[gurgistan]

On BBO, most players I have noticed define themselves on how well they play their cards.

This has led me to ponder just what is the relationship between cardplay technique and bidding acumen.

In a perfect world, we would be masters of all aspects of the game but living in an imperfect one which is more valuable?

If your Fairy Godmother could give you unrivalled prowess in either cardplay or bidding which would you choose?

[gwnn]

which is more important?

yin or yang?
the river or its banks?
music or silence?

[Trumpace]

Perhaps you should create a poll...

Also, what about also granting the same acumen to partner?

Bidding/Defense prowess might turn useless if partner is not in on it.

[TylerE]

If I could have mastery of either effortlessly I'd go with play for sure. Bidding can be learned by rote if it comes to it, especially palying a system tailored not to depend on a lot of judgement...play not so much.

[awm]

I think it depends somewhat on the level.

For a true beginner, bidding is more confusing because they just have no idea what to bid. What happens in the play (i.e. which cards beat which cards, that you have to follow suit) is easier to grasp, although obviously huge numbers of mistakes are made. So at the true beginner level, I'd say that learning a bit about bidding is more important than focusing on play.

Moving more to intermediates, there are a lot of hands which are fairly easy to bid. Many of the boards lost by intermediates are based on play or defense, where tricks are given away unnecessarily. While learning new conventions or improving bidding judgment will help these players on an occasional hand, improving their play and defense is way more important. Inferior bidding might lose you a couple boards a session, but inferior play can easily lose you a dozen.

Moving up to advanced, it depends a bit on the particular player. Certainly there are people who excel at card play (often those who have played a lot of rubber bridge) and have no clue how to bid, and also those who spend a lot of time mastering bidding systems and hand evaluation methods but are poor card players. So perhaps making up the deficiency is most important. However, I'd say that people in this category often spend too much time on bidding methods, which are generally less important than bidding judgment (like deciding how high to compete or when to bash versus investigate slowly) and also less important than play/defense.

At the expert level, there are certainly differences in card play ability. However, these differences come up rarely since every expert gets the routine hands right -- a better declarer might find a slightly better line on a few boards, but typically this does not add up to all that much. More swings come through bidding, so having good agreements (and good judgment) tends to make the difference at this level.

[Phil]

Disagree with Adam about beginners. Anyone can learn point count, partscores, games and slams in a few hours. While they can learn what denotes a NT or a trump trick, they frequently have no clue about the rudimentary mechanics of card play such as 2nd hand low / 3rd hand high. I have seen people who have been playing for months that have taken an entire series of beginner lessons do things like lead Kings from Kxxx, even though they have a pretty good idea about bidding 3N games.

As players develop, card play becomes easier since the brain is good at pattern recognition and once they've seen a holdup or an elimination they can usually pull it off a 2nd time.

Later, they will learn a basic system like 2/1 but unless they've had a lot of seasoning, their judgment takes time to grow. This is a lifetime process, and we all strive to become like Josh Donn, the undisputed best bidder in the world.

However, I would rather partner a mediocre bidder with great card play skills than a great bidder who has trouble with cardplay.

[nigel_k]

I think it depends on the level. The players in the final rounds of the Spingold would probably gain more from being magically granted absolutely optimum bidding skill as a partnership, than from being magically granted absolutely optimum play and defence skill. But I think it would be quite close and certainly depends on the individual.

A complete beginner though should definitely pick optimum play and defence if offered the choice.

[awm]

Perhaps what I mean by beginner is different from other people.

My beginners have trouble working out that they should bid suits where they have length rather than short suits where they have values. They also have a lot of trouble working out which bids are forcing (or not) and pass partner's forcing calls. So I try to teach them a bit about bidding right away, so they can at least reach some semblance of a normal contract.

