Bridge bidding & play theory

[Vampyr]

That book is probably the most advanced work on card play, but unfortunately many of the coups there have little practical use because they are so rare.

 

Well, yes.

[barmar]

A more practical book might be Lawrence's "How to Read Your Opponents' Cards". However, it generally assumes opponents who know what they're doing and play rationally. If you play in lots of club games with mediocre competition, it's hard to make good inferences (kind of like that scene in Star Trek when Kirk beat Spock at chess because he made an illogical move -- although such a trick really shouldn't work in a game of perfect information like chess).

[nige1]

We had a discussion awhile back (See this thread). I don't know whether it was in that thread or not, but Justin asked Bob Hamman what the biggest differences between the top players in the 60s and today. Apparently, Bob said it was the bidding. If the famous Blue Team in their prime were given a month or two to learn a modern system and treatments, he thought they would again be among the best, because their card play was that good.

That thread was about the relative importance of bidding and play.

 

JLOGIC's view is that, nowadays, play is most important. In the past, however, bidding systems and bidding skills seem more critical than card-play skills. In UK domestic competition, for many years, the Sharples team, with a sophisticated bidding system and superb bidders, beat teams that featured world-class card-players (e.g. John Collings, Terence Reese) . On the global stage:

• 1930 Ely Culbertson (Science) beat Walter Buller (Natural) by nearly 5000 total points over 200 deals.
• 1937 Paul Stern (Vienna) beat Ely Culbertson in the 1st World Championship (Vienna featured the latest bidding theories).
• 1969 & 70 Underdogs, Republic of China finish 2nd in World championships, using CC Wei's "China" system (later "Precision").
• 1957-75 Italian Blue team dominate International bridge, developing various innovative bidding systems.

[Vampyr]

That thread was about the relative importance of bidding and play.

 

JLOGIC's view is that, nowadays, play is most important.

 

Of course this applies at higher levels. Pairs that cannot bid to sensible contracts will never score well.

[Scarabin]

There are loads of bridge textbooks. Hugh Kelsey has written a large number of them, as has, more recently, Krzysztof Martens. And obviously no discussion is complete without mention of Adventures in Card Play.

 

I probably owe Eddie Kantar an apology as well. I remember Kelsey as ahead of his time, like Autobridge. If someone publishes Kelsey's books as interactive software I'd be ready to try them again. Probably a fault of memory but I don't remember their presentation as textbook.

 

:D

[Scarabin]

There are very few textbooks in english, but in french you can find a couple. Bridge is an optional course at secondary school (as chess, teams sports, etc), so they do have textbook-like stuff. French bridge textbooks are good, pedagogically speaking, and have reasonable systematics. See e.g. works by Roudinesco, Lebel, Bessis or Cronier. However, they have a tendency to flee from borderline hands and I found a few systemic lapses (some due to "holes" in the system, others due to different theoretical trends). Textbooks go all the way, up to university level stuff.

 

In english I would add Willam Root's "How to play a bridge hand" to your list.

 

I am in the process of writing one myself, in my native language (portuguese). Problem is, work keeps getting in the way LOL

 

I have a copy of Borel & Cheron, and I know Roudinesco, although his great work has been superceded by Suitplay. Which books would you recommend from the others? I have largely given up books in favour of interactive software.

 

:D

[Scarabin]

I still cannot decide how to vote. I find it impossible to believe that declarer play, in the abstract, has reached such a level that it cannot be improved; conversely I cannot suggest just how it could be improved. Deception? Forward technique? Rare plays?

 

:D

[manudude03]

I think computers have effectively completed cardplay theory, but I'm not sure anyone will ever get to that level consistently. Bidding theory will never stop developing, but I think card play is more advanced.

[helene_t]

I think computers have effectively completed cardplay theory

Are you sure about this? I would think that computers still have a lack of understanding of the psychological aspects of card play - are they as good as human experts at figuring out when a false signal can benefit more by confusing declarer than it can harm by confusing partner?

 

And the issue of which carding and lead agreements are optimal is certainly not solved.

[whereagles]

I have a copy of Borel & Cheron, and I know Roudinesco, although his great work has been superceded by Suitplay. Which books would you recommend from the others? I have largely given up books in favour of interactive software.

 

You can check the french federation site for textbooks. Some I know by heart are

 

"Majeur 5eme", by Lebel. Textbook on french standard (similar to sayc).

"Bien encherir en defense", by Bessis/Lebely. Textbook on overcalls and balancing.

"Bien encherir en attaque", by Bessis/Lebely. Textbook on action after overcalls by opponents.

"Encheres mode d'emploi", by Kerlero. Systemic collection of bidding tricks.

"Le bridge français" vol 1,2,3, by french federation. Standard teaching textbook (will bore you to death since it's so simple).

[Vampyr]

You can check the french federation site for textbooks. Some I know by heart are

 

"Majeur 5eme", by Lebel. Textbook on french standard (similar to sayc).

"Bien encherir en defense", by Bessis/Lebely. Textbook on overcalls and balancing.

"Bien encherir en attaque", by Bessis/Lebely. Textbook on action after overcalls by opponents.

