Introduction of Bridge Analysis

[Zelandakh]

Yes, I self-rate as advanced because I am advanced. Switching my self-rating to Advanced was not a decision I took lightly. What I lack in tournament or other ACBL-sanctioned experience I make up for in many other areas. I am most definitely not an Expert for that precise reason, but I am not an Intermediate either. I rated myself as Intermediate for a long time. I made the switch recently when I realized I play the game far better than most people who were self-rated at least one class above Intermediate.

 

Here is some official information you might find helpful:-

 

It is not important how well you think you play, since most bridge players are unable to assess their own skills with any accuracy. What matters is your level of experience and the degree of success that you have had in live, competitive clubs and tournaments. The following guidelines are suggested for choosing your skill level:

 

<snip>

 

Advanced

Someone who has been consistently successful in clubs or minor tournaments

 

I rate myself as intermediate because, until recently, I never entered any tournaments at all, so how can I possibly say I was consistently successful in them? It does not matter how I regard myself in comparison with other players on BBO. It is unfortunate that players are either ignorant of these guidelines or choose to ignore them and use their own assessments anyway. Do not expect anyone to applaud you for using your own personal assessment when BBO guidelines explicitly say not to, regardless of how much thought you put into the decision.

[HighLow21]

Here is some official information you might find helpful:-

 

 

 

I rate myself as intermediate because, until recently, I never entered any tournaments at all, so how can I possibly say I was consistently successful in them? It does not matter how I regard myself in comparison with other players on BBO. It is unfortunate that players are either ignorant of these guidelines or choose to ignore them and use their own assessments anyway. Do not expect anyone to applaud you for using your own personal assessment when BBO guidelines explicitly say not to, regardless of how much thought you put into the decision.

 

OK thanks for this --> where did you get the quotation from?

[HighLow21]

OK I found it in the BBO help. The big problem? Literally none of these categories describe me.

[Vampyr]

OK I found it in the BBO help. The big problem? Literally none of these categories describe me.

 

Either you are successful or you are not. Although lots of players feel that they are very good players and that it is a shame that this is not reflected in their results...

[dwar0123]

Either you are successful or you are not. Although lots of players feel that they are very good players and that it is a shame that this is not reflected in their results...

Meh, successful is a meaningless word in this context as it is a comparison of results against expectations and everyone occasionally does better then expected.

[Vampyr]

Meh, successful is a meaningless word in this context as it is a comparison of results against expectations and everyone occasionally does better then expected.

 

I think the guideline uses the word "consistently". So, are you nearly always in the top 1/3, top 1/4, top 3 at your local club? Are you often in the single digits of rank at small tournaments or the top 10% at large ones? etc. Everyone should be able to answer these questions.

[SimonFa]

I own the rights to the ♠6. My lawyer will contact you.

 

Thank you for that - after a very long day it really made me laugh out loud and has perked me up no end.

 

Simon

[Vampyr]

I must admit that if I met an advanced player who kept telling experts how good is he and that they have no idea of how to play bid (see the BBF thread about a double of 5D), I would probably make fun of him in real life as well. I don't know many people like that though.

 

Thread appeared again in New Contents. Wow.

[HighLow21]

Hi everyone! Post #5 took a while for me to finish, but it is up:

 

http://bridgeanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/02/around-world-in-100-hands.html#!/2012/02/around-world-in-100-hands.html

 

I went through 100 hands I've played on BBO with a fine-toothed comb, looking for mistakes and examples of good, bad, and ugly play, defense, and bidding. This article details my findings. There is quite a bit to talk about!

 

Please feel free to send me any feedback, good bad or indifferent!

 

Thanks,

-Tate

[mgoetze]

I don't believe that analysis of random MBC games is worth this level of effort or indeed any other level. Also, I don't believe you are qualified to count how many mistakes you made.

[HighLow21]

I don't believe that analysis of random MBC games is worth this level of effort or indeed any other level. Also, I don't believe you are qualified to count how many mistakes you made.

