Threads from: Newsgroup - REC.GAMES.BRIDGE ----------------------- The original post: ----------------------- From: jayjames@rahul.net (Jay James) Organization: a2i network Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:10:06 GMT What makes a good bridge player? Why do some players consistently win? Is it mere card counting? "Reading" another person's mind? Bluffing? Or other strategies? Are these strategies based on maximizing your odds (probability?). I eye-balled the FAQ index and it didn't seem to answer this question. Thanks! --Jay PS--I'm a chess player myself. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- The follow-ups: ----------------------- From: robint@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Robin B Thomas) Date: 11 Jan 1994 19:44:42 GMT Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group I'm a relative beginner, so I've asked the same question to several players of different levels of skill. One of them, my self-appointed mentor, is super- scientific, always trying to cram more precise communication into his bidding system. His play is rather flawless -- if he can make six on a 4S contract, he will. Undeiably the best player in our Tuesday night group, his weakness is that he doesn't partner that well, and it holds his play back. My partner is the opposite -- he likes his bidding as flexible as possible, and will try psychic bids at the drop of a hat. He likes big plays and unexpected triumphs; as a result, we have two amazing hands, and two complete disasters, a session. But it's loads of fun, and his play is unhampered by playing with different partners. In fact, people have found their play improves when partnered with him. The consensus in bridge writing seems to be that the "good player" is a synergy of these two personalities. All you have to do is know all probability tables ever published, have a precise and flexible bidding system, and then make inspired decisions to violate everything you've learned. (Easy.) There's a lot been written about the dialogue between chess and bridge, and bridge folks rather chauvinistically claim that chess masters make mediocre bridge players. There are several cited examples of this. Bridge experts seem to make decent but not great chess players. Many prefer backgammon, since you can make more money on the side betting. A difference between chess and bridge: AI's can thrash on masters in chess. As of yet, though, no computer has ever been able to compete in bridge at the expert level. Bridge folks take great pride in this. This last comment, from a former regional champion: "You have to be rich, with a lot of free time." --Robin --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: M22824@mwvm.mitre.org Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 16:20:47 EST Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102 Two simple things in answer to what makes a good bridge player. 1) The ability to concentrate and think clearly from the moment you pick up your cards until the last trick is complete. 2) The ability to adapt to any partner and any opponents. At times I can be brilliant. A compound squeeze presents no problem. On defense I can see through the backs of everyones cards. Other times I can be so stupid I can't believe myself. If only I could eliminate the latter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) Date: 13 Jan 1994 18:10:51 -0600 Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin Jeff Timmerberg wrote: >robint@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Robin B Thomas) writes: >>There's a lot been written about the dialogue between chess and bridge, and >>bridge folks rather chauvinistically claim that chess masters make mediocre >>bridge players. There are several cited examples of this. Bridge experts seem >>to make decent but not great chess players. Many prefer backgammon, since you >>can make more money on the side betting. >>A difference between chess and bridge: AI's can thrash on masters in chess. >>As of yet, though, no computer has ever been able to compete in bridge at the >>expert level. Bridge folks take great pride in this. >Having been both a decent (USCF 1450 rated) chess player and a decent (IMHO) >bridge player, I must dispute your statements about bridge and chess. Having been both a decent (USCF 1989 rated) chess player and, shall we say, a persistent bridge player, I'm going to dispute the dispute. >I think that given enough time, two chess masters could become great bridge >players, probably playing a very precise, defined system. Top bridge players >could, given enough effort make pretty good chess players. The problem is >PASSION. The reason why people have become great bridge/chess players is that >they have a great passion for the game. They essentially devote their lives to >their game. I would think it rare for one person to have that kind of passion >for both games. I know several people who play both games but consider themselves more chess players than bridge players. I tend to agree with them. They *are* more chess players than bridge players. I don't know what that proves. The two games require different sorts of concentration and different personalities. >As for computer simulations, you have received bad information. There is not a >comuter [sic] alive :) that can beat the masters in chess. A possible reason >why computers don't quite have bridge down yet is that while there is only 1 >starting position in chess, there are several million (billion?) starting >positions for a bridge game. Here's the beef. There are *microcomputer* chess