IAC Forums
Chew the Fat! => The IAC Café => Topic started by: Curls77 on April 13, 2017, 09:07:27 PM
-
This forum has been up 10 days already and we have right now 18 (eighteen!!) members.
2 or so weeks ago some unknown BBO bug deleted 90% of 3200+ members IAC had at that moment. Since then Onoway lost her fingers typing names to re-admit them to the club as players one by one cried they lost access to IAC. In no time we are over 800.
*** But where are these 800 people? ***
* Lessons currently running at IAC hardly have 30+ members assisting to them.
* We just had to cancel trnys in weekdays as attendance fell as low as 1 (one) pardship registered.
* (Almost) none ever plays in IAC unless Yleexotee uses his biceps and fills a table or 2.
When BBO announced death of old windows client, some of us yelled, begged, threatend, insulted, whined, scratched walls with nails, so BBO will find a way to keep clubs alive, which was not at all what they really wanted. But they eventually let us be and are currently devising new version which will allow clubs function within some web client. I now wonder why we did it, as it seems none but few participate in anything, and all the rest want only yet another club membership card in vallet?
So, please, us 18 that are here, talk to friends, ask them to join this forum and express what they'd wish IAC to be, what would you would like to happen, offer to help if you can. Many people invest good load of their time for the benefit of us all, as making beautiful new IAC site, this forum, lessons we get for free, organizing it all, etc.. - so please let's not take any of those as granted.
Participate, and invite friends to do same.
-
Good post, Sanya.
More Teachers
I can't help but feel that part of the problem is the very small number of teaching sessions compared to how things were a number of years ago. A considerable number of Teachers who used to offer IAC sessions have simply stopped teaching altogether or now only teach privately. When I started teaching in IAC, the teaching sessions were jostling each other for space in the [crowded] Diary and there was a good number of Teachers offering a wide variety of teaching sessions covering different systems, aspects of play etc. Back then there was no Teams Series, no Ladders and the regular Tourneys in the IAC Program were mostly ones held by Teachers as part of their program, but the Club was thriving.
How to attract more teachers, then? At the moment there are effectively only 5 of us (Joe, Dave G, Oliver Hoffman, Grant and myself). We need more, preferably from different parts of the world because they will tend to hold their sessions at times convenient for them, which brings us to the next issue:
Session Times
Looking at when the existing teaching sessions sessions are held, some of them are at times of the day that may be awkward for people in the North and South American continent (if they're working, for example). I have always, for example, held my sessions away from the working week at a time that's relatively late in the evening for me, but accessible to people in Europe and the USA.
The same potential problem applies to several of the Tourneys, which are in the 4pm-6pm UTC bracket, which in turn makes them not so bad for people in Europe, but early afternoon or morning for people in the USA, Canada or South America, which is not so good if people are working at that time.
Obviously the TD or teacher's own availability is critical, but getting a spread of Teachers/TDs from different regions will tend to spread the session times.
-
I have hopes for this Forum.
I like discussion. I have to run so I will make this initial response short. But here is the sort of thing I hope for:
I was playing f2f today and I think I missed a good opportunity for an extra defensive trick. I need to go back and take a look. I mentioned it to partner. This is my primary mode of learning. I look over hands later to see not only if a different play would have been better, but whether it is reasonable to think I could have found that play. I like chatting with people about these plays.
I'll probably post the hand I am thinking about later. And there are other recent examples from play. Sometimes I did something good, sometimes I was lucky, sometimes I see later that I should have gotten something right, sometimes I think that while something would have worked no reasonable person would have played the hand the way in the way that works. I like back and forth discussion on such hands.
I do go, sometimes, to the teaching areas. But I often see things differently. Discussion is more my style.
More later. There is a free wine tasting down the block and we have to keep our priorities straight.
-
Oliver, great points.
We do need more people volunteer to be TDs in different times, but we need players that want to play those trnys. Recent attempt to run 2 weekly trnys at 9am GMT, 5am eastern, aimed for Australia, New Zealand and Asia members, failed for lack of attendance. I am almost sure we'd find TD for say 7pm in USA , suitable for working members, if only they'd want to play.
As for teachers, oh I wish there were more.. By any chance, is any of members good salesman that could convince some big shot come and give us bits and pieces of their wisdom free of charge? If so, please come forward :)
Ken:
Would it be too much to ask you to set 1 hour weekly a mentoring table in IAC, play and discuss style? Many like to chew on hands just played and certainly most members will learn lots, playing or watching.
-
More later. There is a free wine tasting down the block and we have to keep our priorities straight.
Oh, absolutely!!!!! ROFLMAO
-
Hi All,
Sanya, the thing that struck me was that, hoki's session, mine, and dulci's tourney are all at times that ought to be reasonably good for people in the States, but most of the other tourneys, for example, aren't because they'll be during the working day on the American continent. That may explain falling numbers.
Obviously we're never going to be able to attract the whole world to a specific session or tourney. It'll always be 4am for some people, whatever time we choose. Also it has to be at a reasonable time for the TD or Teacher in question.
I can't help but feel that attracting more teachers to IAC is the fundamental solution. We can't really "complete" where Tourneys are concerned, because there's one starting every minute on BBO. The thing people cannot get elsewhere on BBO is good quality teaching.
-
Ken:
Would it be too much to ask you to set 1 hour weekly a mentoring table in IAC, play and discuss style? Many like to chew on hands just played and certainly most members will learn lots, playing or watching.