"Encheres mode d'emploi", by Kerlero. Systemic collection of bidding tricks.

"Le bridge français" vol 1,2,3, by french federation. Standard teaching textbook (will bore you to death since it's so simple).

The OP wants textbooks on card play. Freddie. North's Cards at Play takes a very systematic approach.

[Scarabin]

Further thoughts on voting.

 

I realize, of course, that any individual player can improve play by reducing unforced errors and extending knowledge of technique. Maybe we have reached the stage of diminishing returns and it's clearly easier to formulate new theories on bidding although not so clear these are improvements. I really wonder if we could have reached stagnation?

 

How would you prove you'd improved the theory of bidding and/or play? Win a world championship? Would you be believed or accused of cheating?

 

I really don't know.

 

:D

[johnu]

I think computers have effectively completed cardplay theory, but I'm not sure anyone will ever get to that level consistently.

 

Double dummy card play may have been nearly perfected by programmers, but single dummy play can be pretty primitive, and real bridge is played single dummy. Anybody who has watched GIB play a hand or defend has seen inexplicably awful plays that make no sense and can't possibly work.

 

I'm not sure I would even call it card play theory. I think most bridge programs use Monte Carlo simulations to generate the other hands and then more or less test all possible lines to see which one is most successful. I suppose there might be some rules of thumb to cut down on simulations. Of course, card play is also tied into bidding because in order to do your Monte Carlo runs, you need to set parameters, so if the bidding programming isn't very good, the play results won't be reliable.

[gergana85]

How to calculate the distributive strength of the hand? See that: http://bridge-law.hit.bg

[Vampyr]

How would you prove you'd improved the theory of bidding and/or play?

 

Well, any line of play can be reduced to a percentage. So obviously by theory you mean something other than taking the highest percentage play or catering for the most layouts, or the most likely ones given the opponents' bidding.

 

So what do you mean exactly?

[Scarabin]

Well, any line of play can be reduced to a percentage. So obviously by theory you mean something other than taking the highest percentage play or catering for the most layouts, or the most likely ones given the opponents' bidding.

 

So what do you mean exactly?

 

I will have to explain by examples. Anything else would be too obscure and boring.

 

I think the current theory of declarer card play may be regarded as a combination of analysis and knowledge, applied slightly differently to playing to the defenders opening lead(s) and to declarer's development of the hand. This approach seems to be totally historical and follows a well trodden path.

 

GIB introduced a different approach which might be characterised as search and evaluate or generate a sample and test double-dummy. GIB's approach however has little relevance to human players and could only be implemented with the help of a computer. It has achieved only limited success.

 

An approach which evaluates each card-state ( declarer & dummy's cards and any cards played & any inferences) as a numerical value and aims at monotonically increasing the numerical value of each successive card state, could perhaps be derived from computer analysis and provide an alternative theoretical approach. As far as I know no one has attempted this.

 

In a nutshell, that is what I mean (or at least my best attempt at an explanation).

 

:D

[Scarabin]

Not entirely on topic but seeking information without opening a new topic: Some time ago Edgar Kaplan wrote a book on declarer play in which he repeatedly analysed a single hand which could be made by multiple strategies including, I think, both a squeeze and a throw-in.

 

Does anyone recall the book's title or perhaps the hand?

 

:D

[nige1]

Not entirely on topic but seeking information without opening a new topic: Some time ago Edgar Kaplan wrote a book on declarer play in which he repeatedly analysed a single hand which could be made by multiple strategies including, I think, both a squeeze and a throw-in.

 

Does anyone recall the book's title or perhaps the hand? :D

[hv=pc=n&s=sa72hj3dqt952cakq&w=s63h962da63ct8542&n=sqj4haqt84dj74cj9&e=skt985hk75dk8c763]399|300|

 

Perhaps Scarabin is referring to Edgar Kaplan's

 

Card Play at Contract Bridge (1964)

 

With the deal on the left

South is declarer in 3N on a ♠ lead.[/hv]

[Scarabin]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa72hj3dqt952cakq&w=s63h962da63ct8542&n=sqj4haqt84dj74cj9&e=skt985hk75dk8c763]399|300|

 

Perhaps Scarabin is referring to Edgar Kaplan's

 

Card Play at Contract Bridge (1964)

 

With the hand on the left

South is declarer in 3N on a ♠ lead.[/hv]

Thanks nige1. I think it might be interesting to discover which strategy the robots would choose.

 

:D

[Vampyr]

An approach which evaluates each card-state ( declarer & dummy's cards and any cards played & any inferences) as a numerical value and aims at monotonically increasing the numerical value of each successive card state, could perhaps be derived from computer analysis and provide an alternative theoretical approach. As far as I know no one has attempted this.

 

This is untrue. People often recalculate the odds of a line based on the cards they have seen so far.

[Scarabin]

This is untrue. People often recalculate the odds of a line based on the cards they have seen so far.

 

Not a lack of veracity, more that we are on different pages: you, I think are talking about how experts currently play the hand, I am dealing with theory as applied to how the great mass of players, the hoi polloi like me, are taught to play declarer's hand.