games with master ratings. There are major hardware/software combinations with ratings consistent with mid-range grandmasters. While a human player can aim for the sort of position that computers are known not to play well, that isn't enough to overcome that great a gap. The best cybernetic players *can* beat run-of-the-mill masters, consistently. There is not yet one that can beat the top grandmasters. I believe there are several reasons for computers not yet playing even acceptable bridge. First, in the play of the cards there is no usable algorithm for static evaluation. That means searches must be essentially full-depth, possibly with some narrowing. Second, despite the unverified claims of Cobra nobody has managed to get anything like human inference into bidding systems, nor to construct a bidding system that could get along without it. Finally, I mentioned that the games seem to require different personality types. My intuition is that the chess personality type is more likely to be interested and able to write complicated computer programs. The usual bridge personality type seems more suited to options trading and the law. -- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jeff@meridiantc.com (Jeff Timmerberg) Organization: Meridian Technology Corporation Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 21:10:06 GMT robint@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Robin B Thomas) writes: >There's a lot been written about the dialogue between chess and bridge, and >bridge folks rather chauvinistically claim that chess masters make mediocre >bridge players. There are several cited examples of this. Bridge experts seem >to make decent but not great chess players. Many prefer backgammon, since you >can make more money on the side betting. >A difference between chess and bridge: AI's can thrash on masters in chess. >As of yet, though, no computer has ever been able to compete in bridge at the >expert level. Bridge folks take great pride in this. Having been both a decent (USCF 1450 rated) chess player and a decent (IMHO) bridge player, I must dispute your statements about bridge and chess. I think that given enough time, two chess masters could become great bridge players, probably playing a very precise, defined system. Top bridge players could, given enough effort make pretty good chess players. The problem is PASSION. The reason why people have become great bridge/chess players is that they have a great passion for the game. They essentially devote their lives to their game. I would think it rare for one person to have that kind of passion for both games. As for computer simulations, you have received bad information. There is not a comuter alive :) that can beat the masters in chess. A possible reason why computers don't quite have bridge down yet is that while there is only 1 starting position in chess, there are several million (billion?) starting positions for a bridge game. --Jeff --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jmh@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (J Michael Hammond) Date: 14 Jan 1994 13:15:19 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology jeff@meridiantc.com (Jeff Timmerberg) writes: >robint@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Robin B Thomas) writes: ... >>A difference between chess and bridge: AI's can thrash on masters in chess. >>As of yet, though, no computer has ever been able to compete in bridge at the >>expert level. Bridge folks take great pride in this. ... >As for computer simulations, you have received bad information. There is not a >comuter alive :) that can beat the masters in chess... I agree with Mr. Timmerberg's claim about 'passion' with regard to bridge and chess, but have to take exception to the claim above. If we adhere carefully to chess ranking terminology, then there are certainly chess computers which can thrash "the masters." The *grandmasters* are still safe ... sort of. One other thing to note is that even though I'm a much better chess player (USCF 1900) than bridge player (4-5 MP/month), I get regularly beat by reasonably decent PC chess programs at their highest levels, and find PC bridge programs to be pretty damn stupid. --JMike just $.02 worth --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wchen@lhasa.berkeley.edu (William Chen) Date: 14 Jan 1994 13:43:15 GMT Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department. Donald A. Varvel wrote: >Jeff Timmerberg wrote: >>robint@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Robin B Thomas) writes: > >>>A difference between chess and bridge: AI's can thrash on masters in chess. >>>As of yet, though, no computer has ever been able to compete in bridge at the >>>expert level. Bridge folks take great pride in this. > >>Having been both a decent (USCF 1450 rated) chess player and a decent (IMHO) >>bridge player, I must dispute your statements about bridge and chess. > >Having been both a decent (USCF 1989 rated) chess player and, shall we say, >a persistent bridge player, I'm going to dispute the dispute. Ok I've also played both games--I'm around USCF 1900 and I'd say about the same level (decent amateur) at bridge. So I'll give my opinions. > >I know several people who play both games but consider themselves more >chess players than bridge players. I tend to agree with them. They >*are* more chess players than bridge players. I don't know what that >proves. The two games require different sorts of concentration and >different personalities. The two are different games, so there's no reason talent in one