[ArcLight]

>Bridgemaster is a great "tool" for self-evaluation. If you can pass level 3 hands then you should be "advanced".

Is that really true?
Somehow I think a player who is advanced should be solving most of the level 4 hands. The level 3 hands are for intermedaites. The level 4 hands have squeezes and some trickier hands.


> I would not suggest this format for your group as it would steal from Fred (we owe him way too much).

It would be great for Fred because the implication is you should buy Bridge Master
to evaluate your level to see if you should join the club!

[Robert]

Hello Chamaco

Doubling partscores at IMPs should be for down 'two' or more. Doubling for 'one' trick sets is just not worth the high risk.

You call sometimes gamble to double a 2m overcall for a one trick set 'because' that is not game 'if' it makes.

It is slightly outside the partscore tactics, however, I would also suggest that you accept slightly smaller 'sure' penalties rather than bid your own doubtful game.

Getting +500 against a 600/620 score game is a good tactic at IMPs. +300 against your 400 or 420 game is also a good idea.

You can sometimes 'gamble' doubling them when they are in game. The bonus for making a doubled game is not nearly a disaster. They are unlikey to redouble for penalty 'if' you believe that you were doubling for a possible one or two trick set.

Regards,
Robert

[Al_U_Card]

ArcLight, on Dec 6 2005, 10:23 AM, said:

>Bridgemaster is a great "tool" for self-evaluation. If you can pass level 3 hands then you should be "advanced".

Is that really true?
Somehow I think a player who is advanced should be solving most of the level 4 hands. The level 3 hands are for intermedaites. The level 4 hands have squeezes and some trickier hands.


> I would not suggest this format for your group as it would steal from Fred (we owe him way too much).

It would be great for Fred because the implication is you should buy Bridge Master
to evaluate your level to see if you should join the club!

Exactly. BBO "advanced" and the need to use Bridgemaster in a way that would benefit Fred.

[jillybean]

Al_U_Card, on Dec 6 2005, 09:46 AM, said:

ArcLight, on Dec 6 2005, 10:23 AM, said:

>Bridgemaster is a great "tool" for self-evaluation. If you can pass level 3 hands then you should be "advanced".

Is that really true?
Somehow I think a player who is advanced should be solving most of the level 4 hands.  The level 3 hands are for intermedaites.  The level 4 hands have squeezes and some trickier hands.


> I would not suggest this format for your group as it would steal from Fred (we owe him way too much).

It would be great for Fred because the implication is you should buy Bridge Master
to evaluate your level to see if you should join the club! 

Exactly. BBO "advanced" and the need to use Bridgemaster in a way that would benefit Fred.

I like this idea, I will have to dust off my BM.

Maybe, with FG's aprroval BM can be used for the basis of lessons. To participate you will need a copy, extra value for BM owners and more sales.

[luis]

I find the "screening" idea repulsive. Who do we think we are to determine who can learn something and who can't?

The fact that a player is a beginer doesn't mean he is not able to understand some concepts, capability to learn and stored knoledge are two different things. We can have an advanced player that can't understand anything new and we can have a player that started 2 weeks ago and anything you say to him he learns it.

Besides this, what damage can we do letting anybody listen and ask questions? "sorry you can't learn about restricted choice because you went down in 3NT in your exam" this is completely absurd.

It's discriminatory and I certainly wouldn't like to be in such an environment.

Luis

[Al_U_Card]

Given the right impetus and guidance, each level would correspond to a self-rating designation ie level 3 =int. 4= adv. etc. We could even propose elements for the various areas that Fred might incorporate into BM making it even more desirable/useful.

[Al_U_Card]

luis, on Dec 6 2005, 01:02 PM, said:

I find the "screening" idea repulsive. Who do we think we are to determine who can learn something and who can't?

Likewise. I would suggest that the teaching aide (BM or other) be a metric for self-evaluation and determination if you are at an appropriate level to maximize your learning and minimize slowing down the process for others etc.

[hrothgar]

I also think that screening is highly problematic...

Case in point: Bridge Master is a wonderful tool. However, its restricted to questions of declarer play. Does the ability to solve Bridge Master deals necessary demonstrate any real competency in defense or bidding?

[pclayton]

Well you have to start somewhere.......

I suppose I can bang of the door of MIT's advanced quantum physics department and demand to audit a class. Whether or not I learn anything is immaterial, or whether I don't a quark from a cork (lets be clear - I DONT) doesn't matter. I'm not hurting anything, right? And - hey - I can tell all my friends that I attended such a class - won't they be impressed!

And if they turn me away, I can always claim 'discrimination'.

