]

As Above. Just wondering how experts really train in various countries.

[Gerben42]

By playing with stronger partners, discussing hands with them AND LISTENING TO THEM. In my case, especially Alexander Smirnov (Smirny).

[han]

Playing with good players is certainly helpful but in the end it has to come from yourself. I think this is true for any subject that you want to learn, a depressing thought for a teacher.

[TylerE]

While I don't really consider myself an expert yet (Despite my self-ranking on BBO, but I'd say I'm better than at least 3/4s of BBO "experts"), I think the single biggest thing that has helped me to really increase my level of play is to play AGAINST the best opponents I can find. A year ago, in a regional KO I would usually play around bracket 5 or 6 (out of 8 or so). The last two tournaments I've been in nothing below bracket 2, with some bracket 1 play, especially in compacts. This brings you up against pro teams, real star/WC players, etc. This really focuses your technique, you learn not to make bad bids, learn to declare against consistently best defense, etc.

[pclayton]

Bridge requires an immense amount of self-study. Coaching is helpful for solving disputes between partners, or to have someone to bounce ideas off of, but it's not the primary path to learning.

[Finch]

There is a lot of research on how people learn, and people learn in different ways - for some self-study is better, for others structured lessons, for others yet other methods.

 

For me personally, a combination of reading ('self-study') and playing with, and discussing hands with, better players. This also includes discussing what I have read with people. I would say (as a gross generalisation) that

 

- my declarer play has benefited most from reading books on declarer play

- my bidding has benefitted most originally from being told how to bid by better players

- my high-level bidding judgement is (slowly) improving with experience/practice and watching top players. Nothing else can really teach that.

- my defence has benefitted most from discussing particular hands with friends/partners

 

(but obviously there is a lot of overlap)

 

Personally I was hugely lucky to be learn how to play as part of a university bridge club with a few pretty good players around who were happy to play rubber all night and give advice to help me improve.

 

By the way, your topic title is 'how did you become an expert' while your post asks how experts train. I'm not trying to be picky, but the two are different. To become good from less good requires replacing ignorance with knowledge; technical training can give a lot of this. To train/improve as an expert requires improving judgement, stamina, partnership understanding... and I think is better served by frequent high-standard games and useful post-match discussions.

 

By playing with stronger partners, discussing hands with them AND LISTENING TO THEM. In my case, especially...

I married one of them

[skjaeran]

Learning at a very young age, playing a lot the first 10+ years, discussing a lot - both bidding and play. Reading books, magazines and bridge coloumns. And playing up whenever possible.

[xcurt]

You left out

 

* play a ton of hands; then analyze them

 

Online bridge is excellent for this.

[mikeh]

I really liked Frances' post, and Harald's. Both rang true with me.

 

I would add that, at least for me, self-study takes you only so far. It is great for card play. Reading Love on Squeezes, or Master Play or almost any Kelsey book can help that area of the game.

 

But no book on bidding can really help there, after you reach a certain level. Most bidding books are about system, and bidding is far more about valuation and judgment. There are exceptions, but those books (the ones I've read) will help you become an advanced player or a near-expert, but they are usually aimed somewhat low. The Bridge World is a notable exception: their test your declarer play or defence are far stronger than most publications' versions.

 

Almost by definition, you can't improve your judgment by self study.. you are limited in your self-analysis by the ignorance that you are trying to overcome.

 

Always try to play with a player stronger than yourself... obviously this is impossible for most of us since I know of no good bridge player with an inferiority complex :P It's not a game for the weak-ego'd.

 

It isn't realistic to expect that many of us can ask a better player to become a regular partner... he or she also wants to play with someone at least as good as he or she is.. but most good players will gladly play occasionally with friends who are trying to improve, especially if the friend shows promise. And every good player I have ever met is always happy to talk about the game. And getting together with a group of good players and discussing the hands is a tremendous opportunity so long as one doesn't approach this as merely an opportunity to show off one's good results B)

[pclayton]

Almost by definition, you can't improve your judgment by self study.. you are limited in your self-analysis by the ignorance that you are trying to overcome.

