[Trinidad]

 jogs, on 2011-July-07, 17:34, said:

For defense learn to count.
Count to 13. Remember your hand. Count declarer's hand. Count partner's hand. Count each of the four suits. Count declarer's tricks. Count defensive tricks. Memorize all four suit patterns which add to 13.Make a mental note of trick one.

A long time ago, I wrote a little program (in Turbo Pascal, so a loooong time ago). The program spit out 3 numbers. The user (my wife or me) had to enter the fourth number that would make the total 13. Obviously, there was a timer to see how fast you could do this.

This tiny tool helped me tremendously in my counting of the hand.

Rik

[Hanoi5]

 Trinidad, on 2011-July-08, 07:56, said:

A long time ago, I wrote a little program (in Turbo Pascal, so a loooong time ago). The program spit out 3 numbers. The user (my wife or me) had to enter the fourth number that would make the total 13. Obviously, there was a timer to see how fast you could do this.

This tiny tool helped me tremendously in my counting of the hand.

Rik

There is a web-page with that program. Anyway the advice from Kelsey was to count distribution instead of sheep. This is good, there are only 39 of these numbers.

[semeai]

 Trinidad, on 2011-July-08, 07:56, said:

A long time ago, I wrote a little program (in Turbo Pascal, so a loooong time ago). The program spit out 3 numbers. The user (my wife or me) had to enter the fourth number that would make the total 13. Obviously, there was a timer to see how fast you could do this.

This tiny tool helped me tremendously in my counting of the hand.

Rik

 Hanoi5, on 2011-July-08, 09:18, said:

There is a web-page with that program. Anyway the advice from Kelsey was to count distribution instead of sheep. This is good, there are only 39 of these numbers.

Fred wrote such a program. Find it in this thread, or directly here.

[blackshoe]

Meh. I've had a lot of problems with Flash, so I disabled it.

[gnasher]

 Vampyr, on 2011-July-05, 19:58, said:

Play rubber bridge for higher stakes than you can afford.

When I did that, all I learnt was that I wasn't as good as I thought I was, and that bridge is better if you're allowed to play negative doubles.

[y66]

This is one of my favorite posts on this topic. A lot of good stuff in this thread too.

[jogs]

Try this. Count everyone's pattern. Then sum the suits from those patterns. It's surprising how often you don't get 13 cards for each suit. Just need to practice more.

[y66]

Some good resources for improving play: Fred Gitleman's Deal of the Week series, Gavin Wolpert's Road to Victory series and Phillip Martin's The Gargoyle Chronicles. They all do an amazing job of communicating how experts think about the play of the hand.

[jogs]

 y66, on 2011-July-09, 08:25, said:

This is one of my favorite posts on this topic. A lot of good stuff in this thread too.

Not convinced playing a large quantity of hands will do much to improve one's games. One needs to play hands and analyze them to death. That's the advantage of online play. Only play minis which have 50+ tables in play. Then you can check to see what every else did with your same cards.

[Free]

 jogs, on 2011-July-10, 18:12, said:

Not convinced playing a large quantity of hands will do much to improve one's games. One needs to play hands and analyze them to death. That's the advantage of online play. Only play minis which have 50+ tables in play. Then you can check to see what every else did with your same cards.

Just scroll down and read step 2 please. Note that there are also steps 3, 4 and 5.

[jogs]

 Free, on 2011-July-11, 01:43, said:

Just scroll down and read step 2 please. Note that there are also steps 3, 4 and 5.

Is it possible to play 500+ hands a week and have time for steps 3, 4 and 5?

Step 4. Analyze hands. Are players really capable of analyzing hands unemotionally? Online it's possible to view the action of the other tables.

[Free]

 jogs, on 2011-July-11, 07:32, said:

Is it possible to play 500+ hands a week and have time for steps 3, 4 and 5?

500+ hands a week is your interpretation of "play a lot of hands".

 jogs, on 2011-July-11, 07:32, said:

Analyze hands. Are players really capable of analyzing hands unemotionally? Online it's possible to view the action of the other tables.

Analyzing doesn't mean you just compare your result with another table. You can compare auctions, leads, lines of play, defense,... but in the end you don't know who you're comparing with (other tables may be world class or absolute novices). However, comparing may be useful to see what other people did with your cards, find some creative solution you didn't find at the table, learn how to deceive opponents,...

