[matmat]

quiddity, on 2011-June-13, 16:36, said:

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.

read dustin22's post.

[A2003]

Bidding Practice

Cover the answers for each hands.
Try to practice the bid and check your bid matches with this.
Then, give it your partner to do the same.

Second option:
Get a handout that shows all 4 four hands.
Start with a dealer and bid, then Rotate for each position and make the bid for their hands till you complete.
Ask your partner to do the same.
Compare the bidding sequence.
Some of the handouts will also show a optimum possible contracts for each side.

[mfa1010]

One has to learn from better players. That is the key. Too many aspects of bridge are impossible to learn by oneself in vacuum.

So discuss with them, read what they write, watch them play and play against them yourself as often as possible.

I would like to support quiddity's posts, since it is a common pitfall to think that just playing a lot will do it alone. It won't. One has to been a keen student of the game. This is much easier of course if one actually loves the game so much that one can't stop thinking about it all the time. But even if one doesn't have more time to spend on the game then most players would benefit from using say 1/4 of their card playing time on studying the game instead of just playing.

Nigel also made a good point. One has to develope the right way to analyze. And that is to actually do it. Analyze precisely what will actually happen if this or that.

How often has one heard an opponent say something like: Gee, I should have lead a spade - when there would be just the same 9 top tricks after that lead anyway? Spades just happened to be the defense's best suit so he felt it should have been led. This may sound innocent but it reveals that the player is not analyzing. He is playing on instincts only and that is insufficient for becoming a strong player. Analysis is important in cardplay obviously but it has huge impact on bidding judgement also, since possible contracts and layouts should be analyzed in the evaluation process. Strong players would do this automatically, perhaps even unconciously.
That is why Nigel's point was so good.

[JLOGIC]

I don't get the argument about play more vs study more, obviously doing both will help your game. Probably there is some ratio that's good, if you play too much without study you'll end up like the little old ladies who play at the club every day, if you study too much without playing you'll end up one of those people who is good in theory but not in practice, and has a distorted view of bridge. Both arguments are right.

[BunnyGo]

JLOGIC, on 2011-June-13, 20:27, said:

I don't get the argument about play more vs study more, obviously doing both will help your game. Probably there is some ratio that's good, if you play too much without study you'll end up like the little old ladies who play at the club every day, if you study too much without playing you'll end up one of those people who is good in theory but not in practice, and has a distorted view of bridge. Both arguments are right.

You're too kind. Clearly both arguments are wrong.

[matmat]

JLOGIC, on 2011-June-13, 20:27, said:

I don't get the argument about play more vs study more, obviously doing both will help your game. Probably there is some ratio that's good, if you play too much without study you'll end up like the little old ladies who play at the club every day, if you study too much without playing you'll end up one of those people who is good in theory but not in practice, and has a distorted view of bridge. Both arguments are right.

More Taste!


Less Filling!

[JLOGIC]

The key to rapid improvement imo is to be thinking about bridge a lot. Bidding situations, play situations, whatever. You cannot always be playing or studying, but if you're thinking about the game a lot and playing a reasonable amount (so you have specific situations to think about), that will help a lot. Of course, this becomes more useful the better you are, but even if you are not very good yet you can think about some ideas and then later post them or discuss them with better players to see if they are valid or not.

[rduran1216]

the truth has been echoed here. Just play alot. More hands you see, more you'll learn. Analyzing does nothing for you if you dont know what to look for. Simply play alot, preferably with better players, and you will pick up on what they see.

[1eyedjack]

dustinst22, on 2011-June-13, 15:50, said:

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.

I think that whenever a relatively inexperienced player talks about "judgement" in the game they are talking about the auction. Printed literature on card play technique does, understandably, focus on unusual situations except where expressly addressed to the beginner. Printed literature about bidding, whether about systemic agreements and conventions or about judgement, tends to concentrate, quite rightly, on hand types in proportion to their frequency. So while I agree with the content of the above post and is likely to be of help to the OP, I don't see it as relevant to the specific point raised by the OP.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Just to have a nonbridge related example - Poker.

I dont play Poker, but once in a while I am watching Poker on TV.
And a comment heard very often is, that the wave of new players, that have reached
the to of the game in such a short period is due to the fact, that online makes it
easier to play / see lots of hands in a very short time.

But - you also need to analyze, what you are doing, and you have to do it on a
regular basis.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hotShot]

Bridge judgment means that you "have an idea" or even "know" what you could do with the cards in your hand.

That is why the judgment comes with good declarer play.

So you need to play as declarer a lot, but it is useless if you don't analyze what you have done.

If you are a beginner and play with beginners you will often find, that you have reached the same number of tricks as the good players.
But you need to realize that this does not mean, that you played well, it just means that your opps returned every gift you gave them.

