[Cascade]

Phil, on Aug 14 2009, 03:13 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 13 2009, 12:44 AM, said:

1. It takes about half an hour to deal a set of boards (say 24-27 deals) from a preprinted hand record.  This could easily be done in the idle time during one session of directing for a future session.

Sure if you're Lee Majors.

By the way, unless you have an efficient number of tables, like 9 or 13, you'll need more than 24-27 hands for a typical movement.

When I duplicated for last year's sectional tournaments at Clubs, it would take me about 90 minutes to do a set of 36 boards.

Maybe my 30 minutes was from stripped boards - cards in suits and in order. When I predeal them I deal them face up and verbalized the cards as I deal them into the appropriate pile while looking at the hand record and at the cards - "club 2, club 3, club 4 ..." this catches most errors. It doesnt take much extra effort to look at the cards after they have been dealt since they are already sorted in suits to quickly check the accuracy.

What sort of typical movements do you play?

At our club we have had between 9 and 13 tables this year and we always play between 24 and 27 boards. There are easy movements for these numbers.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Aug 14 2009, 03:56 AM, said:

Although the question you asked was how to persuade clubs to produce hand records, I'd like to suggest that another alternative, that might actually improve your game equally well, would be to work on your memory. Try writing the auctions down on your scorecard & then after the game go over the hands and see whether you can recreate the hands and the play. I know some people who started this sort of process by writing their own hands down on the scoresheet. I find the auction easier to write down and usually enough to jog my memory.

One of the most important things all of us can do to improve is to do a better job of visualizing all 4 hands during the bidding and play. In fact, one expert I know suggested that the reason men are usually better than women (at the top level) in bridge is because they are better able to visualize things (males usually do better on spatial relation type tests for instance). I know that it takes me a serious effort to form a picture of the entire hand and that when I do so I play better.

I remember one session I played with my former husband, before hand records existed, where I happened to leave on a trip immediately after the game. When I got home, he commented that he'd gone through the scores and had recreated all of the hands relatively easily. I know another expert who routinely goes through his scores and not only recreates the hands but writes up what happened and what he thinks he and his partner could have done to improve. I'm sure there are many reasons why both of these players are world champions, but the fact that they pay enough attention to each hand to be able to recreate the hands and what happened later is surely one reason.

Do you mean including all of the spot cards?

[McBruce]

jillybean, on Aug 13 2009, 09:50 AM, said:

McBruce, on Aug 13 2009, 02:11 AM, said:

A related problem is that players cannot be relied upon to suit and sort accurately -- they accidentally put cards in the slots AKQJT97865423 quite often, and some have been known to place the cards face up in the slots with the deuces up, but after removing, sorting and dealing you find that that is ALL that they've done and you're back at square one.

I wouldn`t have thought this would cause problems in your games, bridge players are smart people. Maybe one or two newbies who need help to create deals, but a table with 4 complete bunnies, hmm. That surprises me!

I was referring to the idea that you can get players to put the cards into suits, ordered A thru 2, after the game, so that dealing out the next set is quicker. Doesn't work. 80% is about the best you can expect, with 15% not doing it at all, 4% doing it but making errors (AKQTJ98675432) somewhere, and 1% starting the job but quitting at some point and putting the deuces on top to make it look like it's been done.

My method, which does take a period of time to get used to, is to just grab the completely unsorted deck and scan for each card as it comes up: 4♠ goes here, K♦ goes here, 7♥ goes here. This is a bit slower, but faster overall--the time saved by dealing in order is lost if you need to pre-sort the decks. It's best on the neck muscles to have the hand record raised like the monitor screen you're looking at as you read this -- you should be able to deal cards into four piles not looking down, without any overlaps.

Excellent Lee Majors reference, Phil!

