[Winstonm]

I know for me, declarer play is somewhat mundane - perhaps why I have never considered myself a top flight declarer. Defense, however, is a real challenge and I find defending well to be the ultimate "bridge high." Making a complex hand pales in comparison to the satisfation of defeating an almost undefeatable contract.
To me, defense is like solving a complex logic problem with a little imagination thrown in for good measure.

In order to optimize results, I believe it important to understand your likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses and accomodate them whenever possible.

What is your self take? What do you do best and what is the reason you find this a strength? No poll to vote in because I'm interested in thought processes - maybe it will help me strengthen my weaker areas.

Thanks,

Winston

[Echognome]

That's interesting Winston. I find declarer play the most interesting. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that the only way I could improve for a long time was by reading. I also like the logical deduction of the unknown hands the biggest high. I think it stems from working out loads of double dummy problems.

On the other hand, I find defense to be a lot of hard work. It involves, for me, counting, counting, and more counting. Bidding can be fun or it can be a drag. It just depends on what system I'm playing and who my partner is.

[dogsbreath]

hi
i believe that skill at defense and declarer-play are closely linked. Arguably, declarer-play is easier to improve and if you achieve that your defence will also advance since you will recognise more frequently what declarer's problem(s) is/are.

(declarer-play is easier to improve since it can be done in isolation whereas expert defense depends to some extent to the co-operation of one's partener... you can be an expert declarer even if your regular partener is a beginner .. imo).

Rgds Dog

[Winstonm]

Echognome, on Dec 9 2005, 12:17 PM, said:

That's interesting Winston.  I find declarer play the most interesting.  Perhaps it has to do with the fact that the only way I could improve for a long time was by reading.  I also like the logical deduction of the unknown hands the biggest high.  I think it stems from working out loads of double dummy problems.

On the other hand, I find defense to be a lot of hard work.  It involves, for me, counting, counting, and more counting.  Bidding can be fun or it can be a drag.  It just depends on what system I'm playing and who my partner is.

This is interesting - I read in "At the Table" that Bob Hamman used to spend hours with double dummy problems also - when he was in/out/in of college. Are double dummy problems helpful in developing skill as declarer. I admit I've never done them much at all.

Winston

[Echognome]

I think double dummy problems help your lateral thinking. It is not so much that they can help you solve most of your everyday declarer problems. For those, you can read Mollo or Klinger (or preferably Reese). However, I believe they help you with your creativity and your lateral thinking. Sometimes you have a good feeling for a hand or have a pretty good count on the hand or need to assume the hand lies a certain way in order to make. If you haven't studied double dummy problems, it is very difficult to know how to proceed. I am sure some players are just naturals. I found it helpful to work through many problems to see how certain endings work. George Coffin's Great 88 5-card endings are a fun place to start.


http://www.rpbridge.net/9p01.htm

[Winstonm]

JLall. I really find your self analysis interesting - it reflects my own to a great degree - perhaps why we find ourselves in agreement in forum posts quite often.

One of my great strengths is evaluation of hands and imagination - this is easy for me in bidding - not too hard on defense - lousy when playing the hand.

I, too, although to a greater degree than you I would think, get bogged down with hands that have multiple options and seeminly countless ways to play - rapid analysis is not my strength - it takes time for my mind to work clearly.

Focus is my biggest problem declaring. What exact card did LHO play at trick 3. I am like a hawk on defense, all senses hightened - looking for that movement in the grass that may be a mouse. As declarer, I'm more like a lazy dog lying in the sun - oh, is it my play...scratch, scratch...yawn.

Winston

[ArcLight]

I've been playing for almost 2 years, and I enjoy/work on doing non-double dummy play problems. Like the Mike Lawrence software or his BridgeClues column. (or the tons of good non double dummy problem books out there like those by Terence Reese).

Even though I KNOW how important counting is, its like a fog instantly clouds my brain when the hand starts. In my arm chair I can sometimes count out a hand (or solve a Hugh Kelsey problem), but never at the table. But I'm getting better at it. At least now I make a point of estimating HCP around the table, and perhaps distribution, and tricks. But I lose track after a few cads.
I'm not too woried about bidding right now. I just want to concentrate on becoming a decent card player.

[hrothgar]

I think that my strength, such that it is, is related to applying "formal" mathematical constructs to certain bridge problems. A great deal of my academic work focused on game theory and mathematical modelling. There are a lot of very complex problems surrounding bidding. I find it an interesting distraction.

I don't consider myself especially strong at either defense or declarer play. I suspect that I could be stronger, however, these aspects of the game don't really grab me. The issue is not so much that I think that declarer play is easy, but rather that the problems are finite.

[awm]

My biggest strength is probably the ability to gauge the contents of hands from the bidding. Because of this, my judgement in high level decisions (when to sacrifice, when to double of compete) is usually pretty good. I'm also able to apply this information in play and defense, and I think my opening leads are better than most.

At one time I thought my declarer play was really good, but I've realized the reality is that I'm good at placing unknown cards from the bidding and lead, and good at making deceptive plays. In terms of finding the "best technical line" I'm not really so good, and there are a lot of positions or suit combinations where I won't necessarily see what to do. While hands that I declare tend to score very well at matchpoints (even in a fairly strong field), I think it's more deceptiveness and reading the auction than actually making the best play. To some degree I can improve in this aspect by solving hard play problems.

Defensively, getting off to a good opening lead can be a huge advantage. Subsequent to the lead, I wouldn't say that my defense is brilliant or anything, but I'm certainly able to remember to signal and defend well with a compatible partner.

I've experimented with a lot of unusual methods, and I think this helps in various ways -- for example I have played enough weak notrump that I tend to do well defending against it, and I have a good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of different methods. A big part of doing well against unusual systems is just not being intimidated by the nonsense going on in the auction, and continuing to play, defend, and bid consistently.

I'd have to say the weakest aspect of my game is playing when I am tired or hungry. These things have a lot of effect on my play, and over the course of a long tournament pretty much everyone suffers from them to some degree. My online play tends to be pretty inconsistent for this reason, since I often end up playing late at night (before bed) or early in the morning (before breakfast). I've also noticed that my play tends to tail off towards the end of a nationals for much the same reasons.

For the most part I can be a good partner -- certainly I'm not one of these people who constantly criticizes everything partner does. On the other hand, I'm often not happy when losing badly at bridge. Playing with my girlfriend (Elianna), this has been more of a problem, since she is more sensitive to my mood than most partners and tends to play badly if she thinks I'm in a bad mood, even though I'm careful not to say anything critical at the table.

[mikeh]

An interesting thread. I would be even more interested in hearing, candidly, what my partners think are my strengths and weaknesse. Some of them have told me a few things on occasion

The strongest parts of my game are visualization and the drawing of inferences both as defender and declarer. My end game as declarer is a little stronger than my end game as defender.

The weakest parts of my game are psychological: I have a bad habit of bidding pessimistically: I convince myself, especially in high-level competitive auctions, that the conservative call is the better. What success I have had in good competition has usually coincided with my playing with confidence.

I can also get a brain-freeze from time to time. For example, I once alerted and then explained a relay response as showing precisely 4=4=2=2 shape. While there are hands on which it may help to know that partner only holds 12 cards, it is perhaps foolish to design your system around that possibility.

As a partner, I am Jekyll and Hyde. With an expert partner in a serious event, I am a model partner and a good teammate (if not in the play, then temperamentally). With my wife and with some others in less serious events, I can be a monster: so that is a huge weakness for me. Not coincidentally, when I behave myself, our results are pretty good.

I am way too technically oriented: I very rarely 'play the opponents': thus at matchpoints, I usually score better in tough fields than in stratified pairs, for example. I do not double enough, especially at mps, and I do not try to push the opps around with technically filthy but psychologically effective bids. I think that that is a huge reason why I far prefer imps: I lack confidence in my ability to play poker at the bridge table.

[han]

Interesting thread.

Less than a year ago, I was playing bridge in a Dutch pub when a very good Dutch player came to sit behind me. After he kibitzed a few hands that I defended he said "you play the cards quite well Han, but you don't double enough". I imagine that he was just being polite about the playing part, but that he was serious about the doubling. It is rare to get comments like this, and I've really paid more attention to my doubles afterwards (or rather, to my lack of doubles). I'm sad to say that I still don't double enough.

