"I've never played in a long match which...

[bluecalm]

...wasn't decided by simple mistakes".

 

I am quoting Fred Gitelman here. Well... I am just looking at 2009 Vanderbilt final which Fred lost by a margin of 38imps.

I went through all the big swings and while there is some mistakes which can be called "simple" I really doubt Fred and his team could make 38imps more by avoiding "simple mistakes". Most of the big swings are due to marginal decisions or difficult slam hands. So Fred, was this the first match which wasn't decided by "simple" mistakes or maybe I am missing something ? :)

[Fluffy]

I know that is not your intention, but I believe things like these is one of the reasons why fred doesn't post more often in the forums, being reminded of what you said once out of context, or having to be careful not to say slip a sentence that isn't very true on all circumstances is very exhausting.

[bluecalm]

a)This is not quoting out of context

b)Yeah I am not reminding/calling anything. I am just curios because to me this final was played at incredibly high level. I saw a lot of vugraphs from various finals and tend to agree with quoted statement but here I have my doubts :)

[fred]

If I recall correctly, the quality of bridge in the match in question was quite high (and this is not always the case in the Finals of events like the Vanderbilt). I remember being frustrated when the match was over because I thought my team played quite well, but that the opponents' few mistakes meant that we needed to be close to perfect in order to win. Usually this is not how it works.

 

I haven't studied this match carefully, but it was easy for me to recall a hand in which I made a bid that I would consider a "simple mistake". That cost my team a slam swing. Even if that was the only simple mistake I made (unlikely) and even if each of the 6 players on our team had only made one similarly simple and costly mistake of their own, avoiding all 6 of these simple mistakes would have resulted in an easy win for our team.

 

So, without knowing all the details of the match in question, I am still comfortable standing by my claim that you quoted.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[pooltuna]

If I recall correctly, the quality of bridge in the match in question was quite high (and this is not always the case in the Finals of events like the Vanderbilt). I remember being frustrated when the match was over because I thought my team played quite well, but that the opponents' few mistakes meant that we needed to be close to perfect in order to win. Usually this is not how it works.

 

I haven't studied this match carefully, but it was easy for me to recall a hand in which I made a bid that I would consider a "simple mistake". That cost my team a slam swing. Even if that was the only simple mistake I made (unlikely) and even if each of the 6 players on our team had only made one similarly simple and costly mistake of their own, avoiding all 6 of these simple mistakes would have resulted in an easy win for our team.

 

So, without knowing all the details of the match in question, I am still comfortable standing by my claim that you quoted.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I suspect that with the skill level so high that it magnifies the luck factor as well. For example your simple error occurs at a critical point while theirs doesn't. Or you are seated in such a way that a particular hand is suited perfectly for their system but yours has a pinhole for the hand. While you would expect these to balance out they don't in a "short run." IIRC even the craps tables in your city of residence experience a losing day about 1 in 7. That is why the organizers try for longer matches to reduce the MOE.

[bluecalm]

Thanks for the answer Fred. I am big fan of watching past vugraphs. I usually watch the matches from chosen player perspective (this time it was Hampson) and I am usually able to spot quite a few "simple" mistakes during play and more post hand looking at all 4 hands. This match was quite amazing though because so many swings resulted from very close decisions (close games making or not, different nt ranges, aggressive questionable actions which might work differently). I think it's for sure one of the best played matches in recent years.

I am always happy in some ways seeing top players making simple mistakes because then I can think : "damn, it really wasn't difficult, maybe i can play as good as these guys if I put the effort". During this match though I thought : "well.. i really can't see how i can ever win against pairs like that". Good to hear you agree that level of play was exceptionally high :)

[Jlall]

Perhaps it's just semantics and you have different standards for "simple."

[aguahombre]

Perhaps it's just semantics and you have different standards for "simple."

yes, that was what I was thinking. Perhaps players at that level who objectively evaluate their play recognize mistakes which are simple to them, but complicated to the rest of us.

[billw55]

From the New York Times write up on the event:

 

"In Friday’s semifinals Diamond had easily defeated the top seeds, Nick Nickell, Richard Freeman, Bob Hamman, Zia Mahmood, Jeff Meckstroth and Eric Rodwell, by 171 imps to 133, despite losing 50 imps in the fourth quarter."

 

:ph34r:

 

To my ears this alone says quite a lot about the quality of play from Fred's team.

[barmar]

Fred has played in many of these finals, so far be it from me to disbelieve him, but can the long string of successes by pairs like Meckwell and teams like Nickell and the Italians really be attributed to just making fewer "simple" mistakes?