necessarily means anything in the other. Most great chess players probably do make mediocre bridge players because most people probably make mediocre bridge players. Personally, here are the differences I have found in learning the two games. First, I thought chess was a lot easier to learn and become a decent player at. This is true even at the level of just learning the rules. In chess you can learn the moves and rules of the game in ten minutes. In bridge it's quite another story--first there's the concept of tricks, following suit, trumps, notrumps; then there's bidding, making contracts, games, slams, rubbers. Not to mention a really complex scoring system. And don't even mention duplicate, IMP, or VP scoring. Also it was a lot easier to become a decent tournament chess player. It seemed the amount of mental baggage you had to carry as a chess player was less at the beginning--I only read a couple of chess books and didn't memorize too many openings, while building a bridge partnership seemed to take lots of time going over meaning of bids, defensive signals, etc. Also, while in both games there's a lot of "if he does this then I will do that" type of thinking, in chess there seems to be a strong unifying concept to all of your moves. In most games there's a main theme like taking advantage of a pawn weakness on the Queenside and all subgoals work towards that that main goa.. In bridge, finding the right bid or play seems to rely more heavily on experience and on detective work in building a picture of your opponents' and partner's hands from the bidding and play. It seems more a matter of winning lots of little battles and making fewer mistakes than the opponents. Lots of hand analysis seems to be of the form "well this line is better if east is has KJx or Kx or a spade doubleton--also in this other configuration there's the chance of a Orange- Grape Squeeze so this line is about 60% unless West does not have his bid. On the other hand the concepts of "card sense" "table feel" and the bluff/counterbluff sidegame that's so much a part of bridge isn't nearly as important in chess. [About computers] Don is essentially right. Chess programs can easily beat all but the best chessplayers nowadays, even though the majority may not use methods that are considered to be AI. One reason for this could be that they have just spent a lot more time on computer chess. Maybe with 3 decades of intense effort on Bridge programs, they's be in grandmaster class also. However Ithink a program will have to be able to mmake the same infererences from the opponent's and partner's bids and plays that a human can before this happens. This includes decpetive plays such as falsecards. This is probably harder than finding pruning algorithms for search trees, although someone may argue that they are the same thing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jd@kalman.sl.dth.dk (Jacob Duschek) Organization: UNI-C, Danish Computing Centre for Research and Education Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 15:55:13 GMT Donald A. Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu) wrote: : Jeff Timmerberg wrote: : >robint@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Robin B Thomas) writes: : >>There's a lot been written about the dialogue between chess and bridge, and : >>bridge folks rather chauvinistically claim that chess masters make mediocre : >>bridge players. There are several cited examples of this. Bridge experts seem : >>to make decent but not great chess players. Many prefer backgammon, since you : >>can make more money on the side betting. If chess masters make mediocre bridge players, the opposite is even more the case. I am absolutely sure about this. If you devote yourself to it, you can make progress in bridge much more rapidly than in chess, except for those unusually talented. Everything, of course, in my opinion. Progress in backgammon is even faster, and there is much more luck in the game. At the Danish Championships, it is not at all unusual to see #84 against #122, say, in the final rounds. This is highly improbable in both bridge and chess. In my opinion, flaming will be on now, backgammon should never be taken as seriously as the before mentioned two great games. It is a fun game but that is a different story. : >>A difference between chess and bridge: AI's can thrash on masters in chess. : >>As of yet, though, no computer has ever been able to compete in bridge at the : >>expert level. Bridge folks take great pride in this. They shouldn't. This is due to fundamental differences between the two games. Chess is, in a sense, an exact science. Basically, any position is won, drawn, or lost. Given a position, you can derive almost any knowledge you need for continuing the game optimally. Factors such as player style, abilities in complicated games, endgames etc. cannot really be measured, though, but that must be the same for both games. It's hard to estimate the importance of these factors. On the other hand, when you pick up some 13hcp and 4432, what is the best bid? This depends on a lot of things that cannot be measured at all. It depends on the rest of the system which is hard to describe formally but intuitively easy to understand anyway. The hardest problems might appear in competitive bidding sequences. For example, overcalling style is very fluctuating from player to player. This makes it very hard to define a decision procedure. In chess, it's easier: Mate the opponent! : >I think that given enough time, two chess masters could become great bridge : >players, probably playing