________________________________________________

I really haven't seen a sensible argument against screening in this thread yet. I don't think its discrimination (but I suppose no one gets hurt if someone audits but has kib chat off) and I don't its a big hassle to set up membership; how hard is it to start a chat room, lay out 3 or 4 BM "int" random deals and see if the person 'gets' the concepts? This can't take more than 10 minutes and I would sign up to be one of the 1st proctors you would need for admittance.

One of my 1st bridge partners compared his getting a life master as the same amount of mental energy it took to get a Masters in Chemistry. A lot of us that have been playing a long time have something of a jaded view toward the game; that it really isn't that 'tough'. Baloney - it is. And people like Justin who have an immense knowledge of the game at a young age are true prodigies - no different than a gifted chess or piano player. Bridge is a complex science and should be treated as such.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to be involved in a program where the participants weren't screened.

[ArcLight]

>Maybe, with FG's aprroval BM can be used for the basis of lessons. To participate you will need a copy, extra value for BM owners and more sales.

I would not suggest requiring anyone to own Bridge Master as a requirement for joining. But people may be interested in buying it as a self assessment.


I see nothing wrong with "beginners" attending lessons either. But I would not "dumb down" the lessons too much, else you will lose the interest of the primary audience. If you use very simple problems, the more advanced people will be bored. If you use harder ones, the less experienced players may miss many of them and not get that much out of them. And beginners asking many beginner questions will caus ethe others to lose interest.

Let who ever want to attend.
But don't dumb down the lessons.


HOWEVER, if you have mentoring groups of 4, where a mentor discusses the play of the hand as the 4 players play, or afterwards, there is a good case not to have a begiiner play with advanced intermediates. If one player is much weaker tahn the others it will make it less fun for their pard, and make it harder to play using inferences (because the begiiner will make some fundamental errors taht others would be less likely to make).

Ex: Pard leads the 2 of clubs, my king is taken by declarers ace. Later I get in and return clubs. Turns out pard lead 2 from 32.

I made a takeout double, pard bid 1 Spade. Turns out he had AKxx in Spades and Axx in another suit. (that was an "advanced" player by his profile)

Plays like that cause everyone to misjudge things, and the emphasis here is (should be) to learn to count and draw inferences. You will have a chance to play with bad players outside of the class.

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Dec 6 2005, 10:25 PM, said:

I suppose I can bang of the door of MIT's advanced quantum physics department and demand to audit a class. Whether or not I learn anything is immaterial, or whether I don't a quark from a cork (lets be clear - I DONT) doesn't matter. I'm not hurting anything, right? And - hey - I can tell all my friends that I attended such a class - won't they be impressed!

And if they turn me away, I can always claim 'discrimination'.

Funny that you should mention this... MIT is strongly commited to sharing its course materials with anyone interested in accessing its materials. The University's Open Courseware project provides free access to lecture notes and problem sets. In some cases, the Professor's have even made videos versions of their lectures available.

You don't get to ask question of the Profs and you don't don't get a fancy diploma. However, if you're "just" interested in learning you can't beat this deal.

I'll note in passing that the physics department has posted notes for three different graduate courses on quantum theory:

Quantum Theory I, Fall 2002
Quantum Theory II, Spring 2003
Relativistic Quantum Field Theory III, Spring 2003

The web site documenting the project is available at http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html

I understand that you were trying to create an absurb example in order to support screening. Unfortunately, the example wasn't nearly absurb enough. MIT does allow anyone to electronically audit graduate level quantum physics...

I think that the lecture notes and the problem sets will quickly convince you that the level of complexity is a wee bit higher than that of the typical bridge lecture.

[mikeh]

As one of the first posters to express concern re skill levels, let me say that I am not overly concerned about the level of the students. If I were to be a 'mentor' in one or more of these proposed sesions, I would want to invite a topic, and probably select one from (I hope) a modest number of ideas. Those interested in the concept could attend. If the concept seemed to be challenging, then I would probably want to announce that: with the idea that beginners not attend that particular session. If the topic were more accessible (even tho containing elements likely beyond the intermediate or many of the self-proclaimed advanced players) they will see that during the discussion. One or two isolated 'dumb' questions would not rate to be destructive, and if one or more students were clearly out of their depth, the mentor could (politely) tell them so, and ask them not to participate in the discussion, while remaining welcome as observers. This should work if the group announces this as a policy.

Screening mentors is more of a challenge Naturally, I believe that the best way to select a mentor is to see whether they consistently agree with my BBF posts

Oh well: I suspect that that will not carry the day


Humour can be difficult to grasp in some cases, so just in case, my last comments were only semi-serious

[jillybean]

Jlall, on Dec 6 2005, 02:48 PM, said:

mikeh, on Dec 6 2005, 03:56 PM, said:

Naturally, I believe that the best way to select a mentor is to see whether they consistently agree with my BBF posts

Seems like a good idea to me, for obvious reasons

Does this mean youre putting your hand up Justin?

