The Gargoyle Chronicles: Boards 1-64

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Boards 1-64

After 64 boards, I'm up 158 IMPs, an average of 2.5 imps per board. It's time for another assessment. After the first 32 boards, I discussed my methodology for analyzing where the swings came from. Here's where we stand after 64 boards, along with the results of my last analysis for comparison. Defensive card play is still where most of the IMPs have come from, which is precisely what one would expect. The confidence levels have come in, but they are still too large for the results to be very meaningful.

Category	Boards 1-32	Boards 1-64
Defensive play	+1.9 ±2.7	+1.9 ±1.8
Declarer play	+0.8 ±1.6	+1.1 ±1.2
Defensive bidding	+1.5 ±2.9	+1.5 ±1.7
Constructive bidding	+0.9 ±2.7	+.4 ±2.1

Overall edge	+2.4 ±2.0	+2.5 ±1.4

In the analysis of Board 61 I discussed Edgar Kaplan's fiscal strategy for playing when you are behind in the match. That gave me the idea of switching over to the other team so I would have an opportunity to try this strategy out. While the deals have been interesting, I'm so far ahead that the match itself is getting dull. Switching teams should spice things up a bit. So, beginning tomorrow, I'm playing for the other side. I'll start Board 65 down 158 IMPs and see if I can pull the match out by Board 128. Fasten your seat belts, and wish me luck.

3 comments:

MarkDecember 16, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Good luck! Will be following with interest.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownDecember 16, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Good luck :)
And thank you for writing this blog. Very interesting
ReplyDelete
Replies
3MDecember 16, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Great Idea. I think you have your work cut out for you. I did not see a lot of unlucky breaks the first 1-64 boards.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

About This Blog

First, a word or two about who am I so you have some idea how seriously to take the advice you find here. I retired from tournament bridge in 1992 (coincidentally, the year my daughter was born). At the time, I had accumulated a little over 5000 masterpoints. I had won numerous regional events and had finished second or third in several national events. Annoyingly, I have never won a national event of any significance. (The qualification is necessary. I did win one national event of little significance.) My best result was second place in the Grand National Teams (with John Lowenthal, Michael Becker, Ron Rubin, Michael Rosenberg, and Brian Glubok). I have theories about why this is, but I won't bore you with them now.

I am still in contact with many of my friends from tournament days. So I still discuss bridge and, occasionally, still write articles for Bridge World magazine, some of which you can find reprinted here: Phillip Martin's Bridge Articles

I have always enjoyed writing about bridge and have, from time to time, considered starting a blog. I think there is a void in the bridge literature that I can make some attempt to fill. Bob Hamman has stated that most people play bridge by asking themselves what they should do. Instead, they should be asking themselves what is going on. Once you figure that out, what to do will often suggest itself. I think he is right about that, and I think bridge literature is partly responsible. Bridge books and articles focus on the unusual and the spectacular. They can get you in the habit of looking for opportunities to shine, which isn’t what you should be thinking about.

The late John Lowenthal, my partner for years, was perhaps the king of doing the unusual, especially on defense. But he always found these plays by being alert to what was going on, not by simply looking for opportunities to do something unexpected. If declarer spurned a finesse John expected him to take or failed to attack a suit that John expected him to attack, John would ask himself why. Frequently, the answer to this question would reveal the entire deal. Then John could be creative and think about finding some way to deflect declarer from the winning line. And, often, he succeeded.

What I am going to attempt to do in this blog is to show by example how one should think about the game. The focus will be on process, not on results. How do you figure out what is going on? How do you try to conceal what’s going on to the opponents? How do you try to clarify the position to partner? These are the skills that separate the expert from the intermediate player more than the ability to execute a backwash squeeze. And, for this purpose, almost any deal can provide material for discussion.

What I propose to do is to play in BBO robot individuals and report on each deal in detail, focusing on the questions I ask myself and how I reach each decision. I will report on each deal, not just the ones I find interesting or instructive. This blog will probably not be of much help to a beginner, but I think it will be instructive for an intermediate player. And my expert friends will finally see what is going on inside my head when I’m in one of my interminable huddles.

I will be South, but, following convention, I will always make South declarer in the diagrams. Thus my reported compass direction may change from deal to deal.

I should point out that not all of my ideas are mainstream. I considered including a catalog of quirks, but I decided that was unnecessary. They will become apparent in due time.

The Gargoyle Chronicles

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Boards 1-64

3 comments:

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog