[luis]

I raise my hand :-)
When I started playing bridge I focused too much on the system, today I've come to the conclusion that the system you must play is the system that is better for your partnership and that the system while important is not as important as playing well, defending well and having good judgement in the auction.
I play Fantunes-style with my regular pd because we were too undisciplined to play 2/1 in a succesful way, not knowing if pd opened on 8 or 15 or what was destructive, with Fantunes we are "under control" so it is going fine. I've simplified everything I could, our system notes are a 6 page booklet mostly focusing in the NT structure, the competitive agreements and the development of the most regular sequences.
I like listening to what good players say and Fred's advice about focusing in the play and judgement has been a great advice to me, my juniors-time coach also focused a lot on that so I'm very grateful to him too.
I strongly believe that in order to be a good player you have to start learning to be a good defender and a good declarer, you have to learn to develop a good judgement to get out of difficult bidding situations and then if you are lucky to have a regular pd just try to find the system that works best for both of you. Working on a system without a pd is useless and working on a system without the skills that Fred mentioned will just lead to embarrasing results.

Where I play I've witnessed a case of a group of 4 students that started taking classes with a good teacher, they played vanilla 2/1 and quickly started to do quite well, many mistakes but I was suprised to see how they were progressing. For some reason they moved to another teacher who started teaching them a precision system, their results have become horrible, they don't have an idea of what they are bidding and their play and defense has declined a lot. A pitty.

Luis

[kenrexford]

For whatever it is worth, I'll add my two-cents worth on the spinoff initiated by Fred.

I started playing bridge as a youngster (11), like far too few of us. In any event, I learned the basics relatively well from my parents.

In college, I started experimenting with KS and Precision. In grad school, it as canape and a strong 1D. I started spinning out new systems and new conventions of my own. It was hysterical and fun.

After that, I tried light initial action. Then, with a group of canape fiends, I "perfected" their canape into a very good working system, resulting in a great number of wins. I also tinkered with psychics and strange bidding generally.

While this process was developing, a few things occurred in my game. First, experimentation often leads to bizarre contracts, which by test of fire increases your ability to declare strange contracts, and hence to declare sound contracts better. Second, I grew an ability to better understand natural and standard bidding by better understanding the theory of bidding generally. Third, I gained an ability to create on-the-spot defenses to almost anything thrown at me. This process, therefore, developed me as a much better bidder and much better declarer.

HOWEVER!!! There IS a big however. Something really troubling occurred. I made a decision to mainstream. I had gained a ton of knowledge about the game and a lot of skills. I started playing 2/1 GF with solid semi-professionals and other solid partners. It took me a while to get back into the mainstream thinking on obscure issues, but I accomplished this. So, what was the problem?

No one takes you seriously for a long time.

If you want to compete really well in Flight A regional events, all of this is great. If you want to compete well in a National tournament, the problem starts to creep up. Forget world chamionships. Why? The problem is NOT necessarily the techniques. The problem is the guy across the table from you. By this point, you undoubtedly have enjoyed this funny stuff because you can beat up on the opponents, even good opponents. However, your partner is some goofball you picked up, granted with decent skills, but NOT with the skills you'd need from a partner to move on. There are exceptions, but rare. If you actually feel capable of winning a national event, you will realize shortly that comparable potential partners view you as the wildman who cannot play normal bridge and cannot be trusted. If you feel capable of sitting on a team with a shot at the USBF Championships, you will not get invited to join, and you cannot put together your own team.

The funny thing is that, on occasion, your gained knowledge sometimes hurts. You may realize that such-and-such bid actually works better than the standard bidding. But, you cannot convince someone who lacks your experience in alternative bidding theory. So, you face the daunting task of intentionally "misbidding" a hand to assure people that you actually bid well. You find yourself incapable of suggesting neat treatments because people are frightened by your mad science. Instead, you forfeit, for a while, any bidding creativity to regain the trust of THEM, the inner circle.

Then comes the hand. You make a call that CLEARLY is right. However, the expert has never seen this and pre-judges your "esoteric thinking" as just that and not actually brilliant. The expert decides that you are just odd and stops thinking rationally. The end result might be a great score, but you have sunk down, again, into obscurity.

