[paulg]

Chamaco, on Dec 7 2005, 09:33 AM, said:

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.

All the above is true, but as someone who runs sessions in the BIL (that are more aimed at mentoring rather than teaching), I've found that there really needs to be a limit on numbers when you have an interactive class. The BILs insistence on level achieves both its objectives and keeps the numbers reasonable.

I would also add, in defence of the BIL and perhaps a mild warning to this group, is that the small number of occasions when "Advanced" players have been invited to my sessions I have found them far more disruptive than any of the Billies. Perhaps this is because they considered I was "dumbing down" for the audience, but many adv players tend to be less tolerant of ideas that are not the same as their own and quite prepared to express that opinion - you probably see the same behaviour at 50% of the pickup tables on BBO.

You should also not underestimate the challenge with running sessions with advanced players. As we have all seen on Vugraph, true experts struggle to analyse a hand when there are dozens of kibs chatting to them. Earlier this week one of the best teachers in the BIL missed the simplest show up squeeze in a 4-card ending (all hands visible) just because of the pressure of going through hands and chatting to the audience. So this means greater preparation for the contributors.

Although jillybean's aims are laudable, I think it will prove difficult unless you get people who are interested in learning - this is an advantage of the BIL and a reason why a competency test is meaningless.

Paul

[Chamaco]

cardsharp, on Dec 7 2005, 11:45 AM, said:

All the above is true, but as someone who runs sessions in the BIL (that are more aimed at mentoring rather than teaching), I've found that there really needs to be a limit on numbers when you have an interactive class. The BILs insistence on level achieves both its objectives and keeps the numbers reasonable.

I would also add, in defence of the BIL and perhaps a mild warning to this group, is that the small number of occasions when "Advanced" players have been invited to my sessions I have found them far more disruptive than any of the Billies. Perhaps this is because they considered I was "dumbing down" for the audience, but many adv players tend to be less tolerant of ideas that are not the same as their own and quite prepared to express that opinion - you probably see the same behaviour at 50% of the pickup tables on BBO.

You should also not underestimate the challenge with running sessions with advanced players. As we have all seen on Vugraph, true experts struggle to analyse a hand when there are dozens of kibs chatting to them. Earlier this week one of the best teachers in the BIL missed the simplest show up squeeze in a 4-card ending (all hands visible) just because of the pressure of going through hands and chatting to the audience. So this means greater preparation for the contributors.

Although jillybean's aims are laudable, I think it will prove difficult unless you get people who are interested in learning - this is an advantage of the BIL and a reason why a competency test is meaningless.

Paul

All these points are true, however, all these points can be easily taken care of, with some "behavioural rules".

Something like: advanced + are allowed to attend silently.

The teacher would proceed with his class just assuming as a target the "normal" BIL group, advanced + would be treated as guests, but in his lecture the teacher would not have to tune the level and the tone of the lesson as a function of the advanced players in the audience.

=========

Finally, one critical point:
I understand the decision of not allowing advanced *if the teacher himself* asks to restrict the audience.

But, I am pretty much convinced that there are other instructors (e.g. Luis, OliverC and others) who would not necessarily restrict the level of the audience, at least provided the advanced + shut up.

An "a priori" restriction is INDEED, imo a HUGE discrimination.

But again, it's a private club, they have the right to do this, just as well as I have the right to say that this seems really bad to me.

[kenberg]

A suggestion about resolving the pre-requisite issue:

Mikeh indicated a willingness to help. Other experts I think are willing. If so, they could decide for themselves on this format issue. I would be happy for guidance in either format.

My guess is that people will pretty much observe the level of discussion and see for themselves if it is or isn't over their heads, but I may be naive.

Ken

[jillybean]

cardsharp, on Dec 7 2005, 04:45 AM, said:

Although jillybean's aims are laudable, I think it will prove difficult unless you get people who are interested in learning - this is an advantage of the BIL and a reason why a competency test is meaningless.

Paul

I don't understand this comment at all.

I said earlier I simply want to bring together people who are interested in learning and those who are willing to teach this great game.

[paulg]

One format that is used for the BIL a lot, but would be just as appropriate for advanced players, is the tournament critique.

The teachers (with a strategy) tend to prepare hands with a theme, but I often just use random hands as it fits my mentoring approach. Get the players to play a 6- or 8-board tourney and then review the hands and plays in a teaching table afterwards. Alternatively get a player to send it an 8-board team match, and review their performance (this works best if you have a thick-skinned mentee).

The advantage of this format is it requires little preparation and little follow-up, but it provides value to the attendees as you provide insight into what you think should happen.

