[Cyberyeti]

 mikeh, on 2021-May-29, 09:57, said:

Yes, 2H then 3C shows 6=4, weak hand.

But this is matchpoints, and our club suit is beyond weak, while on a reasonable day our hearts will provide 5 winners even opposite a stiff. We need to make a lot of clubs to do as well as 3H, if 3H makes. Do you like your chances in 5C? I’m not saying you’d be in 5C, just that you need to make 11 tricks to beat 9 in hearts


Meanwhile, if 3H fails, I’m not optimistic about 3C either

I was bidding 3♣ to try to help partner to judge whether we belong in 3N rather than 3/4♥ better than 3♥ will, I don't expect to end up in 5♣ very often.

[Winstonm]

I suspect that west, looking at his diamonds, got confused and bid 2nt thinking he had made a 2/1 rather than a 1/1. I prefer to think that as I would not want to play with someone who was masterminding and trying for hero results.

[jillybean]

 Winstonm, on 2021-May-29, 15:11, said:

I suspect that west, looking at his diamonds, got confused and bid 2nt thinking he had made a 2/1 rather than a 1/1. I prefer to think that as I would not want to play with someone who was masterminding and trying for hero results.

You're too kind.

[mikeh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2021-May-29, 13:02, said:

I was bidding 3♣ to try to help partner to judge whether we belong in 3N rather than 3/4♥ better than 3♥ will, I don't expect to end up in 5♣ very often.

Lol

I wasn’t suggesting you’d ever reach 5C. I was suggesting that, if playing in clubs, you’d better make 5, if 3H is making

[Cyberyeti]

 mikeh, on 2021-May-29, 15:52, said:

Lol

I wasn’t suggesting you’d ever reach 5C. I was suggesting that, if playing in clubs, you’d better make 5, if 3H is making

I don't think I'm playing in 3 or 4♣ very often, 95%+ of the time I'll be in hearts or 3N

[Winstonm]

 jillybean, on 2021-May-29, 15:30, said:

You're too kind.

Just thinking out loud here but it occurred to me that a big step in becoming a good player is learning the importance of being a good partner - reliable - someone who doesn’t take flights of fancy or make hero bids but makes solid calls, and that step is not as easy as it sounds. Kibitz a highly skilled player and the usual thinking is they didn’t’ do anything that I couldn’t do. But getting to that place where clear thinking and stable emotions meet is a difficult task and then maintaining that state is even harder for most of us.

[jillybean]

 Winstonm, on 2021-May-29, 16:44, said:

Just thinking out loud here but it occurred to me that a big step in becoming a good player is learning the importance of being a good partner - reliable - someone who doesn’t take flights of fancy or make hero bids but makes solid calls, and that step is not as easy as it sounds. Kibitz a highly skilled player and the usual thinking is they didn’t’ do anything that I couldn’t do. But getting to that place where clear thinking and stable emotions meet is a difficult task and then maintaining that state is even harder for most of us.

As someone who is trying not to mastermind and take flights of fancy. I agree, it's very difficult.

[Winstonm]

 jillybean, on 2021-May-29, 17:45, said:

As someone who is trying not to mastermind and take flights of fancy. I agree, it's very difficult.

Winning bridge most often is about avoiding mistakes rather than making brilliant plays. Continually count and mentally construct the unseen hands. As Bob Hamman once advised, you have to know what the problem is before you can find a solution. There is nothing easy about maintaining intense concentration and focus for 3 or 4 hours at a time.

[mikeh]

 Winstonm, on 2021-May-30, 11:16, said:

Winning bridge most often is about avoiding mistakes rather than making brilliant plays. Continually count and mentally construct the unseen hands. As Bob Hamman once advised, you have to know what the problem is before you can find a solution. There is nothing easy about maintaining intense concentration and focus for 3 or 4 hours at a time.

The quote I recall, attributed to Hamman, is that one should never look at a decision and ask ‘what should I do?’. Instead, ask ‘what’s going on?’.

Once you’ve figured out ‘what’s going on’, it is far easier to then answer that other question: what can I do about it?

I’ve often toyed with the notion of writing some posts that I would call ‘the sea of information’.

On those occasions when an interested player asks me about a declarer or defensive problem, I sometimes use a Socratic approach.

Almost universally, the non-expert ‘knows’ something about the hand but hasn’t taken the time to figure out what that means.

In other words, they may have noticed that LHO led a 4th best 2 against 1N 3N, but doesn’t take the next step of inferring that that player probably doesn’t have a five card suit anywhere. Get some more information...say that player shows out on the second trick in our source of tricks...the odds are now very strong that he’s 4441. If you have a two way guess for a Queen in another suit, missing six cards, now (absent still other information), you have 4-2 odds that opening leader, tentatively assumed to have 4 cards in the suit, holds the Queen. Yet most non-experts think it’s a fifty fifty guess.

Or you’re in a contract missing AKQ of a side suit. The opening lead is in another suit. The odds are very good that opening leader doesn’t have AK or KQ in the suit where we’re missing the AKQ. If leader has made a call suggesting opening values, and we’re missing say 15 hcp, the odds are good leader has AQ and all the missing hcp other than the King. Maybe you’re missing the King in a nine card fit, with leader sitting behind the Ace. The expert may drop it singleton, especially if LHO is a fairly sound bidder.

Tidbits like this are present on the majority of hands, with the details varying. The reliability of these inferences is also variable...some are rock solid, others depend on your assessment of your opponents.

Often, an expert declarer will play to discover more information before making the important decision. The more honest the opps are in their carding, the easier this will be (which is why few experts signal except when they think partner may need to know, and experts routinely falsecard when they expect partner knows what’s going on.: my favourite of that was when Passell and Wold both signalled an odd holding in a suit where I was missing 6 cards....I was so sure they were lying that I played the suit to be 4-2, and felt a little insulted as well😝

This sort of ‘working out what’s going on’ is far more important than learning to pull off a trump squeeze or almost any of the techniques in Adventures in Card Play.

[jillybean]

 mikeh, on 2021-May-30, 14:57, said:

I’ve often toyed with the notion of writing some posts that I would call ‘the sea of information’.

Please stop toying and start writing.