 

Stamina is a big factor in long matches like the Bermuda Bowl, and I suppose players who get tired sooner make more mistakes. So these winning teams may have members who can keep going without getting as sloppy as others.

 

And I agree with Justin that we need to know what's meant by "simple mistake". I make stupid mistakes all the time, like forgetting that a trump is still out, or not noticing a discard. These types of mistakes are probably almost inconceivable for the players who make it to the late rounds of major events. When they make mistakes, they're almost always mistakes of judgement, not mechanics. Such as not taking a safety play (to me, that's still an advanced concept, but I presume Fred and his ilk consider it to be relatively simple), or phantom sacrifices.

[TimG]

Didn't Lauria play the wrong card form dummy in a famous final deal from a past BB? And, in the most recent bid 6S out of the blue instead of 6H when hearts had been agreed? In the last team trials someone mistakenly passed a strong, artificial and forcing 2C opening bid. I'm sure there are more that we don't hear about. I'm also sure that, as you've pointed out, fatigue is a factor in these mistakes.

[billw55]

hmmm ... well if we follow the logic to its end, then team Nickell must have made several "simple" mistakes against team Diamond in the Vanderbilt semi. I am curious to see what a "simple" mistake for Mr. Hamman and friends looks like. My guess is, I would not be able to recognize it as an error at all, nor find it in the match record though I looked for many hours.

 

Anyway well done Fred, trophy or not.

[barmar]

Yes, sometimes these matches are really close, so a single screwup can appear to decide it. But I don't think it's fair to say that these were the actual deciding factor. It's rare that you have a match full of pushes, and then this one board decides the winner. There are usually dozens of big swings both ways, and they happen to mostly cancel each other out. If the mistake occurs on a board near the end, it will frequently be categorized as the decider, ignoring all the other boards that could have swung differently and made that one irrelevant. There's nothing special about the last board in a match, except that if you know the standings (as Vugraph viewers do, but the players generally don't) it seems more significant. So how many of those earlier big swings were caused by silly mistakes?

 

If fatigue were the main factor, I'd expect to see many more close matches in early rounds of high level events. But do we? I've always been quite surprised at how many big swings there are in top events, in both early and late stages. Bridge seems like a game where there really shouldn't be that much of a disparity between the abilities of the top players (chess even more so -- it has no random factors), yet there it is.

 

Meckwell has a reputation for bidding thin games (it's more a surprise when they have 23 HCP and DON'T bid game), and then frequently making them, and that has to be a big factor in their success. Why don't other top pairs play like that?

[fred]

hmmm ... well if we follow the logic to its end, then team Nickell must have made several "simple" mistakes against team Diamond in the Vanderbilt semi.  I am curious to see what a "simple" mistake for Mr. Hamman and friends looks like.  My guess is, I would not be able to recognize it as an error at all, nor find it in the match record though I looked for many hours.

 

Anyway well done Fred, trophy or not.

Well you might want to look at boards 44 and 46:

 

Link to 3rd quarter of 2009 Vanderbilt Semi-Final

 

If you don't think these are great examples all I can say is that it took me less than a minute to find them. No doubt I could do better if I had more time to kill.

 

Please don't get the impression that I am trying to make my opponents look stupid. IMO Meckstroth-Rodwell are clearly the best pair in the world today and quite possibly the best pair ever. Hamman and Zia would also make my short list of the players I whose skills I admire the most.

 

For sure the mistakes that were made on these boards are not "simple" in the sense that you would expect only beginners to make them, but they are simple in the sense that I would expect an "intermediate to advanced" player to be able to avoid such mistakes if they were playing their best.

 

For several years and over the course of many boards I had never seen Versace make an obvious error against me, but eventually it happened (twice actually). All players do dumb things on occasion.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[billw55]

Well you might want to look at boards 44 and 46:

 

Link to 3rd quarter of 2009 Vanderbilt Semi-Final

 

If you don't think these are great examples all I can say is that it took me less than a minute to find them. No doubt I could do better if I had more time to kill.

 

...

 

For sure the mistakes that were made on these boards are not "simple" in the sense that you would expect only beginners to make them, but they are simple in the sense that I would expect an "intermediate to advanced" player to be able to avoid such mistakes if they were playing their best.

Interesting. Thanks Fred.

 

Board 44 in particular is an eye catcher. Clearly some wires got crossed in there somewhere!

 

I have read, and been told, that becoming an expert has less to do with brilliance on extraordinary boards, and more to do with blunder avoidance on ordinary ones. I guess even the very best boot a normal board once in a (long) while.

 

Now I feel empowered :)

[bluecalm]

For several years and over the course of many boards I had never seen Versace make an obvious error against me, but eventually it happened (twice actually). All players do dumb things on occasion.

 

Yeah... I saw a lot of vugraphs and two players which basically never make simple mistake in play (not bidding) are Balicki and Duboin. I saw a few of Meckstroth and Rodwell but taht's probably because there so many hands of them in the archives :)

[barmar]

I think those boards support my point that the errors they make are in judgement. When experts make these kinds of mistakes, they look like the rest of us. ;)

 

When I was operating the Reisinger final Vugraph earlier this month, I got to see one these first-hand. I don't remember the specific hand or player, but late in the play of the hand, when he should have known the full count and honor locations, he went into the tank and then squandered an honor unnecessarily, losing the board as a result. He immediately apologized to his partner. It was one of those moments where one of the commentators exclaims "Did he really play the J?!"

 

I'm trying to think about whether there are similar examples in other types of competition. Consider how many faults and double faults there are in professional tennis. Wouldn't you think that there's nothing simpler for a world champion tennis player than serving the ball wherever he wants -- it's totally under their control, and they probably spend hours every day practicing it. But in the heat of competition, when you're going all out, you can't be perfect. Or free throws in basketball, shouldn't a pro be able to sink them without even looking?

[Hanoi5]

Sorry Fred but I found this very funny:

 

Hamman and Zia would also make my short list of the players I whose skills I admire the most.

 

And would someone enlighten me as to the mistake on board 44? On 46 I suppose it is not switching to clubs but at 44? Is it playing a heart?

[bluecalm]

And would someone enlighten me as to the mistake on board 44? On 46 I suppose it is not switching to clubs but at 44? Is it playing a heart?

 

Meckwell bid slam off two aces...

 

I think 46 is more surprising. This defensive problem is very easy and I would be surprised if any decent player got it wrong at the table so it was definitely "simple" mistake.

[PeterGill]

I think those boards support my point that the errors they make are in judgement. When experts make these kinds of mistakes, they look like the rest of us. :)

 

When I was operating the Reisinger final Vugraph earlier this month, I got to see one these first-hand. I don't remember the specific hand or player, but late in the play of the hand, when he should have known the full count and honor locations, he went into the tank and then squandered an honor unnecessarily, losing the board as a result. He immediately apologized to his partner. It was one of those moments where one of the commentators exclaims "Did he really play the J?!"

 

I'm trying to think about whether there are similar examples in other types of competition. Consider how many faults and double faults there are in professional tennis. Wouldn't you think that there's nothing simpler for a world champion tennis player than serving the ball wherever he wants -- it's totally under their control, and they probably spend hours every day practicing it. But in the heat of competition, when you're going all out, you can't be perfect. Or free throws in basketball, shouldn't a pro be able to sink them without even looking?

or "can a quarteback land the football on a dime every time?"

ref

[kgr]

And would someone enlighten me as to the mistake on board 44? On 46 I suppose it is not switching to clubs but at 44? Is it playing a heart?

 

Meckwell bid slam off two aces...

 

I think 46 is more surprising. This defensive problem is very easy and I would be surprised if any decent player got it wrong at the table so it was definitely "simple" mistake.

It would be interesting for beginners/intermediates (..and for me :) ) if somebody could explain what is so easy and clear in the defense on board 46.

For me looking at the Clubs, I would think that I have a potential entry and I would try to develop ♥'s.

...At the moment that a ♣ switch is necessary, what should be the step by step thought process to make it clear?

[PeterGill]

For several years and over the course of many boards I had never seen Versace make an obvious error against me, but eventually it happened (twice actually). All players do dumb things on occasion.

 

Yeah... I saw a lot of vugraphs and two players which basically never make simple mistake in play (not bidding) are Balicki and Duboin. I saw a few of Meckstroth and Rodwell but taht's probably because there so many hands of them in the archives :)

If my recall is OK, the folllowing two stories are true enough ......

 

Story 1 - What Never? No Error? Well, Hardly Ever.

 

In the 2008 Australian Nationals, I was fortunate to have the privilege of playing in the same team as Cesary Balicki. After a match that I sat out, Cesary showed me the hand records and said:

 

"Peter, I think you're the sort of person who will like this hand. I'm defending 3D, the play goes like this, and you'e on play. Would you switch to a trump?"