So, is Raptor a good convention? I suspect that a lot of people who post here might re-think their positions and listen to Fred. Not necessarily for the same reasons. I am not so sure that all of those who tinker lack bridge judgment and basic bridge skills (many do). Some are potentially great players.

But, some of the tinkerers probably could partner with Fred or even with Jeff if Fred and Jeff were not convinced of a lack of bridge judgment and basic skills because you play and like Raptor.

[MickyB]

kenrexford, on Feb 3 2006, 05:07 PM, said:

Then comes the hand.  You make a call that CLEARLY is right.  However, the expert has never seen this and pre-judges your "esoteric thinking" as just that and not actually brilliant.  The expert decides that you are just odd and stops thinking rationally.  The end result might be a great score, but you have sunk down, again, into obscurity.

Interesting. Any chance you could give us example(s) of "the hand"?

[kenrexford]

By "the hand" I mean a general hand where something like this occurs. I, personally, have had lots of discussions over the years, at great length, with extremely good top players where the discussion goes something like this:

"What were you thinking on board #2?"
"Well, when LHO..."
"Never mind -- I don't want to hear it."
"But, you can see that I was right in that..."
"That won't work all the time."
"Of course not, but..."
"What am I supposed to do with four spades?"
"Bid them. It won't matter because..."
"Oh, yeah, then they preempt us."
"But..."
"Where's the hospitality room?"

When I have accomplished sitting someone down to really discuss the theory on certain types of calls, I often have heard things like how the bids might make sense, and might even be right, but that no one does that.

Contrast this with how these discussions usually go when you have no mad scientist baggage:

"That was an interesting call on Board #2."
"I'm not sure it was right. I just noticed that LHO had passed initially."
"So, you assumed that he must have a four-card major also. Hmmm."
"This probably comes up once every ten years, so I thought I'd be creative."
"Yeah, you cannot exactly discuss this beforehand. I like it."

Same bid, same reasoning, different reaction.

[joshs]

fred, on Feb 3 2006, 11:27 AM, said:

Echognome, on Feb 3 2006, 03:29 PM, said:

A very nice and interesting post Fred.  I do have some follow ups if you care to respond.

If we look at the Bermuda Bowl participants and in particular the top pairs in the world, we find that a large percentage play some type of strong club system.  It might vary from 4 card majors or 5 card majors, strong NT or weak NT, but there is some variety out there.  There are of course many natural systems being played as well.  So what should we conclude from this?  Is it that system doesn't really matter or that certain systems suit some people more than others?

I think all you can conclude is that the methods played by the world's leading players are at least reasonably good methods. Otherwise these players would either be smart enough to know that their methods were ineffective or their poor methods would give them such a handicap over the rest of the field that they would not be able to be successful in major tournaments.

Yes there are a lot of strong club pairs in the group you describe and several flavors of such systems. There are also a lot of pairs who play natural systems (some weak notrumpers some strong notrumpers some 4-card majors some 5-card majors...). There are some pairs who play Polish or Swedish style 1C systems as well. Some of these pairs include a lot of science in later rounds of the bidding. Others do not.

To me this suggests that basic choice of system is not important (as long as the basic system is not completely absurd).

You will notice that very few (none?) of the pairs at the highest levels use strong diamond systems or Raptor 1NT overcalls. This doesn't necessarily imply that such methods are inherantly bad - perhaps the world's leading players have simply not tried them. However, if such methods offered significant advantage over more "traditional" methods, I am pretty sure that at least some of the world's leading players would have figured this out and that they would be using them. It would not take long for word to spread.

Once you play bridge anywhere close to as well as, say, Fantoni and Nunes, by all means go ahead and try to play a system like theirs if you are so inclined - you will be ready for it.

