Today's suit combination

[fred]

Stephen,

 

In my post I chose to include only the relevant cases in the interest of making my description of the solution as clear as possible. To include other combinations in my analysis would have amounted to little more than noise.

 

The problems are not being discussed in terms of matchpoints or even "real bridge" for that matter. They are pure suit combination problems - extra undertricks are not important.

 

The layouts in your post are not relevant to the problem as it was presented.

 

If you only use Suitplay to check your thinking then good for you, but in my experience many players are far to quick use programs like Suitplay and Deep Finesse. If you make the decision to never use these programs until you *know* that you have the right answer, you will be better off in my view.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Stephen Tu]

The problems are not being discussed in terms of matchpoints or even "real bridge" for that matter. They are pure suit combination problems - extra undertricks are not important.

 

Well, you were the one that brought up the fact that it was in the Blue ribbon pairs and commented on what the field did ... If you want a pure suit combination discussion my feeling is you shouldn't mention these things. The solution to the pure suit combination problem was already well established, and other people had already brought up the question of what one should do at matchpoints

 

If you make the decision to never use these programs until you *know* that you have the right answer, you will be better off in my view

 

Certainly one should make an effort to get the right answer first, the exercise is useful, and one has to learn the methods of how to compare one line to another, and practice so that you can work things out at the table. But after you have studied many combinations, read through Roudinesco a few times, and know all the main principles, the exercise starts to lose value. Sometimes you just want to know the answer, and the computer is more efficient.

 

Beginners/intermediates should make the effort to work it out by hand first. For experts I don't know that one wants to waste a lot of time with brute force on a complex combination (as opposed to this simple one, which can be worked out at the table) ... that's what computers are for. It frees you to study more combinations, which is more useful than the busywork of figuring out what the right line is just on one.

[fred]

Sorry if you my attempt to add some color into this thread confused you, Stephen. This was roughly the 4th suit combination thread presented in the last few days and the presumption in all of these has been problems has been the same.

 

You seem like you have an excellent mind for the game, but as I said in an earlier suit combination thread, there are plenty of people who are excellent at suit combinations who have never won anything significant.

 

To the best of my knowledge you fit into that category (I apologize if I am wrong about this, but I don't recognize your name). If you care about ever having real success at this game you should show some respect for the people who actually have some experience at winning. No matter how smart you are, these people just might know a little more than you about how a smart talented player can become a winning smart talented player.

 

Know-it-all types almost never get anywhere in bridge no matter how talented they are. Less talented players who are willing to listen are invariably more successful in the long run (if for no other reason than it is easier for such people to attract quality partners - nobody likes to play with a know-it-all).

 

Of course I don't expect you will listen to this advice either...

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[sceptic]

Ouch, remind me not to piss Fred off

[fred]

Sorry if my words sounded harsh, but I don't like to be told that I am wrong in an area in which I have expertise, by a person who (to the best of my knowledge) lacks expertise in that area. I consider that rude and tend to respond accordingly.

 

Note that the part of my post the Stephen quoted ended with "in my view".

 

This suggests that I am willing to concede that there may be other views worth considering. You may have noticed that our best vugraph commentators (some who have won a lot more than I have) frequently include "in my view" or "in my opinion" in their comments. Not only does this imply a respect for the views of others, it also implies a respect for the game we play. None of us really "know it all", but the true champions are sometimes more willing to admit this than a lot of smart average players.

 

IN MY VIEW that is one of the reasons that these people are the ones that win. They are open to new ideas and viewpoints. Even if they don't always agree with the opinions of others, they are able to learn and improve by merely considering them and by adopting the ideas that they later judge to be valid.

 

If Stephen had included an "in my view", or "I respectfully disagree" or similar in his post, the tone and content of my response would certainly have been different (I would have told him why IN MY VIEW he is wrong).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[HeartA]

Fred,

While I agree with most you said, I respectfully disagree with one thing. Some players could be very good though they might not be known in the bridge world. One major reason is that they have their own professions and don't have the chance to play that much, to find a good partner, to become famous.

[Fluffy]

When I saw this combination at the table, the intuitive play for me was to lead low to the Queen without cashing the Ace first. Evidently most of the field in the Blue Ribbon Pairs felt the same way since the actual layout was:

 

KJxx 10

But if RHO played small smothly... would you had reconsidered about intrafinese?

[fred]

When I saw this combination at the table, the intuitive play for me was to lead low to the Queen without cashing the Ace first. Evidently most of the field in the Blue Ribbon Pairs felt the same way since the actual layout was:

 

KJxx  10

But if RHO played small smothly... would you had reconsidered about intrafinese?

