[riverwalk3]

I've seen advice to go with the field on the forums. However, isn't higher variance better for tournaments (with the same expected value)? For example, fluctuating between 45 and 65% is better than getting 55% every time, as you will get overall places some of the time with the former but never the latter, and will often get a section top with the former. Thus, it seems better to go against the field, if on expectation the actions are the same.

In an extreme example, suppose you have a choice between having a cointoss between 0% and 100% every board, versus getting 50% on every board for sure. In 12 boards, if you choose the cointoss you will get 75% or above 7% of the time, and 67% or above 19% of the time. This means that you will get overall tops very often in this case, while you will barely get any masterpoints at all with the latter.

[Cyberyeti]

55% will qualify you for the next stage much of the time.

[helene_t]

I think that the "go with the field" mantra comes mostly from people who like to believe that their declarer play is good enough to achieve whatever rank they aim at if they just bid normal contracts.

There can also be a social aspect if you are playing with ambitious teammates or a paying partner - a maverick action that doesn't work is hard to defend, so you play safe.

We had a thread from about half a year ago where David Kok argued that you should bid whatever you think is best and don't worry too much about what the field does. I would agree with that in general. I think that unless it is a very close decision, you should almost always do what is best in terms of EV. There is also the issue that thinking about the "field" puts an extra dimension to the already very complex mental processes which bridge players struggle with. And it makes you are less predictable partner.

Of course, you are right that unless you are favourite to a 1st place, a high-variance strategy is better if your aim is to win money or masterpoints. Then again, in a barometer tournament you sometimes know what your aim is, which may be high variance or low variance. And of course, in the qualifying round you may think that playing with the field is good enough.

[AL78]

For me personally I prefer to try and play solid down the middle bridge and avoid taking punts which may or may not work. I'm happy to be consistent rather than getting 60% one session and 36% the next session like one or two pairs at my local club. If playing sound means not scoring high enough to qualify or win then it likely means my partner and I are not good enough (save for the occasional session where opps punt a million things against you that work thanks to a very specific layout).

At club level I'm not sure it is worth worrying about what the field will do. At my club, a couple of pairs in a small field seem to miss 26 point cold games almost every F2F session so what is the point?

[mikeh]

I think it depends on each board, each hand

In a mp event, it’s a rare board where the bidding is basically identical at all tables. This is especially true when both sides are in the auction.

So in the bidding, unless I have good reason to think about the field, I try to make what I think is the best call each time it’s my turn. I want to arrive at the best contract possible on my cards, my methods, and what the opps are doing, and I neither care nor (often) can predict what the field is doing.

The play is a bit different. Now I may well worry about the field. For example, I’ve stumbled into 3N when I think the field will be in 4S. 4S has three losers and ten winners. 3N has nine winners and a finesse for ten, but I go down if the finesse loses.

Since I think that +400 will be tied for bottom, I take the finesse, cementing the bottom if it loses but gaining a top if it wins. If I think that ‘everyone’ is in 3N, then other factors influence my decision.

Maybe we’re playing it from the ‘wrong side’ due to our notrump ranges. Maybe I think that most people will get a different lead and can take the finesse and still make if it loses, because the opps haven’t established their winners yet. Now I take the finesse since not doing so gets me an average at best and maybe a zero.

Or they gave me a trick early…on the lead or by an error. Now I’ve got at least average in the bank and a top if I don’t take a losing finesse.

Finally, I think it should depend on your expectations and hopes.

If you think you and your partner are amongst the best pairs, then playing solid bridge should get you well above average. Nobody wins mp events without gifts from the opps. It’s better, in bridge, to receive than to give so avoid giving gifts. Going against the field generates a lot of gifts.

If you think that you need to swing in order to have a chance at winning, then go ahead, so long as partner understands and agrees.

Mike Passell used to come to our local Regional. He’s a truly great player (and a nice guy). I remember, years ago, checking out his scores in events in which I was also playing…..these days there are few mp events but it used to be that one would play three mp events in five days.

Anyway, I remember seeing him score 119 and 124 on a 156 average…both times in the second session of a two session play through.

