Help
A lot of space has been devoted here to the need to tweak systems and add gadgets. How do you handle a weak hand when partner opens 2C? Which is better, Jacoby 2NT or 2nt as a balanced hand? Are Kokish style raises necessary? There are lots more to choose from.
Well, the plain fact is that all the gadgetry can be of help if used correctly and both partners are on the same page but NONE of it is necessary. Thats correct.. NONE. I absolutely guarantee that if Soloway and Hamman were to sit down at a table with the two best non-professional players (read next level below them) and Soloway/Hamman were forced to use 4 card majors and Stayman and no other non standard gadetry, they would still win the match.
Why? Because they are the better 2 players and the gadgetry is not going to give the opponents enough of an edge to overcome that simple fact.
We got bogged down in these debates over which treatment is better.. It's true on any bridge board I have ever visited (and that proibably is over a dozen over the years). And, I sometimes think that players generally lose sight of this basic fact. No system is going to overcome the basic deficiencies in the players themselves.
I have 2 stories I would like to relate regarding this point.
When I was perhaps 19 (I am almost 51 now) I started taking the game fairly seriously (I started at 13). I read a lot, I had a mentor who had accomplished quite a lot (altho the same age as me, he was a math prodigy and started playing seriously before he was 10). After much tutoring we played in the school bridge game and routinely trounced our competition. So, we started playing in the local game (which of course was predominantly made up of college professors). We often won that game, although we did not dominate it like we did the school game.
When I returned home from college that summer I began playing at my local club. This was the legendary Alpha Club in Chicago (undoubtedly at the time one of the three top bridge clubs in the United States). My partner and I did quite well generally (he and I learned the game together initially).
We played Schenken's big club system and we frankly played it pretty damn good together. We often took 1st E-W (the best players always sat N-S). We were not slouches.
One day, I asked my dad if he wanted to go to the club with me. He and my mother had played "kitchen" bridge for years, but my father and I had never played a hand together. He agreed and when we got to the club I sat down with him to fill out the card. He knew no gadgets except Stayman (maybe it was Blackwood, I can't remember anymore) and refused to play 5 card majors with me (I had to adjust to 4 even though I hadn't played them before). Of course, we won the game (seated N-S by the way) and by a large margin. We went back the next week and won again with a 70% game.
Obviously, my father could play the spots on the cards very well... much better than I could certainly but better than the majority of the players at the club (and trust me, this club didn't have many average minus players).
The 2d story involves my best friend. I stopped playing for a number of years before returning to the game about 10 years ago. Now, by the time I stopped I had accumulated well over 1000 MPs and won several regional titles, but after a 10 year lay-off (not including 3 sessions I had played three years before-- that's another story) my game wasn't what it used to be.
When I started playing with my friend after the layoff, we did OK together, but as my memory of how to bid improved (i.e., I wasn't just playing by rote but actually remembering how to do things correctly) our results began to get increasingly poor. Why? Because my partner didn't do some of the basic things corrrectly and we couldn't get on the same page. He told me that is why he played Precision, because he found standard bidding so unnatural.
So, I learned Precision to accomodate him.. Our scores didn't imptove. Why? Because he played Precision badly, too.
The moral to both stories is the same. Nothing can overcome your own basic deficiencies as a player. Everyone needs to focus first and foremost on judgment and knowledge of card combinations and the like before worrying about gadgetry and the like. If you spend more time reading books on play and defense rather than focusing on gadgetry you will probably improve your results quicker.
Just a thought...
Page 1 of 1
The Necessity(?) of Gadgetry in Bridge
#2
- Group: FD TEAM
- Posts: 2,735
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Nashville, TN
- Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)
Posted 2003-March-03, 07:56
Some interesting points to be made in the previous post -- I think partner compatability is absolutely essential in the success of both players. Knowing what partner will do in situations outweighs any super-duper convention or whiz bang wonder system (remember Roman Club folks?). I've played both ends of the spectrum and succeeded, so judgment also is important. 