I wouldn't say self-study is limited to dealing cards and analyzing DD problems.

 

I think a great way to improve judgment is by reading Master Solver's in old BW's which I know both you and I do on a regular basis.

[Apollo81]

I think Frances generally has it right. Declarer play can be learned from books or other materials like Bridge Master, but bidding and judgment can really only be mastered by experience. Having players better than you criticize your bidding (and taking them seriously) and thinking about past bad results is a good way to identify patterns in your mistakes so you can avoid them in the future.

[mikeh]

Almost by definition, you can't improve your judgment by self study.. you are limited in your self-analysis by the ignorance that you are trying to overcome.

I wouldn't say self-study is limited to dealing cards and analyzing DD problems.

 

I think a great way to improve judgment is by reading Master Solver's in old BW's which I know both you and I do on a regular basis.

I didn't mean to suggest that self-study helped ONLY in card play... but I do think that, with few exceptions, there are few self-study resources that will help you to progress, in terms of bidding and judgement, beyond advanced if that is your primary source of information. I would go further... for NA players, I don't think there is any source of information that will really help put one over the top, in terms of learning to think as an expert in bidding, other than the BW MSC.. which I read and reread (I have decades of them :P ) constantly.

 

Even, and perhaps mostly, the thoughts of people with whom I disagree.... understanding WHY I disagree or why I prefer someone else's arguments is a great way to learn. You don't get that type of discussion in most books, even by writers as even-handed as Lawrence. You do get it by playing with and talking to better players at the bar B)

[pclayton]

You don't get that type of discussion in most books, even by writers as even-handed as Lawrence. You do get it by playing with and talking to better players at the bar B)

Don't forget to buy the drinks either :P

[whereagles]

The technical stuff you can read from books, solving problems and playing a lot. I never listened much to other good players on these subjects because what they say often has too much bias. For some reason, it is particularly hard for bridge players to stay neutral.

 

The human aspect is harder to learn and that's where coaching can help. Learning to have a positive, competitive attitude is easier with guidance.

[Guest Jlall]

#1) Reading a lot.

#2) Talking about stuff with good players.

#3) Playing a lot.

 

Once you hit a certain point #2 will take you to the next level, but if you are not already very good then it will be #1 and #3 more than #2.

[sathyab]

I wonder if someone could elaborate on improving your bidding judgement. I find that the hardest part of the game and the one area where there's a lot less consensus than the aspects of play and defense. I don't know if there's any other intellectual (and supposedly objective) pusuit where two experts in a field can hold two nearly-equally-valid opinions and yet be almost mutually exclusive on a given problem. I have seen this way too often, be it BW panels, team games, multi-team games or commentaries from experts commentating on expert games, to be persuaded otherwise. What complicates matterrs even more is the fact that what an expert tells you in print is quite different from how they react in real-life. Electronic bridge is a lot more helpful in this regard as you can actually see how experts dealt with the matter at the table.

[mikeh]

I wonder if someone could elaborate on improving your bidding judgement. I find that the hardest part of the game and the one area where there's a lot less consensus than the aspects of play and defense. I don't know if there's any other intellectual (and supposedly objective) pusuit where two experts in a field can hold two nearly-equally-valid opinions and yet be almost mutually exclusive on a given problem. I have seen this way too often, be it BW panels, team games, multi-team games or commentaries from experts commentating on expert games, to be persuaded otherwise. What complicates matterrs even more is the fact that what an expert tells you in print is quite different from how they react in real-life. Electronic bridge is a lot more helpful in this regard as you can actually see how experts dealt with the matter at the table.