This forum could serve much of that purpose. I will select out a hand that will perhaps illustrate this.
http://tinyurl.com/k6v8ysh
Added: I have added a rebuttal to my claim that playing the A at T1 is doomed. Not exactly.
Down one, losing to the K and J of hearts.After eleven tricks the hand was conceded as down 1. David sent me a message asking if it could be made. I was then seeing only the remnants of the hand after the claim and i said that probably not, after the heart lead at T1. I included a quick word on how, if I remembered the hand correctly, it could be made without a heart lead. Later I sent a correction, saying that I thought it could be but I would have to look it over. Of course one could check GIB, GIB says yes, but I think that is the wrong idea. One should think how it could be made, and whether that is a reasonable line of play. So let's look.
The opening lead is the heart 8. On the auction, that seems like it might be a stiff. If it is, then you are doomed, or probably so. Why? Because if is is a stiff then if you lay the ace N just sits and waits for his KJ. He won't pitch them and only one heart can be dossed from hand on the long diamonds. [Huh! I have left this statement here, but see rebuttal reply] If you don't go up with the Ace, then N can win and give his partner a ruff.
There are two possible counters to this.
One: Play the Q. It will lose to the K but perhaps N will think the lead was from three cards. not likely, but you could hope.
Two: Assume the 8 is not stiff. It probably is, but you are going down if it is. So assume it is not. Maybe it is from a doubleton, as indeed it was.
What follows from that?
Let's play the Ten, just in case the lead was from, say, J86. I have noticed people often treat Jxx as a MUD lead. I don't, but some do, so I play low from dummy and the J wins. Maybe N will think the 8 is stiff and lead back a heart. If so, I am down if it is ruffed, I claim if it is not.
But no, North will not think the 8t was stiff, or at least he shouldn't. If the 8 were stiff, that would give E five hearts. But E opened 1C. And never mentioned hearts. No. N will return a spade.
Declarer plays two rounds of clubs, South following to both rounds.
We assumed that S had two hearts, let's stick with that. We have seen two clubs in the S hand. We assume six spades for the weak jump overcall. Hah! That means on;y three diamonds. North has four diamonds. And, we assume, the heart King. If we have this right, we are home. Heart to the A, run all the clubs tossing the spade and the heart Q on the board.
Dummy now has four diamonds, the
KQ84
Declarer has
Hearts: T9
Diamonds: A5.
North has what?
Well, he has four cards.
If North still holds the heart K then he has tossed a diamond and the diamonds run.
If North tossed the heart K, great, the Ten is good.
Either way, all four tricks are good. And you know which it is.
Ok, not everyone foresees the ending. But here is what you can see: If the heart 8 at trick 1 is a stiff, going up with the Ace will not work. It can't work It's impossible for it to work. So don't do it. After that, maybe a miracle will occur. And maybe it won't occur. Maybe you can help the miracle along. maybe the opponents will make a mistake. But if the heart 8 is stiff and you rise with the Ace, you are going down. So don't rise. If the 8 is stiff, well, too bad. But when it isn't, you increase your options by playing low.
But this sort of thing is much more suitable for Forum discussion than for quick comment between hands.
Here is how I think it works: A person who wants to learn looks over some hands afterwards. Sometimes it will be easy to find a better line. Not just double dummy better, but really a line that reasonably would be better.
For example, take the same hand and assume a spade lead. The same line as above would work but it is far too complicated. Instead you win the Ace, draw trump in two rounds, ruff the spade, play four rounds of diamonds, pitching one heart on the third diamond ruffing the last diamond.. Only hearts and clubs are left. You lead the ten of clubs. Assume the finesse loses to the J. N has a choice of how to concede, give you a sluff/ruff or lead into the AQ. Basically, you can claim making 6 at trick 1 on a spade lead.
Contrast this with a mentoring comment: Imo, the 2NT bid over 2S shows about an 11 count and is non-forcing. But that's me. If a pair plays it as forcing, that's them. And that's about all there is to be said. But the hand will make 6C, it just isn't obvious. So that gets interesting.
Also, if I were North then, after partner made the WJO of 2S I think I would bid 4S. But it's a judgment call.
-
And now that I think of it. Here is the promised rebuttal.
Suppose the A is played at T1.As near as i can see, you could do this:
Take the spade Ace, and all the clubs. So: After 8 tricks, namely the heart A, the Spade A, and all six clubs, you have the four diamonds plus the heart Q on the board. In your hand you have T9x of hearts and Ax of diamonds.Given that M must hold four diamonds, he has to come down to the heart K, discarding the J. So you lead a heart, establishing the T in your hand, you sin the D return and cash the ten.
Harder to read the situation I think, but it does seem to work.
Which shows why the Forum discussions are useful! Or fun. Or something.
And it shows the dangers of on the spot mentoring. Often a later thought is a better thought.
Added in the morning: So what do you do at T1? I can't say I am sure. That 8 sure looks like a stiff. So maybe go up with the Ace and hope the revised plan works? But if it is stiff, that ups the chances that it is South rather than North that holds four diamonds. Even if declarer goes up and then runs all six clubs, S keeps four diamonds and two spades. So I still think it is probably better to duck the first trick and hope for the best. But I don't claim it is certain.
-
Would the following attract any interest?
Suppose some hands were taken from viewgraph records and people played them. Afterward, there could be discussion, maybe on this Forum. People could look and see how these hands were played by some pretty good players.
The JEC (Jimmy Cayne) files should be good for this if they are available. JEC mostly plays pretty standard stuff so the focus would be on judgment rather than exotic conventions. [I think Jimmy does play Muppet rather than Puppet over an opening 2NT, but such exotica is rare for him.]
