[ArcLight]

>It became apparent pretty quickly that fewer than half of the attendees were able to grasp concepts like the ruffing finesse, loser-on-loser plays, or endplays

Then they are not intermediates. Those are not difficult plays "in general". meaning that a player may not always be able to execute them, but they are not complicated at all.


I think defense is linked to declarer play. If you are not very comfortable with a number of declarer techniques, it will hurt you on defense.
Examples:

1) Declarer is trying to perfom a trump reduction to shorten trumps and deal with a bad trump break. A defender who isn't familiar with trump Coups/Reductions will think he is making a good move by forcing declarer with the short suit (as opposed to attacking dummies entries).

2) defender will not play or unblock a high card, resulting in an endplay




>This is getting off-topic, but successful simple squeezes are, IMO, one of the rarest type. Double squeezes and strip (throw-in) squeezes are much more common. In essence, a simple squeeze requires the same hand to be guarding two suits; a double squeeze requires different hands to be guarding them which is intrinsically more likely.

Thats the opposite of what Mike Lawrence says in his Private Lessons software. And Terence Reese wrote something similar in his "Squeeze Play Made Easy". Just look for a case where you have 2 suits that are say 4-3+ and 4-3+ and you may have squeeze possibilities, at least consider them.

A direct quote form Mike Lawrences Private Lessons Vol. 1 on Squeeze Play:
"The fact is that the HUGE majority of squeezes are easy to find and easy to execute. The problem is that squeezes have always been discussed as if they were a sacred secret reserved for great players who then sent their deeds to newspaper columns where they could be recorded into history"
All the examples he gives are simple squeezes.


>Unsuccessful simple squeezes are very common!

Declarer may have made a mistake, or the squeeze may never have been on, but that was the only chance they had of making their contract, so they took it.


Having said all this, I would still save Squeeze Play for later.

[Chamaco]

ArcLight, on Nov 16 2005, 01:32 PM, said:

A direct quote form Mike Lawrences Private Lessons Vol. 1 on Squeeze Play:
"The fact is that the HUGE majority of squeezes are easy to find and easy to execute.  The problem is that squeezes have always been discussed as if they were a sacred secret reserved for great players who then sent their deeds to newspaper columns where they could be recorded into history"
All the examples he gives are simple squeezes.

Arclight,
of course I agree on what you say, but I think that, if I had to pick priorities in improving card play techniques of beginer/intermediates, I would focus on other areas first, and I join the crowd of people who suggest focusing primarily on counting the hand.

Besides counting, I'd focus:

DECLARER PLAY

- first on card combinations and percentage plays, with special attention to the topic about combining chances.
- secondly, entry management
- thirdly, timing (the hardest of all, IMO)

DEFENSE

- thorough analysis of opening leads
- second hand plays and 3rd/4th hand plays (especially at the first trick): when to cover and when not
- inferences (from counting of course) and signals
- discarding technique (when opps run a suit): that's where many many tricks are blown everyday

===========

There are lots of nice topics in card play left out from the above, but I think a serious coverage of these would improve radically any serious student, if accompanied by practice at the table.

[Winstonm]

I still remember distictly the first time I thought through a hand and executed an enplay because of counting - it was in one of those local/national games that provided hand records and recaps and I remember how thrilled I felt in reading that recap and not only was my bidding reasoning duplicated virtual word for word but so was my play.

So definately teach counting, over and over and over and over and over - and let the student see/learn/use the results of this counting.

And if you want to get a little deeper, psychology teaches the most powerful reinforcer of all is intermittent positive reinforcement, so this means that after the basics of counting were learned that not every hand should be determined by a successful application - create a set of boards where count is critical and random - it would force the student to count every hand and get the Aha! ohly periodically - the same reinforcement the casinos use to make billions.

Winston

[GeeGee]

ArcLight, on Nov 16 2005, 08:32 AM, said:

>It became apparent pretty quickly that fewer than half of the attendees were able to grasp concepts like the ruffing finesse, loser-on-loser plays, or endplays

Then they are not intermediates.  Those are not difficult plays "in general".  meaning that a player may not always be able to execute them, but they are not complicated at all.

Which brings up the question, what defines an intermediate player?

I agree that those who couldn't grasp the concepts were unlikely to progress. Those who could at least had 'a bridge mind' even if they may not easily initially apply the concepts to their own play.

However, I wonder whether an intermediate player would recognise a trump coup position as declarer, let alone in defence.

For those who know Bridgemaster, would the average intermediate player be happy at level (i) 2, (ii) 3, or (iii) 4?

Just trying to get an idea of how much does your average intermediate player already know.

[ArcLight]

Part of the problem is classification and rating inflation. The average player on BBO rates themselves about 1 level higher than they are. How many BBO Experts win national titles? Most advanced players I've seen are not better than me. Many intermediates are dreadful. (And I'm not so good at counting so maybe I shouldn't even rate myself intermediate)


>However, I wonder whether an intermediate player would recognise a trump coup position as declarer, let alone in defence.

Why? After reading the 2 "Bridge Technique" books by David Bird on this subject (and having seen it in other books) I think its not all that complicated. That doesn't mean I'd always pull it off, just that I don't think its so hard to think about.
1) The contract looks cold
2) what could go wrong - bad trump break - what to do? Aha - ruff and see how the trumps are breaking.

I can see a smother play or some complex trump ducking play in order to retain control being harder to find or execute.


>For those who know Bridgemaster, would the average intermediate player be happy at level (i) 2, (ii) 3, or (iii) 4?