So if you want to benefit from playing a lot, you need good opps, that will take advantage of every mistake you make or a good teacher who can explain to you what you did wrong.
If you don't have good opps available, in real life allow your opps to look into each others cards.
If you have a software available, that can show you step by step which of your moves would have given away a trick, use it to analyze your play.

Once your declarer play improves your judgment will follow and you will find, that when you understand what the declarer is about to do, your defense will have improved as well.

[Free]

One of the weakest solutions I've read here is to watch good players. Watching doesn't work imo because you don't know why the good player takes several actions. Understanding is one thing, applying is another, but if you don't understand it you'll never be able to apply it. Personally I don't learn anything from watching bridge on vugraph for example, I just enjoy to see how they're bidding and playing their cards, but that's it.

It's already been said that you need a good mix between playing and studying. You need to study to learn about some patterns and situations, but you need to play to recognize them and apply your knowledge. Also try to learn from your mistakes (and successes). When I'm not happy about a choice I've made, I prefer to start a poll here on the forums to see what arguments people use for their choice. Perhaps they have another perspective on the situation that I've completely missed, which makes me understand why my choice was wrong or right.

What is most important however is to have good partnership understanding. I don't mean conventions of all sorts, but you need to know what partner's bids mean and vice versa. You can play any style from hyper agressive to ultra sound, as long as both players have the discipline not to deviate from it too much too often. When playing a lot with 1 partner you'll acquire some sort of bidding judgement (same when playing some specific system) which is typical for this partnership. If you play with someone else you might have to adapt your bidding judgement because of differences in style. Bidding judgement has to be flexible.

[Phil]

The right ratio of study / play varies depending on the person, however, I will say the shorter someone has played, the higher the % of study is required. Unless you are some savant, endings and themes are extremely difficult to work out at the table if you haven't seem them before. I will say that playing is a great way to practice your counting however.

I think those that advocate that playing > studying have to ask themselves if they are properly analyzing the hands in the post-mortem and trying to improve their game. Unless you have a mentor, or a feedback process via peers, how are you ever determining that what you are doing at the table is correct?

[Vampyr]

Phil, on 2011-June-14, 09:42, said:

The right ratio of study / play varies depending on the person, however, I will say the shorter someone has played, the higher the % of study is required. Unless you are some savant, endings and themes are extremely difficult to work out at the table if you haven't seem them before. I will say that playing is a great way to practice your counting however.

I think those that advocate that playing > studying have to ask themselves if they are properly analyzing the hands in the post-mortem and trying to improve their game. Unless you have a mentor, or a feedback process via peers, how are you ever determining that what you are doing at the table is correct?

Well, most duplicate games/tournament sessions are followed by a free-for-all feedback session at the bar, aren't they?

Playing online can be very helpful too, because you can take a record of every bid on every hand. This can be useful for self-study, as you can see exactly how different bidding decisions led to good/fair/poor contracts.

[whereagles]

playing a lot is obviously good for developing judgement, but reading a couple of books helps... otherwise you'll be wasting much time discovering things you could have learned in 5 minutes if you had read them

mike lawrence's "hand evaluation" is a nice book for starters.

[jogs]

Play a natural system. Play as few conventions as possible. No blackwood of any form. Use cue bidding.

[Vampyr]

jogs, on 2011-June-16, 07:18, said:

Play a natural system. Play as few conventions as possible. No blackwood of any form. Use cue bidding.

Yes, this will help a lot; does someone know how to find the other thread where this idea was discussed? If it were up to me I would allow Blackwood, along with Stayman and Truscott.

[matmat]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-16, 07:59, said:

Yes, this will help a lot; does someone know how to find the other thread where this idea was discussed? If it were up to me I would allow Blackwood, along with Stayman and Truscott.

you're probably referring to this one: Beginners Improve

I would amend the statement you quote though to : "play whatever the simplest version of the system in your area is."

if you are in the land of precision you may find it difficult to get any good/useful advice about SAYC or 2/1 or whatnot.

Also have to make a distinction between playing conventions and learning them. Sure, it is probably best to keep complicated stuff out of your agreements with partner, at least initially, but the more stuff you know, the better it is for your game (from the defensive and listening-as-you-go-learning standpoints).

[jogs]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-16, 07:59, said:

Yes, this will help a lot; does someone know how to find the other thread where this idea was discussed? If it were up to me I would allow Blackwood, along with Stayman and Truscott.

Blackwood is both overused and misused. This happens all the time. One player Blackwoods. After hearing partner's response, he tanks before placing the contract. That means he had no business using Blackwood. Knowing the number of aces wasn't the most critical piece of info. Often one needs to know which ace.

Don't remember Truscott. Wasn't aware that this was commonly played.

Stayman is necessary. I like Jacoby.

Don't need Bergen, Drury or any of the other stuff.

[Vampyr]

matmat, on 2011-June-16, 09:26, said:

you're probably referring to this one: Beginners Improve

No, not this one. There was another thread in which the idea of improving one's judgment and thought processes through playing very simple systems was discussed.