[luke warm]

luis, on Dec 6 2005, 01:02 PM, said:

I find the "screening" idea repulsive. Who do we think we are to determine who can learn something and who can't?

The fact that a player is a beginer doesn't mean he is not able to understand some concepts, capability to learn and stored knoledge are two different things.

~~snip~~

It's discriminatory and I certainly wouldn't like to be in such an environment.

Luis

why, luis? doesn't the beginner/int club do that? is it discriminatory? roland has a 2/1 club for int/advanced... is that discriminatory? i don't think it is, any more than any other clubs are...

what you say about begginers is true, but why have a "club" for int/advanced if beginners can join? it would be like adv/experts joining the BIL

[kenberg]

Perhaps Arclight is correct that level 4 competence in BM should be what is meant by advanced. Should is a long way from is. Let me give you a (rotated) hand from the acbl/bbo pairs game.

Scoring: MP

---

This hand was played 39 times. Six declarer's were in 6S. The A then K of clubs was led, ruffed, trumps drawn, finesse taken, making 6. One pair was in 3NT making 7 (Don't ask).

Presumably everyone should be in 4S making 6, at least assuming only that the lead is the club ace followed by a shift. Most were in 4 making 5. Something like this: Win the shift, draw trump, finesse the heart Q, return to hand and lead another small heart hoping for, well, who knows. You need not be a squeeze expert to make 6. Win the shift,draw trumps, finesse the Q, count your tricks. You have 11. You have lost one. Even if you never heard of a squeeze, how wrong could it be to run the spades and diamonds. Maybe someone will pitch wrong. Here there is no right pitch.

Perhaps some defender shifted to a small heart at trick 2 offering a losing option, accepted by declarer. I doubt that happend often.


Typically people who play in the ACBL pairs list themselves as advanced (or expert). I would say that there are a lot of folks out there (I include myself) on BBO who are not beginners but make frequent errors and would profit from an expert drawing our attention to them.

This is the sort of hand that everyone gets right if they are reading a book on squeezes. At the table it's a different story. As the scorecard shows.

Ken

[luis]

luke warm, on Dec 7 2005, 12:04 AM, said:

luis, on Dec 6 2005, 01:02 PM, said:

I find the "screening" idea repulsive. Who do we think we are to determine who can learn something and who can't? 

The fact that a player is a beginer doesn't mean he is not able to understand some concepts, capability to learn and stored knoledge are two different things.

~~snip~~

It's discriminatory and I certainly wouldn't like to be in such an environment.

Luis

why, luis? doesn't the beginner/int club do that? is it discriminatory? roland has a 2/1 club for int/advanced... is that discriminatory? i don't think it is, any more than any other clubs are...

what you say about begginers is true, but why have a "club" for int/advanced if beginners can join? it would be like adv/experts joining the BIL

Well If there is one thing I don't like about the BIL is that advanced or expert players are not allowed in the lessons. The fact that a player is advanced or expert doesn't mean he won't benefit from a lesson or an explanation. Some expert players are rusty in 2/1 others are rusty in competitive bidding etc etc. But I respect the rules as rules.

I believe in the freedom of information and I strongly believe that a lesson on any level or any subject should be open to anybody that feels he can benefit from the lesson.

Luis

[Chamaco]

luke warm, on Dec 7 2005, 12:04 AM, said:

luis, on Dec 6 2005, 01:02 PM, said:

I find the "screening" idea repulsive. Who do we think we are to determine who can learn something and who can't? 

The fact that a player is a beginer doesn't mean he is not able to understand some concepts, capability to learn and stored knoledge are two different things.

~~snip~~

It's discriminatory and I certainly wouldn't like to be in such an environment.

Luis

why, luis? doesn't the beginner/int club do that? is it discriminatory?

Yes, it's discriminatory.

Luis classes and OliverC classes would be useful also for advanced +.

For instance, OliverC has been teaching Precision, with alfa, beta, gamma, omega, (etc etc) asking bids, and the strategy for chosing one or the other asking bids.
And Luis classes are also of a high standard.

Don't you think this would be useful to advanced+ ?

yet, an advanced cannot attend the BIL, for the sole reason to be advanced.

I think this is STRONGLY discriminatory.

But all right, it's a private club, so we have to cope with it.

But I don't like it the least bit.

[luke warm]

sorry mauro, i still don't understand... the right to assemble with those of similar (fill in the blank) is basic, to me... is bbo italia discriminatory? not in my view, as long as they aren't hypocritical about it (ie, saying others who do the same are discriminating heheh)

i don't know, maybe we just have different philosophies