What I am trying to say is that, until you reach that point, you will be better off spending your time trying to reach that point. My observations suggest that the vast majority of talented players who focus on system "too early" in their bridge careers and refuse to let go of this never become successful at the highest levels.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
ww.bridgebase.com

Well I have never understood this "learn to play bridge better line of reasoning". Playing bridge has many aspects, and involves many skills:
a. technical skills playing the cards
b. psychology/ card reading/ logic
c. good visualization/judgement in the bidding
d. memory for what cards have been played
e. having bidding and carding agreements (AND remembering them) that solve problems for your side AND/OR give opponents problems [Essentially this falls under "do your homework"]
f. mental toughness and endurance

A great player usually has good skills in most if not all of these areas. Most players have skills in at least some. I think you do need good skills in all of these areas, but you don't have to be world class in all of these. Feed off your strengths! If you are a good card reader, try to become a great one. If you have accedents when using complex methods, use simple ones and focus on what you do well. If you have a computer for a memory and so does your partner, go ahead and try to get an edge in the bidding with them. Just keep in mind for most of us, at some point remembering a complex system takes a mental toll on you, and tires you out while playing in a big event. If you are the sort who can play Ultimate Club in a long match while
being able to still play your cards well and not lose whatever psychological skill you have, more power to you, I think you should play the relay methods - get the biggest advantage from your skills. For the rest of us, its an optimization problem - how do distribute your mental energy to perform the best at the table.

Speaking for myself. My biggest strength comes in understanding the structure of bidding. Its not hard work for me to play fairly complicated methods - I remember them and get good results from them. Complicated methods doesn't necessarily involve lots of conventions, just lots of agreements of what partner will do which such and such a hand type in a given situation. But conventions do help in many situations. The time I put in ahead of time into putting good methods together pays off for me. I don't think its fair to say that isn't "playing bridge." Its the aspect of bridge that I am best at. While I would like to get better at solving double dummy problems, and in general improve my card play and my table reading skills, it wouldn't be the same game, and it wouldn't have the same people win if you eliminate the value of some of these other skills. (Read this as both a diatribe on too overarching system restrictions as well as my thoughts about what "playing bridge is.")

Now having said that, I know a lot of people who spend a lot of time on bidding gadgets, and can't play the cards at even a respectible level (and some who have bad bidding judgement). Well there is no point bidding 60% slams if you can't make them over 50% of the time... And there is no point pushing your opps into a bad contract, if you fail to beat it.

Fred do you disagree?

Josh

[fred]

kenrexford, on Feb 3 2006, 05:07 PM, said:

But, some of the tinkerers probably could partner with Fred or even with Jeff if Fred and Jeff were not convinced of a lack of bridge judgment and basic skills because you play and like Raptor.

I can't speak for Jeff, but I would never say "no" to a potential partner because I think their preferred choice of methods is poor. In the past year or so, besides my regular partner (Brad Moss) I have played in tournaments with successful professional players like Alan Sontag, Marc Jacobus, Eddie Wold, Billy Miller, Roger Bates, and Geoff Hampson.

In most cases I would agree to play whatever system my partner wanted even though I thought that every one of these great players had some bidding ideas that were truly poor. In the rare cases that I refused to play a convention, it was only because I was concerned that I would forget it.

There are a few conventions I would flat out refuse to play because I think they are horrible. Raptor 1NT overcalls are an example. Fortunately there are very few players in the class of the partners that I usually play with who would try to impose such conventions on me (because most of these people would agree with my assessments of most of these conventions).

Nowadays I don't have much time for actually playing bridge and, whenever I do play, I am almost certainly getting paid well to do it. I cannot afford the time to play "just for fun". 5 years ago it was different and I would happily play with anyone whose company I enjoyed, regardless of their skill level or their preferred choice of bidding methods.

When I do play with a "lesser player" I ask them if they want me to point out when I think they have made a mistake. Most say yes. Most also listen to what I have to say. I don't mind if they disagree with me, want to discuss further, or need me to further clarify my opinion. However, I do not appreciate it when such people telling me that they are CLEARLY right. This shows a lack of respect in my view.

When you play with a more accomplished player you should make the assumption that you are always wrong. Listen to what the person has to say and give a lot of thought to it before you come to any conclusions. Of course your expert partner, just like everyone else, will frequently be the one that is wrong. The point is that you are not going to benefit nearly as much from the experience of playing with a better player unless you go into this with the right attitude.

I am not necessarily suggesting you have a bad attitude. I would actually have to play with you to make a judgment about this. No offense intended, but I think that it is likely that either your attitude is less than perfect or that you have been very unlucky with the group of "experts" you have had a chance to play with.