a very precise, defined system. Top bridge players : >could, given enough effort make pretty good chess players. The problem is : >PASSION. The reason why people have become great bridge/chess players is that : >they have a great passion for the game. They essentially devote their lives to : >their game. I would think it rare for one person to have that kind of passion : >for both games. Very interesting points here. Actually, I prefer having a very precise, defined system in bridge, on the other hand with plenty of room for revaluation and individual decisions. I have no problems whatsoever accepting when my partner chooses a different strategy than I would have done. About the passion: I am a passionate bridge player and a passionate chess player. Usually, when I am at a chess tournament I ask myself why I ever keep taking on the easy challenges at bridge when I can have a go at the difficult ones in chess. On the other hand, when I play bridge I am sure that 'soon I will have reached a level where I can beat the great ones'. However, I know quite a few chess players, even with ratings around 2200, who quit chess and now are bridge players ranging from not very good to division 2 level. : I know several people who play both games but consider themselves more : chess players than bridge players. I tend to agree with them. They : *are* more chess players than bridge players. I don't know what that : proves. The two games require different sorts of concentration and : different personalities. Usually, when discussing the type of personalities needed, I compare to playing tennis. Single players are like chess players, and double players are like bridge players. In my opinion, a chess player must be able to concentrate fully on the game and on beating the opponent. The calculations to be performed are much more complicated - it is not at all unusual that it takes 30 minutes to decide for a move. A bridge player will usually never need more than a few minutes for any decision, on the other hand he has to make a lot rapidly. He too has to concentrate on the game, but more on being a good partner and solving the problems presented to him, and less on beating the opponent. : I believe there are several reasons for computers not yet playing even : acceptable bridge. First, in the play of the cards there is no usable : algorithm for static evaluation. That means searches must be essentially : full-depth, possibly with some narrowing. Second, despite the unverified : claims of Cobra nobody has managed to get anything like human inference : into bidding systems, nor to construct a bidding system that could get : along without it. Right. : Finally, I mentioned that the games seem to require different personality : types. My intuition is that the chess personality type is more likely : to be interested and able to write complicated computer programs. The : usual bridge personality type seems more suited to options trading and : the law. Hmm. You might be right. For instance, consider the clothes that the players are wearing (except at the top level). Here, it is not very common to see a chess player wearing a tie, but many bridge players do. The female players might form an exception to this rule. Female chess players are exceptions themselves and are subject to much more attention, which affect their clothing and their behaviour, I think. I think I got carried away from the original headline "What makes a good bridge player", but I hope you find some of the words interesting anyway :) Jacob --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: efg@cs.duke.edu (Eddie Grove) Date: 14 Jan 94 15:59:55 GMT Organization: Duke University CS Dept., Durham, NC I have been following this thread for a while, and before it completely degenerates into a discussion of computer capabilities and chess, I figured I figured I should set the record straight. :) The question is wrong! Bridge is a partnership game. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Instead of looking at how to be a good player, try to figure out how to be a good partner. The usual gamesmanship applies (concentrate during the game, study away from it), but to really succeed you must develop a PARTNERSHIP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: brian@bcsl.demon.co.uk (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 19:44:03 +0000 wchen@lhasa.berkeley.edu (William Chen) writes: >[About computers] > >Don is essentially right. Chess programs can easily beat all but the best >chessplayers nowadays, even though the majority may not use methods that >are considered to be AI. One reason for this could be that they have >just spent a lot more time on computer chess. Maybe with 3 decades of >intense effort on Bridge programs, they's be in grandmaster class also. >However Ithink a program will have to be able to mmake the same infererences >from the opponent's and partner's bids and plays that a human can before this >happens. This includes decpetive plays such as falsecards. This is >probably harder than finding pruning algorithms for search trees, although >someone may argue that they are the same thing. > I don't think any of the followups to this post have mentioned what seems to me to be the fundamental difference between the two games. You're most likely right about the relative amounts of time devoted to computer bridge and computer chess, but the reason the bridge program is inherently far more complex seems fairly clear. In chess, it does not matter a damn how you got to a particular position, the fact is that you *ARE* there, and the only requirement of the program is to find the best moves from that point onwards. Compare that with bridge - how the hand has been bid and played up to the current position is of fundamental importance in deciding the best continuation. If you had programs which played to an equivalent standard in bridge and chess, the bridge program would be an order of magnitude more complex. Brian. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wchen@lhasa.berkeley.edu (William Chen) Date: 23 Jan 1994 00:47:07 GMT Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department. Brian Meadows wrote: >little more restrictively? For a bridge program to get up to the sort >of standard that the good chess programs are at, i.e. to give ranking >masters a fair game, then it has to store how it got to a particular >point, and then draw the relevant conclusions. The bidding is only the >first part of the problem, each card played by an opponent has the >potential of giving some information. Given the particular sequence of > >I really don't see why you think I'm "playing semantics", or, apart >from correcting that trivial (IMHO) point about chess programs needing >a couple of bits of information, where you're differing from what I >said! Ok, let's not get too touchy about this point because I think we basically agree. I agree that a bridge program would have would have to be able to interpret the above info to play on the master level. However, I consider a bridge position to be all the bidding and play that has happened so far. (I do not think a master level program would have to make inferences from hitches on certain bids and plays by the opponents, BTW.) When anyone posts a play problem for example, he must include the bidding and play that has already happened, while one could conceivably post a chess problem without this info. The point is that this is a trivial amount of info--it would just take "a few bytes" to store all this. It's just that techniques for processing and analysing this "position" have not been developed yet. Bill =========================================================================== [#BGRS] From: avielr@bcm.tmc.edu (Aviel Roy-Shapira) Subject: Re: Where do bidding systems come from? Date: 9 May 1994 17:20:36 GMT Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx Eric asked about how to pick a bidding system, for an improving pair. Basically, there are two general approaches to bidding: The first is to come up with a set of general agreements, and use judgement, intuition and improvisations to bid effectively. These are the so called natural systems. The second approach is to have a structured system, where bids are codified (not necesserely artificial) and the system is complete. Examples of the 1st approach are SA variations and Acol. Examples of the second are ultimate club, blue club, roman club, and precision. The majority of experts today, use the 1st approach, but have added a large number of codified sequences. More or less hybrid systems are the 2/1, Polish club, and the Vienna club from which it originated. In the third quarter of this century, the structured systems dominated world championships. As experts have added more and more codified sequences into their general systems, the advantages of the structured systems have dwindled. Consequently, in terms of theoretical merits, there is not much to choose between the two approaches. Garrozo wrote once, that a souped up Chevy cannot become a Caddilac, however many gadgets you add to it (he was comparing Blue Club to gadgeted SA), Garrozzo's comment may no longer be the case. The practical issue is very different. Natural systems are fine for experts. Experts have the judgement, intuition, and ability to improvise that are needed to win using a natural system. Experts have adopted codified sequences only to continue winning against other experts. In short, natural systems are easy to learn, but are very difficult to use. Codified systems are more difficult to learn, since you have to memorize a large number of sequences. But once learned, they are very easy to use. The system works for you. It is tempting to tell up and coming pairs to start with a natural system, and build slowly on it, adding gadgets as they progress. This is easy for the teacher, and not over whelming to the student. This is how bridge has been traditionally taught. The result is that a thinking pair is quickly bogged down by holes and inconsistencies, and is generally dissatisfied. Thus for an aspiring pair, with reasonable amount of available time, and willingness to commit, it is better, IMHO, to start with a structured system from day one. There are many structured systems to choose from, but I think that the best beginner system is Blue Club. Blue Club may not be the best system in the world, and is not very popular anymore. However, it is the BEST beginner system there is. I think that Blue Club is the best beginner system there is because: 1. The book (Reese translation of Garrozzo-Yalouze) is superb. This is very important. The book by Garrozzo-Forquet in not nearly as good. 2. The system is basically natural. 3. There is relatively little to memorize. 