Developing Bidding Judgement

[diana_eva]

As a very lazy beginner and quickly bored student i can confirm that the only way i could understand some basic bidding and hand evaluation notions was when an expert friend forced me to sit at a teaching table and review the hands we played together.

[matmat]

 

Since you bring up tennis, consider that no good tennis player became good by "playing more matches". They all spent (and STILL spend) hours training and drilling specific areas of their games because that is the most efficient way to improve. The OP says he wants to train his bidding judgment. Playing more is definitely not the answer.

 

Can you please show me one accomplished tournament player who learned by watching others and reading about tennis?

[quiddity]

Can you please show me one accomplished tournament player who learned by watching others and reading about tennis?

 

Obviously passive reading/watching is not enough. You have to exercise the area you want to train - but you can exercise your bidding judgment by applying it to problems in MSC and forum threads just as you can apply it to problems at the table. This is analogous to drilling a forehand on a practice court just as you would hit it in a match.

[billw55]

As a very lazy beginner and quickly bored student i can confirm that the only way i could understand some basic bidding and hand evaluation notions was when an expert friend forced me to sit at a teaching table and review the hands we played together.

Strongly agree.

 

You can play more and study less. Or you can play less and study more. Or if you are really motivated, you can play more and study more.

 

But, no matter which, you absolutely must self-review, both alone and with a mentor/teacher.

 

As corollary, of course you must play some reasonable minimum, to provide enough material for review, and to work on application of newly learned techniques. After that .. up to you.

[gwnn]

Read the forums a lot. Try to imitate bids/styles that are liked by good posters here (I'm not one of them).

 

When in doubt, just do something at the table and post the hand later. If the choice of the good posters is different, try to think why you did something else and adjust.

 

Repeat.

[jjbrr]

Obviously passive reading/watching is not enough. You have to exercise the area you want to train - but you can exercise your bidding judgment by applying it to problems in MSC and forum threads just as you can apply it to problems at the table. This is analogous to drilling a forehand on a practice court just as you would hit it in a match.

 

Funny. I thought playing lots of hands was analagous to drilling a forehand on a practice court.

 

I consider MSC and forum type problems as more like reviewing the tape after practice or a game to pick out areas for refinement, which in itself does absolutely nothing whatsoever to make you a better player until you actually hit the court and work out whatever problem you have through repetition.

 

The guys who sit in the classroom reviewing tape all day certainly talk a good game, but their actual skills leave a lot to be desired.

[quiddity]

Funny. I thought playing lots of hands was analagous to drilling a forehand on a practice court.

 

No. If the hands are part of a meaningful event and you're trying to win, then it is analogous to playing lots of matches. If the hands are not meaningful then it's analogous to rallying. Either way, it is not analogous to training.

 

It seems like you and matmat feel that solving a bidding problem away from the table is significantly different from solving a bidding problem at the table - so different that practice away from the table is not of much use. I don't understand why that should be the case.

[gwnn]

tennis != bridge

 

Caveat emptor, analogies may be worse than they appear in the rear view mirror.

[jjbrr]

OK this analogy no longer makes sense. I thought winning meaningful events was the ultimate goal of all the training and practice we did.

 

Just like matmat says, show me any player in any sport who won anything just by reading books

[dustinst22]

It seems to me that the majority of books and "problem hands" will typically cover rather unusual situations that don't have a high frequency rate. And while studying/reading these is important for gaining some overall conceptual knowledge, it only accounts for a relatively small % of what makes a great player imo. Playing a large # of hands (against better opponents, ideally) is where you will master the more important and every day nitty gritty details of what makes a superb player. I'm referring to skills like helping an opponent make an error or misinterpret a situation, ability to recognize patterns/situations that come up with high frequency, reading your opponents and table presence, etc.