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
#3
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 200
- Joined: 2003-February-16
- Location:Miami, Fl
Posted 2003-March-03, 12:16
Quote
A lot of space has been devoted here to the need to tweak systems and add gadgets. How do you handle a weak hand when partner opens 2C? Which is better, Jacoby 2NT or 2nt as a balanced hand? Are Kokish style raises necessary? There are lots more to choose from.
Well, the plain fact is that all the gadgetry can be of help if used correctly and both partners are on the same page but NONE of it is necessary. Thats correct.. NONE. I absolutely guarantee that if Soloway and Hamman were to sit down at a table with the two best non-professional players (read next level below them) and Soloway/Hamman were forced to use 4 card majors and Stayman and no other non standard gadetry, they would still win the match.
Why? Because they are the better 2 players and the gadgetry is not going to give the opponents enough of an edge to overcome that simple fact.
We got bogged down in these debates over which treatment is better.. It's true on any bridge board I have ever visited (and that proibably is over a dozen over the years). And, I sometimes think that players generally lose sight of this basic fact. No system is going to overcome the basic deficiencies in the players themselves.
I have 2 stories I would like to relate regarding this point.
When I was perhaps 19 (I am almost 51 now) I started taking the game fairly seriously (I started at 13). I read a lot, I had a mentor who had accomplished quite a lot (altho the same age as me, he was a math prodigy and started playing seriously before he was 10). After much tutoring we played in the school bridge game and routinely trounced our competition. So, we started playing in the local game (which of course was predominantly made up of college professors). We often won that game, although we did not dominate it like we did the school game.
When I returned home from college that summer I began playing at my local club. This was the legendary Alpha Club in Chicago (undoubtedly at the time one of the three top bridge clubs in the United States). My partner and I did quite well generally (he and I learned the game together initially).
We played Schenken's big club system and we frankly played it pretty damn good together. We often took 1st E-W (the best players always sat N-S). We were not slouches.
One day, I asked my dad if he wanted to go to the club with me. He and my mother had played "kitchen" bridge for years, but my father and I had never played a hand together. He agreed and when we got to the club I sat down with him to fill out the card. He knew no gadgets except Stayman (maybe it was Blackwood, I can't remember anymore) and refused to play 5 card majors with me (I had to adjust to 4 even though I hadn't played them before). Of course, we won the game (seated N-S by the way) and by a large margin. We went back the next week and won again with a 70% game.
Obviously, my father could play the spots on the cards very well... much better than I could certainly but better than the majority of the players at the club (and trust me, this club didn't have many average minus players).
The 2d story involves my best friend. I stopped playing for a number of years before returning to the game about 10 years ago. Now, by the time I stopped I had accumulated well over 1000 MPs and won several regional titles, but after a 10 year lay-off (not including 3 sessions I had played three years before-- that's another story) my game wasn't what it used to be.
When I started playing with my friend after the layoff, we did OK together, but as my memory of how to bid improved (i.e., I wasn't just playing by rote but actually remembering how to do things correctly) our results began to get increasingly poor. Why? Because my partner didn't do some of the basic things corrrectly and we couldn't get on the same page. He told me that is why he played Precision, because he found standard bidding so unnatural.
So, I learned Precision to accomodate him.. Our scores didn't imptove. Why? Because he played Precision badly, too.
The moral to both stories is the same. Nothing can overcome your own basic deficiencies as a player. Everyone needs to focus first and foremost on judgment and knowledge of card combinations and the like before worrying about gadgetry and the like. If you spend more time reading books on play and defense rather than focusing on gadgetry you will probably improve your results quicker.
Just a thought...
Well, the plain fact is that all the gadgetry can be of help if used correctly and both partners are on the same page but NONE of it is necessary. Thats correct.. NONE. I absolutely guarantee that if Soloway and Hamman were to sit down at a table with the two best non-professional players (read next level below them) and Soloway/Hamman were forced to use 4 card majors and Stayman and no other non standard gadetry, they would still win the match.
Why? Because they are the better 2 players and the gadgetry is not going to give the opponents enough of an edge to overcome that simple fact.