4. By emphasizing distribution and quality of suits over point count, BC actually teaches discipline, judgement and intuition. Precision club is a reasonable alternative, but has too many holes. Avi ============================================================================ ##### Bridge Tales of Mystery and Imagination ##### By Matthew Granovetter 94 Tricks What are the qualities that make a fine bridge player? This question has never been answered satisfactorily. I've known near-illiterates who excelled at the game. I've also known brilliant doctors and lawyers whose hands shook at the table because they were so nervous. One was a highly respected surgeon! (He couldn't even cut the deck without shaking.) And yet it certainly can't hurt to have a lot of brains. Bridge players fancy themselves smarter than the average fellow, despite the fact that they like to tell how their moronic partners committed the stupidest plays. Once the janitor of my apartment house confided in me, "I know the secret to winning bridge: Just bid 3NT before the next guy." I didn't understand what he meant by this until a week later when the building's electricity went out. In those days, the lights going out was deemed a catastrophic incident; today, it would pale in comparison to current events in New York. Since the lights went out as dummy came down, the players decided to stop the game, get a flashlight and spread all the cards face up on the table. It contained an oddity with regard to who should declare the contract of 3NT. On careful examination, you may be able to detect what it is. South dealer Both sides squinting S 9 4 H K 6 4 2 D A Q 10 9 8 7 C 8 S A Q 10 5 2 S J 8 7 6 H 9 7 3 H A Q J 8 5 D K 3 D 4 2 C 6 3 2 C K 10 S K 3 H 10 D J 6 5 C A Q J 9 7 5 4 West North East South 1C 1S 2D 2H 3C 3H Dbl 3S 3NT All Pass Opening lead: S5 East had a few unkind words to say about his partner's lead, but West retorted, "Well, you probably would have led a heart if North had been declarer." After gazing at the four finesses, the janitor, who had been kibitzing, pointed out: "You see this? The contract of 3NT can be made by anybody at the table, as long as the opening leader leads his longest suit." The janitor went down to the basement to see if he could get the lights back. Meanwhile the players calculated that there were 94 tricks possible on this hand in 3NT. If North or South declared, there were 13 tricks for declarer or 10 for the defenders depending on the lead. If East or West declared, there were 11 tricks for declarer or 13 for the defense. "This hand would be fun," someone said, "if it were played in a duplicate. Imagine what the traveling score might look like!" ============================================================================ 20 Jan 2002: How do you get to Carnegie Hall? ... Practice! Sign up for bridge lessions. Find out what system is most popular where you are and learn that one first. Goren's last book comes to mind as a good place to begin here in USA. Keep a big smile on your face and be pleasant with all you meet, at least while at the table. Play bridge and socialize before and after the round, not during -- I HATE THAT! uh? Socializing between hands delays the game. Do your best to play with and against players that are way better than you are, show interest in improving your game, then beg a little. Get yourself beaten up a LOT at the bridge table. If someone is rude or there is a seeming irregularity of some sort call the director and present the facts without stating an accusation. The director will call the shots from there. Be at the club early, have a bridge book in your hand. Buy all of Mike Lawrence's books and study them. Buy all of George Rosenkranz's books and study them. Watson on the Play of the Hand. Get or make hand records or every event in which you play. Keep a score card to go along. Study the results. Ask some of the better players what you should have done differently and why. Last but not least, learn the laws of bridge and the additional rules set by your Sponsoring Organinzation (SO). That's the ACBL in the USA. http://www.acbl.org has lots of goodies for you. I know some life masters that are as dumb as fence posts. If they can make it, so can you. -- -- TIA and Cheers Thomas A Hutto Houston, TX 77077 USA thutto@houston.rr.com ============================================================================ Sun, 20 Jan 2002: Assuming that you have gone through the basics of beginner's classes and such: * Have talent, lots of it. * Find a partner or a group of players who also want to become good players, it helps a lot to discuss problems together rather than find anything out on your own. * Play in clubs/events/areas with strong opposition. Accept being beaten, accept not winning any monsterpoints. * Read everything by Lawrence, Kelsey and Reese. (Or better: study the books: look at a hand, think about how you'd play it, and only then read on). * Follow law 74 (behavior and attitude). Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net ============================================================================ On 20 Jan 2002: Lots of good stuff already. I would add that take the attitude that if your partner makes a mistake, it was your fault, then you may well be a successful player. For example, suppose at trick 12, defending a NT contract, it is obvious that your partner holds a top spade and a top heart, you hold a top diamond, and a small spade. If you cash the top diamond, you stress partner, who will not always find the right discard; if you play a spade, nothing can go wrong, Dave Flower ============================================================================= 21-Jan-2001: Play twice a week in the strongest game you can find with the strongest player you can, and read, read, and read. Don't worry too much about conventions, just concentrate on learning to count the hand. -- John (MadDog) Probst ===========================================================================