Checking the first session scores, I saw that he’d been around 55%, far lower than his average. While I never spoke to him about it, I’m sure that the low scores were due to his swinging….he wasn’t getting paid to place 24th in the overalls….and he had an understanding client. So by all means go nuts if you think you can’t win otherwise, but be aware that you’re more likely crashing and burning


Bear in mind that the ‘field’ generally makes ‘normal’ plays and bids. While individual players may be almost random, if bad enough, on average the field makes the percentage bid or play most of the time. Thus going anti-field is usually going anti-percentage. I think that somewhat invalidates your math….

Finally, if you are going anti-field, check how you’re doing partway through the session. If you’ve been lucky, and think you’re ahead, stop swinging…preserve your edge, don’t give it back

Some 40 years ago I was playing in a two session event, playing an aggressive, unusual (especially there) big club method with 4 card majors, funny two bids and 10-12 1N

We had a monster first session and should have reverted to 2/1 with strong notrump…what the field was playing

We didn’t. We went for 800 twice, after a 10-12 1N and got preempted out of our secondary fit after a big club opening. We came third….staying with the field would have led to an easy win…avoiding just one of the 800s would have been enough.

[mycroft]

This will be pretty much a copy of my response in that other thread.

The full quote is "go with the field in the auction, and beat them in the play." So, agreeing with Helene - if you're one of the best players of cards in the field, why risk your chance to display your skill?

Certainly, if your "better bidding" shows you that something else is significantly higher EV, then go with it. But I've told this story before... Frequently, playing Precision, I would get to 3♠, and know that the field is bidding 3NT (frequently after 1NT-3NT). But my system shows me there's a good chance that 6♣ is on - but I can't find out without losing my chance to bid NT. Do you go, knowing that you're getting a near-top no matter how well you play if partner has the right cards, and a near-bottom (again, no matter how well you play) if they don't? How likely does it need to be that partner does have the right cards before that's the right decision? Or do you bid 3NT with the rest of the room and try to get your A+ on this board in the play? How likely does it have to be that you are going A+ in the play before that decision changes? How's the rest of your game - will A= or A- be recoverable, but a near-zero take you out of the money? Conversely, do you need a near-top to make the money - A+ won't cut it?

My common "go with the field" is, playing 12-14 NT in the ACBL, what do I rebid with a 16-HCP 4=2=3=4? The room knows that opener is 15-17 balanced; is hiding that on the second round from the table - and especially partner - worth showing the "black two-suiter"? To me, no - and we have ways of finding out the spade fit, and there are advantages to 1♠ "tend[ing] to show an unbalanced hand". There are those who disagree with me, and I don't say I'm unequivocally right.

But playing "with the field" loses you the wins you get bidding "better", sure, but you always have the chance of gaining matchpoints with your great play or defence. Bidding "against the field" will inevitably put you in situations where your play skill just doesn't matter.

Again, agreeing with Helene: it depends on what counts as "success" today. If I'm a 48% player in the field, but there's money for making 55% today, maybe playing higher-variance is right. Sure, if it doesn't work, it's 38% instead, but that's the same money as 48%, no? But if I'm a 48% player in the field, and will be happy with a first-in-C 52%, but 40% is disappointing, then maybe higher-variance is not for me.

[LBengtsson]

Some interesting comments from forum contributors. I will try to sum up my thoughts quickly.

a) Only three times, I can remember, have I seen in a club duplicate a board where everyone played in the same contract and made the same number of tricks.
b) 'Playing with the field' is just taking the safe option when you feel you are already doing well.

As said previously by other forum members, different bidding systems, different hand evaluations, different strategy, different psychology and different strength of players all contribute to different results. The same for any sport or pastime. So, actually, 'playing with the field' is possibly hard to achieve as everyone is doing something 'DIFFERENT'.

That is why bad players sometimes get good results, and sometimes good players get bad results. But, in the long game, the good players will get far less bad results than the bad players getting a hell of lot more good results. Put simply, that is why the better you are at any game, the more you will win. Anyone can fluke a pool shot: it is the same with bridge. If you try 'to go or play with the field' you have absolutely no idea what is actually happening at other tables: you can estimate but can not judge with certainty what everyone else is doing. So 'going or playing with the field' is reduced to guesswork or intuition, and it is not a 'absolute science'.

