[matmat]

jjbrr, on 2011-June-13, 12:36, said:

They're fine for learning concepts, but there's a reason your 6th grade math teacher assigned you all that homework you hated.

You hated your math homework!?

[jjbrr]

PROVE THAT THESE TWO LICENSE PLATES ARE CONGRUENT

[matmat]

jjbrr, on 2011-June-13, 12:43, said:

PROVE THAT THESE TWO LICENSE PLATES ARE CONGRUENT

they both say "CALIFORNIA"

[BunnyGo]

matmat, on 2011-June-13, 12:40, said:

You hated your math homework!?

I hated my math homework so much that I didn't do at all in high school. But I now tell all my students that doing their homework is the only way to learn.

[quiddity]

jjbrr, on 2011-June-12, 11:30, said:

I think this is totally backwards. Definitely playing more is the answer. Play as many hands as you possibly can. You'll realize that bidding judgment is an extension of how well you play the hand. How can you expect to bid well if you can't play the hand correctly?

These things come with experience.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I agree that people can improve their overall level by playing more. I also agree that bidding judgment will tend to improve as your overall level improves.

However, there is no doubt in my mind that it is extremely inefficient. Consider that you can play an entire club game, or play online for hours, and perhaps come across only 3 or 4 hands where bidding judgment is a factor. In ten seconds I can use the search function on this site and come across dozens.

Consider that even after playing those 3 or 4, it can be unclear whether your judgment was correct. Sometimes it can be unclear even how you were supposed to be thinking about the problem. In a forum thread or MSC problem, experts will TELL you how they think about these problems.

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.

[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]

quiddity, on 2011-June-13, 12:57, said:

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]

matmat, on 2011-June-13, 13:06, said:

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]

diana_eva, on 2011-June-13, 12:59, said:

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]

quiddity, on 2011-June-13, 13:17, said:

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]

jjbrr, on 2011-June-13, 14:29, said:

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]

diana_eva, on 2011-June-13, 16:07, said:

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]

gwnn, on 2011-June-13, 14:01, said:

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]

jjbrr, on 2011-June-13, 15:22, said:

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.