In the "real world", yes, depending on who RHO was.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

Fred,

While I agree with most you said, I respectfully disagree with one thing. Some players could be very good though they might not be known in the bridge world. One major reason is that they have their own professions and don't have the chance to play that much, to find a good partner, to become famous.

I agree with you HeartA.

 

The point of contention involved a suggestion that I was making that was intended for smart players who wanted to become successful players. This is something I know a lot about from my own personal experience as a someone who went through this transition, as someone who has extensive experience coaching both junior players and World Champions, and as someone who has played a lot of bridge with and against the best in the world.

 

One key factor in becoming a successful player is, as you suggest, the opportunity to spend a lot of time playing in high-level tournaments.

 

Another key factor is to develop the mental discipline to never play a card or make a bid until you know that you have solved the problem you face to the best of your ability. That is why over-reliance on programs like Suitplay and DF is a bad thing (in my view) - doing so makes you lazy. In my view (which is based on my experience), bad habits developed away from the table often manifest themselves at the table as well.

 

Without a doubt there are many many excellent players who are not famous and never will be, but there is a big difference between being an excellent player and a player who knows how to win.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Yzerman]

My 2 cents worth ....

 

I personally agree with the notion that experience outweighs knowledge while playing bridge. Knowledge is a GREAT starting point, and obviously one cant be successful until certain knowledge requirements are met, but until one has years of experience and/or thousands (10's of thousands, 100's of thousands ?) of deals under the belt I believe it is difficult to truly understand the game.

 

Knowing suit combinations is ONE thing, but having practical experience with those combinations is another ballgame. Many persons in the series of suit combination discussions have discussed 'table feel', opponents, falsecarding, and randomizing and these are all intangibles that are learned with experience.

 

I believe that is what makes bridge such a GREAT game. There is a rule or law for every play, every bid and every defense. But any given hand, a good (experienced) player will know how and or when to break the rules/laws. With respect to suit combinations, YES its great to have the knowledge of how to play them, but my belief is that its more important to know when to implement that knowledge.

 

I am NOT a teacher or pro or proclaim to be anything of the like, but I have a few friends that are new to bridge and I try as best I can to help them learn. Two things I constantly tell them;

 

1 - "Bridge is a game to think outside of the box. First learn how to think INSIDE the box, then learn how to think OUTSIDE of the box."

 

2 - "I will never criticize for any one certain bid or play, most important is that I help you learn how to THINK at the table. Reciting bids or card play to you is not going to accelerate your learning, but helping you learn the bridge thought process will."

 

Applying what i say earlier to the probelm suit combination in this post, my reactionary play is to play intrafinesse (low to J987). When honor or spot appear in 1st play of LHO, I will continue with the 'plan' of intrafinesse when the 10 appear I will reevaluate (who is opp? how fast card was played - he,he - ? auction/bidding? etc - all of those = experience) and then make a decision based upon those factors.

[Rebound]

A9876

 

Q32

 

You need 4 tricks.

Fred:

 

Clearly, since the solution has been posted, what I am about to suggest is not the best line, but I've been wondering why. To wit:

 

I was thinking about low to the 9 (presuming it loses), then leading the Q, hoping to pick up the K and crush the remaining honor since KJx or K10x offside is a losing situation anyway. Your thoughts?

[Stephen Tu]

Fred,

 

It disappoints me that you seem to have resorted to a "I am clearly a superior player, having won national titles and challenged deep at the world level while you have done nothing, therefore you should shut up & listen to me" argument. A good analysis will hold up under its own logic, regardless of the person making it. A good rebuttal will attack the points of the analysis. When you ignore the points made, and have to start attacking the credentials of the poster instead, you have lost the argument in my opinion. You are clearly a great bridge player, but that doesn't mean you will automatically be right about everything in bridge, and it shouldn't mean that your opinions are not subject to debate. (Of course as owner of this forum, you could just decree that you are not to be argued with, but I suspect that is not your intention, and that these forums are for free & open, respectful discussion).

 

I certainly value your opinions, especially on matters such as bidding judgment where expertise factors a lot. But on something like suit combinations there is a right answer, and how many titles you have won doesn't have an effect on the correctness of your answer.

 

At what point did I say you were wrong about the combination? I merely disagreed with you about the advisability of using computer programs to aid analysis. This is obviously my opinion, most of discussion on these boards is opinion, and to me it is a waste of typing to have to always add "respectfully, in my opinion" to every post to avoid it being taken the wrong way; shouldn't that just be a given? I never mean to disrespect anyone; sometimes it is hard to convey tone without vocal inflection, and one's writing style I guess can be misinterpreted. All my posts are meant with all due respect. But do I really have to cut & paste "I respectfully disagree" to every one of my posts to avoid being flamed?

