Australia's lack of success

[shevek]

In another thread about HUM systems, Fred suggested that Australia's relatively poor international record - a couple of 3rds in world championships & winning the Far East just twice, last time 1972 - might in part be due to the perceived complexity of systems played here and in NZ.

 

Australia has a population of 22m with 33k registered players so 1 in 700, quite high by world standards. Italy has won countless world events with the about same number of registered players out of 60m, so 1 in 2000. USA has 140k from 300m, again around 1 in 2000. Of course "number of registered players" may not be indicative of numbers, more the organisational ability of the national association. It's the only measure we have.

 

Here are some factors in Australia's lack of success. NZ would be similar I think:

- The home-grown Anglo-Celtic talent is thin. Many of our top players have been Hungarian, Jewish, Polish, Indian, New Zealanders, etc. We locals play a lot - in large numbers - but not well. Perhaps our brighter people do other things. Certainly Australia "punches above its weight" in science.

 

- The overall level of play is poor. American tourists who drop into a local duplicate do well. Our teachers get bums on seats but short courses may not give adequate grounding. Serious overseas players are disappointed at the standard in our large Swiss national events.

 

- The second tier is weak. The top players are okay but the level of their sometime opponents drags them down, takes away their toughness. The $1mil a year grant from Alan Woods - featuring coaching by Kokish - was directed at the top. Better to spread it further South.

 

- Professional play. Around half our top 20 players gain a large slice of their income from playing, often in poor daytime duplicates. The methods that win there do not not translate to a quarter-final against Italy.

 

- A cavalier attitude. This is a reflection of the larrikin (look it up) culture. As a nation, we have a casual approach to most endeavours, which has good and bad points. In bridge, it is reflected in presence at the bar, late nights, a reverence for the D7. And we wonder why the Indonesians beat us ....

 

- Cardplay technique is lacking. The view from many of our good players who compete overseas is that our bidding methods are good, our bidding judgement is okay but our cardplay is second rate. I think a reason for this is the lack of national

matchpoint events. We have about 10 national "championships" but only one serious matchpoint event.

 

- Lack of partnerships. A few names --- DelMonte, Marston, Richman, Gill. They've all won national events and represented overseas with at 5 or 6 partners. That's true of most of our top players. Long term partnerships are rare. "Hey Dan, let's play the Butler. I'll send you my system."

 

- Tyranny of distance. When the best events are in Europe & America, it takes a big commitment of time & money to find regular tough games. Yes there's BBO but there's no substitute for face to face playing and discussing. Also remember our 2 largest cities are 10 hours drive apart.

 

- Variations in methods. Complexity does not seem to be the issue. Rather, players in different clubs, cities, ages and ethnic groups promulgate their own ideas. The drab homogeneity of US bridge is a big asset; when it comes to system discussion and judgment, everyone is one the same page.

 

Nick (not Nicoleta this time)

[fred]

In another thread about HUM systems, Fred suggested that Australia's relatively poor international record - a couple of 3rds in world championships & winning the Far East just twice, last time 1972 - might in part be due to the perceived complexity of systems played here and in NZ.

 

Australia has a population of 22m with 33k registered players so 1 in 700, quite high by world standards. Italy has won countless world events with the about same number of registered players out of 60m, so 1 in 2000. USA has 140k from 300m, again around 1 in 2000. Of course "number of registered players" may not be indicative of numbers, more the organisational ability of the national association. It's the only measure we have.

 

Here are some factors in Australia's lack of success. NZ would be similar I think:

- The home-grown Anglo-Celtic talent is thin. Many of our top players have been Hungarian, Jewish, Polish, Indian, New Zealanders, etc. We locals play a lot - in large numbers - but not well. Perhaps our brighter people do other things. Certainly Australia "punches above its weight" in science.

 

- The overall level of play is poor. American tourists who drop into a local duplicate do well. Our teachers get bums on seats but short courses may not give adequate grounding. Serious overseas players are disappointed at the standard in our large Swiss national events.

