[andych]

Isnt the play/defense more interesting than biddng questions?

[whereagles]

Because play/defense problems require a lot of thought and there is usually not much to discuss.

Bidding requires mostly judgement and good bullsh*tting abilities, and we all love bs-ing

[pclayton]

Its the "USA Today" mentality. People like info in small, easy to digest packets that require minimal thought. Bidding problems are like that, play and defense require a lot more crunching.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Jun 12 2006, 11:32 AM, said:

Its the "USA Today" mentality. People like info in small, easy to digest packets that require minimal thought. Bidding problems are like that, play and defense require a lot more crunching.

I usually take my info in pill form for maximum convenience.

[pbleighton]

Sad to say, many of us find play and defense less interesting than bidding, to the detriment of our bridge.

Peter

[mike777]

I just read that information cannot cross the light speed barrier in the water cooler so that explains why I do not understand partner's bids .

[EricK]

Part of the problem is that bidding errors are often more apparent than play errors.

I imagine that the majority of hands are (technically) misdeclared and/or misdefended. It is just that these errors so often go unnoticed and unpunished (or are unpunishable as the cards lie).

[inquiry]

Most of us, after seeing the hands, can determine what the correct play was and even why we should have found it. And if not, we can use any number of double dummy problem solvers to figure it out.

Bidding, on the other hand, has a lot of fuzzy areas. That is, play can boil down to straight mathematical (and psychological) considerations. Bidding, gives a lot more room for second (and third and fourth guessing). Also there is the hyper=scientiific school of bidders who share all information with both partner and opponents, and there is the quantitative bidders who bid what they hope they can make without giving too much away. There is always fun comparing the two schools (although in online bidding questions, the straight foward jump to slam etc is never the right answer because no one considers that there are opponents at the table listening to the bidding. looking for chance to double for lead, make lead directing overcall or find easy sacrafice). Still bidding questions are fun.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I am more interested in bidding, but I try hard to
improve my declarere / defensive play, but I have
a hard time imaginating the play and writing a
complete analysis is also a lot more difficult when
answering to play problems.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hotShot]

If you go down, make overtricks or get a bad MP score the first question is: Did we bid the right contract.
This is because additionaly to the HCP and shape of each hand, the combined strength of both hands can be greater or smaller than the simple sum.
This fit element and distributional strength involve judgement and communication. These can not be fully covered by rules and leave room to interpretation and are therefor open to discussion.
As Ben stated any number of player will sooner or later agree to a best line of play. But take the same players and try to get an agreement about the best bidding system and the best conventions.

[Stephen Tu]

I'm with Ben here. In play/defense there is often one clearly correct line after analysis, don't need other people to tell us how we screwed up when we already figured it out seconds after we blundered . Beginner/Int will need help here more often to find their mistakes, but in my view it is more efficient for them to just go out & get some good books & study, and/or play BridgeMaster or the other BridgeBase products, then try to get their hands analyzed one at a time in a forum.

Bidding there is ton of room for different opinions even among experts, we pose questions to get an idea of consensus view (so know what to expect w/ new partner or unfamiliar spot w/ established partner), and to learn about other approaches not previously considered that might be superior.

[pclayton]

inquiry, on Jun 12 2006, 10:28 AM, said:

Most of us, after seeing the hands, can determine what the correct play was and even why we should have found it. And if not, we can use any number of double dummy problem solvers to figure it out.

Bidding, on the other hand, has a lot of fuzzy areas. That is, play can boil down to straight mathematical (and psychological) considerations. Bidding, gives a lot more room for second (and third and fourth guessing). Also there is the hyper=scientiific school of bidders who share all information with both partner and opponents, and there is the quantitative bidders who bid what they hope they can make without giving too much away. There is always fun comparing the two schools (although in online bidding questions, the straight foward jump to slam etc is never the right answer because no one considers that there are opponents at the table listening to the bidding. looking for chance to double for lead, make lead directing overcall or find easy sacrafice). Still bidding questions are fun.

Obviously there are double-dummy solutions to play / defense situation.

However, this doesn't make a play 'right' or 'wrong' any more than seeing a bid in retrospect makes it right or wrong.

There are plenty of fuzzy situations in play and defense, based on inferences and logic, and psychology, deception and concealment.

[joshs]

Most interesting play and defense problems are not of the form:
what card to you play at trick x, which can be easily answered

Instead its usually,
if a happens then I do b
if c happens then I do d

with lots of branch points.
Most good play problems need to be presented interactively. I play this, what happens, and then you decide what to do next.

Answering a question that involves ALL possible future decisions is very exausting.

On the other hand, most bidding questions are compact. They involve 1 bid, or on rare occasion, a plan involving 2 bids. When its a complicated bidding sequence, it begins to get close to as complicated as a good play problem is...

[FrancesHinden]

inquiry, on Jun 12 2006, 07:28 PM, said:

Most of us, after seeing the hands, can determine what the correct play was and even why we should have found it. And if not, we can use any number of double dummy problem solvers to figure it out.

I disagree.
There are many hands where the right line is uncertain and worthy of debate. Double dummy analysis is only helpful once you know what all four hands are: it can be amusing in the post-mortem, and it is educational after the event to see how the play could have gone, but it rarely helps solve a single-dummy declarer or defence problem.

I find play problems far more interesting than bidding problems, as is evidenced by most of the topics I start which are nearly always either play problems or become play problems.

While it's true that play problems can be interactive, it never hurts to form a plan early on... that's a good reason for not giving partscores (which depend so much more on the opponents' choice of plays) and why games/slams are most frequent.

I think people respond more to bidding problems posted because you can simply reply using your favorite methods and can't be shown to be wrong.

[whereagles]

pbleighton, on Jun 12 2006, 04:36 PM, said:

Sad to say, many of us find play and defense less interesting than bidding, to the detriment of our bridge.

Peter

But that's just a reflex of the fact that cardplay has been "solved" long ago. The last novelty I heard of in that area was the backwash squeeze and that was like.. what? 20 years ago?

In bidding, the general theory is still far from complete.. and besides, every second that passes brings new gadget for discussion