In my opinion, most really good players welcome the opportunity to play with lesser players who are pleasant, have potential, have a good attitude, and genuinely want to learn. Of course many of these people play bridge for a living and cannot afford to do this sort of thing on a regular basis.

And if you become a really good player it is 100% certain that you will attract the attention of the established experts and have opportunities to play with strong partners and teammates (unless you are a complete jerk - then it won't matter how well you play). These people want to win. If you become good enough to help them win, they will try to sign you up.

They may refuse to play raptor or canape with you, but they will want to play with you.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

joshs, on Feb 3 2006, 06:21 PM, said:

fred, on Feb 3 2006, 11:27 AM, said:

Echognome, on Feb 3 2006, 03:29 PM, said:

A very nice and interesting post Fred.  I do have some follow ups if you care to respond.

If we look at the Bermuda Bowl participants and in particular the top pairs in the world, we find that a large percentage play some type of strong club system.  It might vary from 4 card majors or 5 card majors, strong NT or weak NT, but there is some variety out there.  There are of course many natural systems being played as well.  So what should we conclude from this?  Is it that system doesn't really matter or that certain systems suit some people more than others?

I think all you can conclude is that the methods played by the world's leading players are at least reasonably good methods. Otherwise these players would either be smart enough to know that their methods were ineffective or their poor methods would give them such a handicap over the rest of the field that they would not be able to be successful in major tournaments.

Yes there are a lot of strong club pairs in the group you describe and several flavors of such systems. There are also a lot of pairs who play natural systems (some weak notrumpers some strong notrumpers some 4-card majors some 5-card majors...). There are some pairs who play Polish or Swedish style 1C systems as well. Some of these pairs include a lot of science in later rounds of the bidding. Others do not.

To me this suggests that basic choice of system is not important (as long as the basic system is not completely absurd).

You will notice that very few (none?) of the pairs at the highest levels use strong diamond systems or Raptor 1NT overcalls. This doesn't necessarily imply that such methods are inherantly bad - perhaps the world's leading players have simply not tried them. However, if such methods offered significant advantage over more "traditional" methods, I am pretty sure that at least some of the world's leading players would have figured this out and that they would be using them. It would not take long for word to spread.

Once you play bridge anywhere close to as well as, say, Fantoni and Nunes, by all means go ahead and try to play a system like theirs if you are so inclined - you will be ready for it.

What I am trying to say is that, until you reach that point, you will be better off spending your time trying to reach that point. My observations suggest that the vast majority of talented players who focus on system "too early" in their bridge careers and refuse to let go of this never become successful at the highest levels.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
ww.bridgebase.com

Well I have never understood this "learn to play bridge better line of reasoning". Playing bridge has many aspects, and involves many skills:
a. technical skills playing the cards
b. psychology/ card reading/ logic
c. good visualization/judgement in the bidding
d. memory for what cards have been played
e. having bidding and carding agreements (AND remembering them) that solve problems for your side AND/OR give opponents problems [Essentially this falls under "do your homework"]
f. mental toughness and endurance

A great player usually has good skills in most if not all of these areas. Most players have skills in at least some. I think you do need good skills in all of these areas, but you don't have to be world class in all of these. Feed off your strengths! If you are a good card reader, try to become a great one. If you have accedents when using complex methods, use simple ones and focus on what you do well. If you have a computer for a memory and so does your partner, go ahead and try to get an edge in the bidding with them. Just keep in mind for most of us, at some point remembering a complex system takes a mental toll on you, and tires you out while playing in a big event. If you are the sort who can play Ultimate Club in a long match while
being able to still play your cards well and not lose whatever psychological skill you have, more power to you, I think you should play the relay methods - get the biggest advantage from your skills. For the rest of us, its an optimization problem - how do distribute your mental energy to perform the best at the table.

Speaking for myself. My biggest strength comes in understanding the structure of bidding. Its not hard work for me to play fairly complicated methods - I remember them and get good results from them. Complicated methods doesn't necessarily involve lots of conventions, just lots of agreements of what partner will do which such and such a hand type in a given situation. But conventions do help in many situations. The time I put in ahead of time into putting good methods together pays off for me. I don't think its fair to say that isn't "playing bridge." Its the aspect of bridge that I am best at. While I would like to get better at solving double dummy problems, and in general improve my card play and my table reading skills, it wouldn't be the same game, and it wouldn't have the same people win if you eliminate the value of some of these other skills. (Read this as both a diatribe on too overarching system restrictions as well as my thoughts about what "playing bridge is.")