If I want to make my contract I'd be most happy at level 1 and least happy at level 5.
At the table I'd never solve a Level 5 hand, and I'd probably miss a number of level 4 hands. Going through some of Ron Klingers "Card Play Made Easy" books, there are quite a few hands I'd miss.

[han]

There are two different questions:
- What should intermediates be taught?
- What do they want to be taught?

and the answers are different.


Let me go a little further. Good bridge cannot be taught, it has to be learned. You cannot teach bridge to people who don't care.

It is equally clear to me that an intermediate player who is really motivated won't be intermediate for long. You do not have to teach them, just help them to the right literature, and help them to find expert partners.

So it seems to me that the best way to teach your students is to make them more motivated. Of course, if you want to make money teaching bridge then this is probably the worst strategy, as you want to keep your students only slightly interested. In that case, teach the boring basics, and most importantly, don't ever play with them in a tournament. Your love for the game might inspire them, and before you know it you have lost your intermediate student.

[cherdano]

Hehe, I like these rants here, and let me contribute another one. I will make the provocative claim that those who claim you shouldn't teach squeezes to intermediates are severely misguided.

In my view, the biggest mistake you can do as a teacher is to have a different goal than your students. Putting ambitions into your students that they don't have themselves is a certain road to disaster. Imagine I took a running coach, because I enjoy going out for a run, but want to make sure I do nothing badly like hurting my feet in the long-run, or dying of a heart attack next sunday. But this running coach instead assumes I want to go for a marathon, and gives me a training schedule that averages 2 hours of workout a day. I would fire this coach. Who would be right, the coach or me?

If you give a course for bridge intermediates, then (unless they have taken up bridge rather recently) it is most likely that their goal in life is not to become a bridge expert. Otherwise they would not be intermediates anymore, or they would have figured that they learn more by reading, studying the game themselves, getting to play with a better partner, and asking questions on BBF. So why are they coming to this class? Because they enjoy bridge and enjoy learning something puzzling about it (and not because they want to average 2% better in the weekly club game).

On the other hand, you know they should better learn to set up side suits first. Who is right?

What should a teacher do? In my view, he should give them what they want, and on the way try to get them more fascinated about the game. Show them squeezes, endplays, make them enjoy visualizing the defenders hands. Maybe they will catch fire and get more serious about bridge, and become advanced on their own. (For example I think Fred's lectures on squeezes -- you can find them in the bridge library -- are excellent in that respect.)

Arend

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Nov 16 2005, 01:43 PM, said:

I know, it's boring, but no one gets anything for nothing. It's damn hard work, and one has to go through all that boring stuff in order to learn the game. Then, and only then, will it be real fun.

I would really really hope you aren't serious with your last sentence, but I fear you are. Of course bridge can be fun as a novice, too.

Arend

[ArcLight]

>>I know, it's boring, but no one gets anything for nothing. It's damn hard work, and one has to go through all that boring stuff in order to learn the game. Then, and only then, will it be real fun.

What is the "boring" stuff?
So far I haven't been bored reading dozens of books on play of the hand/declaer technique.
To me thats studying and memorizing bidding systems. But hopefully once your get comfoirtable with your system, you don't have to study much for a while.


If students are moderately bright and self motivated, then a teacher can greatly help their development by focusing their efforts. I "wasted" some time reading bad books, or books that I wasn't ready for. The result that I didn't absorb all the material, and I will need to eventually go back and reread thos ebooks.


I think its a waste of money to take lessons on declarer play when there are so many excellent and far less expensive books and software available.
Dont "teach" the intermediates, tell them to read these X books, let them save their money. Then teach them by playing with them and discuss the bidding and play after each hand.

If a motivated intermediate wants to learn something like squeeze play I wouldn't discourage them. (But I'd point out that there are other things that will be of greater value to them, like counting.) Then I'd hand them some great books on Squeeze play and have them save their money.

[Chamaco]

In my experience, what can be really boring is not the topic itself one teaches, but the way you teach it.

I can imagine that a live class held by Luis would be great fun even for a group of unskilled and unmotivated players, regardless of the topic.

Having said that, there will bbe definitely some sets of topics that would be more fruitful, and a teacher that has the gift to entertain students will be successful in keeping their interest alive.

[42]

IMO it is hard to find a good answer to the question because it is important which group you teach: a group of students or a group of midfifties who has a new hobby after raising children (the 2 extremes). The first group is used to follow even theoretical lessons whereas the other group needs different didactical methods, constant repetition and breaks for improvement. Also the goal may be different: the first group wants perhaps to play tournaments as soon as possible, the second is more interested in playing "socially", both groups may be intermediate in their context.
For the first group everything is "food", even tips which bridgebooks to read are fine.
For the second group it is important from my experience (not as member ) to get theory on a small dosis and then practise shortly after (but be careful: they do perhaps the right thing because they "know" what comes and what they are expected to do. Therefore it is good to have some hands with older stuff among the new *hehe*), they want to hold the cards in hands. What they expect from their teacher is immediate success... What people of group 2 enjoy, is to sit around a big table with a full hand on the table, discussing ALL what can be discussed about this hand like bidding, best lead, counting tricks, etc. My personal favorites for lessons besides the basics of playing technics are partnership aspects, above all the carding. Bridge is different from other games in this case and many people have problems of accepting that they have a partner (-> no need to complain of bad cards; to accept partners mistakes; to communicate with the given tools, etc.)
- it can be fun for one or 2 sessions with prepared hands to draw conclusions from bids or played cards what did NOT happen, I mean: why did partner NOT bid this and that, which card(s) does he NOT have when he plays this one, why did partner NOT lead his/my suit, etc. Negative inferences are powerful.
GL!
Caren