Where do you leak the most points?

[Vampyr]

For my partner it's forgetting systematic agreements.

 

This should never be a major reason for poor results.

[RSClyde]

This should never be a major reason for poor results.

It's not that common, it's just terribly costly when it happens.

[CSGibson]

Just a general comment - I think players at all levels of the game leak imps/mps through tempo. In the Spins vs Upmark and Nystrom, I was able to guess hands correctly simply because of the time it took for the Swedes to make decisions on defense - if they had the card I was going to try and guess, they would have not taken so long, or if they didn't have it, they would have had more to think about, etc. At lower levels, the tempo of a bid or defensive play is also frequently revealing. Personally, I give up some things by playing and bidding too fast at times, so I'd like to hit that happy medium of taking time when it doesn't matter, and playing quickly when tempo might be an issue.

[jogs]

It's not that common, it's just terribly costly when it happens.

 

You should be reviewing your system notes before every session.

[sathyab]

Unforced errors in card play and defense as jogs pointed out. It takes a fair amount of diligence to review your record to identify patterns. When I reviewed my record from Atlanta, I noticed that my play in Notrump contracts at MP was poor and specifically because I was not playing the hands optimistically enough. Once you identify a problem, you can try to guard against repeating the same kind of error.

 

Bidding errors cost a bunch too. But quite often, it's a lot harder to understand that they are indeed errors or that you would want to do something different the next time you encounter a similar situation.

[DJNeill]

I can't begin to imagine all the point-leak in my game. Easiest things I find to shore up that make the most difference practically:

 

- practice with pd (pinpoint bidding practice, or random hands for a good sampling of common situations)

- keep care of myself physically or otherwise to facilitate good concentration

- be a good partner and not talk (huge)

- test my current thinking shape before the event

- psyche myself up

 

Thanks,

Dan

[TylerE]

Defense, opening leads in particular.

[aguahombre]

We pre-alert that they should want me on opening lead.

[Vampyr]

You should be reviewing your system notes before every session.

 

No, that's not it. Some people seem to think that the question is "Why can't my partner remember our system?" when in fact the question is "Why am I playing a system my partner has trouble remembering?"

 

It's more than just that; if the system is complicated, partner will be using his mental energy trying to work out what the system bid is, instead of being able to evaluate his hand and use judgment.

 

It's not that common, it's just terribly costly when it happens.

 

So what is "common" or "often"? Obviously this varies from player to player, depending on what size price you want to pay for having what you consider a "perfect" system. But system forgets are bad for partnership harmony, and put pressure on the player who is usually the one who forgets. It seems to me that once in every 20 sessions is too much, but as I said, YMMV.

 

Of course, in the OP he asks specifically about long matches (3 sessions or more). I can't speak to that question, because I have never played in a match that was more than 64 boards. I have no idea what the effects would be if I had to play the same match for two or more days in a row. It would depend, of course, on what the scoreline was overnight. Obviously very different from things like 4-session Swiss Pairs or Swiss teams, where you can still win matches no matter what your standing.

[aguahombre]

I have never seen 64 boards squeezed into two sessions.

[GreenMan]

I have never seen 64 boards squeezed into two sessions.

 

Every day in the Vanderbilt and Spingold. Four quarters of 16 boards, two quarters to a session.

[akhare]

So what is "common" or "often"? Obviously this varies from player to player, depending on what size price you want to pay for having what you consider a "perfect" system. But system forgets are bad for partnership harmony, and put pressure on the player who is usually the one who forgets. It seems to me that once in every 20 sessions is too much, but as I said, YMMV.

 

+1.

 

In fact I would argue that a "perfect system" must take the vagaries of human memory in account. Some may argue that it's just a question of "regularly reviewing notes", but in my experience, reinforcement is more a function of actual frequency of the gadget than of rote memorization.

[Finch]

You should be reviewing your system notes before every session.

 

No you shouldn't. You should know your system notes well enough so that you don't need to review them regularly.

[sathyab]

No you shouldn't. You should know your system notes well enough so that you don't need to review them regularly.

 

 

That depends how often you've gone back and forth on playing Reverse Baze versus Regular Baze :) Changing your system frequently takes its toll on memory, as does playing similar but slightly different treatments with different partners. It's not uncommon to play different variants of super-accept, pre-accept, Smolen, Puppet, 3-level bids over 1nt, 2-way NMF, Wolff, Baze, defenses over 1nt, defenses over intervention of 1nt with different partners. And the list is far from exhaustive.