Now having said that, I know a lot of people who spend a lot of time on bidding gadgets, and can't play the cards at even a respectible level (and some who have bad bidding judgement). Well there is no point bidding 60% slams if you can't make them over 50% of the time... And there is no point pushing your opps into a bad contract, if you fail to beat it.

Fred do you disagree?

Josh

I am not exactly sure what you are asking me.

I agree that points A through F in your post are all necessary conditions for success in major tournaments (and that none of these are, in themselves, sufficient conditions).

Playing complex artificial methods is clearly not necessary for success. There are many examples that demonstrate this - perhaps the best is to look at the success of the great French teams in the 1990s.

The point I have been trying to make all along is that, if you want to win national and international level events, you had better make sure that you able to do the things that are necessary to accomplish this.

People who spend a lot of their time and energy working on things that are not necessary for success instead of the things that are necessary for success do not rate to be successful

If this does not answer your question, then please clarify.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[joshs]

Fred, let me give an example:

Example A: You are a promising young player with a flair for reading your opponents. You have some major weaknesses, such as not really being able to work out the better declarer line when line A was 60% and line B was only 50%. You have trouble with double dummy problems, and don't seem to get much better even with practice, but at the table you usually find the winning line even if against the odds.

Is this player better off:
1. trying to get his technical card playing up to snuff?
or
2. trying to further improve his already good card sense?

Which gives the more bang for the buck? Can this person become world class without improving 1?

Example B: You have a computer for a memory and so does your bridge partner. You have been playing some ART methods and when they come up, you find that you often generate slam swings. You have some new ideas that you have been thinking about that should help your bidding on 5% of the hands without losing anything the rest of the time, but have yet to work out the details. Your card play is strong but could get better with more practice. Sadly, you wouldn't notice that an opponent hitched if they jumped on the table.

Again, how should this player spend his time to improve? And can this person ever become world class without any table sense?


My main question is:
1. Is it always correct to attempt to improve your weaknesses, or might you be better off further enhancing your strengths?
2. Do the two optimization problems lead to different allocations of your time:
a. become as good as you can in 5 years?
b. win a world championship in 5 years?
3. Is improving one's 'bidding system skill' in a different catagory from these other skills? (You seem to think so)

Note: I think there are two different skills at play with bidding systems (as with languages):
a. vocabulary - you have a good memory and can remember the meanings of all sort of sequences and know what to do with various hand types and have developed some novel meanings for some bids/sequences that has gotten you improved results.
b. grammar - you understand the internal logic of how systems are put together. You can work out what a bid should logically mean even if you don't remember the sequence or have never discussed it. If someone gives you a brand new set of methods, you can read them and play them easily, as long as they make sense.

Note that skill 'a' is non-transferable, when playing in a new partnership it does not give you any instant advantage, while skill 'b' is transferable and I think much more valuable.

Anyway, Fred thanks for your thoughts! Its always valuable to get feedback from great players on how to improve. I really appreciate your taking the time to do that.

Josh

[hrothgar]

Couple thoughts (please note, I'm not stating any personally opinions but rather suggesting a framework which might be used to analyze the problem)

1. Assume that there are a number of different skills which can (potentially) improve your game. This skills include bidding, declarer play, defense, yada yada yada. In theory, it might be possible to define a heirarchy of skills in which some skills like counting or visualizing a hand provide a foundation for a number of others... (For example, learning to count out a hand helps both declarer play and defense)

2. Further assume that a players "level" of skill is a function of (Time spent Practicing). We'll make the "standard" assumptions that the first derivative of skill with respect to time is positive and the second derivative of skill with respect to time is negative. This is a pretensious way of say that the more you practice, the better you get. However, the benefit that you enjoy from investing the first 10 hours practicing defense is greater that the benefit from the second 10 hours. (Learning how to finesse is incredible valuable. Learning to end play people is almost as good. By the time you get to "weird" stepping stone squeezes, things are so esoteric that you'll rarely get to apply these skills at the table)...

Normally, when you make these types of assumptions, the "optimal" solution is for players to divide their time between a number of different skills. You spend some time on declarer play, a bit on defense, learn a few new bidding conventions then back to declarer play. In theory, you want to allocate you time in such a manner that the marginal benefit of an additional hour of work in any given area is (approximately) equal. Needless to say, this is easier said than done. It gets particularly complicated when there are cross dependencies between different skill sets.

Even so, Fred is suggesting that players should spent most of their time focusing on the basics and ignoring esoterica like relay slam bidding, assumed fit preempts, and the like. I have a fair amount of sympathy with this view: Counting and visualizing a hand are the foundation which props up the entire system. Indeed, as I have noted in the past, when I teach bridge to new players, we ignore bidding altogether.

With this said and done, I suspect that that whole "diminishing marginal returns" issue is gonna kick in, and kick in hard. Its true, the French team was able to score some very impressive successes using very "simple" methods. However, from my perspective, the key issue is NOT whether its possible to win playing simple methods, but rather, what is the most efficient method of investing one's time. Personally, I suspect that the most efficient solution is to adopt extremely high variance methods. (Such a solution would permit me to avoid any requirement to invest lots of time learning the obscure details of declarer play and defense). I'd expect very high returns working to ensure that my partnership landed on its feet after one of our "weird" openings.

Personally, I think that this provides a quite reasonable description of the state of bridge today. In particular, it describes why there is such tension regarding methods... The players who are investing the most time have an incentive to reduce variance. The players who are investing less time have a powerful incentive to icnrease variance.

[fred]

joshs, on Feb 3 2006, 08:46 PM, said:

Fred, let me give an example:

Example A: You are a promising young player with a  flair for reading your opponents. You have some major weaknesses, such as not really being able to work out the better declarer line when line A was 60% and line B was only 50%. You have trouble with double dummy problems, and don't seem to get much better even with practice, but at the table you usually find the winning line even if against the odds.

Is this player better off:
1. trying to get his technical card playing up to snuff?
or
2. trying to further improve his already good card sense?

Which gives the more bang for the buck? Can this person become world class without improving 1?

Example B: You have a computer for a memory and so does your bridge partner. You have been playing some ART methods and when they come up, you find that you often generate slam swings. You have some new ideas that you have been thinking about that should help your bidding on 5% of the hands without losing anything the rest of the time, but have yet to work out the details. Your card play is strong but could get better with more practice. Sadly, you wouldn't notice that an opponent hitched if they jumped on the table.

Again, how should this player spend his time to improve? And can this person ever become world class without any table sense?


My main question is:
1. Is it always correct to attempt to improve your weaknesses, or might you be better off further enhancing your strengths?
2. Do the two optimization problems lead to different allocations of your time:
a. become as good as you can in 5 years?
b. win a world championship in 5 years?
3. Is improving one's 'bidding system skill' in a different catagory from these other skills? (You seem to think so)

Note: I think there are two different skills at play with bidding systems (as with languages):
a. vocabulary - you have a good memory and can remember the meanings of all sort of sequences and know what to do with various hand types and have developed some novel meanings for some bids/sequences that has gotten you improved results.
b. grammar - you understand the internal logic of how systems are put together. You can work out what a bid should logically mean even if you don't remember the sequence or have never discussed it. If someone gives you a brand new set of methods, you can read them and play them easily, as long as they make sense.

Note that skill 'a' is non-transferable, when playing in a new partnership it does not give you any instant advantage, while skill 'b' is transferable and I think much more valuable.

Anyway, Fred thanks for your thoughts! Its always valuable to get feedback from great players on how to improve. I really appreciate your taking the time to do that.

Josh

Not all great players are great at all important aspects of the game. However, all must achieve at least some minimum standard of proficiency in all important aspects of the game in order to have a realistic chance to win a major tournament.

The necessary standard of proficiency for what you call "bidding vocabulary" is very low in my opinion (at least compared to the level of vocabulary that many talented but unsuccessful players seem intent on achieving).