Using a DD analyzer helps a lot in determining how good or bad your (and opponents') play/defense was. Sometimes some card played at trick 2 or 3 can be a huge mistake, and the DD analyzer helps you understand why that silly card is important. This will help you in recognizing similar situations and think about a lot more than you're used to. DD solvers also help to see how high you could've bid, lets you visualize why, and may help in your future hand evaluation.

[jogs]

The mind is not flexible. But if you have anything resembling an open mind, you will recognize the correct line when you see someone else succeed with it. Not necessary to know their level of expertise.

[matmat]

 jogs, on 2011-July-11, 18:54, said:

The mind is not flexible. But if you have anything resembling an open mind, you will recognize the correct line when you see someone else succeed with it. Not necessary to know their level of expertise.

A successful line is not always correct.
A correct line is not always successful.

[jdeegan]

10,000 hours, and software plus playing on BBO is the most efficient way to get this experience. I have noticed that the ACBL tournament field has, over the past decade, bifurcated between BBO players and the also-rans.

[hotShot]

 matmat, on 2011-July-11, 18:56, said:

A successful line is not always correct.
A correct line is not always successful.

Turned into a philosopher?
I guess that is why you dropped so many of your interests .

[matmat]

 hotShot, on 2011-July-24, 02:22, said:

Turned into a philosopher?

Actually, yes.

[awm]

 Vampyr, on 2011-July-05, 19:58, said:

Play rubber bridge for higher stakes than you can afford.

I have never understood this idea that somehow putting a lot of money on the line will make you learn more about bridge.

In my experience a top-level duplicate event normally has a much higher standard of play than a high-stakes rubber bridge game. Further, rubber bridge play is often "without significant partnership" which is a huge problem on defense and a subtle issue on declarer play (i.e. you will often not get best-defense because opponents don't have agreements). Finally, rubber bridge lacks the hand records and duplicate results which can be so useful in discussing hands afterwards, and it's also not likely that anyone else playing in the rubber bridge game will be eager to give you good advice/help you improve because that will hurt their own winnings.

If you're going to spend/lose large amounts of money, you'd be better off hiring a top-level professional.

[matmat]

 awm, on 2011-July-24, 10:49, said:

I have never understood this idea that somehow putting a lot of money on the line will make you learn more about bridge.

In my experience a top-level duplicate event normally has a much higher standard of play than a high-stakes rubber bridge game. Further, rubber bridge play is often "without significant partnership" which is a huge problem on defense and a subtle issue on declarer play (i.e. you will often not get best-defense because opponents don't have agreements). Finally, rubber bridge lacks the hand records and duplicate results which can be so useful in discussing hands afterwards, and it's also not likely that anyone else playing in the rubber bridge game will be eager to give you good advice/help you improve because that will hurt their own winnings.

If you're going to spend/lose large amounts of money, you'd be better off hiring a top-level professional.

I would think that this has everything to do with motivation. I suspect that there are lots of people for who having $ on the line focuses their attention a little bit better. So while this does not necessarily improve their technique or bridge knowledge, it does foster a better attention span. (I could just be making this up)

[Phil]

 awm, on 2011-July-24, 10:49, said:

I have never understood this idea that somehow putting a lot of money on the line will make you learn more about bridge.

In my experience a top-level duplicate event normally has a much higher standard of play than a high-stakes rubber bridge game. Further, rubber bridge play is often "without significant partnership" which is a huge problem on defense and a subtle issue on declarer play (i.e. you will often not get best-defense because opponents don't have agreements). Finally, rubber bridge lacks the hand records and duplicate results which can be so useful in discussing hands afterwards, and it's also not likely that anyone else playing in the rubber bridge game will be eager to give you good advice/help you improve because that will hurt their own winnings.

If you're going to spend/lose large amounts of money, you'd be better off hiring a top-level professional.

It depends on your mindset, your wallet, and your long-term goals. If your objective is to become a really good card player, and having to play well and concentrate means not pulling some Benjamins (or Lincolns) out of your pocket after a session, then rubber bridge is a great way to improve.

If you are well off and losing a few hundred in an afternoon has no effect on your psyche, then rubber bridge will not be effective, or you need to play higher stakes, or not play rubber at all.

As far as hiring a top pro, if you have a legitimate goal of getting better, then that is a good option, but do not fall into the trap of thinking you are improving, just because you get good results playing with Mr. Pro.