[riverwalk3]

I'm mainly thinking of an ACBL regional type event, where you get enormous amounts of masterpoints for getting an overall top (30+ in some cases), and very little otherwise. Additionally, a section top is the only way to make gold points. In this case, it's very hard to imagine someone good enough to consistently get first. Even stars often get scores below 60, from what I'm seeing, when first is usually at least 65.

I'm already nearly good enough in robot tournaments to consistently get in the top 3 of my section in ACBL robot duplicates, and am pretty sure Leo LaSota is. In this case a high variance strategy might not be so good (but even then I see Leo LaSota open 1NT with unbalanced 13 counts for example).

[mikeh]

 riverwalk3, on 2023-March-29, 13:27, said:

I'm mainly thinking of an ACBL regional type event, where you get enormous amounts of masterpoints for getting an overall top (30+ in some cases), and very little otherwise. Additionally, a section top is the only way to make gold points. In this case, it's very hard to imagine someone good enough to consistently get first. Even stars often get scores below 60, from what I'm seeing, when first is usually at least 65.

I'm already nearly good enough in robot tournaments to consistently get in the top 3 of my section in ACBL robot duplicates, and am pretty sure Leo LaSota is. In this case a high variance strategy might not be so good (but even then I see Leo LaSota open 1NT with unbalanced 13 counts for example).

In Hawaii, before Covid, the Regional was very small and they ran KO’s opposite the Saturday Pairs…the three pro teams all played KOs and my partner and I decided to play pairs. We won….for a total of 10.5 masterpoints (a 25 team sectional we won almost two weeks ago paid 11+).

But your point is usually valid. I wouldn’t denigrate second or third place tho.

As for consistently winning, it depends. With pros playing teams, to get the client the masterpoints, and it’s much easier for a client to win with three pros than one…most pairs games aren’t as strong as they were 30 years ago….plus in the ACBL the demographics are horrendous…at that sectional, I was told, the median age was 70….and few of us are as good at 70 as we were at 30 or 40. And many of the leading local players are now deceased. The fields are thus far weaker than they used to be.

Around 10 years ago a friend of mine won four mp events in one Regional….I played with him in the fourth, under great pressure since he’d already won the previous three

And over about a four year period, pre-Covid, I wasn’t play much but I did play five Open Pairs with four different partners…won them all.

In every case we won because the opps were very nice to us. I’m a grinder at the table. I seldom do anything brilliant (my partners would say seldom is an overbid) but when I’m playing well, I don’t give many gifts. That’s how to win…avoid zeros and, usually, the opps will give you three or four tops per session. When they don’t, welcome to 55-58%. When they do….65-70%.

Finally, talk to friends who’ve won…I expect they’ll have lots of stories about gifts and few about their creating good scores by swinging.

[mycroft]

Oh then definitely read MikeH's response. Of course, know that he's been known to make the overalls - not win, necessarily, but make the overalls - every day of "an ACBL regional type event". And he would likely consider any day he didn't a poor showing.

But again, overalls paid 25% of my checked event (17 places of the 33-table two session open pairs, 12 places for 24-table Gold Rush), so if you can regularly place top 3 in section - twice in a row, again, read MikeH - you'll place overalls more often than not. I can't (I guess that's why I direct). First in the Open was 40 points, but 17th was still over 4.5...

[pescetom]

 helene_t, on 2023-March-29, 10:27, said:

Of course, you are right that unless you are favourite to a 1st place, a high-variance strategy is better if your aim is to win money or masterpoints. Then again, in a barometer tournament you sometimes know what your aim is, which may be high variance or low variance. And of course, in the qualifying round you may think that playing with the field is good enough.

There is also the huge issue of whether or not you know your current position in a barometer tournament.
I am amazed that my RA does not regulate this aspect or at least define it as part of the terms of contest (thus esonerating TD from deciding).

[riverwalk3]

 mikeh, on 2023-March-29, 14:03, said:

In Hawaii, before Covid, the Regional was very small and they ran KO’s opposite the Saturday Pairs…the three pro teams all played KOs and my partner and I decided to play pairs. We won….for a total of 10.5 masterpoints (a 25 team sectional we won almost two weeks ago paid 11+).

But your point is usually valid. I wouldn’t denigrate second or third place tho.

As for consistently winning, it depends. With pros playing teams, to get the client the masterpoints, and it’s much easier for a client to win with three pros than one…most pairs games aren’t as strong as they were 30 years ago….plus in the ACBL the demographics are horrendous…at that sectional, I was told, the median age was 70….and few of us are as good at 70 as we were at 30 or 40. And many of the leading local players are now deceased. The fields are thus far weaker than they used to be.

Around 10 years ago a friend of mine won four mp events in one Regional….I played with him in the fourth, under great pressure since he’d already won the previous three

And over about a four year period, pre-Covid, I wasn’t play much but I did play five Open Pairs with four different partners…won them all.

In every case we won because the opps were very nice to us. I’m a grinder at the table. I seldom do anything brilliant (my partners would say seldom is an overbid) but when I’m playing well, I don’t give many gifts. That’s how to win…avoid zeros and, usually, the opps will give you three or four tops per session. When they don’t, welcome to 55-58%. When they do….65-70%.

Finally, talk to friends who’ve won…I expect they’ll have lots of stories about gifts and few about their creating good scores by swinging.

There are also a lot of zeroes out of your control: ie your opponent bids a thin game that nobody else does and every finesse is onside, or your opponent stops below game when everything else is in game and suit breaks turn out to be bad. Or your opponent finds a brilliant play that few others find.

[mikeh]

 riverwalk3, on 2023-March-29, 15:21, said:

There are also a lot of zeroes out of your control: ie your opponent bids a thin game that nobody else does and every finesse is onside, or your opponent stops below game when everything else is in game and suit breaks turn out to be bad. Or your opponent finds a brilliant play that few others find.

They average out in the long run. Plus much of the time, the thin game goes down, either because it can’t make or they misplay….and now you have a gift.


Obviously, getting fixed is part of the game and it’s frustrating when it happens. Trying to offset that by going anti-field (if that means anti-percentage) rarely works. Instead, just grin and bear it (I’m not very good at that) and hope the next event features fewer fixes.

Very, very few players make brilliant plays. A friend of mine wrote a book of bridge cartoons…my favourite has one player waving her CC at her partner, with the caption ‘You’re not good enough to be brilliant’. That’s become my personal motto anytime I feel like stepping outside my partnership methods and style.

A few more make bad plays that work ‘brilliantly’ but that’s just being fixed. Most of the time such plays give you gifts, because bad plays, by definition, usually lead to bad outcomes.

I don’t think I’ve ever won an event where we didn’t get at least one average minus or worse due to a fix. But five gifts and 1 fix….you are 2boards over average already. If your normal game is one to two boards over average, now you’re in contention.

[akwoo]

Mikeh's perspective is good for him, but I wonder what *I'm* supposed to do.

I just played a week at the NABC in New Orleans. On the first day of a national pairs event, our normal game is about a board and a half (per session) below average. I just can't keep track of the cards at the table and use the information well enough to do better, and neither can my partner. (Many of these mistakes, I am good enough to recognize right after the hand, or at least on analysis in the evening.)

Open regional competition at an NABC is a little easier, but we're still a board below average normally.

What should we do? Swing? (We're playing 12-14 1N, which is mildly swingy.) Give up and crawl back to the mid-flight games (in which case there's really no point in actually going to an NABC rather than a regional)?

And what do you advise for the players who are another board and a half per session worse than us (and still among the better players in a club game), making them hopelessly outmatched in the open game even at a weaker regional?

(Yeah I'm a little frustrated by the plateau I've hit.)

[AL78]

 mikeh, on 2023-March-29, 15:53, said:

They average out in the long run. Plus much of the time, the thin game goes down, either because it can’t make or they misplay….and now you have a gift.


Obviously, getting fixed is part of the game and it’s frustrating when it happens. Trying to offset that by going anti-field (if that means anti-percentage) rarely works. Instead, just grin and bear it (I’m not very good at that) and hope the next event features fewer fixes.