[jillybean]

McBruce, on Aug 13 2009, 03:26 PM, said:

jillybean, on Aug 13 2009, 09:50 AM, said:

McBruce, on Aug 13 2009, 02:11 AM, said:

A related problem is that players cannot be relied upon to suit and sort accurately -- they accidentally put cards in the slots AKQJT97865423 quite often, and some have been known to place the cards face up in the slots with the deuces up, but after removing, sorting and dealing you find that that is ALL that they've done and you're back at square one.

I wouldn`t have thought this would cause problems in your games, bridge players are smart people. Maybe one or two newbies who need help to create deals, but a table with 4 complete bunnies, hmm. That surprises me!

I was referring to the idea that you can get players to put the cards into suits, ordered A thru 2, after the game, so that dealing out the next set is quicker. Doesn't work. 80% is about the best you can expect, with 15% not doing it at all, 4% doing it but making errors (AKQTJ98675432) somewhere, and 1% starting the job but quitting at some point and putting the deuces on top to make it look like it's been done.

My method, which does take a period of time to get used to, is to just grab the completely unsorted deck and scan for each card as it comes up: 4♠ goes here, K♦ goes here, 7♥ goes here. This is a bit slower, but faster overall--the time saved by dealing in order is lost if you need to pre-sort the decks. It's best on the neck muscles to have the hand record raised like the monitor screen you're looking at as you read this -- you should be able to deal cards into four piles not looking down, without any overlaps.

Excellent Lee Majors reference, Phil!

I didnt read your post correctly.

80% doesnt sound like such a bad result and would still make your job much easier?
Silly question perhaps but do the players understand the reason for sorting the boards is so that they get hand records!

How important do you think hand records are to the players?

[McBruce]

jillybean, on Aug 13 2009, 02:52 PM, said:

How important do you think hand records are to the players?

Depends on the player, or on the result they get in the game: few with bad scores want one. I think having a facility to post them on the Internet is important. Once players realize you're always going to do that, you don't need to print as many copies. I usually print about 1.5 per table and leave the file open so I can print more if needed.

However, I do believe they are a key element in building a game, and building a reputation as a TD who cares.

[JanM]

Cascade, on Aug 13 2009, 03:22 PM, said:

JanM, on Aug 14 2009, 03:56 AM, said:

Although the question you asked was how to persuade clubs to produce hand records, I'd like to suggest that another alternative, that might actually improve your game equally well, would be to work on your memory. Try writing the auctions down on your scorecard & then after the game go over the hands and see whether you can recreate the hands and the play. I know some people who started this sort of process by writing their own hands down on the scoresheet. I find the auction easier to write down and usually enough to jog my memory.

One of the most important things all of us can do to improve is to do a better job of visualizing all 4 hands during the bidding and play. In fact, one expert I know suggested that the reason men are usually better than women (at the top level) in bridge is because they are better able to visualize things (males usually do better on spatial relation type tests for instance). I know that it takes me a serious effort to form a picture of the entire hand and that when I do so I play better.

I remember one session I played with my former husband, before hand records existed, where I happened to leave on a trip immediately after the game. When I got home, he commented that he'd gone through the scores and had recreated all of the hands relatively easily. I know another expert who routinely goes through his scores and not only recreates the hands but writes up what happened and what he thinks he and his partner could have done to improve. I'm sure there are many reasons why both of these players are world champions, but the fact that they pay enough attention to each hand to be able to recreate the hands and what happened later is surely one reason.

Do you mean including all of the spot cards?

In one case (Lew, who really has an incredible memory for bridge hands - I remember a time when he was playing with someone with whom he'd only played a few times several years earlier and some auction came up and after the hand he said "the last time we had this auction you had ... (quoting the exact hand from the previous time)."), yes, he'd include all the spots. In the other case, Kit, no - in fact, I was discussing this with him and he vehemently denied that he could reconstruct the hands, until I said I didn't mean every spot card.

[jillybean]

McBruce, on Aug 13 2009, 10:28 PM, said:

jillybean, on Aug 13 2009, 02:52 PM, said:

How important do you think hand records are to the players?