This works in the BIL as the tournament is not open to all, so people who play in it will tend to come to the follow-up session. This means it tends to be relatively small and so a single TD can cope.

It would be nice to open this up to everyone ... but you may need a TD support organisation or a club to restrict numbers. We all know how quickly free tourneys fill up.

Paul

PS There appears to be sufficient self-rated experts and advanced++ players to assign at least one to every beginner, intermediate and advanced player on BBO - why don't we just go for individual mentors?

[pclayton]

JB:

Whatever gets decided, I'll help out. For now I'll exit the screening debate. Unfortunately this thread has become argumentative and I fear it will be counterproductive for what is a worthwhile end.

If screening is used, I'll assist and if you just want players to have an 'open thinking' session, I'll help out with that too.

I'm not in a position these days to put together a full blown lesson plan however.

[andych]

[Thymallus]

One of the attractive aspects of Go is that there is a culture of experts helping upcoming players to learn the game and it would be lovely to see the same in Bridge. I am desperately keen to play some hands with a real expert to discuss them after and learn from my mistakes. Reflecting on random hands in this way puts the learning into the context where it will be used in the future.

BIL learning tourneys are great but as a reasonably busy gainfully employed person in europe I find I play in only about one a month ! (I am inclined to agree that they should be open to all .. a recent tourney director commented to the tournament that he felt the bidding, play and defense had been consistently expert so I am sure the BILlies can hold their own!)

The problem with set deals or problem deals is that one always knows there is a hook. ie when examining the chess position in the paper start by looking at all the queen sac's then the rook sacs bishops, knights and then if you haven't found the answer go back to the queen sacs. Not the way to play the game at all.

I find it quite easy to solve problems of counting in the quiet of my room with a Lawrence programme or BM. There I can take my time and work things out. At the table things go past in a whirlwind of cards, excitement, hopes raised and dashed making keeping count altogether more difficult. (People just will not make their discards in an orderly and memory friendly way!) I really need to nail down the counting and card play in that context.

Perhaps and alternative model would be for appropriate experts to play with learners from time to time and to look at the hands afterwards while the scars remain fresh!

A list of willing experts could be maintained easily. Clearly such people would have to be protected from being spammed by armies of bunnies like me and should be allowed to play in their own exalted circles when they do not wish to Mentor.

[Al_U_Card]

Could we have a mentor go over a hand record (a la deep finesse) commenting about the correct play of the cards and where the declarer went wrong (bidding and play if appropriate)?

[jillybean]

pclayton, on Dec 7 2005, 08:37 AM, said:

JB:

Whatever gets decided, I'll help out.  For now I'll exit the screening debate. Unfortunately this thread has become argumentative and I fear it will be counterproductive for what is a worthwhile end. 

If screening is used, I'll assist and if you just want players to have an 'open thinking' session, I'll help out with that too.

I'm not in a position these days to put together a full blown lesson plan however.

Thanks , I will take you up on your offer of a thinking session

I will just start off with some specific sessions and tournaments+review on a casual, as available basis. I am happy to coordinate, advertise and organize the experts to get these sessions going. I can run tournaments and manage the hands for review at a teaching table afterwards, I could look after a table, organize victims, errr players etc.

We have 2 sessions ready to go just waiting for confirmation of date/time.

I am painfully aware of some of the pitfalls of running "private clubs" and I want to avoid falling into the same trap. Maybe in time a new club will be created, people like to belong to something and the club structure does add value. The committee can then address all these sticky issues.

jb

This post has been edited by jillybean2: 2005-December-07, 11:18

[Chamaco]

A good initiative would be that 4 experts sit down at the table and explain their thinking aloud to the kibitzers during the bidding and play.

Of course the bidding should be "standard-ish"

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Dec 7 2005, 11:29 AM, said:

Chamaco, on Dec 7 2005, 11:27 AM, said:

A good initiative would be that 4 experts sit down at the table and explain their thinking aloud to the kibitzers during the bidding and play.

Of course the bidding should be "standard-ish"

BIL did this with fred involved and rotating experts. I really liked this concept.

I like this: especially if I can persuade one of my ftf partners to play: it is not very informative if the chat is "I don't know what he has, but I will do this because...": at least, not as informative as "he is, by our methods, showing this, and so I will do that because ...."

[han]

I have agreed with Jillybean to give a first lesson on Saturday. Although I'm not nearly as good a bridge player as some of the people who have reacted here (and I'm slightly uncomfortable reacting to a thread with this title) I think that I should be able to help intermediate an advanced players.