[Stephen Tu]

Clearly, since the solution has been posted, what I am about to suggest is not the best line, but I've been wondering why. To wit:

 

I was thinking about low to the 9 (presuming it loses), then leading the Q, hoping to pick up the K and crush the remaining honor since KJx or K10x offside is a losing situation anyway

 

Rebound, this line fails to pick up

Tx KJx

Jx KTx

xx KJT

Txx KJ

Jxx KT

 

all of which ace first does, so it's substantially worse.

 

The only time you lead low to the 9 & it loses to J/T, and leading the Q next time picks up the suit is when RHO has doubleton JT, which the ace line picks up anyway.

[fred]

At what point did I say you were wrong about the combination? I merely disagreed with you about the advisability of using computer programs to aid analysis. This is obviously my opinion, most of discussion on these boards is opinion, and to me it is a waste of typing to have to always add "respectfully, in my opinion" to every post to avoid it being taken the wrong way; shouldn't that just be a given? I never mean to disrespect anyone; sometimes it is hard to convey tone without vocal inflection, and one's writing style I guess can be misinterpreted. All my posts are meant with all due respect. But do I really have to cut & paste "I respectfully disagree" to every one of my posts to avoid being flamed?

Stephen,

 

You never disagreed with my analysis of the suit combination and, if you had, it would have been easy to demonstrate which one of us had made the mistake. In fact, if you read my posts carefully you see that I was obviously impressed by your ability to solve these problems. I didn't say so explicitly, but it is clear to me that of all the people who have participated in all of the suit combination threads, you are one of the best at this.

 

What you did disagree with me about was my advice on how one should best utilize analysis software (or not utilize it) if one wants to maximize the benefit that he gains from these problems (the goal being to become as good a bridge player as you possibly can).

 

You could easily be just as good (or even better) than I am when it comes to solving suit combinations, but I believe I am in a much better position than you are to judge how a typical talented player can raise his or her game to the next level (that is, going from being talented to being a player who wins). The reason I believe this is because I have considerable experience and success in this area and, to the best of my knowledge, you do not.

 

Of course it is your right to disagree with me or anybody else about whatever subject you want, but the tone of your post suggested (to me) an air of authority that you have no right (in my opinion) to have. I find that offensive. It would be like me going up to Bob Hamman and telling him that 4-card majors sucked. Even if I believed that, I would never say it. I might ask Bob why he likes 4-card majors so much and, if I did not understand his reasons, I might ask him to clarify. However, I would not tell him he was wrong even if I thought his answers made no sense. I would realize I was talking to someone who was an expert in this field and try to learn as much from him as possible.

 

I don't think there is much point in continuing this discussion. I have tried to explain why I reacted the way I did. I do not think I owe you an apology and I certainly do not require one from you. I am more than willing to let the matter drop.

 

If other people out there think I was way out of line with my comments, I will at least reconsider the concept of apologizing. Please make a post if you think that Stephen deserves an apology from me (but please read all of the relevant posts carefully before doing so).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Flame]

Maybe its just me, but when i have someone who know and whiling to share i shut up so ill have more time listening, so i can learn more, i only argue if there is something i didnt understand and doing this knowing im seeking to learn rather then oversmart the person.

If i finnaly find someone i know he know the game, like for example luis, i will read everything, actually it will even be ok if ill learn a mistake once in a while,at worst i will make an expert mistake.

Having someone like fred posting is just amzing.

[Stephen Tu]

The tone of your post suggested (to me) an air of authority that you have no right (in my opinion) to have. I find that offensive

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess I just don't understand how one can construe "air of authority" from just a statement of opinion. I merely said I disagreed with you on the matter, and why. How is that "authoritative"? Just because I didn't couch it with "in my humble opinion" or other such verbiage? I don't feel that such obsequiousness should be necessary; if you have an opinion, you should be able to just state it & argue your case without it being construed as denigrating someone else's authority, credentials or opinion, or as puffing one's own up. It's not like I just said "you're wrong, I'm right" in some dismissive way. Do people really feel that writing in a tone that conveys that one actually believes what he is writing creates an "offensive air of authority"?

 

To me the question of hand analysis vs. computer is analogous to long division. When you are a kid, you have to learn how to do it by hand, so that you can learn the principles involved. It's vital to know how to work things out from first principles, otherwise you can't have true understanding. But by the time you are in engineering school, solving some differential equation and need to divide some big numbers you just take out the calculator. Sure you remember how to do it by hand and could do so, but it would be a waste of time and of no real educational value.

 

So if you haven't done it before, certainly it pays to do 50 or 100 or some number of hand analyses thoroughly to learn the principles involved, & so you can work out new combinations at the table quickly. But after awhile, I don't think you really gain more value analyzing by hand vs. with some computer assistance. All of them boil down to the same thing, you write down relevant layouts & tally up which line works most often.