Very, very few players make brilliant plays. A friend of mine wrote a book of bridge cartoons…my favourite has one player waving her CC at her partner, with the caption ‘You’re not good enough to be brilliant’. That’s become my personal motto anytime I feel like stepping outside my partnership methods and style.

A few more make bad plays that work ‘brilliantly’ but that’s just being fixed. Most of the time such plays give you gifts, because bad plays, by definition, usually lead to bad outcomes.

I don’t think I’ve ever won an event where we didn’t get at least one average minus or worse due to a fix. But five gifts and 1 fix….you are 2boards over average already. If your normal game is one to two boards over average, now you’re in contention.

I heard somewhere that the key to doing well at bridge is not to find the brilliancies but to avoid the blunders. The latter are far more common than the former.

[DavidKok]

 akwoo, on 2023-March-29, 17:53, said:

What should we do? Swing? (We're playing 12-14 1N, which is mildly swingy.) Give up and crawl back to the mid-flight games (in which case there's really no point in actually going to an NABC rather than a regional)?

And what do you advise for the players who are another board and a half per session worse than us (and still among the better players in a club game), making them hopelessly outmatched in the open game even at a weaker regional?

(Yeah I'm a little frustrated by the plateau I've hit.)

I'm not mikeh but perhaps this is useful anyway.
Personally most of my focus is on long term improvement. There are lots of aspects of the game I am still lousy at (some would argue most aspects). I don't particularly care for my scores in the next few months as long as it means that two years from now I'll do better than I do today. Personally I think this is a healthy attitude with some convenient positive externalities. If you feel the same way some of the advice below might be useful. If you really hit a plateau in your ability, not just your score, I honestly think the best advice is to evaluate which aspects of the game you like most (is it winning? Testing your methods against strong competition? The social aspect? Something else?) and focus on that.

• Be consistent. Don't try to be brilliant. Make the system bid, take the percentage line, discuss with partner afterwards whether they feel a different action was indicated. If your inspired idea conflicts with the system bid, still make the system bid and at the end of the session (not the end of the deal) ask if partner would be open to changing the system.
  
• Ignore the field, and to a certain degree ignore your results. Ask what you could have done differently. Ask for advice - from partner, from local experts, possibly from online fora. Personally I learned a lot from reading other people's system notes and comparing their auctions with my own. LBengtsson mentioned this earlier and I 100% agree - on any given deal you will likely get loads of different auctions, and even more lines of play. Most of these will be due to mistakes. Getting a second perspective on even the straightforward auctions can be illuminating.
  
• This one is more controversial, but I'll add it to my short list anyway. Play a modern system. That doesn't have to mean complicated, but get in there with a shape first approach, with lots of GF auctions and not that many invitational ones. Support with support, balanced hands make balanced bids, points schmoints, double is almost always takeout, that sort of thing. In my experience this is both more effective and easier compared to most systems from half a century ago. If you really want to simplify, pick up Precision. Older systems seem to focus quiet a bit more on strength of the hand and safety level. Modern systems place much more emphasis on the degree of fit, points be damned. And as far as I can tell it's working.
  
• In line with 2 & 3 above: it is far better to play a simple system of which you know the ins and outs, than a complicated one where you have to second guess everything (or, even worse, "yes I know this bid means X, but if partner forgets we'll have a disaster board, so I better bid Y instead"). Simplify, even if it means hands fall through the cracks and don't have a system bid anymore. When you get comfortable with a simple system (and have observed yourself which hands have issues on certain auctions) you can reintroduce solutions even at the cost of memory strain - but only on an as needed basis.
  
• During the play I struggle a lot more. There are a few books I really liked, but my declarer play is still a far cry from the level I'd like it to be at. A good part of the way to improve is slowing down, counting and drawing conclusions. You can't get good by starting fast and bad and hoping to gradually improve - you have to start slow but somewhat reasonable (e.g. count the points, and a few suits) and then slowly speed up.

[P_Marlowe]

 akwoo, on 2023-March-29, 17:53, said:

Mikeh's perspective is good for him, but I wonder what *I'm* supposed to do.

I just played a week at the NABC in New Orleans. On the first day of a national pairs event, our normal game is about a board and a half (per session) below average. I just can't keep track of the cards at the table and use the information well enough to do better, and neither can my partner. (Many of these mistakes, I am good enough to recognize right after the hand, or at least on analysis in the evening.)