It is true that they also make very basic mistakes in play, like blocking their long suits to cut themselves off from dummy, or cashing their winners in notrump before establishing tricks, or playing Qxx opposite Axx by leading the queen and "hoping it wins" rather than leading up to the queen. Certainly it's important to teach them how to do these things correctly, and they will never be good players (or even intermediate players) until they learn them. However, this sort of thing the more insightful ones might figure out on their own (with some experience) and going down in a few hands often reinforces the lesson. Bidding is better taught early.

[barmar]

This is another one of those threads that comes up every few months, much like the ones about BBO self-rating.

Why are we wasting our time rehashing this? There's never been a concensus before, what makes anyone think any new light will be shed this time?

This forum really needs an FAQ that lists these perennial topics. Perhaps it can have links to previous threads so that people can read the comments that have already been made on the subject.

[lmilne]

agree with gwnn!

[JLOGIC]

gurgistan, on Aug 2 2010, 09:43 AM, said:

On BBO, most players I have noticed define themselves on how well they play their cards.

This has led me to ponder just what is the relationship between cardplay technique and bidding acumen.

In a perfect world, we would be masters of all aspects of the game but living in an imperfect one which is more valuable?

If your Fairy Godmother could give you unrivalled prowess in either cardplay or bidding which would you choose?

cardplay and it's not even close.

[JLOGIC]

As I see the question: We can become perfect bidders and keep our level in cardplay, or become perfect at cardplay and keep our level in bidding.

No matter what level you are you should take the cardplay. The reason it becomes a closer question to the super elite is because they play their cards at a very near perfect level compared to bidding which is not even remotely close to perfect.

So why is it still a close question? Because cardplay is that much more important to your success as a bridge player than bidding.

I'm tired of reading that bidding is more important at the highest levels of the game, again it's because there is more variability, since all of those guys can play basically any hand correctly and even when they make errors they are usually lapses or fatigue. That doesn't mean that their ability to play near perfect in the play does not matter, if they didn't have it they would just lose. So of course their card play is still very important even though it is often duplicated.

If you are less than a super elite player, even a very very strong expert, you would obviousssssly take card play. Let me put it this way, let's say you're basically an above average club game player right now who has some success in sectionals etc. If you were given perfect cardplay, you would win some national pair games and you would win a huge amount of regional pair games that you played in. You would probably win all of your knockout matches except those that consisted of professional super elite players.

If you were given perfect bidding and your cardplay remained the same, you would still not win much at all.

[pooltuna]

JLOGIC, on Aug 2 2010, 09:12 PM, said:

gurgistan, on Aug 2 2010, 09:43 AM, said:

On BBO, most players I have noticed define themselves on how well they play their cards.

This has led me to ponder just what is the relationship between cardplay technique and bidding acumen.

In a perfect world, we would be masters of all aspects of the game but living in an imperfect one which is more valuable?

If your Fairy Godmother could give you unrivalled prowess in either cardplay or bidding which would you choose?

cardplay and it's not even close.

but of course they are not really separable

[Dirk Kuijt]

One difficulty of rating the importance of card play for "beginners" is that many people who have never played a hand of bridge have played other trick taking card games: hearts, spades, or pinochle, for instance. So, they are acquainted with the card play ideas (counting suits, finesses, establishing long suits, etc.), perhaps even experts at this.

However, they have no idea what Stayman, Blackwood, or takeout doubles are, and the idea that one would bid high (preempt) with a poor hand, but bid low (approach forcing) with a good hand, seems very weird to them.

[MBV53]

Bidding weighs more in this game of bridge. if 100 points are given to Both bidding and play 75% share goes to bidding, 20% to play and rest Luck element.Majority of contracts gets fulfilled by the layout of cards . Perfect bidding system leads to the correct contract.Playing the cards[execution] is Personal[ability] skills.should be developed by self.
This is my opinion. not a thumb rule:)
MBVSubrahmanyam.
India

[zenko]

You should take whatever is the hardest, I would even take defence over bidding + declarer play combined any day, in fact I would pick making the best opening lead every time over all other "perfections" combined

[helene_t]

Agree with everything that Adam said except that I am not so sure about bidding being more important at the expert level. Yes, most of the swings I see on vugraph are due to different bidding choices, followed by different opening lead choices: but I think most of these swings are "random" in the sense that the decision was close. Maybe the better bidder gets it right 55% of the time (on those boards where different choices were made), similar for the better opening leader, while the better defender/declarer gets it right 80% of the time. Or some such.