What I have in mind for Saturday is something along the lines of what Shep used to do (perhaps (s)he still does?). Let 4 students play a couple of hands, answer questions and make comments about the play afterwards. I would like to focus on counting. I think I might ask the defenders right before the opening lead is made what they expect the dummy and declarer to have, and perhaps after trick 3 I will ask them to guess declarer's shape. That should be fun.

I was thinking that I might ask the kibitzers (in case more than 4 students show up ) to kibitz only one player. Justin suggested this once for good counting practice, and I like the idea very much.

I do not think that there is any need for screening for this format to work, students of different levels can participate.

[ArcLight]

Theer are many many books on declarer play.

There are a some good books in the "over my shoulder style" (2 by Reese, 2 by Lawrence, Meckstroth, Brian Senior, Fred Giteman)

There are many books on the play of famous hands.


What can an "Advanced Intermediate Lounge" do better?
ideas?

1) We can watch as experts play, all talking to the kibitzers. If they don't do a lot of talking, like commenting on inferences, I'm not sure how useful it will be. Explaining what their bid shows is good, but also commenting on why opps did/didn't compete, and what they are worried about is better.
Will the experts talk about their concern during the play of the hand?
That might distract them too!


2) Experts can lecture on the play of a hand. Since there are so many declarer play books, to me, this doesn't add much value.

3) Play prepared hands that have some trap. To be honest, I think 4 intermediate can look at most hands double dummy and see a way to make it or set it. It just takes some time to review the hands. You don't need the experts time for this.

4) Experts can rotate partners. They can comment on the play afterwards and review the hand.

5) *** To me most important *** The expert can watch as 4 players play, asking them private questions to focus their thoughts. If they make a bad lead, he can ask them about it. He can ask players to stop and explain their thoughts on the hand so far.
Maybe you don't even need an expert for this, just an intermediate, who can ask some routine questions to help focus the players attention.

I think getting direct feed back is very useful, and next to impossible to get.

[Chamaco]

Hannie, on Dec 7 2005, 05:36 PM, said:

I would like to focus on counting

======

I was thinking that I might ask the kibitzers (in case more than 4 students show up ) to kibitz only one player. Justin suggested this once for good counting practice, and I like the idea very much.

Both ideas are great, look forward to it :-)

[ArcLight]

Hannie,
Good man for volunteering! What time?


>I do not think that there is any need for screening for this format to work, students of different levels can participate.

The only problem, is some BIL players are very weak. Playing defense there is really not fun when pard is very weak. Players don't make correct leads, or they switch suits all the time, giving declarer all kinds of free finesses.

Its also very hard to draw inferences or count with bad players playing. You expect the Ace to be with East because West lead the suit in a Spade contract. Turns out West lead the 2 from A J 2.

Pard leads the club 4 from 9 7 4 2. "I had no other lead". Well that certainly caused me to misplace cards.

I think its not fun to play with "much weaker" players, just as it wouldn't be fun for you or Justin to play with me.

Also, playing against weak players does not benfit tou in the long run.
You learn bad habits, or get used to getting away with things taht strong players will nail you for.

[mike777]

Chamaco, on Dec 7 2005, 12:38 PM, said:

Hannie, on Dec 7 2005, 05:36 PM, said:

I would like to focus on counting

======

I was thinking that I might ask the kibitzers (in case more than 4 students show up ) to kibitz only one player. Justin suggested this once for good counting practice, and I like the idea very much.

Both ideas are great, look forward to it :-)

Counting did someone say Counting lessons? Where do I send my check?

[sceptic]

I would not like to see an exam to get into this club as I could fail or pass on a good or bad day but I am sure I would benefit from the lessons

If some of the BIL teachers were to teach at this level would the time available to them take them away from the BIL (I do hope not)

Sustainability?, did not someone else try something along these lines

Maureen has successfully managed BIL since it started with the help of some very nice hardworking people, she is also a tireless trooper and I have to take my hat off to her. I hope you realise what you are taking on Jilly, if you make half the success of this as Maureen has of BIL, I will take my hat off to you as well.

I also hope that lessons are not scheduled along side BIL lessons

[sceptic]

Quote

The only problem, is some BIL players are very weak. Playing defense there is really not fun when pard is very weak. Players don't make correct leads, or they switch suits all the time, giving declarer all kinds of free finesses.

I am curious about this statement, why do you say things like this ???, I find you extremelly irritating at times, it is pretty obvious there will be weak players in BIL, I actually thought that was the idea of the Club, so they have somewehere to play where they do not have to meet experts like yourself that don't get any enjoyment out of playing with weak players.

Maureen should ban you for being over qualified