Nothing particular to report, though I think I'm definitely seeing improvement. My scores are improving, and I think that I'm starting to be able to analyze play/defense deeper. It's nice to see progress. Makes you feel like there is actually hope.
Judgement in competitive auctions is still an issue.... and I'm not quite sure what to do to address that. Anyone got a good recommendation for a competitive auction 'primer'?
We're taking off for vacation early next week. While we're away, I'll be continuing the interface with Kantar, Lawrence, and Watson.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
The wheels of progress...
Thankfully, I think some elements of my bridge game are starting to improve. I'm slowing down and making fewer thoughtless errors. I'm not sure I'm making that many fewer errors overall, but at least everything has a rationale behind it. If I know why I did something, at least I have a shot at fixing it.I'm definitely seeing an improvement in my dummy play and defense. I attribute both of these to the (still limited) reading I've managed to get in with Watson and Kantar. I still need to develop muscles for counting down shape and specific spots left out.
Here's a hand from BBO that I think I did ok on. I'm fairly confident that I didn't have to overcome best defense, but I'll take what I get. I'd be interested in the opinions of anyone out there re: my play and things I might've missed...
| ||||||||
|
You're south and delcarer in 3NT. West leads the ♠2.
I played small from dummy and East inserted the ♠J, which I took with the ♠K. If ♣s split favorably, I figured that I had 7 additional trick (1♥, 4♣s, and 2♦s). Hearts could be a problem, but I had good spots and wasn't too concerned.
If the opps lead ♦s, I can probably gain a trick there. But, given that I started with 7 'well spotted' ♠s, I figured my best chance for the sure was to establish that suit.
So, I led low from hand towards the ♠T89 in dummy, which west took with the ♠Q. Helpful chap that he was, west switched to a ♦ which I won in hand by covering east's T with the J. I pushed another ♠ toward dummy, again won by West with the ♠A. West returned a ♣ this time, which I won in hand.
Playing W for the missing ♥ honors, I led a low ♥ toward dummy and finessed the 9. Cross with a club, repeat the ♥ finesse (5, Q, A, 2). Now dummy yields 2 clubs and a spade, on which I can pitch ♥ and a diamond, and the ♦ A was the last trick.
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
No longer "Yuck"
Bridge is a funny game.
It was only two days ago that I was lamenting the worst set of my life... Now, I'm basking in the morning after glow of the best set of my life. What makes it extra funny is that this set included my all-time worst score for a single board. Wasn't much I could do about it, though:
Pard opens, sitting East:
I love to bid as much as the next guy, but even I pass two point hands vulnerable. I was mortified when pard rebid spades at the 4-level, and completely unsurprised when the red card came out of north.
When the dust cleared, we were down 5 for -1400 (about 18IMPS on the board). However, even with that we were +20 for the session, so no complaints.
It was only two days ago that I was lamenting the worst set of my life... Now, I'm basking in the morning after glow of the best set of my life. What makes it extra funny is that this set included my all-time worst score for a single board. Wasn't much I could do about it, though:
|
Pard opens, sitting East:
| West | North | East | South |
| 1♠ | 1NT | ||
| p | 3NT | 4♠ | p |
| p | X | p | p |
| p |
I love to bid as much as the next guy, but even I pass two point hands vulnerable. I was mortified when pard rebid spades at the 4-level, and completely unsurprised when the red card came out of north.
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
When the dust cleared, we were down 5 for -1400 (about 18IMPS on the board). However, even with that we were +20 for the session, so no complaints.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Yuck
Played an absolutely awful set last night. I had been feeling like my game was coming along, and then came -40IMPs of complete garbage on my part.
Partner was a really solid player - a true, bona fide BBO expert. And I was nervous as a schoolgirl... Basically, I rushed and reacted rather than thought. Even when I did 'think', I wasn't actually being productive. I tanked for a good 2 following the opening lead to a ♦ contract and was no closer to having a plan when I played from dummy than before I tanked.
The problem is that I knew the guy, respected him, and wanted to do well. The sad fact is by getting all wound up, I crapped the bed instead of playing well.
Moral - Look at the cards and the bidding, not the people at the table. Make the right play... It is better to suck marginally than to get nervous and ensure total FAIL.
Partner was a really solid player - a true, bona fide BBO expert. And I was nervous as a schoolgirl... Basically, I rushed and reacted rather than thought. Even when I did 'think', I wasn't actually being productive. I tanked for a good 2 following the opening lead to a ♦ contract and was no closer to having a plan when I played from dummy than before I tanked.The problem is that I knew the guy, respected him, and wanted to do well. The sad fact is by getting all wound up, I crapped the bed instead of playing well.
Moral - Look at the cards and the bidding, not the people at the table. Make the right play... It is better to suck marginally than to get nervous and ensure total FAIL.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Where I am right now...
Hi all.... er, all two of you.
Let me start with some thoughts on the Naturalist vs. Scientist match that BBO has had on VuGraph: First of all, I'm not sure that including an equal-length session of goulash hands is really the best way to judge the effectiveness of a system of bidding. To pull 100 "one in a million" hands out just proves that you mess up once in several hundred million.
The bigger issue is, sadly, the gap in player ability here. Why couldn't you get some other players (thinking specifically of Helgemo/Helness) who bid 'naturally' to take up the charge? The so-called Scientists have Zia, and the naturalists have a bunch of people who have got to be 2nd classers at best.
Moving on... I'm working my way through Watson's Play of the Hand. What a book! If you are an intermediate player who hasn't read this, run out and grab it. Now. I'll wait 'til you get back... Seriously.
I love the way Watson systematically walks you through different aspects of cardplay and present the 'why' of things. "You hold up aces because..." While other books (Root's play book, for example) outline the play, they don't really get at the underlying logic. And for a nerdy guy like me, that's a critical part.
I'm also picking away at Kantar's Defense, but I think that having worked through Watson will make me appreciate/understand Kantar a bit better.
I think my bidding has improved greatly due to my slowing the heck down. However, my cardplay of late has been abysmal. I think I'm over-analyzing a bit thanks to reading so much. At least I hope that's what is going on. This is typical for me - there's a period of 'unsettledness' before new knowledge takes root.
Well, we'll see.
Let me start with some thoughts on the Naturalist vs. Scientist match that BBO has had on VuGraph: First of all, I'm not sure that including an equal-length session of goulash hands is really the best way to judge the effectiveness of a system of bidding. To pull 100 "one in a million" hands out just proves that you mess up once in several hundred million.The bigger issue is, sadly, the gap in player ability here. Why couldn't you get some other players (thinking specifically of Helgemo/Helness) who bid 'naturally' to take up the charge? The so-called Scientists have Zia, and the naturalists have a bunch of people who have got to be 2nd classers at best.
Moving on... I'm working my way through Watson's Play of the Hand. What a book! If you are an intermediate player who hasn't read this, run out and grab it. Now. I'll wait 'til you get back... Seriously.I love the way Watson systematically walks you through different aspects of cardplay and present the 'why' of things. "You hold up aces because..." While other books (Root's play book, for example) outline the play, they don't really get at the underlying logic. And for a nerdy guy like me, that's a critical part.
I'm also picking away at Kantar's Defense, but I think that having worked through Watson will make me appreciate/understand Kantar a bit better.
I think my bidding has improved greatly due to my slowing the heck down. However, my cardplay of late has been abysmal. I think I'm over-analyzing a bit thanks to reading so much. At least I hope that's what is going on. This is typical for me - there's a period of 'unsettledness' before new knowledge takes root.
Well, we'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
