h******q
发帖数: 34 | 1 here is a link, where you can do the monthly test and read the analysis.
http://www.rpbridge.net/rppc.htm
Before read the analysis, think about the problem as deeply as you can.
I hope you read the analysis in detail or memerize it if posible. This way I
am sure you will improve your skill a lot. | c****u
发帖数: 3277 | 2 well, I think some play problems are just too tough. You win bridge
not because you can solve tough problems, you win bridge because you
don't screw up simple ones. Also, the bidding poll is quite a
non-sense. It reflects the average players' view point of each problems.
The better bids may not be a popular choice.
【在 h******q 的大作中提到】
: here is a link, where you can do the monthly test and read the analysis.
: http://www.rpbridge.net/rppc.htm
: Before read the analysis, think about the problem as deeply as you can.
: I hope you read the analysis in detail or memerize it if posible. This way I
: am sure you will improve your skill a lot.
| h******q
发帖数: 34 | 3 That is the way to improve skill.
Sure, winning pretty much deppends on the bidding systerm and experience,
but also the defence and playing skill can minimize your errors. I think there
are quite a few boards in this year's cup can be improved if their skill is up
to the level in this webside. I sure the result would be different.
bidding polls give u the difficult situations and also the the masters origial
biddings. I think it helps to go through them.
【在 c****u 的大作中提到】
: well, I think some play problems are just too tough. You win bridge
: not because you can solve tough problems, you win bridge because you
: don't screw up simple ones. Also, the bidding poll is quite a
: non-sense. It reflects the average players' view point of each problems.
: The better bids may not be a popular choice.
| c****u
发帖数: 3277 | 4 well, you still don't get my point, why did our team lose the match?
Not because they don't know how to handle very tough problems, just because
they often screw up simple ones. Just like the 4 spades against Poland,
West holds:
S6 HAJ873 DAKQ4 C742
dummy:
SQ983 HKQT DJ5 CAT98
bidding:
e S w n
p 1S 2H 3H
p 4S p p
p
Polish defender cashed DA and DK, partner followed D 2,6
declarer followed D8 and D7.
Yes, declarer did hide his D3, but isn't it a natural switch of C to
play pd for CK? if part
【在 h******q 的大作中提到】
: That is the way to improve skill.
: Sure, winning pretty much deppends on the bidding systerm and experience,
: but also the defence and playing skill can minimize your errors. I think there
: are quite a few boards in this year's cup can be improved if their skill is up
: to the level in this webside. I sure the result would be different.
: bidding polls give u the difficult situations and also the the masters origial
: biddings. I think it helps to go through them.
:
:
| h******q
发帖数: 34 | 5 sad to see this kind of reply......
there
is up
origial
【在 c****u 的大作中提到】
: well, you still don't get my point, why did our team lose the match?
: Not because they don't know how to handle very tough problems, just because
: they often screw up simple ones. Just like the 4 spades against Poland,
: West holds:
: S6 HAJ873 DAKQ4 C742
: dummy:
: SQ983 HKQT DJ5 CAT98
: bidding:
: e S w n
: p 1S 2H 3H
| c****u
发帖数: 3277 | 6 I am sorry for my reply if you feel sad, I am just trying to express my own
opinions. Also, in my opinion, Richard Pavlicik is a strong theoretist,
but never a top player. I feel the most instructive book I've read is
Bob Hamman's at the table. Also, in real life, you can hardly spend 5
minutes at the table to think about one problem. And many of the problems
he presents would take more than 10 minutes to work out a solution for
experienced players.
【在 h******q 的大作中提到】
: sad to see this kind of reply......
:
: there
: is up
: origial
| f*****x
发帖数: 545 | 7
I completely agree with this
But not this. I would say anybody who could solve those double dummy problems
should be very good players.
Still, winning bridge is a mistake-minimizing game. Just look this world
champion. No fancy skill needed. But good bidding is really important. Like
this hand:
W E
AQXXX KX
KX AXX
- AQT9XX
AQT9XX KJ
1C 1D
1S 2H
2S 3D(?)
after this 3d, they bid 6, good enough. But 3D is a very bad bid here, as
junyi said whe
【在 c****u 的大作中提到】
: I am sorry for my reply if you feel sad, I am just trying to express my own
: opinions. Also, in my opinion, Richard Pavlicik is a strong theoretist,
: but never a top player. I feel the most instructive book I've read is
: Bob Hamman's at the table. Also, in real life, you can hardly spend 5
: minutes at the table to think about one problem. And many of the problems
: he presents would take more than 10 minutes to work out a solution for
: experienced players.
| f*****x
发帖数: 545 | 8 i participated once. my ranking is about 500. i cant remember how many
particpated. But i think reading mike lawrence's book is more helpful, he is
basically helping u shape ur bridge logic.【 在 hhhhqqqq (Red+Stone) 的大作中
提到: 】
I | c****u
发帖数: 3277 | 9 well, I do have a friend, an excellent double dummy solver, but
an average bridge player. Also, the thinking of solving problems and
the thinking of real life games are very different.
When solving a problem, you know it is a problem, there must be
something special in it, there must be a key. For real life games,
you may not even identify it as a "problem" before you have made a
mistake. Also, one of my friends in China was an excellent par
problem solver, but
in real life, he lacks of good con
【在 f*****x 的大作中提到】
: i participated once. my ranking is about 500. i cant remember how many
: particpated. But i think reading mike lawrence's book is more helpful, he is
: basically helping u shape ur bridge logic.【 在 hhhhqqqq (Red+Stone) 的大作中
: 提到: 】
: I
| a***n
发帖数: 287 | 10
there
up
origial
On this issue I am with cozofu. And I guess his saying is also from
that Hugh Kelsey's book, which is my favorite.
【在 h******q 的大作中提到】
: That is the way to improve skill.
: Sure, winning pretty much deppends on the bidding systerm and experience,
: but also the defence and playing skill can minimize your errors. I think there
: are quite a few boards in this year's cup can be improved if their skill is up
: to the level in this webside. I sure the result would be different.
: bidding polls give u the difficult situations and also the the masters origial
: biddings. I think it helps to go through them.
:
:
| | | a***n
发帖数: 287 | 11
I wouldn't put it this way. I would say that by solving tough
problems it broadens your horizon, and thus your skills regarding
game playing increases (I still remember that when I was in my
senior year, one of my friends was so impressed by the playing by
Blue Team after reading that famous book. He said sth like "Now
I know a lot of contracts I failed before can actually be made").
Of course, if you are already at the level that you know all kinds
of excellent play, there's simply nothing you
【在 c****u 的大作中提到】
: well, I do have a friend, an excellent double dummy solver, but
: an average bridge player. Also, the thinking of solving problems and
: the thinking of real life games are very different.
: When solving a problem, you know it is a problem, there must be
: something special in it, there must be a key. For real life games,
: you may not even identify it as a "problem" before you have made a
: mistake. Also, one of my friends in China was an excellent par
: problem solver, but
: in real life, he lacks of good con
| j*******e
发帖数: 2168 | 12 Well, in my opinion, even on improving declaring skills, the role double dummy
problems can play is minor--it *tells* you the layout and reminds you it's a
problem.
【在 a***n 的大作中提到】
:
: I wouldn't put it this way. I would say that by solving tough
: problems it broadens your horizon, and thus your skills regarding
: game playing increases (I still remember that when I was in my
: senior year, one of my friends was so impressed by the playing by
: Blue Team after reading that famous book. He said sth like "Now
: I know a lot of contracts I failed before can actually be made").
: Of course, if you are already at the level that you know all kinds
: of excellent play, there's simply nothing you
| h******q
发帖数: 34 | 13 .........sign.......
1. that webside is nothing related to double dummy.
2. IMHO, dbl dummy is only a problem like math or logic, which is a little far
away from normal bridge.
3. that webside is more like teaching book, which tells you what information
to use and what to think in order to beat or make the contracts. that is the
way to improve your skill
4. it seems nobody ever have a good look at that webside before giving
opinions.
5. wang cashed the A with some in his mind based on the biddin
【在 j*******e 的大作中提到】
: Well, in my opinion, even on improving declaring skills, the role double dummy
: problems can play is minor--it *tells* you the layout and reminds you it's a
: problem.
| a***n
发帖数: 287 | 14
far
for
by
game,
minimize
Agree with u on most of the items here, but totally disagree withe
you on the very last one. I still believe what Hugh Kelsey said
in one of his books, something like "You don't have to have the skills
to do fancy play like complicated squeeze to become a world champion"
and "If you can decrease your mistakes to 1/1000th, world champion
is not beyond your reach" etc. Here by mistakes he meant something
one can realize by some simple but logical thinking, not something
【在 h******q 的大作中提到】
: .........sign.......
: 1. that webside is nothing related to double dummy.
: 2. IMHO, dbl dummy is only a problem like math or logic, which is a little far
: away from normal bridge.
: 3. that webside is more like teaching book, which tells you what information
: to use and what to think in order to beat or make the contracts. that is the
: way to improve your skill
: 4. it seems nobody ever have a good look at that webside before giving
: opinions.
: 5. wang cashed the A with some in his mind based on the biddin
| w****b
发帖数: 623 | 15 This isn't quite true. Mistake has different meanings to different levels of
players. If a top player misses a somewhat obvious squeeze, it certainly is a
mistake. There's nothing mysterious about squeeze. It will occur at least once
per session in a decent game.
Wang's play might look like a mistake to you, and as so common in these days,
it's classified as bad luck. But it shoud not be. I don't know where you got
it that he based his play on bidding. There's absolutely nothing in the
bidding t
【在 a***n 的大作中提到】
:
: far
: for
: by
: game,
: minimize
: Agree with u on most of the items here, but totally disagree withe
: you on the very last one. I still believe what Hugh Kelsey said
: in one of his books, something like "You don't have to have the skills
: to do fancy play like complicated squeeze to become a world champion"
| a***n
发帖数: 287 | 16
a
once
Well, I was just saying what I agree with Hugh Kelsey, based on
my understanding of his words of course. What I understand is
that you do not need complicated squeezes. Single squeeze and
double squeeze are of course not complicated. I believe that
it is OK for top player to miss a complicated squeeze.
Other part of your reply (regarding Wang's performance) is
not what I replied that post for, so maybe you should have
made a separate post to his/her original post.
【在 w****b 的大作中提到】
: This isn't quite true. Mistake has different meanings to different levels of
: players. If a top player misses a somewhat obvious squeeze, it certainly is a
: mistake. There's nothing mysterious about squeeze. It will occur at least once
: per session in a decent game.
: Wang's play might look like a mistake to you, and as so common in these days,
: it's classified as bad luck. But it shoud not be. I don't know where you got
: it that he based his play on bidding. There's absolutely nothing in the
: bidding t
| f*****x
发帖数: 545 | 17
I have been there quite a few times and actually think it is a very nice
place, there are quite lots of stufff there.
I would say this mistake is quite low level. That is not a cashingout
situation and he should know switching to c is really urgent due to obious
hkqt threat in dummy.
【在 h******q 的大作中提到】
: .........sign.......
: 1. that webside is nothing related to double dummy.
: 2. IMHO, dbl dummy is only a problem like math or logic, which is a little far
: away from normal bridge.
: 3. that webside is more like teaching book, which tells you what information
: to use and what to think in order to beat or make the contracts. that is the
: way to improve your skill
: 4. it seems nobody ever have a good look at that webside before giving
: opinions.
: 5. wang cashed the A with some in his mind based on the biddin
| c****u
发帖数: 3277 | 18 regardless partner's signal, HA and Hx only works for this layout:
SAKJxx Hxx Dxx CKJxx, HA and Hx may leave declarer a guess to find
out who has CQ. Combining with partner's signal and the percentage
of distributions, HA is wrong for sure. To my surpise, Taiwan also
allowed 4S to be made and Patrick Huang sat west. That means the
best in the team played badly and the rest of the team played horriblly...
That's why I felt much better after I saw their match. Comparing with them,
China's performa
【在 w****b 的大作中提到】
: This isn't quite true. Mistake has different meanings to different levels of
: players. If a top player misses a somewhat obvious squeeze, it certainly is a
: mistake. There's nothing mysterious about squeeze. It will occur at least once
: per session in a decent game.
: Wang's play might look like a mistake to you, and as so common in these days,
: it's classified as bad luck. But it shoud not be. I don't know where you got
: it that he based his play on bidding. There's absolutely nothing in the
: bidding t
| h******q
发帖数: 34 | 19 here is the way I think,
when north cue bid in H, at lots of situation it means short heart, south
jumps to game quite likely with long baby hearts. another thing is pt did not
double the cue bid to show the limited rise, which lead you to guess he had
short heart
in this case, Cash HA and continue H is the setting move if pt did not have
CK.
even it still cost very little to cash HA with pt doubleton heart.
of
is a
once
days,
got
would
with
were
little
is
not
deaply
positions.
【在 c****u 的大作中提到】
: regardless partner's signal, HA and Hx only works for this layout:
: SAKJxx Hxx Dxx CKJxx, HA and Hx may leave declarer a guess to find
: out who has CQ. Combining with partner's signal and the percentage
: of distributions, HA is wrong for sure. To my surpise, Taiwan also
: allowed 4S to be made and Patrick Huang sat west. That means the
: best in the team played badly and the rest of the team played horriblly...
: That's why I felt much better after I saw their match. Comparing with them,
: China's performa
| w****b
发帖数: 623 | 20 That is unlikely. Partner showed even number of D, so declarer has to have 3.
【在 c****u 的大作中提到】
: regardless partner's signal, HA and Hx only works for this layout:
: SAKJxx Hxx Dxx CKJxx, HA and Hx may leave declarer a guess to find
: out who has CQ. Combining with partner's signal and the percentage
: of distributions, HA is wrong for sure. To my surpise, Taiwan also
: allowed 4S to be made and Patrick Huang sat west. That means the
: best in the team played badly and the rest of the team played horriblly...
: That's why I felt much better after I saw their match. Comparing with them,
: China's performa
| | | w****b
发帖数: 623 | 21 What are you talking about? The bidding was 1S-x-4S-p-p-p on Wang's table.
not
them,
levels
least
【在 h******q 的大作中提到】
: here is the way I think,
: when north cue bid in H, at lots of situation it means short heart, south
: jumps to game quite likely with long baby hearts. another thing is pt did not
: double the cue bid to show the limited rise, which lead you to guess he had
: short heart
: in this case, Cash HA and continue H is the setting move if pt did not have
: CK.
: even it still cost very little to cash HA with pt doubleton heart.
:
: of
| h******q
发帖数: 34 | 22 I did not read the real bidding.
my commends is based on the info. from cozofu's reply.
without bidding info. cash HA is ok if pt has 1,2 or 3 hearts.
when u dbl and pt does nothing(he would likely dbl if he has somthing at 4
level), a lot time you will gamble he does not have 4 hearts since your dbl
possiblely show 4+ heards.
Well, on the other hand I also think our team did poorly.
had
have
horriblly...
certainly
these
you
the
you
might
there
slip
mistake.
【在 w****b 的大作中提到】
: What are you talking about? The bidding was 1S-x-4S-p-p-p on Wang's table.
:
: not
: them,
: levels
: least
| h******q
发帖数: 34 | 23 based what I know, I disagree with you.
information
the
a
and
think
squeese.
in
important
overtrick
tricks.
【在 a***n 的大作中提到】
:
: a
: once
: Well, I was just saying what I agree with Hugh Kelsey, based on
: my understanding of his words of course. What I understand is
: that you do not need complicated squeezes. Single squeeze and
: double squeeze are of course not complicated. I believe that
: it is OK for top player to miss a complicated squeeze.
: Other part of your reply (regarding Wang's performance) is
: not what I replied that post for, so maybe you should have
| w****b
发帖数: 623 | 24 Decreasing your trivial mistakes to 1/1000th, or some truely negligible level,
is only easy and feasible on paper -- and if someone claims to have done so,
it is more likely that his/her level of play somehow surpassed his analysis,
which made him blind to a path of further improvements -- In reality, it is
much, much harder than figuring out complicated squeezes, I think.
of
is
【在 a***n 的大作中提到】
:
: a
: once
: Well, I was just saying what I agree with Hugh Kelsey, based on
: my understanding of his words of course. What I understand is
: that you do not need complicated squeezes. Single squeeze and
: double squeeze are of course not complicated. I believe that
: it is OK for top player to miss a complicated squeeze.
: Other part of your reply (regarding Wang's performance) is
: not what I replied that post for, so maybe you should have
| c****u
发帖数: 3277 | 25 oh, man, I said, "regardless partner's signal"!
【在 w****b 的大作中提到】
: Decreasing your trivial mistakes to 1/1000th, or some truely negligible level,
: is only easy and feasible on paper -- and if someone claims to have done so,
: it is more likely that his/her level of play somehow surpassed his analysis,
: which made him blind to a path of further improvements -- In reality, it is
: much, much harder than figuring out complicated squeezes, I think.
:
: of
: is
| c****u
发帖数: 3277 | 26 well, you can win bermuda if you make one mistake out of 32 boards for sure.
You would have very good chance to win bermuda if you make one mistake out
of 20 boards I think. If you only make one mistake per hand, you are probably
an advanced player. The normal situation is that average players make
3-4 mistakes without realizing them. That's why I called the on line
bidding poll a big nonsense.
【在 w****b 的大作中提到】
: Decreasing your trivial mistakes to 1/1000th, or some truely negligible level,
: is only easy and feasible on paper -- and if someone claims to have done so,
: it is more likely that his/her level of play somehow surpassed his analysis,
: which made him blind to a path of further improvements -- In reality, it is
: much, much harder than figuring out complicated squeezes, I think.
:
: of
: is
| h******q
发帖数: 34 | 27 I do not know how you get the concolution that the bidding poll is nonsense.
I think it is helpfull to listen other people idea about when to bid
conservetive or when to take risk and what they are thinking when they make
the bid. There are a lot of tough situations in bidding when you have to make
the best choise but have no good answer. In this case, experience helps.
Also other people idea helps. in the bidding poll analysis, it tells u what to
think when you face those kind of situation by u
【在 c****u 的大作中提到】
: well, you can win bermuda if you make one mistake out of 32 boards for sure.
: You would have very good chance to win bermuda if you make one mistake out
: of 20 boards I think. If you only make one mistake per hand, you are probably
: an advanced player. The normal situation is that average players make
: 3-4 mistakes without realizing them. That's why I called the on line
: bidding poll a big nonsense.
|
|
