[pooltuna]

improve your information acquistion skills, more informally this is known as count, count, count. With a build in inference that you apply the information to the hand at hand but this is not necessarily straightforward.

[P_Marlowe]

matmat, on 2011-June-01, 10:05, said:

I don't agree with this much. There is nothing wrong with playing a little slower when you are starting out. There is also nothing wrong with mixing in some chatter, taunts, and legitimate questions. You can take a few minutes to try to figure out the best call, play, or to look up a convention etc. at the dining room table, which you can't do at a duplicate tournament. This is especially good if you do have a good player in your foursome. The transition to tournament bridge really should not be that major, provided you know what to expect. (and, by the way, I don't think telling social players "duplicate bridge is a whole different universe" is doing much service to the game of bridge, as it may keep people away).

First - Most likely I should have added, that if you switch from "Social" to "Club" be prepared, that the change
in speed / the amount of boards to be played i the biggest difference, and it needs time to get used to it.
My experience is limited, but this issue did arise in all cases I experienced - and because of their results were
not good in the beginning, not because of the lacking skills, but due to the higher intensity.
But of course this is also true, if you switch from teaching classes / restricted games to open games.

As I said - having fun is the most important thing, and I also like playing in a social setup, I do it not often,
which is a pity.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: If you have a strong one in your foursome, than you have a teaching scenario.

[ggwhiz]

VM1973, on 2011-June-01, 10:32, said:

you really want to get better at bridge then playing is not the way.

Huh?

It's the ONLY way.

Try Watson's Play of the Hand reading wise. Not as valid for matchpoints but written in the early 30's, still the Bible on declarer play. Big book but 1 or 2 hands a day with the morning coffee......

One of the Marty Bergen books has a really good chapter on how to "talk" a bridge hand. There is nothing a bridge player likes to share more than their opinion if you can frame the question right.

Playing is still the way to go, this is just a sidebar.

[matmat]

VM1973, on 2011-June-01, 10:32, said:

I disagree with most posters. If you really want to get better at bridge then playing is not the way. The point of playing is A) to have fun, B) to win points, and C) to apply what you know [not necessarily in that order].

uhm. No.

you need to play to get better.

and if winning points is a major driver for you, rather than enjoyment of the game or its intellectual challenge, then, in my opinion, you're just wasting time and money.

[Vampyr]

Phil, on 2011-June-01, 09:43, said:

Learn a very basic system for the 1st two years. I mean BASIC, like SAYC + maybe a few frills.

SAYC? No way. Play Stayman, Blackwood and Truscott (1A (X) 2NT is a raise of A). Do not adopt conventions until you find that you have trouble with certain hand types and would like a tool that will handle them better. Then you will be able to evaluate what you are gaining by playing the convention, and what you are giving up. One of the biggest mistakes a new player can make is adopting loads of popular conventions without knowing why they are needed or how valuable are the natural bids you have to give up in order to play the conventions. Do not make these decisions by reading or listening to other people. Make them based on experience.

[VM1973]

ggwhiz, on 2011-June-01, 13:42, said:

Huh?

It's the ONLY way.

Try Watson's Play of the Hand reading wise. Not as valid for matchpoints but written in the early 30's, still the Bible on declarer play. Big book but 1 or 2 hands a day with the morning coffee......

One of the Marty Bergen books has a really good chapter on how to "talk" a bridge hand. There is nothing a bridge player likes to share more than their opinion if you can frame the question right.

Playing is still the way to go, this is just a sidebar.

Yeah, you're right. What was I thinking? Just study a hand or two a day, and play a bit, and you'll be the Dallas Aces in no time.

[diana_eva]

Free software that helps:

Learn to Play Bridge

Bridge Master Demo

[Mbodell]

Both.

Don't worry too much about getting other people upset as long as you can play up to speed, and follow the proprieties of the game (like not socializing at the table during the round or failing to use the bidding boxes etc.).

Find people better than you and talk to them about the hands you play. In most regions that is more likely in a duplicate environments. In other places social folks may be the better task.