A couple of weeks later I got a chance to play with him for an evening, a great experience. Afterwards I told him that I would email him some things to work on .

[whereagles]

I like precision bidding (not the system lol) and frequent pressure bids. I also have a good idea of the strategy of bidding. On the downside, I'm sometimes over-aggressive.

Card play is secondary to me, but I can play the cards fairly well, though better as declarer. I occasionally lose concentration, which proves costly at times. I also can't seem to find a pard who bothers to watch spotcards closely on defense.

[Winstonm]

Quote

MikeH: The weakest parts of my game are psychological: I have a bad habit of bidding pessimistically: I convince myself, especially in high-level competitive auctions, that the conservative call is the better. What success I have had in good competition has usually coincided with my playing with confidence.

I find this really interesting, Mike. I have a similar "flaw" when it comes to declarer play - I tend to approach the hands pessimistically, looking for bad breaks behind every corner when they aren't there.

In another thread I wrote that I believed one of Bob Hamman's greatest attributes was "clear thinking", and this is the sort of thing I meant. He seems to be immune to the emotion or negative psychlogical influences from within that on occasion cause rest of us to go looney and go down in an ice cold contract or stop short of slam. From the times I have played against him (too few) and the times I have seem him in action or his actions in print, it always impressed me that he had the seeminly unique ability to eliminate emotion and see things as they are - crystal clear reality.

This ability above all else is what I strive to obtain.

Winston

[Fluffy]

My best is picturingpartner's hand on the bidding, althou hardly accurate, I tend to picture hands that are similar or equivalent in tricks to the ones I think of.

By doing this I have often losed 10 IMPs due to avoiding 20-30% games .

Also good at quick play, I have sometimes made a very hard deecision in miliseconds, making the opponents think I had an obvious one wich became very good.

My worst is declarer play, I remember declaring 3NT -2 a month ago when everyone was making 10/11 tricks . I also have difficculties to remember discards that I think are not important (they become important later sadly). Or even sometimes don't see wich honnor I had captured with my ace because I don't find it matters, when I tryto countpoint distributon later I want to kill myself.

[pclayton]

Updated 2007:

Quote

Interesting thread.

I think my best asset is that I am a good partner. Getting the most out of CHO is one of my great joys. And its not just the 'handling'; its understanding the limits of CHO's game and adjusting accordingly.

I still think this.

Quote

I've always considered myself a excellent judge of uncompetitive auctions. But I also think one of my weaknesses is judgment in a competitive auction. I tend to undercompete too. 

Wow - not any more. Competitive bidding is pretty good.

Quote

I'm a fair technician; but not as good as either of my pards.

One of these partners is an ex-partner.

Quote

But I consider myself to be in the top 5 in any regional field I play in. I have read and played enough to identify almost any theme.

Wow - a little arrogant I suppose.

Quote

Sometimes I have a lapse in the midgame. Its odd, this usually comes from OVERCONCENTRATING at T1; trying to work out too many variations before I have information. And its usually during the 1st round or when theres been something to upset the flow of the game; a director call, starting a round late, being sominexed, etc..

Hmmmm; now I feel as though that extra concentration HELPS me in the midgame.
Maybe I'm better at processing information now than I was.

Quote

My best is when I zone in and my pard and I are having a good set. Sometimes I feel I can play the cards face up. To me there is no greater thrill than perfect bridge; even though it never really lasts.

Actually, there's no greater thrill than winning

[cherdano]

I just came across this waaaay old thread, quite interesting. I suppose the more relevant question is what is the part of your game you should spend the most effort on to improve, which isn't quite the same thing.
I admit I would feel rather awkward talking about my (few) strengths and (many) weaknesses, in particular as there are some posters who have played so many boards with or against me that I sometimes think they know my bridge much better than I do. However, I know I am not yet good enough at being consistent in the bidding, in technical declarer play, psychological declarer play, visualization on defense, psychological ploys on defense, not giving my problems away, have to do away with concentration lapses...

[Winstonm]

As I've grown older the enjoyment of the game has been superceded by a demand for civility - I realized there were other things in life and one did not have to be tolerant of unpleasant opponents, uncomfortable surroundings, or nagging partners. Playing the game became unimportant.