Depends on the player, or on the result they get in the game: few with bad scores want one. I think having a facility to post them on the Internet is important. Once players realize you're always going to do that, you don't need to print as many copies. I usually print about 1.5 per table and leave the file open so I can print more if needed.

However, I do believe they are a key element in building a game, and building a reputation as a TD who cares.

I wish more TD's had this attitude. For those of us with the ability to erase the last hand and move on to the next board with a clear mind, handrecords are a vital part of the package.

I love playing at the clubs but not having these records is so frustrating, my time is obviously better spent on BBO where I have the ability to review and replay all boards for every pair, right at my finger tips. I know my time back at live games is going to be short lived before I'm too frustrated with simply playing cards and give up.

I will try to make it to your games more often and happily sort boards in exchange for handrecords.

PS: Where else can I play and get hand records?

[helene_t]

Silly question: are these card fees per player or per pair?

[jillybean]

helene_t, on Aug 14 2009, 05:28 AM, said:

Silly question: are these card fees per player or per pair?

$32 per table, Im really not a scrooge.

[helene_t]

Wow, that's expensive, but OK over here we usually have playing directors.

[jillybean]

helene_t, on Aug 14 2009, 05:58 AM, said:

Wow, that's expensive, but OK over here we usually have playing directors.

Some of ours do that too, no-one seems to mind.

[Fluffy]

we pay 6-10€ (Depending on being memeber of the local club) per person

[jillybean]

Fluffy, on Aug 14 2009, 07:33 AM, said:

we pay 6-10€ (Depending on being memeber of the local club) per person

$8 is the ACBL member rate, non members $9($10?), students $4

[Cascade]

JanM, on Aug 14 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 13 2009, 03:22 PM, said:

JanM, on Aug 14 2009, 03:56 AM, said:

Although the question you asked was how to persuade clubs to produce hand records, I'd like to suggest that another alternative, that might actually improve your game equally well, would be to work on your memory. Try writing the auctions down on your scorecard & then after the game go over the hands and see whether you can recreate the hands and the play. I know some people who started this sort of process by writing their own hands down on the scoresheet. I find the auction easier to write down and usually enough to jog my memory.

One of the most important things all of us can do to improve is to do a better job of visualizing all 4 hands during the bidding and play. In fact, one expert I know suggested that the reason men are usually better than women (at the top level) in bridge is because they are better able to visualize things (males usually do better on spatial relation type tests for instance). I know that it takes me a serious effort to form a picture of the entire hand and that when I do so I play better.

I remember one session I played with my former husband, before hand records existed, where I happened to leave on a trip immediately after the game. When I got home, he commented that he'd gone through the scores and had recreated all of the hands relatively easily. I know another expert who routinely goes through his scores and not only recreates the hands but writes up what happened and what he thinks he and his partner could have done to improve. I'm sure there are many reasons why both of these players are world champions, but the fact that they pay enough attention to each hand to be able to recreate the hands and what happened later is surely one reason.

Do you mean including all of the spot cards?

In one case (Lew, who really has an incredible memory for bridge hands - I remember a time when he was playing with someone with whom he'd only played a few times several years earlier and some auction came up and after the hand he said "the last time we had this auction you had ... (quoting the exact hand from the previous time)."), yes, he'd include all the spots. In the other case, Kit, no - in fact, I was discussing this with him and he vehemently denied that he could reconstruct the hands, until I said I didn't mean every spot card.

I do think that is impressive.

My mind certainly doesn't work like that. It would have some obvious advantages in the play where I have to work hard to remember spot cards. Perhaps I could train myself to remember more details.

On the other hand I think there are some advantages to being able to forget or at least file away many of the details of a hand. I frequently have no recollection of the hand I played two hands ago in my short term memory. Often it happens for example that my partner asks me at the end of a round in pairs what we did on the first board of the round or at the previous table and my mind is completely blank.