All you can do is to play, play and play in the toughest fields around. And try to identify auctions where you either got a bad result or should have got a bad result... the latter are the most dangerous, because you may have got a top or a huge swing because the opps screwed up. It is human nature to 'learn' that the action you got away with was 'good', because it won. But do that in good competition and you might have been killed. The better the opps, the more likely it is that you didn't get away with something, but the reality is that most of us are usually playing against baby seals, not killer whales. This is why, I think, every club I have ever known has local guns who are non-expert but do very well in the Wednesday afternoon game. Their bad habits work well in weak fields, but these players never win a regional, etc.

 

In terms of the contradictions in expert opinions, I don't think it is quite as bad as you make it sound. Generally the experts will each recognize that the other school has some merit. And my suspicion is that in most cases, experts will agree that the 'other' choice is probably ok if it is consistent with partnership philosophy.

 

Playing can and should be supplemented by discussion, including argument. While all of us have egos, and putting our egos aside can be tough, the ability to do so in bridge argument is essential.

 

If you play in an area in which there are no really good players, or they don't play where you do, then watching online can help, as can reading good publications such as the Bridge World.

[Fluffy]

I had a WM in home since I started to play.

 

Also I had a polish expert who played with sponsors and spent a lot of time giving real examples of what not to do.

 

Nothing of that would be of any use if I didn't practice a lot.

[kfay]

I was born.

 

Oh wait, we're talking about bridge?

[finally17]

I am not an expert at all on the matter of bridge, but it strikes me that skaeran perhaps inadvertently said the most important thing that's been noted: "playing a lot the first 10+ years." Obviously there are exceptional people, but in general, real expert status in any field requires time more than anything. You need experience (play), you need to learn from other people (discussion and book learning), you need to surround yourself with others of quality (more about discussion, and opposition, and generally just a good quality club to be at week in and week out), but you can have the best of all of these and you still need time coupled with patience.

 

I recall long ago reading about a study done on the more general question of "what it means to be an expert, and what experts have in common" and one of the conclusions that was reached is that, almost regardless of field or person, about 10 years of applying yourself to the study is required for the human mind to reach a state of "expertise," and such varied things as chess master, violinist, medical doctor, and academic were all considered.

 

Different people learn in different ways, but regardless of how you learn best (personal study, quantity of play, quality of discussion), it's going to take time and patience.

 

Not a criticism of the particular person who said it at all (don't know TylerE from Adam), but as an aside, it strikes me that the below is one of the bigger problems with the self-ranking system: inflation due to the perceived ability of others who are ranking themselves at this level.

 

(Despite my self-ranking on BBO, but  I'd say I'm better than at least 3/4s of BBO "experts")

[dake50]

I envy someone who has had schooling (eg.Pavlicek) for fundamentals of this game. I get mine by study reading expert books. My fear is missing/fragmenting some topic which a paid teacher has taught because he is paid to be complete.

 

Who would I be if taught by Reese,Kelsey,Kokish,Romanet,DallasAces,etc.? That's the technical play, defense side of bridge.

 

More to recent, what of bidding theory has arisen from today's massive computational power? Who's publishing the leading edge of that?

Or information theory to bidding?

Or game theory payoff matrices?

Or double dummy analysis that is what players actually do. [i tire of 'magic' DD leads that kill this hand, but are long-run 0-6% wild shot; or never failing KJ guess] Why no demand DD lead from DD found lead tables? Rant free now.

[Rossoneri]

So, to what extent is a coach useful?

[helene_t]

All you can do is to play, play and play in the toughest fields around. And try to identify auctions where you either got a bad result or should have got a bad result... the latter are the most dangerous, because you may have got a top or a huge swing because the opps screwed up.

The human animal has an instinct for finding patterns where there are none. That is understandable: we evolved earlier than computers and books did, so we are optimized to making the best of scarce data.

 

Yet for todays bridge theorists, lots of data are available. There is no reason to form our opinion about the accuracy of the LOTT or whether or not to Stayman with 4333 based on our own experience. I think such questions are better addressed by statistical analysis of data from real-life bridge, or by single-dummy simulations.