We got bogged down in these debates over which treatment is better.. It's true on any bridge board I have ever visited (and that proibably is over a dozen over the years). And, I sometimes think that players generally lose sight of this basic fact. No system is going to overcome the basic deficiencies in the players themselves.
I have 2 stories I would like to relate regarding this point.
When I was perhaps 19 (I am almost 51 now) I started taking the game fairly seriously (I started at 13). I read a lot, I had a mentor who had accomplished quite a lot (altho the same age as me, he was a math prodigy and started playing seriously before he was 10). After much tutoring we played in the school bridge game and routinely trounced our competition. So, we started playing in the local game (which of course was predominantly made up of college professors). We often won that game, although we did not dominate it like we did the school game.
When I returned home from college that summer I began playing at my local club. This was the legendary Alpha Club in Chicago (undoubtedly at the time one of the three top bridge clubs in the United States). My partner and I did quite well generally (he and I learned the game together initially).
We played Schenken's big club system and we frankly played it pretty damn good together. We often took 1st E-W (the best players always sat N-S). We were not slouches.
One day, I asked my dad if he wanted to go to the club with me. He and my mother had played "kitchen" bridge for years, but my father and I had never played a hand together. He agreed and when we got to the club I sat down with him to fill out the card. He knew no gadgets except Stayman (maybe it was Blackwood, I can't remember anymore) and refused to play 5 card majors with me (I had to adjust to 4 even though I hadn't played them before). Of course, we won the game (seated N-S by the way) and by a large margin. We went back the next week and won again with a 70% game.
Obviously, my father could play the spots on the cards very well... much better than I could certainly but better than the majority of the players at the club (and trust me, this club didn't have many average minus players).
The 2d story involves my best friend. I stopped playing for a number of years before returning to the game about 10 years ago. Now, by the time I stopped I had accumulated well over 1000 MPs and won several regional titles, but after a 10 year lay-off (not including 3 sessions I had played three years before-- that's another story) my game wasn't what it used to be.
When I started playing with my friend after the layoff, we did OK together, but as my memory of how to bid improved (i.e., I wasn't just playing by rote but actually remembering how to do things correctly) our results began to get increasingly poor. Why? Because my partner didn't do some of the basic things corrrectly and we couldn't get on the same page. He told me that is why he played Precision, because he found standard bidding so unnatural.
So, I learned Precision to accomodate him.. Our scores didn't imptove. Why? Because he played Precision badly, too.
The moral to both stories is the same. Nothing can overcome your own basic deficiencies as a player. Everyone needs to focus first and foremost on judgment and knowledge of card combinations and the like before worrying about gadgetry and the like. If you spend more time reading books on play and defense rather than focusing on gadgetry you will probably improve your results quicker.
Just a thought...
I agree with u steve. Gadgets will not make you a better card player, bidder or hand evaluator. But i bet if hamman and soloway played momma and papa bridge versus their peers who were playing their normal system they would lose (in the long run). At the world class level all the player s"play the spots off the cards" the difference is in the bidding.
I know that sounds like im a proponent of lots of conventions but I'M NOT. I truly believe that most of us play too many conventions and dont play the cards worth a darn. I think this may be because learning a convention is much easier than learning card play and defense. And to make matters worse most of us learn only 1/3 or 1/2 of the convention.
This game never ceases to intrigue me!!
#4
- Group: Members
- Posts: 13
- Joined: 2003-February-28
Posted 2003-March-03, 12:32
in almost any endeavor the better player(s) will win in the long run, usually in the short run also... i view conventions much the same as i view improvements in golf clubs, for example... the newer clubs help my game, but tiger can still tape up a coke bottle, use it off every tee, and beat me 9 and 9
i'd be interested in all your opinions as to the best books/software available for the play of the hand and for defense
i'd be interested in all your opinions as to the best books/software available for the play of the hand and for defense
#5
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 330
- Joined: 2003-February-20
Posted 2003-March-03, 12:44
Well thats why I said a level below... I was trying to illustrate something there specific.
At the very highest levels (the true world class level) the lack of gadgets would be a definite detriment as everyone has great judgment and makes few playing errors... That is the level we should all strive for.