Being good at "bidding grammar" is important. Having good bidding judgment is important. Have good partnership skills as they relate to bidding (among other things) is important. Having an extensive bidding vocabulary is not important.

My opinion is that, until a player masters the other aspects of bridge, it is a waste of time his/her time to work on increasing his/her vocabulary. The more time you spend on this, the more time you are wasting.

Keep in mind that I am assuming that the basic goal is to be successful. If your goals are to develop or learn interesting new methods then obviously it is not a waste of time to try to develop or learn interesting new methods.

However, I think you will find that you won't be very good at this. For example, relay methods are not worth much unless you are already an excellent declarer, have outstanding concentration, and have developed a good sense of when the opponents are likely to lead certain things, make lead directing doubles... It is also hard for players who lack excellent bridge skills to evaluate conventions like Raptor 1NT overcalls in terms of "big picture issues" (like to what degree they will hurt your takeout double auctions).

There are things that you can do to intentionally improve certain aspects of your game. For example, if you want to improve your declarer play there are plenty of good books and software tools like Bridge Master.

However, there are other aspects of bridge that you can only improve by playing a lot with and against the strongest opposition you can find, thinking about the hands, and discussing the important issues with players who are more experienced than you are (and listening to what they tell you!). In order for you to get the most out of this, it will help if your mind is not cluttered with information that is not important so that you can devote your full attention to the parts of the game that really matter.

I don't think you have to consiously decide things like "I think my table presence needs work so I will devote the next 6 months to that". Just play a lot and think about the hands you play. If you have the right attitude and at least a little bit of talent, you will succeed (though it may take 5 or 10 years before you are ready for prime time).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Elianna]

joshs, on Feb 3 2006, 11:21 AM, said:

Playing bridge has many aspects, and involves many skills:
a. technical skills playing the cards
b. psychology/ card reading/ logic
c. good visualization/judgement in the bidding
d. memory for what cards have been played
e. having bidding and carding agreements (AND remembering them) that solve problems for your side AND/OR give opponents problems [Essentially this falls under "do your homework"]
f. mental toughness and endurance

You have left out one very important skill:

g. Being a good partner.

There are many threads discussing what makes a good partner. Some of it is which combination of the above set of skills one holds, but a lot of being a good partner is being able to sense what the person across the table from you is thinking, and being able to react to that.

And no, I don't mean in play or bidding, but in between hands. For example, if your partner tells you to stop carping on some point, being ABLE to stop, without turning the very fact of stopping against them, too.

Just knowing how to treat partners is a very good skill. At one club I direct, there is usually a gentleman who comes in without a partner, and whenever I call people to try to find him one, they say that they'll play, but not with him. And not because he's such a poor player (goodness knows, there are MUCH worse players that I can find partners for), it's because that guy can not shut his mouth!

[kenrexford]

You are right, Fred. This eventually comes to pass. My experience has been this way. However, it takes a complete shutdown of your thinking.

I personally have had many fine players, national champions, ask to partner up after it was realized that I was not the insane mad scientist. However, the flair for the exotic and esoteric brought havoc upon me a few years back. The solution was to abandon the nonsense.

A side problem from the bizarre tools is that few know your true ability for a while. They expect that you had success because the dumb opposition could not handle the nonsense. You have not been "tested" as to true ability.

I mentioned this problem for the aspiring bridge player. I mentored some young kids years ago, for a short while, and encouraged them in some bad habits. All had great potential, and one ignored me and others like me to become a great player. The others seemed to have burned out. That's a shame.

[joshs]

Elianna, on Feb 3 2006, 05:03 PM, said:

joshs, on Feb 3 2006, 11:21 AM, said:

Playing bridge has many aspects, and involves many skills:
a. technical skills playing the cards
b. psychology/ card reading/ logic
c. good visualization/judgement in the bidding
d. memory for what cards have been played
e. having bidding and carding agreements (AND remembering them) that solve problems for your side AND/OR give opponents problems [Essentially this falls under "do your homework"]
f. mental toughness and endurance

You have left out one very important skill:

g. Being a good partner.

There are many threads discussing what makes a good partner. Some of it is which combination of the above set of skills one holds, but a lot of being a good partner is being able to sense what the person across the table from you is thinking, and being able to react to that.