 

It's not as simple to get rid of all these conventions or even play a "standard" version, as quite often there're no standards for a treatment. They don't even have proper nomenclature to name the variations.

[Phil]

Some players easily adopt from system to system. Some can't overcome it, just like some players have never adopted to upside down carding.

 

This necessarily isn't a bridge 'skill', but if you are playing in multiple partnerships and you have an oops, it has a detrimental effect.

[CSGibson]

Some players easily adopt from system to system. Some can't overcome it, just like some players have never adopted to upside down carding.

 

This necessarily isn't a bridge 'skill', but if you are playing in multiple partnerships and you have an oops, it has a detrimental effect.

 

Actually, I dropped a ton of MPs in Atlanta when playing with my flight B partner because I didn't adjust to playing with her as opposed to my regular partner - I tried to be a butterfly when I needed to be a hammer, both in defense and in the bidding.

[gnasher]

I don't think it matters whether you know your system because you know it, or because you spent the last two hours reading the notes. All that matters is that (a) you know it and (b) the effort required doesn't affect any other part of your game.

 

That's easier said than done, of course.

[Free]

I leak the most points with my dummy play :P

 

On a more serious note, bidding judgement and defense. I never forget my system. Declarer play fluctuates from time to time.

[GreenMan]

I leak the most points with my dummy play :P

 

Believe it or not, I think you CAN leak points as dummy. I see dummies toss the cards carelessly on the table with cards hidden or suits of different length taking up the same space side by side. I always take a moment to be sure that all the 3-card suits are the same physical length, and that the difference between e.g. a 3- and a 4-card suit is the same as between a 4- and a 5-card suit. This saves declarer a tiny bit of mental effort that will add up by the end of the event.

 

One partner has said appreciatively that in the time we played together he never misread one of my dummies. We had a bit more success than you would expect given our MPs and experience, and I like to think this was a small part of that.

[PhilKing]

Giving other players at the table too much credit.

[Cyberyeti]

Believe it or not, I think you CAN leak points as dummy. I see dummies toss the cards carelessly on the table with cards hidden or suits of different length taking up the same space side by side. I always take a moment to be sure that all the 3-card suits are the same physical length, and that the difference between e.g. a 3- and a 4-card suit is the same as between a 4- and a 5-card suit. This saves declarer a tiny bit of mental effort that will add up by the end of the event.

 

One partner has said appreciatively that in the time we played together he never misread one of my dummies. We had a bit more success than you would expect given our MPs and experience, and I like to think this was a small part of that.

 

You certainly can leak points as dummy, a lesson I learned early the hard way is never to put down dummy in NT in such a way that a plausible trump suit is where it would be if you were playing in a suit contract. Partner tried to ruff Ax opposite x for the overtrick in 6N :(

[mikeh]

Giving other players at the table too much credit.

I didn't realize we'd played each other :D

[gnasher]

You certainly can leak points as dummy, a lesson I learned early the hard way is never to put down dummy in NT in such a way that a plausible trump suit is where it would be if you were playing in a suit contract.

Doesn't the best strategy depend on your estimate of the opponent's ability too? I quite like the idea of the defenders trying to give each other ruffs in 3NT.

[GreenMan]

You certainly can leak points as dummy, a lesson I learned early the hard way is never to put down dummy in NT in such a way that a plausible trump suit is where it would be if you were playing in a suit contract. Partner tried to ruff Ax opposite x for the overtrick in 6N :(

 

Yes, I meant to mention that as well; thanks for bringing it up. Also, I always put down the trump suit (if any) first, and the strong suits before the weak suits, so partner isn't thinking "You DO have something, right?" People who put down half the trump suit at first and save the rest of it for last "Just kidding, partner" deserve to die lonely deaths.

[aguahombre]

For the casual reader: Free referred to dummy play, which is the art/skill of declaring.

 

However GreenMan, Cyberyetti, and Gnasher already know this and have grazed the tip of an iceberg about the effects of dummy-putting (arrangement and display of dummy's cards).

 

(Edit) There is another definition of dummy-putting, where I sometimes leak points: putting down a Dummy which doesn't look like the hand I held on the auction.