 

- The second tier is weak. The top players are okay but the level of their sometime opponents drags them down, takes away their toughness. The $1mil a year grant from Alan Woods - featuring coaching by Kokish - was directed at the top. Better to spread it further South.

 

- Professional play. Around half our top 20 players gain a large slice of their income from playing, often in poor daytime duplicates. The methods that win there do not not translate to a quarter-final against Italy.

 

- A cavalier attitude. This is a reflection of the larrikin (look it up) culture. As a nation, we have a casual approach to most endeavours, which has good and bad points. In bridge, it is reflected in presence at the bar, late nights, a reverence for the D7. And we wonder why the Indonesians beat us ....

 

- Cardplay technique is lacking. The view from many of our good players who compete overseas is that our bidding methods are good, our bidding judgement is okay but our cardplay is second rate. I think a reason for this is the lack of national

matchpoint events. We have about 10 national "championships" but only one serious matchpoint event.

 

- Lack of partnerships. A few names --- DelMonte, Marston, Richman, Gill. They've all won national events and represented overseas with at 5 or 6 partners. That's true of most of our top players. Long term partnerships are rare. "Hey Dan, let's play the Butler. I'll send you my system."

 

- Tyranny of distance. When the best events are in Europe & America, it takes a big commitment of time & money to find  regular tough games. Yes there's BBO but there's no substitute for face to face playing and discussing. Also remember our 2 largest cities are 10 hours drive apart.

 

- Variations in methods. Complexity does not seem to be the issue. Rather, players in different clubs, cities, ages and ethnic groups promulgate their own ideas. The drab homogeneity of US bridge is a big asset; when it comes to system discussion and judgment, everyone is one the same page.

 

Nick (not Nicoleta this time)

Thanks for your interesting insights, Nick.

 

The point that really stuck out for me (perhaps because I was looking for something to latch onto!) was:

 

- Cardplay technique is lacking. The view from many of our good players who compete overseas is that our bidding methods are good, our bidding judgement is okay but our cardplay is second rate. I think a reason for this is the lack of national

matchpoint events. We have about 10 national "championships" but only one serious matchpoint event.

 

The thrust of my argument in the other thread was not that complex or strange methods are "bad" in terms of effectiveness (I don't believe this at all), but that young players would do best to stay away from such things and work on their card play and judgment. Furthermore, I think it is hard for many young players to do this because:

 

1) Many find experimenting with strange and/or complex methods to be fun

 

2) In countries in which the leading players tend to advocate such methods, it is natural for young players to follow their lead

 

So maybe your statement that Australia's best tend to be weak in the areas of card play and judgment (let me emphasize that this is your statement, not mine!) is a sign that there might be something to the (admittedly offbeat) theory that I proposed.

 

FWIW I do not believe that you have to play a lot of matchpoints to become a very good card player. In fact, this is one of the few areas of bridge where I think you can go a long way just by forcing yourself to do a serious study of the right books, especially when you are young.

 

Perhaps it is hard to find the time and discipline to do that if you are focusing your energies on the Fert of the week?

 

I realize I latched on to only one point of many, but given my view that it is mostly card play, judgment, and partnership (and not choice of system) that decides who wins the big events, this is a rather important point IMO.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

Yes there's BBO but there's no substitute for face to face playing and discussing

Australia has for many years been a front runner in tele-medicine and tele-education. Other big countries with spread and low population areas like Canada and Alaska have tried to switch their disadvantages into advances.

 

Therefore I read your interesting statement as a defensive excuse.

 

Your argument is fairly valid for Denmark, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein etc. But even in Denmark we are now starting to talk about using advanced methods to overcome our relatively small problems about reaching remote areas for a solid and equal service to all citicens. Tele-medicine has come higher on the agenda. For some years Greenland has been offered tele-medicine from our main hospital in Copenhagen.

 

On BBO you can see that even an organization like ACBL is experimenting with the options offered via internet. Several other countries bridge organizations are very positive too, take a look into their web-sites. In a few years their members have migrated to here and you will see most coummunities, not only in bridge but also in bridge, to be virtual communities. Facebook and the like will need to develop content and that will be what is of interest to the masses. Card play is entertainment for the masses. So it has always been and so it will remain. But it will be in new formats, virtual formats.