This weekend I played the Bangor congress with Manudude03. We won the second matchpoint sesion but got last in the teams - now one can always blame this on teammates but it is very expensive at IMPs to get almost every slam decision wrong, as we did. Now two of those bad slams we bid we could actually have made, but most of the slam swings against us were bad bidding judgment.

I think it's fair to say that bidding is more important at IMPs than it is at MP.

Personally I would gain much more from becoming a perfect card player than from becoming a perfect bidder. I think this is true for most except for
- most near-beginners, especially those who have some cardplay background in whist or minibridge.
- new partnerships who are used to very different bidding styles
- good club players who learned bridge some 40+ years ago and never learned a bidding system, let alone modern (I mean: 1970 or later) bidding style. However it may be very difficult for those players to adopt a more modern bidding style and if they had the motivation they would probably have learned it long time ago.

[cherdanno]

Anyone who thinks there is little difference in cardplay among world class players should kibbitz Brogeland more often.
I remember one set where 4 times he made a different choice in play or defense than his world-class counter-part at the other table. Every single time it won him a swing. But of course the vurgraph commentators instead talked about some brilliant bidding (which, to paraphrase Kaplan, consists of questionable or borderline bids that work out).

One thing to keep in mind that the difference in IMP expectancy between top teams is small in general. E.g. I would think that among the best 5 teams in the Spingold, none would be favored against another by much more than 20 IMPs. So if someone can create a positive game swing (or another doubled undertrick) about once every two sets, I would consider that huge.

[paulg]

JLOGIC, on Aug 3 2010, 03:20 AM, said:

As I see the question: We can become perfect bidders and keep our level in cardplay, or become perfect at cardplay and keep our level in bidding.

No matter what level you are you should take the cardplay. The reason it becomes a closer question to the super elite is because they play their cards at a very near perfect level compared to bidding which is not even remotely close to perfect.

So why is it still a close question? Because cardplay is that much more important to your success as a bridge player than bidding.

I'm tired of reading that bidding is more important at the highest levels of the game, again it's because there is more variability, since all of those guys can play basically any hand correctly and even when they make errors they are usually lapses or fatigue. That doesn't mean that their ability to play near perfect in the play does not matter, if they didn't have it they would just lose. So of course their card play is still very important even though it is often duplicated.

If you are less than a super elite player, even a very very strong expert, you would obviousssssly take card play. Let me put it this way, let's say you're basically an above average club game player right now who has some success in sectionals etc. If you were given perfect cardplay, you would win some national pair games and you would win a huge amount of regional pair games that you played in. You would probably win all of your knockout matches except those that consisted of professional super elite players.

If you were given perfect bidding and your cardplay remained the same, you would still not win much at all.

As someone who is probably the aforesaid 'strong expert', I wish my card play was better.

However I lose far more points due to my bidding. It's not even close. In a long match against the super-elite I lose points due to my card play on a small number of hands - my deficiencies in this area are just not exposed very often.

The same is true of the national teams that I help. They are not 'super elite', just strong experts like myself. Teams that would expect to lose in the round of 64 of the Spingold. 70% of the lost imps are due to bidding judgement and bidding errors. Play and defensive errors are rare.

So people should chose perfect bidding. But I think a lot would select perfect card play none the less.

[Free]

I'd prefer perfect declarer skills.

What do you like most?
- bidding a perfect slam in a 4-2 fit with some difficult kind of squeeze ; but you go down because your declarer play is poor.
- bidding a ridiculous contract ; but you manage to make it because of your perfect declarer play skills.

As said in previous threads, bidding system and your own bidding skills should fit your declarer play skills. Especially bidding systems shouldn't be much better than the way you can handle your cards. The other way around is usually no big issue.