At a recent tournament I lost a spot card in spades and consequently misdefended. I was in with the opportunity to cash a trick. I had seen declarer pitch two spades which left one spade remaining which I had not seen. I tried to cash a spade and partner showed out and declarer ruffed. I had no idea whether I had missed my partner's discard or whether declarer had pitched three spades. Because the details were going to fade from my memory while I concentrated on the next board I could just say to myself "I will have to check the hand record later" and happily went on to the next board.

The details of a hand will come back to me when I get the right trigger which might be "When you had AKJ fifth..." or sometimes many more details are required. But this doesn't include details of all of the spot cards.

[xcurt]

JanM, on Aug 14 2009, 02:42 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 13 2009, 03:22 PM, said:

JanM, on Aug 14 2009, 03:56 AM, said:

Although the question you asked was how to persuade clubs to produce hand records, I'd like to suggest that another alternative, that might actually improve your game equally well, would be to work on your memory. Try writing the auctions down on your scorecard & then after the game go over the hands and see whether you can recreate the hands and the play. I know some people who started this sort of process by writing their own hands down on the scoresheet. I find the auction easier to write down and usually enough to jog my memory.

One of the most important things all of us can do to improve is to do a better job of visualizing all 4 hands during the bidding and play. In fact, one expert I know suggested that the reason men are usually better than women (at the top level) in bridge is because they are better able to visualize things (males usually do better on spatial relation type tests for instance). I know that it takes me a serious effort to form a picture of the entire hand and that when I do so I play better.

I remember one session I played with my former husband, before hand records existed, where I happened to leave on a trip immediately after the game. When I got home, he commented that he'd gone through the scores and had recreated all of the hands relatively easily. I know another expert who routinely goes through his scores and not only recreates the hands but writes up what happened and what he thinks he and his partner could have done to improve. I'm sure there are many reasons why both of these players are world champions, but the fact that they pay enough attention to each hand to be able to recreate the hands and what happened later is surely one reason.

Do you mean including all of the spot cards?

In one case (Lew, who really has an incredible memory for bridge hands - I remember a time when he was playing with someone with whom he'd only played a few times several years earlier and some auction came up and after the hand he said "the last time we had this auction you had ... (quoting the exact hand from the previous time)."), yes, he'd include all the spots. In the other case, Kit, no - in fact, I was discussing this with him and he vehemently denied that he could reconstruct the hands, until I said I didn't mean every spot card.

Back when I lived in SF I played a 32 board GNT match against Kit and Sally Woolsey. Kit had a kibitzer, maybe someone from his day job at the option exchange. Before we shuffled up and dealt Kit took out a pack and started turning over cards and told the kib something like "If you can tell me all 52 cards in order, you are ready to play this game" or something like that.

Anyone who is familiar with de Groot's work with chess players knows this is just insane for 99% of us, and more proof that "Kit Woolsey" is actually a bridge playing robot.

[skjaeran]

helene_t, on Aug 14 2009, 02:58 PM, said:

Wow, that's expensive, but OK over here we usually have playing directors.

Wow, that's cheap, I'd say!

At my club we've paid NOK 70 pr player for a couple of years, which is something like € 8.5. Other clubs playing at the same site charge a little more (some) and a little less (one). We haven't discussed what to do in the next season starting in a months time, but I guess we'll increase the fee to NOK 80.

Edit: We play team series, duplicated boards, Bridgemates, results including complete hand records and butler scoring on the internet. Playing directors.

[TMorris]

In the UK around North London the places I play at always have pre-duplicated hands from a duplimate machine and have the records up on the internet at the same time as the scores are posted. I'd be disappointed with anything less.

Fees vary a lot - with a non-playing director at a club that is privately owned aroun £9 a session inlcuding tea and coffee. With a playing director at a members owned club £3 a session including tea coffee and biscuits (and complaints if the biscuits aren't up to scratch)

[jillybean]

$8 here includes tea, coffee and great food. At one game it is mandatory to skip breakfast. People come early to eat and whats left is eaten during and after the game

[JanM]

Cascade, on Aug 14 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

My mind certainly doesn't work like that.  It would have some obvious advantages in the play where I have to work hard to remember spot cards.  Perhaps I could train myself to remember more details.