The BIL lounge on BBO is a great way to go too.

[Antrax]

VM1973, on 2011-June-02, 11:46, said:

Yeah, you're right. What was I thinking? Just study a hand or two a day, and play a bit, and you'll be the Dallas Aces in no time.

I think maybe the intent wasn't that one strategy has to be chosen now and followed until he's a pro player, but rather how to improve as a beginner. Once improvement is achieved, a new tactic for advancing further can be considered.
No?

[fromageGB]

I think a key point here is that in social bridge you do not necessarily get a good mix of bridge skills to learn from. The trouble is that the person the group may look to as "expert" may have some completely wrong ideas, and if he is your mentor you are likely to be damaged more than you are developed.

In my view, echoing most, read all the time and play duplicate where you can. You need a regular partner you can discuss and learn with. It's no good playing casual partnerships all the time, but occasionally do that and gain awareness of other styles.

[helene_t]

11 years ago I took up bridge and badminton at club level while having played both socially (albeit very infrequently) for decades.

At the badminton club, we spent almost all the time practising. Sometimes we would spend an hour practising serves only. When we did play we might not even bother to count points, but even if we did, "winning" wasn't the issue. It was about getting feedback on specific mistakes from the more experienced opponents. Competition might take up to some 20% of the hours on the court for the better players, but that figure would be zero for beginners and near-zero for most players.

At the bridge club we would play competition all the time. An odd minute for post-mortems now and then, and maybe a bridge class once a year. I was one of the few members who spend any time reading about and discussing bridge.

When the question was raised whether beginners should play socially or duplicate my immediate reaction was "duplicate, of course", since the level will be higher. But the flip side is that duplicate is too fast and confusing. The fact that people are playing internal club competition all the time stimulates the "result merchant" mentality.

The best learning environment would probably be social bridge with competent opps/partner, if such a thing exists.

[jh51]

fromageGB, on 2011-June-03, 03:33, said:

I think a key point here is that in social bridge you do not necessarily get a good mix of bridge skills to learn from. The trouble is that the person the group may look to as "expert" may have some completely wrong ideas, and if he is your mentor you are likely to be damaged more than you are developed.

I am reminded of a situation I encountered years ago. I was an IT consultant and the folks I was working with played rubber bridge over lunch. On a number of occassions I would open a good (> 16 HCP) hand, and get a jump shift (game forcing) from partner. More often than not, I would go bounding off looking for slam. More ofent than not, there was no slam and often going beyond game was dangerous. It seems that somewhere along the line these guys had learned that you want to be in game when you have an opening hand opposite an opening hand, and the only way they knew to be sure to get to game was to jump shift. It did not matter to them that to most of the rest of the bridge playing world, a strong jomp shift meant a hand stronger than a random 12-14 HCP. I can only assume that whichever one of them was considered the expert of this little band had decided that this was the way to play the game and the rest had fallen into line.

[ggwhiz]

jh51, on 2011-June-03, 09:05, said:

I am reminded of a situation I encountered years ago. I was an IT consultant and the folks I was working with played rubber bridge over lunch. On a number of occassions I would open a good (> 16 HCP) hand, and get a jump shift (game forcing) from partner. More often than not, I would go bounding off looking for slam. More ofent than not, there was no slam and often going beyond game was dangerous. It seems that somewhere along the line these guys had learned that you want to be in game when you have an opening hand opposite an opening hand, and the only way they knew to be sure to get to game was to jump shift. It did not matter to them that to most of the rest of the bridge playing world, a strong jomp shift meant a hand stronger than a random 12-14 HCP. I can only assume that whichever one of them was considered the expert of this little band had decided that this was the way to play the game and the rest had fallen into line.

Reminds me of my University buds that gathered at a cottage for 20 years to play medium stakes rubber for 20 years, cut for partners every rubber.

One other that had gravitated to duplicate brought his regular partner, a consistent tournament performer and he got crushed!

He called what they played Easter Island Bridge and said it wasn't really Bridge but soimething thye invented themselves and nobody had a clue what was going on except them.