 

Let me first admit this is pure speculation. I am not actively researching play theory just reacting to one academic's comments on the present state of play theory.

 

It's not easy to formulate a feasible alternative to the current, traditional approach. If players were allowed to access computers (instead of note pads) then Ginsberg simulations might represent a viable alternative. This is not entirely fantasy I remember when it would have been unthinkable to allow calculators in examination rooms.

 

I also speculated that it might be feasible to program computers to generate random deals and investigate double-dummy which moves would increase the probability of making the contract. This would require enormous time so would have to be done in advance, and the results stored or if possible analysed into principles.

 

Take a simple example: when the opening card is led declarer may have a 50% chance of making the contract. After declarer holds-up this may increase to 100%. The player handles this by recognising the position, or by projecting the play (expert) or by rules (average player).

 

What I'm saying is that I do not think anyone has written a program to generate the best move for every possible/ probable situation.

 

I did warn you it would be boring!

 

:D

[Scarabin]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa72hj3dqt952cakq&w=s63h962da63ct8542&n=sqj4haqt84dj74cj9&e=skt985hk75dk8c763]399|300|

 

Perhaps Scarabin is referring to Edgar Kaplan's

 

Card Play at Contract Bridge (1964)

 

With the deal on the left

South is declarer in 3N on a ♠ lead.[/hv]

 

Interesting hand to analyse with Bridgify. I tried it on 4 robots - Jack, Gib, Wbridge5, and Sharkbridge. All tried to set up hearts. Wbridge played correctly: 4 & A on opening lead to give 2nd entry to dummy and made oontract. All the others played Q or J on opening lead. Gib persevered by trying to create an entry in diamonds - down 2. Jack & Shark seemed to try to recover with Jack discarding the SA on the third heart trick, and Shark overtaking the SQ with the SA on the opening trick. Both down 3.

 

Nobody tried holding-up (ducking the spade lead in both hands).

 

Thanks again.

 

Added later: On the inferior opening lead of a club all the robots successfully set up diamonds. Shark flirted with a heart finesse along the way. Perhaps combining chances?

 

 

:D

Edited March 22, 2014 by Scarabin

[nige1]

I also speculated that it might be feasible to program computers to generate random deals and investigate double-dummy which moves would increase the probability of making the contract. This would require enormous time so would have to be done in advance, and the results stored or if possible analysed into principles.

AFIK, at single-dummy, Gib and other robots adopt such a tactic. Hence, the longer the programmers give them to think, the better the bots play. I believe the programs also include principles and heuristics. I'm unsure whether the programs themselves learn new principles by trial and error and by battling amongst each other, thus improving their evaluation functions for use on future deals. Early adaptive AI programs. (e.g. Arthur Samuel's Checkers program 1956) used that practical approach.

[Scarabin]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa72hj3dqt952cakq&w=s63h962da63ct8542&n=sqj4haqt84dj74cj9&e=skt985hk75dk8c763]399|300|

 

Perhaps Scarabin is referring to Edgar Kaplan's

 

Card Play at Contract Bridge (1964)

 

With the deal on the left

South is declarer in 3N on a ♠ lead.[/hv]

With two fairly obvious ways of making the contract, one may query why we should look for any other methods. However I think Kaplan's premise is that the contract may be made in any of four ways provided we keep to a cohesive plan.

 

I can see that the contract may be made by throwing East in with the third round of hearts, after eliminating diamonds and clubs, and forcing him to lead a spade into dummy's ten-ace. This requires West's co-operation in not rising with the Ace of diamonds and leading a spade or heart. Perhaps this can plausibly be accomplished by South's leading the diamond queen as if to force an entry to dummy?

 

The only possible squeeze is a criss-cross squeeze against East in spades and hearts. This requires the defenders' co-operation in taking their diamond honours on the first two rounds, cashing the two long clubs and leading only clubs or diamonds.

 

In these two cases, the opening lead is a spade and dummy plays the queen or jack. Now criss-cross squeezes must be the easiest to break-up, and many of declarer and the defenders' plays are less than optimal.

 

Despite my best efforts to co-operate in defence, I cannot get any robot to adopt these latter plans.

 

 

:D

[Lovera]

Hallo. My library counts 29 books ( with 3 books in foreign language -i'm italian - and my knowledge of bridge techinque is learned by books of R. Trezel ( Le chaiers du bridge) very clear but also B. Romanet (Le squeeze au bridge, Bridge gagnant , Bridge total on planning ). About Love's text "Bridge squeeze complete or the winning endplay strategy " this basilar book , i must say , is different from other books 'cause non use schemes (that is right thing to do). However if anyone needs scheme i suggest too "The squeeze at bridge" by Chien Hwa-Wang (on clash squeeze). I had to suggest also the italian book "Eliminazione e colpi nel bridge" by Adolfo Giannuzzi and "The complete Stayman systeme of contract bidding" by S. Stayman. (My nickname Lovera is a tribute to Clyde Elton Love, my real name is Carlo Ingravallo from Bari, Italia).