 

It's often said that the top players aren't necessarily making more spectacular plays than avg players, they simply error far less frequently. This is because they can recognize situations and patterns much more clearly from repetition. These things cannot be derived from a book or looking at problem hands and can only be attained from playing a lot of hands. There's a reason that the majority of the top Bridge players are older -- they've gained the necessary judgment from far more experience playing hands.

 

I know of many players who have an excellent conceptual knowledge of the game and are extremely well read. But when it comes to actual play at the table, the conceptual knowledge doesn't translate well due to lack of experience and familiarity with the nitty gritty details of what makes a good player.

[diana_eva]

Maybe this is a difference between online and offline play. It is also a matter of learning style, for sure.

 

I almost never play offline - no time for that - but i used to play hundreds of hands online. And since i am not the analytical type, i have to admit i didn't learn much from these numerous hands until a friend opened my eyes and "forced" me to slow down and think about what happened. Playing blindly is great for declarer play, but bidding judgement - i don't think so. Especially if one plays random, it can be horribly confusing.

[matmat]

Playing blindly is great for declarer play,

 

I don't think that's right either. You simply don't notice your mistakes when you just click away...

[diana_eva]

OK maybe not that great :) But it can help.

[mtvesuvius]

Read the forums a lot. Try to imitate bids/styles that are liked by good posters here (I'm not one of them).

 

When in doubt, just do something at the table and post the hand later. If the choice of the good posters is different, try to think why you did something else and adjust.

 

Repeat.

3♦ :)

[quiddity]

OK this analogy no longer makes sense. I thought winning meaningful events was the ultimate goal of all the training and practice we did.

 

Just like matmat says, show me any player in any sport who won anything just by reading books

 

This is so weird - I'm sure we don't really disagree about this and I don't know why you're misinterpreting my posts to this extent.

The OP asked how to improve his bidding judgment. I'm sure we both agree that the best way to improve anything is to practice using it a lot and incorporate feedback.

All I'm saying is that it is more efficient to use MSC and forums than random play for bidding judgment practice because:

- it is easier to come across interesting problems

- the feedback (advice from experts) is more valuable

- you don't have to waste a lot of time on uninteresting hands, sitting dummy, etc.

[matmat]

This is so weird - I'm sure we don't really disagree about this and I don't know why you're misinterpreting my posts to this extent.

The OP asked how to improve his bidding judgment. I'm sure we both agree that the best way to improve anything is to practice using it a lot and incorporate feedback.

All I'm saying is that it is more efficient to use MSC and forums than random play for bidding judgment practice because:

- it is easier to come across interesting problems

- the feedback (advice from experts) is more valuable

- you don't have to waste a lot of time on uninteresting hands, sitting dummy, etc.

 

 

read dustin22's post.

[A2003]

Bidding Practice

 

Cover the answers for each hands.

Try to practice the bid and check your bid matches with this.

Then, give it your partner to do the same.

 

Second option:

Get a handout that shows all 4 four hands.

Start with a dealer and bid, then Rotate for each position and make the bid for their hands till you complete.

Ask your partner to do the same.

Compare the bidding sequence.

Some of the handouts will also show a optimum possible contracts for each side.

[mfa1010]

One has to learn from better players. That is the key. Too many aspects of bridge are impossible to learn by oneself in vacuum.

 

So discuss with them, read what they write, watch them play and play against them yourself as often as possible.

 

I would like to support quiddity's posts, since it is a common pitfall to think that just playing a lot will do it alone. It won't. One has to been a keen student of the game. This is much easier of course if one actually loves the game so much that one can't stop thinking about it all the time. But even if one doesn't have more time to spend on the game then most players would benefit from using say 1/4 of their card playing time on studying the game instead of just playing.

 

Nigel also made a good point. One has to develope the right way to analyze. And that is to actually do it. Analyze precisely what will actually happen if this or that.