 

Maybe that makes me lazy, but I don't feel that really affects what I do at the table, after all there is no computer there to help me, so I just work out the play if I don't know it. But having used books & computers to study many combinations, there are many that are just cached, I know them by heart, so it saves me mental energy to apply to other things. Learning combinations by table lookup / computer means I have seen a lot more of them than if I had to work out each individually myself without computational aid. If you have already mastered how to do analysis, there is more value in just learning more combinations, than practicing what you already know how to do.

[Guest Jlall]

in my opinion the fun and beauty of these combinations are in the analysis. Thats one of the great things about bridge. No matter how hands you play, you see so many interesting things. No matter what level you are at you learn something new. Suit combinations would not be fun to me if i had to punch them into some program to work them out. Even if I saw some combination was better than another, I wouldnt truly understand why unless i analysed it. I would miss out on the beauty of the game. I would also become a weaker player at the table. To use your analogy, if you're out of school for 10 years and went through high level math in college, you are going to have some problems remembering geometry forumals. You will be rusty and out of practice. If you don't push yourself away from the table to solve hands/combos without aid, then its harder to do at the table.

 

My 2 cents.

[HeartA]

in my opinion the fun and beauty of these combinations are in the analysis. Thats one of the great things about bridge. No matter how hands you play, you see so many interesting things. No matter what level you are at you learn something new. Suit combinations would not be fun to me if i had to punch them into some program to work them out. Even if I saw some combination was better than another, I wouldnt truly understand why unless i analysed it. I would miss out on the beauty of the game. I would also become a weaker player at the table.

 

.......

My 2 cents.

Agree with Justin.

[mpefritz]

What most analyses of suit combinations lack are:

 

1) The real likelihood of the combination. As I have mentioned several times and Stephen has spelled out, each split has a slightly different likelihood. So just listing the possibilites is a great first step, but incomplete. Using a program to calculate these exact numbers helps with the feel for what is REALLY correct as opposed to some guesstimate. Since I can easily create the odds by hand (and calculator) or on a spreadsheet myself, I have no qualms about using a program because I know the underlying principles. I also agree with Fred (and Stephen) that the odds calculators are probably a detriment to those who are still learning how to figure out suit combinations. (well..I think everyone is still learning..)

 

2) The odds that a player will play a certain card from a certain combination. for example, versus a newbie AJT98 7654

 

Lead 7,3,J,K

 

Do you finesse the 2nd round by RC? What if the Q showed up?

 

The point is that most newbies play smallest available, so the K rules out the Q and the Q gives no information.

 

This was relevent on Fred's KQT987 32 hand. The strategy of what to do when EAST wins the A on the first round depends on EASTs likelihood of winning the A from Ax. In fact, if EAST wins the A from Ax more than 1/3 of the time, then NOT playing EAST for AJ when he wins the A on the first round is the winning play. (Source data and assumptions available upon request)

 

SUITPLAY cannot calculate these numbers.

 

Jlalls QT4 A98765 is another example. If we can estimate that WEST will duck from Kx all of the time, then his line is best. If not, low to T and then hook is better (as he stated in his solution).

 

So SUITPLAY can help with the calculations, but you still need to apply table feel and player odds to those numbers.

 

fritz

[Flame]

Some ppl has great memory and for them it might be best to do it your way memorizing combo's by books and comps. For me i dont even sure I remember the few combos we have seen here this week, if i have them at the table ill have to think again but since i remember something and i practiced i might get it right. Memorizing doesnt work for me.

[hrothgar]

One quick comment here:

 

Memory is a very tricky thing...

 

The brain's ability to commit information into long term memory depends on its ability to associate information with different "keys". In some cases, those keys are related to specific physical cues (for example a smell or a sound). In other cases, the key could be some type of logical framework that you use to store the information.

 

"Physically" solving problems forces the brain to go through many more processing steps than reading the information from a computer program. According, I'm willing to bet that this "enforced" busywork will help most players learn the fundamentals involved.

 

I readily admit that there are players who don't need this type of reinforcement. However, I am guessing that that these same players are able to recognize these problems as one specific example within a larger class.

 

Richard

 

Whose skill at these sorts of problems is truly sad...

[fred]

I agree with everything that mpfritz says, but (as I have said before) I think that when a new problem is presented here there should be a presumption of "best defense". These problems are complicated enough without have to think about the possibilities of misdefense. Of course if some people want to include information about "less than perfect defense" considerations, that's great, but unless we are all trying the same problems to begin with, there is going to be a lot of confusion.

 

I personally like solutions that do not involve any real math (and the problems that are solvable this way). Both these problems and their solutions are more elegant in my view. If you can clearly illustrate a solution simply by listing caes why not do it?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com