On the other hand I think there are some advantages to being able to forget or at least file away many of the details of a hand.  I frequently have no recollection of the hand I played two hands ago in my short term memory.  Often it happens for example that my partner asks me at the end of a round in pairs what we did on the first board of the round or at the previous table and my mind is completely blank.

I definitely agree that it's important that your mind not be cluttered with previous hands. I think that the reason great players can remember a hand (with the proper trigger of course - that might be going through the hands in the order they were played, might be the bidding, might be the opponent, might be a situation) is that during the hand they really are storing all of that information (spots played to each trick) and then even though they "cleared" their memory for the next hand, it's there, in storage somewhere, to be recalled. Someone (I've forgotten who) once suggested that a good way to get "into" a hand at the beginning was to make sure to repeat the spots played to the first trick - focus really hard on making sure those cards are stored properly in your memory and then you can often stay on the track of remembering future cards. That helps me (not that I am in either Kit or Lew's class when it comes to remembering hands).

It's also interesting that the context of hands can make a difference. I think I've probably told this story before, but when computer dealt hands were first being used, there was some sort of bug in the random number generator ACBL was using, so the same set of hands happened to be dealt for two tournaments about 5 or 6 months apart. Lew happened to play in both of them. I've always wished he'd write an article about it, but by now I suppose he never will. In the first event, he was playing with me in a Sectional mixed pairs. In the second event, he was playing with Evan Bailey in a Regional pair game. His pair was E/W in both events, but he sat in the opposite seats. The hand on which he realized that he'd played the set of boards before was one in which both hands were 4333 with the same 4 card major. Our bidding methods at the time allowed both pairs to uncover that fact and play 3NT. There were the same number of tricks in NT and the major, so it was a good board for our methods. Except that I was playing the hand the first time - I had xxx opposite AJx in clubs and forgot to lead a club toward the AJx in case the KQ were onside. They were, so we got a bad board instead of a good one. The second time the board came up, Lew was playing the hand and of course led a club towards his hand and made the extra club trick when the KQ were onside. I don't know the odds of this happening on two hands and both times in clubs, but of course Lew did and then he started thinking about the earlier hands and pretty soon he was able to go up to the director and convince him that the hands were the same as they had been a few months earlier. But until he happened to be in the same contract with the same "problem" for declarer, he hadn't noticed that the hands were the same.

Another time that we played a set of boards that were created wrong was similar. This time, the dealing program had somehow rotated the suits - the spades from the first set of hands were hearts, the hearts were diamonds, diamonds clubs, clubs spades (or maybe the other way around). These two sets of hands occurred within days of each other. But the first set occurred in a matchpoint event and the second one in a team game. Chip noticed that the hands were the same when he had the identical problem about how to play a suit with the second set of hands. Once he started to think about it, he was able to realize what had happened. I'm sure I'd never have realized.

And another time (I've had instances of the same boards popping up in different events a lot, haven't I?), when the same hands were dealt in the Summer NABC Women's KO and the Fall Women's BAM, my partner noticed after about 5 rounds of play, when she had the identical close decision about whether to invite game opposite a weak 2 bid. Up until then, the problems had been sufficiently different because of the IMPs vs BAM contexts that neither of us had noticed.

[NickRW]

McBruce, on Aug 14 2009, 05:28 AM, said:

jillybean, on Aug 13 2009, 02:52 PM, said:

How important do you think hand records are to the players?

Depends on the player, or on the result they get in the game: few with bad scores want one.

Ye gods! It is the sessions where you do badly that the hand records are the most valuable. A session where you did well - ok - so you walked on water - often there is little to actually learn from that. A session where you did badly is much more instructive.

No preference where I get the hand record from - don't care if it is printed or on the net.

Nick