[mycroft]

Kaitlyn: I've told people many times, when I see them play and they ask me how to get better, "make an agreement that, for the next month, the opponents never play one- or two- of a suit undoubled. This is not a good agreement, and you will go for numbers, and you will let through numbers. But like most C players, you're too conservative [note: I am too conservative, too!], and are letting the opponents off the hook way too often. So make and keep this agreement; when you get a bad result, say 'hard luck, partner' and get on to the next hand; and at the end of the month, look back at when the pushing around worked, and when it didn't. And keep what works, and stop doing what doesn't; you will be a better player."

I'm not the only one. Whether that's "novice" or "flight C" or where players are too new to understand is not my place to judge (because I can't), but it does work.

That, and Larry Cohen's "I'd rather be -1100 than -110", is where "we don't let them play two of a fit" "never mind doubled" comes from.

Thank you again for all you are doing.

[Kaitlyn S]

 mycroft, on 2016-September-28, 16:04, said:

Kaitlyn:...But like most C players, you're too conservative

The people that are questioning me about bidding 4H on the first hand will argue with you. Most players here play IMPs because that's what is generally played here. Matchpoints is a different animal and aggressively competing, possibly risking 800, to push the opponents up a level or get a lead you want, pays off a lot more often in matchpoints and is frequently warranted. The problem is that when a player it here in IMPs, even if it doesn't cost anything, partner sees your hand when he's dummy and leaves the table immediately, or boots you from the table when the hand is completed.

Players tend to be conservative because it draws less criticism and a criticized player doesn't play as well, nor does a player who thinks he's playing with someone crazy (some of the "not well" playing by the criticizer might be masterminding and hand-hogging.)

So even though being conservative may slightly cost IMPs from a strictly bridge point of view, it may gain more IMPs when playing with a random partner in the Main Bridge Club because you avoid that awful criticism loop, and a "Flight C" player doesn't know when his risky bid is going to appear idiotic to partner.

 mycroft, on 2016-September-28, 16:04, said:

Thank you again for all you are doing.

You're welcome. I don't mean to be argumentative, I'm just pointing out areas where I don't agree. I agree a lot with what you say - although never letting the opponents play 1 or 2 of anything (I hope you didn't mean 2NT) undoubled is going to be a rough experiment for any pair.

In fact, if I had to give one concept that I would expect to most help an upcoming player or pair, it would be this:
You defend on half of the deals, many in trump contracts. Look at the dummy. Is there a long suit that appears like declarer is going to take a lot of tricks? Then you need to establish and take your tricks in the other side suits. In the absence of such a long suit, is there a short side suit? Declarer might want to trump losers in that suit, so as a defender, consider leading trump. If neither of the above is true, play passively and don't give anything away; make declarer do his own work.

[mycroft]

I think you're mishearing me - which is my fault for being confusing, not yours. I don't think *you* are too conservative; I don't think *you* are a C player. I don't think I have to give you the advice I give the C players who ask for help. And yes, I said "one or two of a suit" - not 2NT, not 1NT either.

I'm telling you that I tell the C players this; they are too conservative, and forcing them for a month to compete over-aggressively, knowing that it's over-aggressive, knowing that their partner will not criticize them for the numbers they go for being too aggressive (because *they* signed on too - they should criticize when their partner *didn't* do it) will just naturally make them less conservative when they get to ratchet back (even more so if they do in fact have the explicit review afterward).

And you're saying the same thing ("Players tend to be conservative [because he doesn't know] when his risky bid is going to appear idiotic to partner"). So I know you know this!

But that's a lot of the problem; conservative play bleeds IMPs and (especially) MPs invisibly. It doesn't get -800 or -530 zeros and -11, sure; instead it gets two, three, four or more 30% boards or -5, -6 for going minus when both partscores make (or when 2♠ makes exactly two and you let them play it). But since people don't get yelled at for those the way "idiotic to partner" calls do, they keep doing it and they keep losing (and getting 45% games).

You are also absolutely right (implied) that if the partnership breaks the "hard luck partner, next hand" rule during the experiment, possibly even once, it will blow up the whole thing, potentially even to the point of being counterproductive.

But (to eventually get me back to the point) I do strongly believe that "we never defend two-of-a-fit" - for bridge values of never (which means "unless it's obviously right") is a winner in the long run; and given that, why would we defend it doubled?

And yes, defence is brutal, especially for novice players, double especially for unpractised partnerships with minimal agreements. Those are good suggestions. My apologies for being confusing, especially by implying that when my comments are to you (rather than the subject of the thread) that I think you are one of your students.

[Kaitlyn S]

Oddly enough, your suggestion that players use an unsound strategy to get over their pusillanimous tendencies could have the opposite of the desired effect; because it happened to me when I was coming up. My partner and I adopted a very aggressive part score style, and it worked wonders against the other novices. Even our 4-2 fits going for -50 would score several matchpoints against the -90's other pairs werer getting for defending 1NT or 2D. What we "learned" is that always competing was an unbeatable strategy. Until we won too many points and were forced to compete against the A players. Funny - these guys let us go for 200 instead of taking the push, they doubled our 4-2 fits, and showed us that we were still pretty clueless when it came to competing. We had to essentially learn from scratch.

Your idea of trying to overcompete on purpose would work better if you start out right away against strong competition, so you learn instantly when it's wrong instead of getting away with something and thinking you're awesome when in fact you are just lucky.

In fact, mycroft has plenty of good ideas that sound like they come from experience. I believe he said people should play against stronger opposition. That depends on objective.

If you are willing to admit that you will never reach a level where you can win your 25 gold points in Flight A, by all means, you should probably play in Flight B as long as you are allowed to.

However, if you have aspirations of becoming good enough to hold your own in Flight A events eventually, I would urge you to give up the "easy" points and glory in Flight B and playing up instead. For a while, it will seem like a mistake, trading your 65% game for a 40% game. In the long run, you will actually win more masterpoints by doing just that. I'm talking to the players that are good enough to legitimately expect to grab a high overall ranking in a Flight B regional event. You've got the talent to do well in Flight A eventually, why not cultivate it?

You may think I'm crazy giving up an easy 25 gold points to get your butt kicked. (By the way, if you're getting your gold in B so you will be allowed to play in the Life Master Pairs, that's different. You're willing to get your butt kicked to improve, but have to take a circuitous route.) But look what happens when you play in a few Flight A events. Despite getting your butt kicked, you do have talent, and it will be noticed. Suddenly people that didn't know you existed will be asking you to be their teammates in KO's and Swiss Team events. The more talented you are (and thus more likely to win that Flight B event), the quicker you will be getting onto decent teams in the Flight A events, and facing strong opposition because your team will be decent.

Mycroft's "experiment" may do another great thing for you - get you in the right temperament for a good partnership. For if you are forced systemically to get disasters and can see how suffering the disasters gladly and without recriminations, you will see how well your game is working when you can carry on and nobody is the least little bit upset at anything. You will also learn to carry that over to when the partnership has a non-systemic error (somebody screwed up) and you can put it behind you without words and carry on. There's plenty of time after the game to talk about the hands. Good thing we get hand records!

I know that for some of you this will be extremely difficult. For most of us think we are talented and if we could only get a decent partner we'd be in great shape. And it's hard for that not to come out in the course of a game. Let me give you a reality check.

1. I am not under the delusion that I am a good enough player to ever win a national championship. At one time I thought I could, but I just plain do not have the talent to do it. However, if you are a random player reading this, the chances are that you are currently not as good as I am. So if you aspire to do great things, you are going to have to realize that you have to improve A LOT, and that there is a lot you don't know. If you think I'm wrong, but you're still getting only 55% in Flight B games, trust me, if you keep playing, in 10 years you will be very surprised at how much you have learned in those 10 years. You will be wondering how you could have possibly thought you were a good player.

I do not mean this as an insult. The sooner you realize you have a lot to learn, and that not every bad board is partner's fault or a fix, the better off you will be.

2. Of course partner is a weaker player than you, isn't that true for everybody?

Partner is in the same boat you are. He needs to improve A LOT also, and just like you, he is going to make a lot of mistakes. If you care about your partnership, you will let his mistakes go, and even when you are talking about the game later, if he admits that he made a mistake, as long as he's not the type to admit it to shut you up, the discussion is essentially over, unless the two of you wish to discuss how the auction should have gone to get to that best spot.

Similarly, if you realize that you erred, admit it quickly. If you think partner could have been more helpful (this is all after-game discussion), you can mention it once and realize that helping partner not make mistakes is a pretty advanced topic, so if he doesn't want to go there, realize that he might not be ready for such an advanced discussion yet. If you realize that you screwed up at the table, just say "Partner, I messed up and I'm sorry, hopefully I'll do better on the rest of the hands" and be done with it.

It works. I remember with great pleasure a wonderful pickup partner here at BBO. On the first hand, I went down 2 in a cold contract. Most of the players here would have already left the room, but I said to partner "I played that hand terribly. I hope that I can't possibly be that bad again." He stuck around and we played about a dozen more boards against a regular partnership that was squabbling and we were picking up about 5 IMPs a hand because we were playing the current hand each time while they had their minds on the last hand. Full credit goes to my partner there. I wish I remember who he was!

[mycroft]

Thank you Kaitlyn, especially for dragging this back on-topic.
Can I say I enthusiastically agree with everything she said - especially the first paragraph about my suggestions potentially being counterproductive.

One of the joys of this game is that there's always something more to learn. One of the frustrations is that that's because the best make lots of mistakes; the rest of us make lots more than that.