<snip>

(Yeah I'm a little frustrated by the plateau I've hit.)

Was this your first national?

If yes, ..., be patient. Treat each session on its own to see, how large the gap to middle / top really is.

Errors, ..., clustered or are scattered around?
If clusters, try to pick one, focus on this one.
If scattered around, this is most likely due to lack of concentration, training concentration comes with regular
play.

You could also hire a pro you trust, who can monitor your game giving you an outside perspective, finding the
right one maybe the hardest part.

Most of all have fun.

[akwoo]

 P_Marlowe, on 2023-March-30, 09:01, said:

Was this your first national?

If yes, ..., be patient. Treat each session on its own to see, how large the gap to middle / top really is.

Errors, ..., clustered or are scattered around?
If clusters, try to pick one, focus on this one.
If scattered around, this is most likely due to lack of concentration, training concentration comes with regular
play.

You could also hire a pro you trust, who can monitor your game giving you an outside perspective, finding the
right one maybe the hardest part.

Most of all have fun.

I won the 0-2500 Micro-Spingold last summer. (Yes the competition in that event is easily two boards a session below average for a open NABC+ event.)

I'm the second best player within 70 miles (in a rural area). I support the local club game, but the level of bridge is a joke. When the top players in the area (say 200 miles around) form a team, they frequently win a Sectional Swiss with 110 out of 120 VPs (and none of them are as good as mikeh).

I work (and I'm in my 40s). I don't get regular play (and especially not regular play against decent opposition).

Hiring a pro to play with you seems a bit dishonest to me. (And, frankly, when hiring a pro for a week costs as much as minimally feeding someone for a year, I feel I ought to spend that money on feeding the homeless.)

The gaps between good Flight C player, good Flight B player, and good Flight A player(*) seem pretty small (only a board or two a session!), but actually are huge, and it seems like the only way to get from one to the next is:

a) be ridiculously talented
b) spend 10 years regularly playing a lot, or 20 years regularly playing
c) be a junior and get free coaching
d) spend a lot of money (and time, but not as much as (b)) on a pro

(*) and I haven't mentioned actual experts, or world class players

[mycroft]

I'm going to tell a story. It may not have any relevance to the conversation.

I took the D18 MP leader (if you don't count full-time pros) to a tournament one year. He brought along with him - bridge hands from the newspaper. About 15 of them. Yes, the ones aimed at interested kitchen bridge players, who have to have negative doubles explained to them, if the hand was from a real event. He spent about 10 minutes on each one - on a car ride, going to a tournament.

The difference between the mes of the world and Real Flight A (and yeah, there's a step from there to NABC+ hopefuls) is very likely about an hour a day of study, whether of the hands they played that day or books or puzzles or system review or just counting. Plus care. Plus a partner in the same headspace.

[mikeh]

 akwoo, on 2023-March-30, 10:43, said:

I won the 0-2500 Micro-Spingold last summer. (Yes the competition in that event is easily two boards a session below average for a open NABC+ event.)

I'm the second best player within 70 miles (in a rural area). I support the local club game, but the level of bridge is a joke. When the top players in the area (say 200 miles around) form a team, they frequently win a Sectional Swiss with 110 out of 120 VPs (and none of them are as good as mikeh).

I work (and I'm in my 40s). I don't get regular play (and especially not regular play against decent opposition).

Hiring a pro to play with you seems a bit dishonest to me. (And, frankly, when hiring a pro for a week costs as much as minimally feeding someone for a year, I feel I ought to spend that money on feeding the homeless.)