But, over the many years I have seen (particularly from younger players) an emphasis on system at the expense of being better at the basics.
That club game I mentioned was the Chicago equivalent of the Cavendish Club... Virtually every player was a Bronze Life Master or higher there as a rule.. it was a tough game. How could my father-- who had never played duplicate in his life and me-- a talented newcomer at best-- not just win that game but win it TWICE by a large margin? The simple answer is that my father just played the cards better than anyone else in the club... There is no other explanation because I will tell you right now I didn't.. I could just hold my own.
Dad had been playing for 30 years at that point.. and he was a decent card player in general.. I don't know if he ever read a bridge book (he may have... back in the 40's bridge books were big sellers), But, he was probably the best card player there... even though those was his only two duplicate experiences ever...
If you master card play (defense and declarer) you are much further ahead of the game than working on system minutiae. That, of course, is my main and only real point... And frankly, I see a lot of players everywhere (clubs, tourneys and online) that worry a hell of a lot more about system than the other stuff and they are focusing on the wrong thing.....
At the very highest levels (the true world class level) the lack of gadgets would be a definite detriment as everyone has great judgment and makes few playing errors... That is the level we should all strive for.
But, over the many years I have seen (particularly from younger players) an emphasis on system at the expense of being better at the basics.
That club game I mentioned was the Chicago equivalent of the Cavendish Club... Virtually every player was a Bronze Life Master or higher there as a rule.. it was a tough game. How could my father-- who had never played duplicate in his life and me-- a talented newcomer at best-- not just win that game but win it TWICE by a large margin? The simple answer is that my father just played the cards better than anyone else in the club... There is no other explanation because I will tell you right now I didn't.. I could just hold my own.
Dad had been playing for 30 years at that point.. and he was a decent card player in general.. I don't know if he ever read a bridge book (he may have... back in the 40's bridge books were big sellers), But, he was probably the best card player there... even though those was his only two duplicate experiences ever...
If you master card play (defense and declarer) you are much further ahead of the game than working on system minutiae. That, of course, is my main and only real point... And frankly, I see a lot of players everywhere (clubs, tourneys and online) that worry a hell of a lot more about system than the other stuff and they are focusing on the wrong thing.....
#6
- Group: FD TEAM
- Posts: 2,735
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Nashville, TN
- Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)
Posted 2003-March-03, 13:29
Play of the hand...gotta be Watson's classic without a doubt. Defense, well that's a toss-up. There's the Obvious Shift text, Kantar's series, Count Coded Leads, and a couple of others...
Software...depends on what you're after. If it's instructional, Cohen's CD's are always excellent along with BBO's. If it's playing software, GIB is outstanding along with Bridge Baron and Micro (Jack is starting to come into English speaking areas but haven't fiddled with it yet). Dummy dummy analyzer by far is Deep Finesse.
My favorite books: anything by Dr. George Rosenkranz. There's a wealth of information relating to slam bidding, accurate hand evaluation, new innovations in trump raises, and woven into a very pleasant plot (Godfrey's series).
Software...depends on what you're after. If it's instructional, Cohen's CD's are always excellent along with BBO's. If it's playing software, GIB is outstanding along with Bridge Baron and Micro (Jack is starting to come into English speaking areas but haven't fiddled with it yet). Dummy dummy analyzer by far is Deep Finesse.
My favorite books: anything by Dr. George Rosenkranz. There's a wealth of information relating to slam bidding, accurate hand evaluation, new innovations in trump raises, and woven into a very pleasant plot (Godfrey's series).
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
#7
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 330
- Joined: 2003-February-20
Posted 2003-March-03, 13:36
If I had to pick only one bridge book, hands down it would be Mike Lawrence's book on hand evaluation... I get something new out of it everytime i reread it.
It is easy to read (unlike Hardy's books) yet highly informative. It teaches you to THINK like a bridge player better than any book I have ever read (and I have read a lot of bridge books over the years).
As far as defense goes, there are a ton of good books there, but Kantar's series I think is the best. He doesn't spoon feed you his stuff.. you gotta figure a lot out on your own.. but if you do things his way you can learn a lot I think.