And no, I don't mean in play or bidding, but in between hands. For example, if your partner tells you to stop carping on some point, being ABLE to stop, without turning the very fact of stopping against them, too.

Just knowing how to treat partners is a very good skill. At one club I direct, there is usually a gentleman who comes in without a partner, and whenever I call people to try to find him one, they say that they'll play, but not with him. And not because he's such a poor player (goodness knows, there are MUCH worse players that I can find partners for), it's because that guy can not shut his mouth!

yes. g is a critical skill. Getting partner to play his best, requires certain behavior and a certain temperment.

Josh

[luke warm]

i just can't see how the one skill (i'm lumping play skills together) excludes the other (bidding, whether relays or standard)...

i've found that when i've had regular partners, playing the same system all the time (usually some strong club system), my play skills are at a higher level... i don't know exactly why this is... comfort maybe?

so imo pick a system that suits you from a tempermental standpoint, practice it until both the normal bids and inferences from what wasn't bid become 2nd nature, and play it with one or two regular partners...

it seems to me that play skill can improve just as much from within the framework of a system suited to you (regardless of the time it takes to learn its intricacies) as from a less artificial system (or vice versa).. iow, one can improve weaknesses in declarer play, defense, etc when playing (and learning) ultimate club just as easily as when playing 2/1... but that's just my opinion, and it doesn't speak to the soundness of any specific system or convention... that's a job for the theoreticians

[Gerben42]

Anyway, a nice thread emerged from "what's the point count for a raptor NT?"

As a closing note on the "importance of system" issue: The fact that no one plays system X at the top level means nothing. Only if people have played it at the top level and stopped playing it, that means something. No one before has tried a Fantunes-like system before. They did, and they are successful. I bet that if a pair with the talent of these two would have started out with something completely different, say Magic Diamond (a strong ♦ system), the result would be the same.

Also you can have the nicest system in the world, it all comes down to judgement in the end. Am I going to bid game or not? Am I going to take a save?

[fred]

Gerben42, on Feb 7 2006, 03:36 PM, said:

As a closing note on the "importance of system" issue: The fact that no one plays system X at the top level means nothing.

I disagree with this.

Some players understand bridge well enough to look at some systems and conventions and decide that they are theoretically and/or tactically unsound. Sometimes they will be wrong and course it would mean more if such players actually tried these systems before dismissing them.

However, in my opinion it does mean something if the world's leading players are not even willing to give a particular system or convention a try. Chances are good that such systems or conventions are not worth trying.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

Sorry I guess that was a bit undifferentiated, some things are of course silly (one can think of a 2NT opening showing 10 - 12 balanced for example - no one would even try that).

What I meant to say is that it might mean less than many think. Anyway, playing Raptor NT or natural 1NT overcalls won't make you or break you. Being able to make less mistakes than the opponents will.

On a side note, I think we will see more of these "extremely natural" Fantunes-type systems around in the near future.

P.S. I know that there are downsides to Raptor 1NT, especially when you hold the 15 - 18 balanced with stopper hand type. However it has much more upside than conventions that I would characterize as horrible.

[awm]

While I agree that "just because it's not played by top pairs means it's a bad convention" is jumping to a conclusion, it's worth being wary of conventions that were played by top pairs at one time, or are commonly played among lower-level players but which are not currently played at top-flight competition. This usually means that the good players gave these conventions a look (or maybe a test-run) and decided they were somehow bad.

Wasn't raptor very popular among top polish players some years ago? Do they still play it? If not, it would definitely be worth asking them why. Of course, there are occasionally examples like the Wilkosz 2♦ which they stopped playing in part because of legislators, but raptor would seem not to fall into this category.

This kind of reasoning has less application to something like Fantoni-Nunes system, which to some degree has "never been seen before" (although it does combine many principles from EHAA, Kaplan-Sheinwold, and Roth-Stone, the latter two of which had great success in top-flight competition in times past).

[42]

awm, on Feb 7 2006, 07:22 PM, said:

Wasn't raptor very popular among top polish players some years ago? Do they still play it?

I think Raptor was part of WJ2000, I know for sure that it is not anymore in WJ2005.