 

I suppose playing in the toughest fields is useful (I wouldn't know, have never tried, but it sounds plausible) for a number of reasons, and maybe it's the way to identify patterns that are very specific to your own partnership, such as the effects of the fine nuances of your overcall style.

 

It is human nature to 'learn' that the action you got away with was 'good', because it won.

Yes, but what can you do. If you try to discount all the cases in which a particular strategy failed but "should" have succeeded (or vice versa), you create selection bias. In non-blinded clinical trials it is standard to evaluate a therapy on the basis of the total number of events, say if a patient dies in a car crash it is treated in the same way as if he died from side-effects of the medication or from the disease it was supposed to cure. Since the alternative is that the pathologist who establishes the cause of death and who believes in the therapy gets tempted to say that the death was not related to the treatment or the disease.

 

I am nowhere near becoming a bridge expert myself. So the fact that I am very much aware of my own tendency to select data that support my own pet strategies may be irrelevant. But I suspect wanna-be experts are humans, too.

[Codo]

So, to what extent is a coach useful?

1. He may see weakness in your bridge you never got to know from someone else.

2. He shows you miracles you never had seen on your own. (Other bidding systems/signalling methods/squeezes/etc.

3. He may explain you WHY a bidding structure/game plan/signal is good or bad and not just that it is good or bad.

4. When you know that a coach is looking at your hands you MAY play more serious and with more counting and thinking.

5. He reminds you to count count count.

...

 

The best players in any sports do have coaches. So if coaches are a big improvement for them, they should be good for us too.

 

It is all a matter of time and money. :)

[han]

All you can do is to play, play and play in the toughest fields around. And try to identify auctions where you either got a bad result or should have got a bad result... the latter are the most dangerous, because you may have got a top or a huge swing because the opps screwed up.

The human animal has an instinct for finding patterns where there are none. That is understandable: we evolved earlier than computers and books did, so we are optimized to making the best of scarce data.

 

Yet for todays bridge theorists, lots of data are available. There is no reason to form our opinion about the accuracy of the LOTT or whether or not to Stayman with 4333 based on our own experience. I think such questions are better addressed by statistical analysis of data from real-life bridge, or by single-dummy simulations.

 

I suppose playing in the toughest fields is useful (I wouldn't know, have never tried, but it sounds plausible) for a number of reasons, and maybe it's the way to identify patterns that are very specific to your own partnership, such as the effects of the fine nuances of your overcall style.

 

It is human nature to 'learn' that the action you got away with was 'good', because it won.

Yes, but what can you do. If you try to discount all the cases in which a particular strategy failed but "should" have succeeded (or vice versa), you create selection bias. In non-blinded clinical trials it is standard to evaluate a therapy on the basis of the total number of events, say if a patient dies in a car crash it is treated in the same way as if he died from side-effects of the medication or from the disease it was supposed to cure. Since the alternative is that the pathologist who establishes the cause of death and who believes in the therapy gets tempted to say that the death was not related to the treatment or the disease.

 

I am nowhere near becoming a bridge expert myself. So the fact that I am very much aware of my own tendency to select data that support my own pet strategies may be irrelevant. But I suspect wanna-be experts are humans, too.

This is a very interesting post but in my opinion it has little to do with becoming a good bridge player. The importance of playing lots of bridge isn't to see which strategies work best (although it does help in that respect too), it is mostly to train yourself to the alertness and fast logical thinking that are necessary for winning in bridge.

 

Also, you will see lots and lots of auctions, many of which you will not have discussed very precisely in advance. You will learn which problems arise most often and how you can deal with these problems. You will see what inferences you can draw from how your opponents play and bid (and behave).

 

Strategies are overrated. Even partnership nuances should not be high on the list of a non-expert bridge player. Most important are your personal skills and you won't strengthen those by statistical analysis.