It is easy to read (unlike Hardy's books) yet highly informative. It teaches you to THINK like a bridge player better than any book I have ever read (and I have read a lot of bridge books over the years).
As far as defense goes, there are a ton of good books there, but Kantar's series I think is the best. He doesn't spoon feed you his stuff.. you gotta figure a lot out on your own.. but if you do things his way you can learn a lot I think.
#8
- Group: FD TEAM
- Posts: 2,735
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Nashville, TN
- Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)
Posted 2003-March-03, 14:34
I almost forgot to mention Partnership Bidding at Bridge to handle competitive bidding sequences...many excellent ideas from that text as well.
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
#9
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2003-March-03, 14:50
Dwayne is right, Partnership bidding is one of my favorite books and absolutely must read. Get your partners to play as much as youcan stand.
--Ben--
#10
Posted 2003-March-03, 15:13
Anything by Reese. Best Bridge author ever, for elegance of language and purity of analysis.
#11
- Group: FD TEAM
- Posts: 2,735
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Nashville, TN
- Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)
Posted 2003-March-03, 16:36
Oh I was so negligent forgetting Resse!! I learned basic Precision from his book "Precision Bidding, Precision Play"...fond memories and feelings remembering that book indeed. One thing I never got...Cansino over strong NT...
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
#12
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 200
- Joined: 2003-February-16
- Location:Miami, Fl
Posted 2003-March-03, 17:11
Quote
Anything by Reese. Best Bridge author ever, for elegance of language and purity of analysis.
I second that comment!! Reese's books were always master pieces!! after reese i rank kantar then lawrence. i think the content is equally good for lawrence and kantar but kantar's comments make me smile or laugh.
This game never ceases to intrigue me!!
#13
- Group: Members
- Posts: 26
- Joined: 2003-February-13
Posted 2003-March-09, 10:01
As a general remark I would not mix gadgets of very questionalble value with treatments that are needed to plug the loopholes of a bidding system.
In this legalistic society bidding debates looks like lawyers try to skin a skeleton of a cat in many repetitions, lol.
Thank god, finally, at this end of the thread we are back to discuss card game basics, judgement and play.
Like to see of those bidding enthusiast are capable to solve Fred's BridgeMaster 2000 level 4 and 5 tasks on their own without the help of the system.
GIB is excellent too, but if you want to check (and improve) your declarer's play, just try BM 2000.
I second the books mentioned so far in this thread and would add Bergen's writings on many treatments except the so called Bergen Raises that is a little tree which conceals from many the woods he created .
Additionally, I would suggest to go through on Mike Lawrence 2/1 software which is quite practical on one main approach to 2/1. You have to apply your own judgement though at branches of treatments.
Those who are underplaying the importance of the basics cite a famous title "bridge (is) the bidder's game". They like to point to the highest level, where excellent judgement and play is precondition. They think that their bidding makes the difference. Nothing is further from the truth. But, let's discuss the many factors that influences results in an other thread. Better if that thread intends BBO not the Bermuda Bowl, lol.
In this legalistic society bidding debates looks like lawyers try to skin a skeleton of a cat in many repetitions, lol.
Thank god, finally, at this end of the thread we are back to discuss card game basics, judgement and play.
Like to see of those bidding enthusiast are capable to solve Fred's BridgeMaster 2000 level 4 and 5 tasks on their own without the help of the system.
GIB is excellent too, but if you want to check (and improve) your declarer's play, just try BM 2000.
I second the books mentioned so far in this thread and would add Bergen's writings on many treatments except the so called Bergen Raises that is a little tree which conceals from many the woods he created .
Additionally, I would suggest to go through on Mike Lawrence 2/1 software which is quite practical on one main approach to 2/1. You have to apply your own judgement though at branches of treatments.
Those who are underplaying the importance of the basics cite a famous title "bridge (is) the bidder's game". They like to point to the highest level, where excellent judgement and play is precondition. They think that their bidding makes the difference. Nothing is further from the truth. But, let's discuss the many factors that influences results in an other thread. Better if that thread intends BBO not the Bermuda Bowl, lol.
Page 1 of 1