 

How often has one heard an opponent say something like: Gee, I should have lead a spade - when there would be just the same 9 top tricks after that lead anyway? Spades just happened to be the defense's best suit so he felt it should have been led. This may sound innocent but it reveals that the player is not analyzing. He is playing on instincts only and that is insufficient for becoming a strong player. Analysis is important in cardplay obviously but it has huge impact on bidding judgement also, since possible contracts and layouts should be analyzed in the evaluation process. Strong players would do this automatically, perhaps even unconciously.

That is why Nigel's point was so good.

[JLOGIC]

I don't get the argument about play more vs study more, obviously doing both will help your game. Probably there is some ratio that's good, if you play too much without study you'll end up like the little old ladies who play at the club every day, if you study too much without playing you'll end up one of those people who is good in theory but not in practice, and has a distorted view of bridge. Both arguments are right.

[BunnyGo]

I don't get the argument about play more vs study more, obviously doing both will help your game. Probably there is some ratio that's good, if you play too much without study you'll end up like the little old ladies who play at the club every day, if you study too much without playing you'll end up one of those people who is good in theory but not in practice, and has a distorted view of bridge. Both arguments are right.

 

You're too kind. Clearly both arguments are wrong.

[matmat]

I don't get the argument about play more vs study more, obviously doing both will help your game. Probably there is some ratio that's good, if you play too much without study you'll end up like the little old ladies who play at the club every day, if you study too much without playing you'll end up one of those people who is good in theory but not in practice, and has a distorted view of bridge. Both arguments are right.

 

 

More Taste!

 

 

Less Filling!

[JLOGIC]

The key to rapid improvement imo is to be thinking about bridge a lot. Bidding situations, play situations, whatever. You cannot always be playing or studying, but if you're thinking about the game a lot and playing a reasonable amount (so you have specific situations to think about), that will help a lot. Of course, this becomes more useful the better you are, but even if you are not very good yet you can think about some ideas and then later post them or discuss them with better players to see if they are valid or not.

[rduran1216]

the truth has been echoed here. Just play alot. More hands you see, more you'll learn. Analyzing does nothing for you if you dont know what to look for. Simply play alot, preferably with better players, and you will pick up on what they see.

[1eyedjack]

It seems to me that the majority of books and "problem hands" will typically cover rather unusual situations that don't have a high frequency rate. And while studying/reading these is important for gaining some overall conceptual knowledge, it only accounts for a relatively small % of what makes a great player imo. Playing a large # of hands (against better opponents, ideally) is where you will master the more important and every day nitty gritty details of what makes a superb player. I'm referring to skills like helping an opponent make an error or misinterpret a situation, ability to recognize patterns/situations that come up with high frequency, reading your opponents and table presence, etc.

 

It's often said that the top players aren't necessarily making more spectacular plays than avg players, they simply error far less frequently. This is because they can recognize situations and patterns much more clearly from repetition. These things cannot be derived from a book or looking at problem hands and can only be attained from playing a lot of hands. There's a reason that the majority of the top Bridge players are older -- they've gained the necessary judgment from far more experience playing hands.

 

I know of many players who have an excellent conceptual knowledge of the game and are extremely well read. But when it comes to actual play at the table, the conceptual knowledge doesn't translate well due to lack of experience and familiarity with the nitty gritty details of what makes a good player.

 

I think that whenever a relatively inexperienced player talks about "judgement" in the game they are talking about the auction. Printed literature on card play technique does, understandably, focus on unusual situations except where expressly addressed to the beginner. Printed literature about bidding, whether about systemic agreements and conventions or about judgement, tends to concentrate, quite rightly, on hand types in proportion to their frequency. So while I agree with the content of the above post and is likely to be of help to the OP, I don't see it as relevant to the specific point raised by the OP.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Just to have a nonbridge related example - Poker.

 

I dont play Poker, but once in a while I am watching Poker on TV.

And a comment heard very often is, that the wave of new players, that have reached

the to of the game in such a short period is due to the fact, that online makes it

easier to play / see lots of hands in a very short time.

 

But - you also need to analyze, what you are doing, and you have to do it on a

regular basis.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe