[GreenMan]

 aguahombre, on 2013-August-28, 13:26, said:

I have never seen 64 boards squeezed into two sessions.

Every day in the Vanderbilt and Spingold. Four quarters of 16 boards, two quarters to a session.

[akhare]

 Vampyr, on 2013-August-28, 13:22, said:

So what is "common" or "often"? Obviously this varies from player to player, depending on what size price you want to pay for having what you consider a "perfect" system. But system forgets are bad for partnership harmony, and put pressure on the player who is usually the one who forgets. It seems to me that once in every 20 sessions is too much, but as I said, YMMV.

+1.

In fact I would argue that a "perfect system" must take the vagaries of human memory in account. Some may argue that it's just a question of "regularly reviewing notes", but in my experience, reinforcement is more a function of actual frequency of the gadget than of rote memorization.

[FrancesHinden]

 jogs, on 2013-August-28, 12:07, said:

You should be reviewing your system notes before every session.

No you shouldn't. You should know your system notes well enough so that you don't need to review them regularly.

[sathyab]

 FrancesHinden, on 2013-August-28, 14:46, said:

No you shouldn't. You should know your system notes well enough so that you don't need to review them regularly.

That depends how often you've gone back and forth on playing Reverse Baze versus Regular Baze Changing your system frequently takes its toll on memory, as does playing similar but slightly different treatments with different partners. It's not uncommon to play different variants of super-accept, pre-accept, Smolen, Puppet, 3-level bids over 1nt, 2-way NMF, Wolff, Baze, defenses over 1nt, defenses over intervention of 1nt with different partners. And the list is far from exhaustive.

It's not as simple to get rid of all these conventions or even play a "standard" version, as quite often there're no standards for a treatment. They don't even have proper nomenclature to name the variations.

[Phil]

Some players easily adopt from system to system. Some can't overcome it, just like some players have never adopted to upside down carding.

This necessarily isn't a bridge 'skill', but if you are playing in multiple partnerships and you have an oops, it has a detrimental effect.

[CSGibson]

 Phil, on 2013-August-28, 19:12, said:

Some players easily adopt from system to system. Some can't overcome it, just like some players have never adopted to upside down carding.

This necessarily isn't a bridge 'skill', but if you are playing in multiple partnerships and you have an oops, it has a detrimental effect.

Actually, I dropped a ton of MPs in Atlanta when playing with my flight B partner because I didn't adjust to playing with her as opposed to my regular partner - I tried to be a butterfly when I needed to be a hammer, both in defense and in the bidding.

[gnasher]

I don't think it matters whether you know your system because you know it, or because you spent the last two hours reading the notes. All that matters is that (a) you know it and (b) the effort required doesn't affect any other part of your game.

That's easier said than done, of course.

[Free]

I leak the most points with my dummy play

On a more serious note, bidding judgement and defense. I never forget my system. Declarer play fluctuates from time to time.

[GreenMan]

 Free, on 2013-August-29, 07:19, said:

I leak the most points with my dummy play

Believe it or not, I think you CAN leak points as dummy. I see dummies toss the cards carelessly on the table with cards hidden or suits of different length taking up the same space side by side. I always take a moment to be sure that all the 3-card suits are the same physical length, and that the difference between e.g. a 3- and a 4-card suit is the same as between a 4- and a 5-card suit. This saves declarer a tiny bit of mental effort that will add up by the end of the event.

One partner has said appreciatively that in the time we played together he never misread one of my dummies. We had a bit more success than you would expect given our MPs and experience, and I like to think this was a small part of that.

[PhilKing]

Giving other players at the table too much credit.

[Cyberyeti]

 GreenMan, on 2013-August-29, 08:19, said:

Believe it or not, I think you CAN leak points as dummy. I see dummies toss the cards carelessly on the table with cards hidden or suits of different length taking up the same space side by side. I always take a moment to be sure that all the 3-card suits are the same physical length, and that the difference between e.g. a 3- and a 4-card suit is the same as between a 4- and a 5-card suit. This saves declarer a tiny bit of mental effort that will add up by the end of the event.

One partner has said appreciatively that in the time we played together he never misread one of my dummies. We had a bit more success than you would expect given our MPs and experience, and I like to think this was a small part of that.

You certainly can leak points as dummy, a lesson I learned early the hard way is never to put down dummy in NT in such a way that a plausible trump suit is where it would be if you were playing in a suit contract. Partner tried to ruff Ax opposite x for the overtrick in 6N

[mikeh]

 PhilKing, on 2013-August-29, 08:53, said:

Giving other players at the table too much credit.

I didn't realize we'd played each other

[gnasher]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-August-29, 09:21, said:

You certainly can leak points as dummy, a lesson I learned early the hard way is never to put down dummy in NT in such a way that a plausible trump suit is where it would be if you were playing in a suit contract.

Doesn't the best strategy depend on your estimate of the opponent's ability too? I quite like the idea of the defenders trying to give each other ruffs in 3NT.

[GreenMan]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-August-29, 09:21, said:

You certainly can leak points as dummy, a lesson I learned early the hard way is never to put down dummy in NT in such a way that a plausible trump suit is where it would be if you were playing in a suit contract. Partner tried to ruff Ax opposite x for the overtrick in 6N

Yes, I meant to mention that as well; thanks for bringing it up. Also, I always put down the trump suit (if any) first, and the strong suits before the weak suits, so partner isn't thinking "You DO have something, right?" People who put down half the trump suit at first and save the rest of it for last "Just kidding, partner" deserve to die lonely deaths.

[aguahombre]

For the casual reader: Free referred to dummy play, which is the art/skill of declaring.

However GreenMan, Cyberyetti, and Gnasher already know this and have grazed the tip of an iceberg about the effects of dummy-putting (arrangement and display of dummy's cards).

(Edit) There is another definition of dummy-putting, where I sometimes leak points: putting down a Dummy which doesn't look like the hand I held on the auction.

[Cyberyeti]

 aguahombre, on 2013-August-29, 10:32, said:

(Edit) There is another definition of dummy-putting, where I sometimes leak points: putting down a Dummy which doesn't look like the hand I held on the auction.

I gain points at least as often as I leak them on the frequent occasions I do this

[akhare]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-August-29, 09:21, said:

You certainly can leak points as dummy, a lesson I learned early the hard way is never to put down dummy in NT in such a way that a plausible trump suit is where it would be if you were playing in a suit contract. Partner tried to ruff Ax opposite x for the overtrick in 6N

Dummies that aren't diligent about preventing declarer revokes can leak points too (rarely yes, but when it happens at a national level KO where every IMP counts)...

[aguahombre]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-August-29, 11:06, said:

I gain points at least as often as I leak them on the frequent occasions I do this

I have the disadvange of a partner who believes my bidding.

[GreenMan]

"Sorry, partner, my fault, I assumed you had your bid."

[Cyberyeti]

 aguahombre, on 2013-August-29, 11:37, said:

I have the disadvange of a partner who believes my bidding.

My partner believes mine, but occasionally so do the opponents.