 

"Ye-e-es, I would," I replied nervously, as one would when replying to one of the world's greatest card players.

 

"Of course you would, and you beat the contract, because it's the obvious play. But I thought that declarer was trying to con me into switching to trumps, so I tried the unlikely club play. This is a disastrous mistake, as you can see, for the play went like this. Again you are on play after you have just done the bad club play. What do you play now?"

 

"I switch a trump - I think it's not too late," I replied in trepidation. This simple and obvious play must surely be wrong, I thought.

 

"Of course you do, and you beat the contract. Somehow my mind still refused to play trumps, so I tried a spade. This is an even worse disaster than my earlier club play, and once again you end up back on lead. What now?"

 

"It looks hopeless now. I accept that at least it's only a little 3D partscore that I have let make," I said.

 

"No, no, no, that is the wrong attitude. Bridge is for hard workers. I was so proud that I had not been affected by my two earlier mistakes. I worked out that declarer thought I was defending like this for a reason. So there was one remote chance ... I played HQ now from Qxxx. If declarer mistakenly thought my earlier plays made sense, when they didn't of course ...."

 

"What good does HQ do?"

 

"I hadn't stopped thinking. Declarer now stopped to think. Why is such a good card player playing the club, then the spade and now HQ, he asked himself. It makes no sense. The club and spade plays must be a trap for me. Balicki is too good to defend like this. So instead of making his contract like a normal person would now, my HQ play leads declarer to do something stupid and he goes down one. Flat board, other table switched to diamonds. I was so pleased that I found the only way to give declarer a remote, rather ridiculous losing option (which he took) and that I didn't let my two mistakes affect my focus. It was more satisfying than a complex squeeze."

 

The conversation wasn't exactly like that, but the gist of the story is about right.

 

Story #2 - When Italian Eyes are Smiling

 

Alfredo Versace played the 2006 World Mixed Pairs in Verona with a woman so unknown that her name is still missing on the Results page of the WBF website for that event. Using Bridgemates, with 4 boards to go in each session every pair was given a scorecard with their score for the first 22 of the 26 boards.

 

At the end of the 5th session, I was waiting outside with some friends. Alfredo Versace raced up to speak to one of them. "Look at my scorecard for Session 5, don't you think bridge a wonderful game?" Alfredo said happily, smiling.

 

"What do you mean?" said my friend. "How can you call 39% wonderful, Alfredo?"

 

"In the first 4 sessions we scored 64%, 62%, 59% and 63% to lead the field by a margin of 3% - and I hadn't even been playing well. My unknown partner had been playing like a dream, and luck was with us. What would happen when I hit top form? So this 5th session, I play my very best, luck abandons us completely and we end up with 39%, although we have four quite good scores to come. Isn't this game magnificent, that you can lead the World Championship then play better but score worse so that you drop out of contention?"

 

"I still can't believe that you're smiling. In your shoes, I wouldn't be," my friend said.

 

Alfredo has won many World Championships and my highly talented friend has won none.

 

Is it possible that humility and humanity are good bridge traits?

[bluecalm]

Look at it from the Hamman's perspective.

Rgr showed :Axx of hearts (count to first trick + queen taking the first trick)

He for sure has at least one spade honour. He didn't tackle diamonds so he has 4 tricks there. So his hand is something like:

 

a)Qxx Axx AKxx Axx

b)Qxx Axx AKx Axx

c)KQx Axx AKxx Axx

d)KQx Axx AKx Axxx

e)KQx Axx AKx xxxx

f)KQx Axx AKxx xxx

 

He will take 2 spade tricks (we know they break 3-3) 2 heart tricks 4diamond tricks and a club ace = 9 or if he doesn't have club ace he has 3spades tricks instead. Against hands c) and d) nothing helps. Against a), :), e) and f) club return is necessary. The heart play probably resulted from simple failure of counting declarer's tricks at least that would be the case with me if I played a heart.

[fred]

Look how much easier the defense on board 46 was at our table because my partner won the King of spades whereas Zia won the Ace of spades (a falsecard that may well have succeeded in tricking the wrong person).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[bluecalm]

Look how much easier the defense on board 46 was at our table because my partner won the King of spades whereas Zia won the Ace of spades (a falsecard that may well have succeeded in tricking the wrong person).

 

When I think about it you could switch to K of clubs because you knew declared had A!C while Hamman should've really played low club just in case declared had :

 

KQx Axx AKx Jxxx when king of clubs play blocks the suit...