The gaps between good Flight C player, good Flight B player, and good Flight A player(*) seem pretty small (only a board or two a session!), but actually are huge, and it seems like the only way to get from one to the next is:

a) be ridiculously talented
b) spend 10 years regularly playing a lot, or 20 years regularly playing
c) be a junior and get free coaching
d) spend a lot of money (and time, but not as much as (b)) on a pro

(*) and I haven't mentioned actual experts, or world class players

I’ve known a few I’d classify as partly (a) but I suspect that most of them also fall into (b)

As for (b), that may be good but, unfortunately for you, insufficient

I spent 10 years after university in a town of 75,000 people, 800 km from the nearest major city, and so 800 km away from anyone approaching expert status. A friend from uni lived there at the time and we rapidly became the local hotshots, with me foolishly thinking that I was getting pretty good. We usually won at least one or two and sometimes more at our local sectionals. I once won 9 sectional events in a row

Then I moved to a larger town…more importantly a town with two real experts and close enough to a major city that I could attend sectionals there

Gradually more and more good players moved here…it’s got the mildest climate in Canada, so we now have 7 Canadian internationalists living here.

It wasn’t until I got a chance to play regularly with one of the then resident experts that I learned how little I knew. Shortly thereafter I got to play on a regular basis with Alan Graves, who taught me more…most importantly, how to prepare for and handle oneself at the table

Imo, just playing a lot doesn’t help one improve, especially if one is the best or one of the best players in your neighbourhood. There’s no-one to point out your mistakes, and it’s naive to think that you can identify them all yourself, or come up with optimal solutions without input from players significantly better than you.

I only play online with friends or in significant events so I don’t know how easy it is to find a strong game unless you already know some players (presumably from different areas) who you think can improve your game.

Hiring a coach would be a useful idea, especially if both you and your regular partner bought into it…and split the cost

With zoom, goggle meet and so on it’s fairly easy to create a good learning environment, and that can be done in conjunction with BBO

One point you didn’t mention and that was extremely useful for me…it got me to the point that I could meaningfully discuss things with much better players than I….and that is reading

There are some very good, if hard to find, books on play and since play issues are both varied and, individually, infrequent at the table reading is better than coaching, imo.

Reese and Trezel published a series of (then) overpriced thin books on various play issues. One book was about blocking and unblocking. One about endplays. One about deceptive play, and so on. I’d highly recommend. Kelsey wrote several books in which the reader ‘plays’ 64 boards in 8 board segments, team scoring. You get to see how you did after each segment, with analysis at a very good level. Your teammates aren’t perfect and sometimes the correct action loses…very much like real life. The bidding is antiquated, not to mention strange to NA eyes, but, as the bard wrote, the play’s the thing.

I used to reread a couple of the Kelsey books before each major event…probably still should, lol. The Tough Match (or The Tough Game) was one and another was The Needle Match, iirc.

You can probably find all of these online

Btw, too many improving players, imo, spend far too much effort on learning conventions and nowhere near enough on how to play the cards.

In my recent return to club bridge, playing with friends of wildly varied skill, I’ve been playing some very simple 2/1 methods, with some success. I play an extremely complex method with my main partner, with a great amount of memory work. I think it’s worth it because we hope to play some high level bridge, where ‘everyone can play’ and system can have a big impact. At most levels of the game most players can’t play their cards very well and, should you be the best card player, you’ll enjoy great success.

Getting to magic contracts because of wonderful methods is in fact counterproductive if you can’t play well enough to bring it home.

Btw, here’s an example of book learning…if I waited to learn this at the table, I’d still be waiting but it produced a slam swing when it came up.

The opps are in a 4=4 fit (known, perhaps, due to stayman) and you have J9xx. Dummy has KQ108 and declarer is known to,hold the A.

Proper technique for declarer is to cash a top honour in dummy, then cross to the Ace, enabling him to discover the 4-1 break and finesse you out of your Jack.

The textbook counter is to play the 9 on the first round of the suit. Declarer may now play you for stiff 9, and he can cash the second honour in dummy (catering to you holding J9 or J9x) and now he loses a trump trick. You can still make the play even if the 8 isn’t in dummy….if partner follows low to the first round of the suit

I’ve seen this situation just once in over 30 years, but every good player knows this one.

How about A6 in dummy and you hold K1087xx in hand? You’re in slam and want to avoid two losers in this trump suit. How do you play it?

Believe it or not, the clearly correct play is to advance the 10!

I’ll leave why for readers to ponder. Btw, I’m still waiting for the winning case for this combination��

But that’s true for many examples of advanced technique….you’d have to play a LOT of bridge for them to arise and, if you weren’t already familiar with the concepts, you’ll probably never notice them.