 

Thank you for the feedback. I made reference several times during the article to the fact that it's much more difficult to find my own mistakes than those of others. Also, the analysis can be applied to any level of play. That's the precise idea behind my blog.

[diana_eva]

From a previous post:

 

 

-----

 

DEFENDER MUSTS

 

You must interpret partner's defensive signals appropriately. Partner will tend to give you count signals more than attitude signals, but you must understand your partnership signal agreements and stick to them and take information from them. If your partner does not signal consistently, get a new partner. You cannot be a successful player at this game without defensive signalling. Remember, you will defend about twice as often as you declare.

...

 

I think this particular "Must" is very difficult, if not impossible to achieve playing only random games. Unless "get a new partner" means hop to another table hoping you get lucky.

[mgoetze]

Also, the analysis can be applied to any level of play. That's the precise idea behind my blog.

I'm not saying you can't analyse this kind of game, I'm saying you shouldn't.

[HighLow21]

From a previous post:

 

 

 

I think this particular "Must" is very difficult, if not impossible to achieve playing only random games. Unless "get a new partner" means hop to another table hoping you get lucky.

 

That is an excellent point. I guess what I mean by this is: (1) if you have a regular partner who doesn't signal or can't be bothered to, try to change his mind or move on. (2) it's not difficult to establish some basic level of signaling even opposite an unknown partner with a line or two of conversation. If you can't, then person probably doesn't know enough to defend well and your results opposite him or her will suffer. Move on.

 

Not only do we need to consider all the bad results and bad habits we can accrue playing indifferent defense; we need to also consider all the opportunity cost of all the good habits that one can practice developing opposite a cooperative signaler.

[Statto]

1. Learn how to signal.

2. Learn how not to signal.

 

Step 2 is deciding whether your signals will be more useful to declarer or partner. Quite often your signals (in particular count signals when declarer is cashing tricks) will be of more use to declarer than partner. Think about the hand, imagine what the unseen hands are, does partner need to know something? If so, try to tell them. If not, try not to tell declarer. Also, don't assume partner's supposed discard signal is trying to tell you anything, it may be the only card they can afford to throw.

 

IME, most misdefences occur when one defender has A and the other K in the same side suit. You won't normally want to lead from either holding, but those winners could evaporate, and you may not get to show suit preference via a discard signal, so a suit preference when following (or on the opening lead) could be beneficial.

[inquiry]

Ok, let me say that I have a long-standing partnership with a fellow who, no matter how much a shout, threaten, beg, plead, will simply not give signals beyond trick one and the occasional lavinthal suit preference when looking for a ruff. His logic, the opponents are looking for his signals. For every one hand his lack of signals might screw up a declarer, we blow five or six defensive hands -- and could be more, except I luck into the right defense by lucky guess rather than with certainty.

 

I agree there are hands were signaling only helps opponents, and you can figure out which of these hands it is best not signal on (often when your partner is not participating in the defense, but declarer doesn't know that). I find myself wanting to us more and more signals as time goes along, rather than less and less.

[Statto]

Inquiry, I'm reading your series with great interest, because I haven't mastered step 1 :)

[han]

I don't believe that analysis of random MBC games is worth this level of effort or indeed any other level. Also, I don't believe you are qualified to count how many mistakes you made.

 

I don't agree with you here Michael. I think it is always a good idea to go over your own hands thoroughly. And perhaps we are not most qualified to look for our own mistakes, but nobody else is going to do it so you have no choice.

 

The author of the blog is still very interested in comparing the number of his mistakes with the number of mistakes his random BBO opponents make. I agree that this is useless, but I think that he'll grow over it.

[HighLow21]

I don't agree with you here Michael. I think it is always a good idea to go over your own hands thoroughly. And perhaps we are not most qualified to look for our own mistakes, but nobody else is going to do it so you have no choice.

 

The author of the blog is still very interested in comparing the number of his mistakes with the number of mistakes his random BBO opponents make. I agree that this is useless, but I think that he'll grow over it.