I don't know how to load hands from viewgraph files, but I imagine I could learn. And perhaps I could make some comments on the hands, but I really think that a discussion is far preferable to a lecture. I describe myself as Advanced and I believe that to be accurate, mostly because I have been playing approximately forever. I leaned rubber bridge by reading Goren in 1961, and I have played off and on since then, sometimes a lot, sometimes not at all, currently about once a week f2f and then pick up on BBO. You can't help but learn something after all that time, and I could make suggestions. Nobody should treat my opinions as indisputable fact.
-
Sounds like a great idea, Ken. Maybe try to invite a few other advanced or expert players along so that a real DISCUSSION will result. In my experience if there's nobody there with the knowledge or confidence to contradict you, it's hard to get a real discussion going. I'll certainly turn up if I'm available but difficult for me to guarantee it.
-
Ill play around a bit with loading hands from viewgraph. I will see if I ca load a set of hands so that they can first be played at more than one table, and then shown afterward.
Thoughts on learning bridge, for anyone thinking of how to up their game.
When I first started playing duplicate we would afterward get hand records and then go out to a local bar and chat about the hands. Well, not always. But you get the idea..And I would go over the hand records myself.
I read books. Kantar has various books with problem hands and he gives good explanations. There are definitely more advanced books. Reese, Kelsey, etc. Stewart has a nice book on defense. At some point I got more interested in the human side and I am now re-reading Michael Rosenberg's Bridge, Zia and Me. Bridge Bum is a kick. These last two have hands, but they also have a lot of the human side.
Anyway, I recommend going over records of hands you have played. Search for your own errors. Those you might be able to do something about. Your partner's errors are his/her responsibility.
-
Let me think out loud a bit here, meaning input is sought. Two parts:
A: First a hand from the archives.
I browsed a bit in the the vugraph archives. The link below takes you to a semifinal match in the Vanderbilt. Let's look at board 7.
http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=49633
The contracts are 5C making 6 and, at the other table, 6C making 6. If you browse thorugh the comments on the 6C the commentators speculate that perhaps the S hand was opened 1C but there was a mistake in the vugraph recording. . This seems likely to me, but it depends a little on just what means what during the auction.
At any rate, opening the S hand 1C certainly increases the likelihood of reaching 6C.
At the 5C table the opening lead is a diamond taken, and then a heart switch. Well, no problem now. At the 6C table the opening lead is a heart, taken by the A. Now there are good chances but a little care is needed.
I have no plans to tell either Cayne or Brogeland (the two Souths) why they should or should not open 1C. And of course 6S "could" be made but I doubt anyone would play a spade to the Q and then finesse the ten.
B: Now a though about what might be possible.
I had some complicated scheme here that I now think is way too complicated. But I still like using vugraph hands so that people can compare with what actually happened at a major event.
Coda: It is easy to find interesting hands in the files. For example, for hand 16 in
http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=49592
both 4H and 3NT can be beaten, but N, defending 3NT, has a choice at T3. One choice sets the contract, the other doesn't.
The fact that it often is not obvious what to bid, how to play a hand, how to defend a hand, all these things make bridge interesting. I really don't know if S should open 1C on the slam hand. I can imagine him getting pretty anxious when, after he does so, his partner puts him in 6C. And I am not sure how they might reach 6C after he chooses not to do so. Note to Oliver: A Precision 2C opening might get them there, yes?
-
Clearly whether you open Cayne's hand depends on your bidding style and aggression level. Lots of experts like fairly "solid" opening bids. South's hand here is aceless, has no shape, scattered values and is a bare minimum opening for most systems, so I can understand his deciding not to open it even if my own style would be to whizz the 2 !C (Precision) bidding card onto the table. The problem for Cayne on this hand was that having decided not to open, he seems to be stuck for a forward-going bid over 4 !C because he has no controls to cue-bid.
If 6 !C was off and 5 !C making on the nose here, no doubt some would be applauding Cayne's caution. Second-guessing people's bidding style is easy enough to do after the event, but presumably Cayne and Graves have worked out a style of bidding that works for them in the long run. If one partner is fairly aggressive and the other more cautious that can work fairly well to balance each other out as long as they are consistent in their approach. Clearly on this hand, they could do better.
I wonder if 3 !S over 3 !D might have been more encouraging to North. After all, !D Qxx is not going to set the world on fire as a Diamond stop, but Qx in partner's Spade suit is perhaps worth a mention, given the 3 !D force.
-
I might also pass that S hand. I don't so much mind it being an aceless 11 count but I would like the club suit to be a little better. Make one of the majors Jx instead of Qx, and use that extra point to make the clubs KQJxxx and I would feel better. If I end up playing, say, 3C opposite a stiff spot then that J could be very useful. Or, if partner plays 3NT he might also like seeing that J.
-
I'm a reasonably "sensible" Opener when it comes to intermediate openings, but pretty aggressive when it comes to pre-empts. Added to that, of course, OCP is a pretty aggressive system, so I'd have no qualms opening that lot with 2 !C. !C KQxxxx is perfectly sufficient for that. I'd have absolutely no problem opening the hand with 1 !C if I was playing any "natural" system
-
[typos corrected]
This is one of those hands that can provide lots of discussion. The 2D bid by E probably encouraged N since he controls the suit and figures South's values are elsewhere. To my mind, when N bids 3D and then pulls 3NT to 4C, that's a slam try in clubs. He has now said enough, when bids 5C North can hardly bid again. He can reasonably expect the hands to produce six club tricks and three top cards in the majors are in sight, but to bring the total to 12 the spades presumably have to be developed. If, after the initial pass, they are to reach 6C then S has to show he can help with the spades. As you suggest, bidding 3S over 3D would do it. Another way is to bid 4S over 4C. I suppose this could be dangerous but M has pulled 3NT to clubs, I think bidding 4S over 4C is simply cooperating with the slam try in clubs.
But, again, bridge is a subtle game. Easier when seeing all four hands.
Here is another fun slam:
http://tinyurl.com/mg725de
Jimmy thought for quite a while before producing the D lead. Down 1. At the other table the lead was a spade. The hand requires care, but it can be and was made.
I am still thinking of doing a show and tell with some hands, from JEC or elsewhere. Not today!
I may need to ask you or someone about just ow this is done. I'll read a bit first.
-
Different styles, I guess. Since I have a game-going hand (as West), nothing would stop me from showing the Clubs first. Also, As East, there's no way I'd be leaping about the place with a fairly poor fit for either black suit over the game-forcing 2 !C, so now the sequence would presumably go:
1 !H
2 !C(GF) - 2 !D
2 !S(4SF) - 3 !D
3NT - ??
...and now East really has no particular incentive to budge from there.
Loading VuGraph HandsYou're probably better off asking someone who is well-versed in doing stuff with the Browser version, Ken. I still tend to use the windows client for everything except watching vugraph so my knowledge of loading preset hands from the Browser client is strictly limited. Maybe Sanya can help...
-
Yes, now that I look more closely, I agree that starting with 2C over 1H is better. We can get to spades in good time if spades are right.
I have been trying to accept the conversion to the online version. I used the downloadable for a long time and still often fall back on it. Anyway, I want to try a bit of reading and experimenting, but I expect I will then have questions.
Currently my thinking goes something like this.
Take some hands from vugraph files.
Use the deals to set up a normal tourney.
After the tourney, show the hands in their original environment so that players can see what happened there.
Include some comments, by me or others, on points we found interesting.
An example comment would be along the lines you made here: "I would have responded 2C instead of 1S to the 1H opening". And then noting that after 1H-2C-2D-2S-3D it becomes clear that responder has a lot of values in opener's short suits, not a good sign, so maybe 3NT is enough. Not that 6D is hopeless and indeed it made at the other table.
Probably I will check with BBO to be sure this doesn't violate some policy but the vugraph hands are put up to see, and I would not be using them for any profit making purpose, so I assume they will have no objection.
-
Regarding Sanya's original post. Way back when (just after Ally vacated) Pam and I discussed most of what has been mentioned. At that time the "hosted" sessions were waning (not that they ever caught on to my knowledge) and things were in a bit of a upheaval. We discussed holding back-to-back all day team matches (much like the ones held by toniwacok), doing tourney's using vugraph deals (which actually can not be loaded directly from vugraph archives into a team match - I tried yesterday), doing sessions using vugraph deals with discussion (like Ken mentioned) and various other things to get members involved. I have organized some special guests along the way (Pete Holland, Mike Dorn Wiss were two) and Dave Greenough at present.
When I joined the IAC we had Shep, Chick, Memti, Hoki, Hondo and maybe another (bad memory). It takes a huge commitment to hold a class week after week (as you must know Oliver).
I like the idea of inviting an expert/star for a couple of hours each week to go over some vugraph or tourney hands. Maybe approach some of our expert members (Phil, pawn9, braden, come to mind) and ask them to commentate/review?
-
bAbs,
This falls naturally into two parts.
First
Comments: I would hope to encourage an exchange of ideas, expert or not. This is for several reasons, but mostly that's my preference for most things in bridge and in life.
But the hands cited so far in this thread show reasons as well. On the 6D hand it made at one table, went down at the other. And quite possibly it should not have been bid at either table. Although if the heart Ace is to declarer's right it might well be easier to bring in. Even with the heart Ace and the club King badly placed it makes except on a trump lead although it requires some thought on a spade lead. I think discussing such matters is far preferable to having an assigned expert announce the proper bid and play. so while it is firstly a personal preference, I think open discussion really has merit for all.
Second
Setting up the tourney: I still need to read, but bAbs you might point me a bit in the right direction. Somewhere on BBO I found a link to aaBridge which can be used, I think, to do what i have in mind.
See http://rogerpf.com/bridge/aaBridge
I expect I can figure out how to use this, I am making progress on it, but I often find computer program write-ups difficult to work through and this is another instance of such difficulties. Have you used it, or has someone out there who is reading this used it?. I expect that for what I have in mind I can just do it without learning aaBridge, but I see it as a challenge so I plan to try.
The hand editor on the downloadable version of bbo seems to do more things. For example, I seem to recall that it allowed me to edit a hand to delete the names of the players. If I can do this on the online version I have not yet figured out how. Also, the hand editor allows me to rearrange the card in the hands, that's nice, but as near as I can see it does not allow me to simply delete some cards. Well, I can delete them, or I can click on the next button for a few plays, but then I can not save it at that point. So I cannot save a hand after, say, the first five tricks have been played. I am assuming that aaBridge would allow me to do such things, but first I have to figure out what he is saying. I'm working on it.
And I still have some spring planting to do. Ah, the busy life of a retiree. So many bushes, so little time.
-
Hi Ken
Yes, I agree - discussion is definitely the way to go when reviewing hands. Having seen the level of some self-rated intermediate IAC members (myself included) I feel we would need someone with some solid knowledge to lead or guide the discussion, not necessarily give a 'right' sequence.
I have never set a tourney so I don't know what is involved. I have directed team matches which are quite different.
I had a brush with aaBridge a couple of years ago. I heard that it could be used to auto-alert. Worked great with a PC but not a Mac. Other than that I know nothing. :) Roger would be the guy to contact - he is a whiz at aaBridge.
I have only ever used the web version (other than broadcasting as BBO_IAC) so am not familiar with the hand editor.
Plant on!!!
-
Setting up the tourney: I still need to read, but bAbs you might point me a bit in the right direction. Somewhere on BBO I found a link to aaBridge which can be used, I think, to do what i have in mind.
See http://rogerpf.com/bridge/aaBridge
I expect I can figure out how to use this, I am making progress on it, but I often find computer program write-ups difficult to work through and this is another instance of such difficulties. Have you used it, or has someone out there who is reading this used it?. I expect that for what I have in mind I can just do it without learning aaBridge, but I see it as a challenge so I plan to try.
The hand editor on the downloadable version of bbo seems to do more things. For example, I seem to recall that it allowed me to edit a hand to delete the names of the players. If I can do this on the online version I have not yet figured out how. Also, the hand editor allows me to rearrange the card in the hands, that's nice, but as near as I can see it does not allow me to simply delete some cards. Well, I can delete them, or I can click on the next button for a few plays, but then I can not save it at that point. So I cannot save a hand after, say, the first five tricks have been played. I am assuming that aaBridge would allow me to do such things, but first I have to figure out what he is saying. I'm working on it.
And I still have some spring planting to do. Ah, the busy life of a retiree. So many bushes, so little time.
As for aabridge, many members use it, but most of us likely know only few of its inumerous functions. RogerPfi, its creator, already gave few skype lessons on main features, and I am sure he'd be happy give full walk-through to you, so I suggest you send him bbo-mail.
Another good piece of software to alter and save hands in different formats, very easy to use is BridgeComposer, also free to download at http://bridgecomposer.com/.
Jec's hands played at BBO (or from anyone else that you know nickname) can be downloaded in bunch (all hands played by that person in last 30 days for example) by using yet another great and free software, DoubleDummy Solver (http://www.bridgecaptain.com/downloadDD.html).
There is also way to alter hands directly online at bbo, we made little how to that would help IAC TDs adjust to web version of BBO, you might want to check this sub page, where it explains (not in too many details) how to edit and save hands online.
http://iac-td-web-bbo.site123.me/upload-hands-teach
-
I'll check some of this out.
-
I asked members to come here and tell us WHY they want the club, where are they?
About 4 years ago(? a while anyway) I got an expert to come in once a week to be a resource for people who were playing in IAC at a designated time, someone who would be available to discuss/clarify questions as they came up. Nobody ever asked!!! even when it was clear there was confusion, they wouldn't call him over and say they were confused as to what to do or what the bid meant or what their lead should be, nothing! Even when gently and privately the suggestion was made in case they had forgotten why he was there ( or even that he WAS there) people wouldn't ask him for help.
When the guest got tired of wandering around the tables without anything to do he started to initiate interaction and offered some input. Unfortunately fairly soon after he started doing this, he chose to use as a discussion point a bid which the bidder was not only totally content with, but willing to do battle with anyone who might suggest there might have been a better one for whatever reason. It was an awful situation and although the expert, who is a top player in his country, was philosophical about it I was appalled. In any case, if nobody was willing to engage around issues then there was really little point in asking him to give of his time. So that stopped after about a month.
This lack of engagement is what makes me reluctant to look for more teachers. We have a minimal number of people show up, given we are back up to around 900 members again. It's like drawing teeth, usually, to get anyone to sit at the table. This has been true for a very long time, it was even true for both Shep and Hondo, and more supportive, gentle teachers it is hard to imagine. Members have been suspended from the club for interfering with or making public derogatory remarks to or about the players at the table in a teaching session and that hasn't been an issue in any of the teaching sessions I've been at for a very very long time. So it's got nothing to do with fear of abuse if they get something wrong. So why won't people sit at a teaching table?
Grant said a number of months ago he could get another expert and we could set up a table with people playing with him and his guest. with private commentary to the kibs about what they were doing and why. I'd love to do that but haven't pursued it because I've lost faith that anyone but me would sit ( and I feel I should be in the back of the line). It's unfair and insulting that these people offer their time and then have to twiddle their thumbs because people want to be coaxed into playing.
We have tried tourneys in the middle of the night. We tried running evening tourneys 3 times a week for several months, none of the people who asked for evening tourneys ever played in any of them, although not infrequently they were playing robot tourneys or even in other BBO tourneys when the IAC tourneys were on. Brenda tried running tourneys at 4 am Eastern so the Australian etc contingent could play, we only got a scant handful of people, not enough to run a tourney, and who in any case often already played in the other tourneys we were offering. The other day when Sanya cancelled her tourney for lack of registrations there were at least 50-60 members logged into BBO.
Aside from that people USED to show up for these! Dulci was getting between 16 and 20 tables, I was getting 12+ on Monday and Saturday. Now we are relieved to get half that number. Why? there are ALWAYS IAC members online elsewhere in BBO. Many members are highly particular about who they play with and will refuse invitations, which is offputting for players, I don't know what if anything can be done about that. Perhaps they aren't playing because they are bored with meeting the same players every time, the regulars whose support make trying to offer events and so forth worthwhile?
Some don't like having to wait for the clocked tourneys, but unclocked are difficult with small tourneys and end up with players playing the same opps again...and then sometimes having to wait even longer tor a slower pair to catch up; so until and unless the numbers pick up that just isn't practical. So some have left because the tourneys are too slow and others because they felt pressured to finish the hands on time. To solve the issue we need more players, so it's like a dog chasing its tail.
Opening the tourney to the general public is problematic for the director it offers any more players, to be sure, but many of those are rude or runners or both. It's not fun looking for 5 or ten subs every time the round changes, if you can even find that many subs willing to play.
I personally think 5 board tourneys, which someone has twice suggested, are a bizarre idea and not worth my time so I'm not interested in asking anyone else to give up their time to do it either. People have asked for Speedballs, so we tried those, one a week for a while: after the first couple apparently the novelty wore off and people stopped coming out for them either, including the people who had asked for them.
Some have told me they are super busy at the moment, fair enough. Some have said they can't negotiate the new BBO, I tell them how AND refer them to Sanya's excellent notes. Sometimes we see them occasionally after that. Mostly they want to make sure they are still members but we never see them in the club or in any club events.
WHY do they want to belong to the club? How did some of them come to even notice that BBO had dropped them out of the club and why did they care? It's a total mystery.
-
Why, and what can be done, are related questions. I am not sure I know the answer.
Possibly I had some role in encouraging Joe, (yleexotee) to write up his sheet of suggested defaults for play. I am sure it took time, i don't see that it is much used. Perhaps Oliver's creation of this Forum was partly motivated by a suggestion I made. Oliver described it as easy enough to do, but still it took some time. We can see how little it is being used. So what's up?
I play bridge because I find it interesting. This interest spills over into enjoying discussion of hands. Not everyone does. When I first started playing duplicate I took a series of lessons on conventions, lebensohl and such. There would be a lecture and then supervised play. There was this one woman who, when we first started and also as the several weeks of lessons came to an end, would begin the supervised play by asking "Partner, do you ay the short club?". That was it. Leb? Not a chance. Why she took lessons escaped me.
So I had in mind some discussion. Not happening.
Here is the first board from the Sunday tourney:
http://tinyurl.com/k9z8gss
We agreed to use Joe's notes (with exceptions) so 3D was understood as Bergen despite the double. Myself, I would have bid a direct 3H (and I would do the same if we were not playing Bergen since after the X it is weak). But whichever ne chooses, we have a ten card fit and it is hard to imagine us not going to 3H one way or another.
Is this a good contract? That's where it gets interesting. I have five obvious tricks to lose. The opening lead was the spade T, I took my Ace. Surely I shouold have played the diamond J at T2. Maybe lho will duck, maybe he won't, but he might. Instead i led a heart after which they took their clubs. later their diamond and a spade. I long ago accepted that I make mistakes, and I actually take satisfaction in spotting them afterward. This was an error. It might not have made a difference, but it was still ab error.
There are other interesting points. This was mps and optimal spot for NS is 4D (or 4C for that matter). They can take five clubs, four diamonds and one heart, and there is nothing we ca do about it, at least I do not see any defense. And +130 outscore +50, and outscores +100 in 3HX. Now 4m, when it is right, is usually tough to get to and nobody did. Some were in 5C off 1.
How about LOTT? We have ten hearts, they have none diamonds, LOTT says there are 19 total tricks We can take 8 tricks in hearts, they can take ten tricks in diamonds, LOTT is off by 1. LOTT often is a bit off, and anyway they don't know we have ten hearts, we don't know they have nine diamonds. I regard the L part of LOTT (Law) as being a serious overstatement.
It score badly. Which is very different from saying one of us should have done something different. Except I should have led the diamond at T2.
I find such things interesting. Clearly, many others don't find this interesting. If people are not interested, they are not interested. My wife has a friend who loves watching golf on television. I pass.
I don't like speedballs at all. Bridge is based on thought. It's not chess or go, but still some modest amount of time for thought is expected. By me.
Also I was hoping Joe's notes would reduce the frequency of misunderstandings.
An auction:
1H-(2C)-2S-(P)
P-(P).
I was the spade bidder, with a 15 count and five spades. I am aware of the Negative Free Bid convention, but it is a convention. An alertable convention, at least in acbl land. Apparently more common in Europe, see http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/negative-freebids/
As it happened, the result was not all that bad, although both 3NT and 4H can be made. Good karma, I guess. Whatever one thinks of the merits of Negative Free Bids, clearly it is not good when one partner is playing them and the other isn't. The link above has other links, and discusses variations. It also mentions that NFBs work best within a big club system where the opening bid. not 1C, is limited to 15 highs.
So discussion is good. Or at least I like it. I think I will put up a few more hands from time to time, maybe it will catch on. Or not. We will see.
-
Interesting hand, Ken. I wouldn't worry too much about your score on this particular hand. The fact is that stealing the hand in 3 !H undoubled when 4 !C is making their way should be a decent result, but the Bridge Gods have a sense of humour (especially if you're playing Pairs). NS Pairs on that hand should be stopping short of game, because neither hand is "good" enough to justify pushing that far but hope springs eternal and in the face of barrage bidding by EW, lots will think that game must be on. Maybe they are fans of...
LOTT
ROFL. Some time, have a look at David Burn's famous article that humorously destroys LOTT ( http://blakjak.org/burn_law.htm ). Seriously trying to reduce hand evaluation and judgement to "laws" is something always destined to fail, in my view. There are just too many variables in play: Apart from the actual sequence in question and your own evaluation of your hand, factors such as who your partner is and your evaluation of their bidding style, Opps ditto, etc etc.
Accurate hand evaluation and assessment of things such as playing strength, fit with partner and the likely distribution of the outstanding cards are one of the key things that differentiate world class players from the rest of us mortals.
Back in the late 80s and early 90's I was playing regularly in a team with Jason & Justin Hackett and their father Paul. Back then Jason and Justin were England Juniors and although most of the time I was playing OCP with Jason, there were times when Jason and Justin needed to practice together for an upcoming England match and I'd be partnering Paul instead. I found that enormously hard at times, because Paul was incredibly good at evaluating his hand (and mine) and taking the correct inferences from all of the bidding. He knew what was going on in the hand halfway through a given auction, never mind during the play, and he was bidding on the basis of his knowledge and the (usually correct) inferences he had taken. I, however, was playing catch-up. Although no slouch, I was nowhere near Paul's class so I wasn't able to make quite the same mental leaps that Paul was, so his bidding sometimes confused me.
-
I had heard Burns' Law if Total Trump, that the declaring side should have more trump than the defending side. It is often cited by vugraph commentators. I really like his third law about placing the suits in the dummy so that declarer remembers he is playing in no trump.
About LOTT he says " the total number of tricks taken by anyone almost never equals the total number available to them" which reminded me of something from Bridge in the Menagerie. Someone, maybe Oscar the Owl, gives the Hideous Hog a hand and asks him how he would play to make the hand against best defense. HH snorts and says something like "Who cares how to make the hand against best dense? The hand should be played so as to make it difficult for the defenders to find the best defense.".
As often noted, bridge is a game of mistakes. I was on defense at Dave's lesson yesterday. Declarer played a small diamond from the board intending to ruff with a small heart. I hopped up with the heart King from Kx, hoping to promote a trump in partner's hand. Indeed it did, since partner had four hearts headed by the nine (I knew he had four trump). But upon reflection I am pretty sure that the play was wrong. I usually save hands, but this one I didn't so I can't look back. While I recall much of the hand, for example I believe my shape was 4=2=2=5, I don't remember enough of the details to think it through.
I mention this because I strongly believe that this is the way to learn. Yes, it can be useful for someone else to point out an error. But finding your own errors is far, far, more instructive. Usually errors are not all that difficult to find, once a person decides that finding his own errors is more important than finding his partner's errors. After all your own errors are the ones you can do something about in the future. Ok, end of moralizing.
-
I mention this because I strongly believe that this is the way to learn. Yes, it can be useful for someone else to point out an error. But finding your own errors is far, far, more instructive. Usually errors are not all that difficult to find, once a person decides that finding his own errors is more important than finding his partner's errors. After all your own errors are the ones you can do something about in the future. Ok, end of moralizing.
Very true, Ken. Going back to those days with the Hacketts, playing occasionally with Paul was really hard work, but it taught me a huge amount. Paul was very good about showing me what inferences I should have been able to take at a critical stage in the bidding/play. That process forced me to become better at counting the hand and really thinking about what was going on.
-
The very short answer to your question Sanya is....I have been moving, and it has taken 3 weeks to do so! I think the forum is a great idea, and I am already enjoying Ken's analysis of the hands. Well some of the analysis, I am still terribly busy to really indulge in some of the in-depth stuff. But back to tournies and active members...Personally I like the Swiss format, it is more fun and fairer, I know you have to wait for everyone to finish, but that gives you an opportunity to discuss the last two boards with your P. The problem is, you need lots of people for the Swiss format. So, why not allow the hordes in, and throughout the match, advertise where the top IAC MEMBERS are positioned...how frustrating for the non-members not to get mentioned when they are doing better than those who are? They will all join and suddenly you will have more ACTIVE members? (this is a light hearted suggestion, as I can see that being a TD, AND having to announce, or even identify IAC members from the rest of players, could make for a pretty busy time).
-
The very short answer to your question Sanya is....I have been moving, and it has taken 3 weeks to do so! I think the forum is a great idea, and I am already enjoying Ken's analysis of the hands. Well some of the analysis, I am still terribly busy to really indulge in some of the in-depth stuff. But back to tournies and active members...Personally I like the Swiss format, it is more fun and fairer, I know you have to wait for everyone to finish, but that gives you an opportunity to discuss the last two boards with your P. The problem is, you need lots of people for the Swiss format. So, why not allow the hordes in, and throughout the match, advertise where the top IAC MEMBERS are positioned...how frustrating for the non-members not to get mentioned when they are doing better than those who are? They will all join and suddenly you will have more ACTIVE members? (this is a light hearted suggestion, as I can see that being a TD, AND having to announce, or even identify IAC members from the rest of players, could
make for a pretty busy time).
[ludo ergo sum]
-
Thanks for your comments. Im not sure why you regard them as more fair? The problem with letting in the hordes, which we were doing for a while just so we could get full tourneys, is that there are lots and lots of problems with quitters, and some with rudeness. Even with a completion rate set at 90% at least one tourney had I think 12 runners. This slows things down a lot. Also, I had complaints that if it was supposed to be for IAC members how come all these other people were playing ( right after someone was really obnoxious before running away.) It also made it very time consuming to award Monster Points because often we had to sort through a bunch of nonmembers to get to the members to award their points.
Everything eventually gets to the point that it seems too much time is going into working at things that aren't paying off, if the members don't care enough to get involved...and NOT talking about you or the other regulars who have and do support us as much as they can..then why should we spend hours and hours trying to coax them? Note that I sent a message to nearly 900 members asking that they tell us why they want the club to continue, and have had only a handful of replies. Another handful have messaged me that they couldn't reply for one reason or another, and a few probably have language translation issues; but for the other 800+..They can't be bothered to be even that much involved.
-
Bridge takes various forms. Yesterday yleexotee and I played maybe 16 hands, some against helene_t and shatha, some against helene and dee10.
Now for me, this is bridge in the way I first learned it back in my grad student days. Four people got together, pulled out a deck of cards, and played for a while. A while means for a while. After a wile life got busy and I stopped playing altogether. Then, in my late thirties, I started playing at clubs and in tournaments.
What do people now like? It's hard to know if they don't say. I enjoyed the four person pick-up game. I couldn't make last light's tournament, we were at a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert. (I'm probably more the Pete Seeger type, or Duke Ellington if he could be re-incarnated, but Becky says she wants Free Bird played at her funeral.)
Anyway, I just enjoy playing some hands. When I was young I played Uncle Wiggly, Chinese Checkers, various rummy games. Later I played canasta, hearts and poker. Later I played bridge. Playing bridge in an environment where I get to know people, even if only in an internet sort of way, seems like a nice idea.
But if people are not interested, I have no good ideas on that.
-
Last night I was watching some and Joe was encouraging opponents at his table to join IAC. A good idea I think. I will see if I can get my f2f partner to take an interest. Doubtful, but I will give it a shot.
Joe was advertising the pluses of IAC, one of which is that people tend to stick around for several hands at a table unless there are non-bridge reasons that call them away. This is really agreat plus, imo. I played a few hands at Joe's table yesterday. "Few" because we all had reasons to go. But the first two hands I played I was partnered by a runner. She had a star by her name. I'll give you the hands.
Hand 1.
http://tinyurl.com/y9obvase
After she pulled 3NT to 4 !C thought a bit and decided my had was actually pretty good support for a minor two-suiter. So rather than just bid 5 !C I chose 4 !H . We stopped in 5 !C . The right contract, as 6 !C goes down on a spade lead. Otoh, a spade might not be led. It wasn't, and then it makes 6. Also, Pard's major suit holding might have been two small hearts and no spades instead of one of each, and then it always makes 6 !C on a 3-2 trump split. So my 4 !H is maybe a tad pushy but I did not think it crazy.
Hand 2.
http://tinyurl.com/ydfo4d9h
Ok, my spade overcall is not a thing of beauty. On the other hand, it is at the one level. On the other other hand, we are vul.
Well, more than she could stand, I guess. I hope she finds whatever it is she is seeking.
I am more than willing to discuss with a partner, or with opponents or kibs for that matter, the wisdom of either my 4 !H cue bid on hand 1 or my 1 !S overcall on hand 2, but this style of come for two hands, get one bad result, so fly away, is not fun. I don't expect Bob Hamman to partner me. I don't think she was Bob Hamman.
Anyway, IAC has its plusses. I wish us well with it.
Added: On the second hand the psychic Gib points out that I can hold it to down 1. Of course I can. But in thinking it over, it seems that if I play it properly I would be down 3. If diamonds are 3-3, as they are, and if the Q is onside, which it isn't, I have a shot at making this. Win the club Ace, diamond to the board, diamond back to the J, hypothetically winning, cash the K throwing a club. Ruff a club, toss my last club on the heart Ace, and lead a spade from the board. They win, and they can't hurt me. With the actual lie, the !D J loses to the Q, a club back to Bill's K, a shift to the spade Ten. This allows them to get my trump off the board and then take another club. Surely finessing the diamond is the most plausible line for making 4, it just doesn't work. I can't explain why I didn't do that.
-
Hand 2
(1) The BiddingLeaving aside the play issues for a minute, I loathe this 1 !S overcall, especially at this vulnerability. I would much rather bid a Mod Ghestem 3!C showing a !S / !D 2-suiter, weak or strong. Partner will assume I'm weak (which essentially I am) and now we play quite happily in 3 !S (perhaps still off on your line, but at least partner is unlikely to complain about your overcall and might not flounce off in a big mood).
If Opps really end up playing this hand and Partner is on lead, do you really want to "hide" your Diamonds and persuade partner to lead a Spade given the horrendous quality of your suit? Okay, they might still lead a Spade, but only if it seems to them to be the right lead. Given their hand on this occasion, they'd probably lead their Ace of Diamonds so a happy ending for all concerned (except Opps).
(2) The Play
Difficult to see how Ace, King and a Diamond ruff is possibly going to help you, given that Opps have 5 of the top 6 Spades and Dummy doesn't have any of them. Since they have a perfect count on the Diamonds, it's always easy for the hand with long Spades to decline to ruff and for the hand with shorter Spades to do so. That is why the !D finesse ought to be preferred, because if the Diamonds are 3-3 and the Queen is onside, you do definitely save a trick, because the Club loser goes away immediately.
Your line only really gains anything if the hand with 3 (or more) trumps ruffs the 4th Diamond, something which competent defenders will always avoid, or if the Queen falls under the King and that defender has 3 or more Spades.
-
I agree.
We need a button on these messages so that I could just say "I agree". I have far to large a fraction of all the postings, so if I could just push a button it would keep my numbers down. :)
But anyway, I agree both that 1 !S was a poor choice and that the play was very ill-conceived. As mentioned earlier, I like this concept of "Mis-play these hands with me".
She still might have stuck around. To borrow from an old Josh White blues, "I may be wrong, but I'll be right someday". That was in a different context of course.