 

Maybe you think that nothing will be able to replace face to face but I am pretty sure that this is the way for bridge too. If there is any future of course!

 

Everybody else can communicate via internet: Messenger, Skype and sharing documents so why not the australians?

[hrothgar]

Few thoughts:

 

Maclom Gladwell who authored The Tipping Point a few years back has a new book.

 

"Outliers: The Story of Success" studies exceptional individuals who have achieved world class success in a number of disciplines. As is oft the case, Gladwell tends to focus on a single simple theme. In this case, he claims the lowest common denominator that describes extremely success is the amount of time that invested in an activity. Simply put, if you want to be world class at something, you're probably going to need to invest about 10,000 hours of time practicing.

 

Note that these claims align closely with what Fred is saying: Anyone aspiring to become a great bridge player needs to practice/practice/practice their declarer play and defense. These foundation skills are absolutely necessary if you want to compete at the top. One might argue that anything else - say studying bidding systems - is an unnecessary distraction. You might as well table it until later.

 

With this said and done, I think that there are other issues that need to be considered here. From my own perspective, I don't find declarer play and defense particularly interesting. Declarer play and defense focus on mastering known and established techniques. Yes, these skills involve a significant amount of intellectual rigour, but there are very limited opportunities to find something exciting and new. I don't want to invest 10,000 hours mastering declarer play in the hopes that I might discuss some obscure new squeeze technique in 15+ years.

 

In contrast, bidding is largely terra incognita... There is enormous room to do serious exciting ground break work. I find this MUCH more interesting.

 

At the end of the day, I think that these dynamics describe a lot of the tension surrounding system regulation.

 

If I spent 10,000 hours mastering declarer play technique, I'd want to make damn well sure that I was able to maximize the return on my investment.

 

In cotrast, if I am focusing my attention on studying bidding, I want to design "good" systems. One of my fundamental design criteria is going to be beating all those folks who spent their 10,000+ hours studying card play.

 

One side has a strong bias on clamping down on variance and ensuring that everyone plays the same contract from the same direction.

 

The other side has an equally strong incentive to stir up the pot. (Recall my earlier comments: I don't believe that the system will ever converge on a single the "best" bidding system. I beleive that the long term equilibrium is a mixed population of bidding system A, B, C, ... Z arranged in some kind of optimal manner.

 

I don't think that you are ever going to get any agreement in these areas.

[PeterGill]

I'm not sure if I agree with Nick or not.

 

Australia has the 5th most members of the WBF, by the way.

Ref www.worldbridge.org then Zones.

 

Paul Marston used to play very complex systems but nowadays often plays

very simple methods. After Paul won our largest Teams event in February 2008, his partner Kate McCallum wrote in Australian Bridge magazine that they played Standard with virtually no agreements and certainly no system beyond the minimum that can be fitted onto a Convention Card. In the 1990s Paul told me

that the reason he wanted to play "all natural" if the opponents interfere over

a Strong Club is that the effort required to play too complex a system eats into

your focus and concentration for the cardplay. Perhaps experience has swung

even the guru of Moscito and Forcing Pass towards Fred's opinion?

 

Those who watched Round 1 in Beijing in October might have seen a hand (Australia v England, Open Teams) where I appeared to get the system wrong. Actually what happened was that as I strove to remember part of the system

I forgot how the artificial auction had actually gone, and started bidding as if it were a different auction. Outcome was "minus 1100". A concentration problem.

 

And instead of working through our 50 page complex system summary,

should my partner and I have got this Beijing defence right, against Jordan?

 

Board 20. Dealer West. All Vulnerable.

9 8

A 8 2

J T 8 7 5

A 7 2

T 5 3 2 A K 7 6

7 6 5 J 4

4 A 9 6

K Q T 9 6 J 5 4 3

Q J 4

K Q T 9 3

K Q 3 2

8

 

1H by West (10-14, 4+ spades) - X - 3S - 4H - All Pass

3S is preemptive with usually 4 spades, rarely 5 spades.