 

I equate it to when I taught and tutored people in preparation for standardized tests --> it's better to, say, review 10 practice problems extremely thoroughly than it is to take 1,000 practice problems without any review and learn nothing.

 

Yes, I am trying to steer away from comparison between myself and others at the table; I understand the reasons and at times it's hard to do without coming across as self-aggrandizing, particularly when the comparison is favorable. I tried to caveat this in quite a few ways in this article but perhaps you have some suggestions for taking it further. :unsure:

 

Thanks for the feedback Han!

-Tate

[Vampyr]

Yes, I am trying to steer away from comparison between myself and others at the table; I understand the reasons and at times it's hard to do without coming across as self-aggrandizing, particularly when the comparison is favorable.

 

You keep saying how good you are, but compared to whom? Random opponents on BBO?

[nige1]

Good stuff!. After a match, like Tate, I feel that finding my errors is salutary. I report the worst of these to team-mates. I've posted some of my mistakes in BBF I receive interesting feed-back. It's an effective learning exercise.

You keep saying how good you are, but compared to whom? Random opponents on BBO?

It should be possible to get some clue from Highlow21's quality of writing, quality of analysis, and quality of advice. i.e. judge what he writes on its own merits.

[nige1]

I agree there are hands were signaling only helps opponents, and you can figure out which of these hands it is best not signal on (often when your partner is not participating in the defense, but declarer doesn't know that). I find myself wanting to us more and more signals as time goes along, rather than less and less.

I agree with Inquiry that signals are usually more useful to defenders than declarer.. Victor Mollo wrote that if you offer a table the chance for all players to play a deal double-dummy, then defenders should accept but declarer should refuse.

[CSGibson]

Tate - I just read your post on mistakes. If I may offer an idea - rather than giving the statistical summary of mistakes you found, and the relevance of those mistakes to one side or another, it would be more useful for the reader if you just posted a whole hand, went through an exhaustive analysis including identifying mistakes & why you think they were mistakes & what the alternative would be. This will give your readers the chance to see your thought process in analyzing hands, and to emulate it if they find it helpful.

 

Right now, the only potential benefit that I see from your post is the conclusion that avoiding mistakes alone is enough to be a successful bridge player. The rest of the exhaustive statistical analysis is relatively meaningless because the reader does not know your skill level in identifing mistakes.

 

In fact, I find it very hard to believe that you or anyone else is keyed to finding the "mistakes" of others when those others are better players, because what looks like a mistake to you (or me, or random stranger) is often a play that is suggested by inferences that might easily be missed by a player who does not have an equal skill level.

 

I'll follow this with a response demonstrating what I mean in a little bit.

[HighLow21]

You keep saying how good you are, but compared to whom? Random opponents on BBO?

 

Maybe I've got an intellectual blind-spot here, but I don't see how what I said above implies that I'm good. What I said is that the comparison is favorable in this sample of hands, and my question was how to AVOID making it sound like I think I'm better than others.

 

But to answer your question, I know that I'm fairly good, I just don't know how good, and against what metric. What I have been fortunate to find lately is some skilled friends on BBO (largely on the back of my posting here and rubbing elbows with some who are very good) who have started to show me just how many really, really good players of this game are out there. (Thanks especially to esprit12, jillybean, diana_eva, wank, Han, mikeh, and Phil!)

 

"How good" is not the subject of the article I wrote. The subject is an analysis of errors made, by type, and a discussion thereof. And I agree with what some others have said here --> it doesn't really matter how good one is or one thinks one is; the more rigorous your post-play analytics, the more improvement you can subject yourself to.

[CSGibson]

Ok - what I am talking about (the ability to analyze what's a mistake) is illustrated in this bridge winners post I just wrote about a hand I ranted about in a different thread:

 

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/mistake-or-brilliance/

 

I hope I don't look stupid with my analysis - being a bridge blogger is harder than I thought.