 

SA lead. Playing UDCA.

At Trick 1 West played S10 as suit pref for diamonds

East took S10 as UD count and tried D6, playing partner for HA and Dxx,

since with 5 spades, an ace and a singleton diamond West would raise to

4S not 3S.

 

The appearance of dummy made UD attitude non-applicable.

What we had not sorted out was whether suit pref or UD count

applies in that situation. Or is it still UD atttitude?

 

E and W were on different wavelengths about what S10 meant.

E says that after an UD count card of S2, he can cash SK

on which S10 at Trick 2 is suit pref for the singleton diamond.

 

Better to have sorted out this type of thing in advance,

than to have focussed on complex bidding system in our preparation.

 

The above all agrees with Fred.

 

However, I find it odd that every time I have played a non-standard

system in the Playoff for the Australian team, I have won the Playoff,

and every time I have played Standard I have not won the Playoff.

 

And about 3 years ago at our Nationals, we aksed an overseas visitor what

he thought of Aussie bidding after a week of exposure to our top players.

"Am I allowed to be honest?" he replied.

"Be as brutal as you want, no offence taken here."

"I have played bridge in about 40 countries so far, but am yet to visit a country where the bidding is worse than in Australia," he said, referring to our bidding discipline. I asked another overseas player the same question the next day.

"I can't say, not in front of people," was the reply.

"How about if I give you some adjectives to choose from?" I persevered.

"OK."

""Undisciplined, ridiculous, on steroids, mad, crazy, bizarre," I tried.

"Yes, well, all of them but you haven't quite got close yet."

 

So perhaps some of our top players' bidding discipline is a problem too.

 

Peter Gill

Sydney

[ArcLight]

Richard Wiley -

 

>From my own perspective, I don't find declarer play and defense particularly interesting.

 

Is it because you have not studied these techniques enough. Is it possible you lack the skill to appreciate these plays? When I first started reading Bridge books I tried reading Kelseys Killing Defense :)

Boy was that over my head. So was Mike Lawrences Dynamic defense (a very good intermedaite level book).

 

As time went on I studied and improved. One day I reread thos ebooks and they made a lot of sense. I could sense waht was goin to happen. I read Martin Hoffmans defens ein depth and could sense taht pard might be subject to a double squeeze unless I broke up declarers communications. In other books I had to take pard off an end play. Or save an exit card. Or ...

I found this pretty interesting. I also developed some visualization skills. How will teh play progress? Why is declarer acting in such a way? Why did this defender not do this? Etc.

 

 

I can't yet do this at the table :( but I can in books (at least sometimes).

 

 

>Declarer play and defense focus on mastering known and established techniques.

 

Its more than that. Its visualization and gathering clues based on what did and did not happen. Why did LHO not lead his pards suit who overcalled? Maybe he has an unsupported ace.

 

>Yes, these skills involve a significant amount of intellectual rigour, but there are very limited opportunities to find something exciting and new. I don't want to invest 10,000 hours mastering declarer play in the hopes that I might discuss some obscure new squeeze technique in 15+ years.

 

You are unlikely to advance the body of knowledge of card play technique.

However, you can discover a lot for your self.

 

How about the thrill of a "simple" trump coup or simple squeeze. How about the thrill of nailing your hyperactive opponents for -1100.

[hrothgar]

Is it because you have not studied these techniques enough. Is it possible you lack the skill to appreciate these plays?

De gustibus non est disputandum

[TimG]

""Undisciplined, ridiculous, on steroids, mad, crazy, bizarre," I tried.

"Yes, well, all of them but you haven't quite got close yet."

Here in Maine, we speak similarly of Canadians.

[glen]

""Undisciplined, ridiculous, on steroids, mad, crazy, bizarre," I tried.

"Yes, well, all of them but you haven't quite got close yet."

Here in Maine, we speak similarly of Canadians.

Yes, I'm waiting for the next thread, "Canada's lack of slam success"