[awm]

Sometimes when playing (or defending) a hand, there are several lines of play which seem roughly comparable. Occasionally I find myself trying to compute odds mathematically as to which line is slightly better. However, I don't feel that I'm doing this every time it might be of help; if I did I might run into problems with time and/or fatigue more than I actually do.

Is this something top players do much of? Would it be worth my time to try and do more of this (suffering short-term issues with time/fatigue for sure) in the hopes of getting faster at it? Or is it something that experts normally just do "by feel" and break ties by table presence or something rather than doing anything numerical?

[JLOGIC]

I don't think numbers are usually required, just figure out the relevant cases that 1 line gains over another and vice versa and it is usually obv which is better using numbers. Sometimes it's like a trick 1 math problem but I think hands are rarely about that, if they are then I just try to do some rough math but I really think it is rare that that is necessary.

[FrancesHinden]

In terms of the calculation itself, as Justin says you don't want to work out the exact odds of any line, merely whether it is better than a competing line (although this can be quite hard to start off with).

I don't think all 'experts' are the same. Some prefer to win by using table feel, psychology, good bidding judgement etc and don't worry so much about the really technical stuff. Others will look hard to find the best technical line (which will take into account inferences about the opening lead and so on). At matchpoints where time is limited you often don't have the opportunity to think through things in detail; it's in long teams matches that this will come to play.

In a match I played against Zia the other week he took a good 20 minutes to play a 3NT contract, trying to decide what the best line was. He also took a long time in a slam, again working out the best percentage line.
The next day we played Tony Forrester (possibly less famous in the US but a very, very good player) and he sat and thought for about 10 minutes in one 3NT contract - trying to find any layout that would let it make (there wasn't one; he conceded for 1 off very soon afterwards).

I was about to say that, as Justin says, that these hands are really quite rare but I don't think that's true: I think it's just that good players get some of these right quickly because they recognise particular positions. It's rare that a player like Justin comes across a hand where he has to work out which of several close, competing, lines is best.

A good way to practice is to do declarer play problems from books, but you have to take them seriously i.e. really think for a long time and not just guess and look up the answer. The recent Rubens book on 'arithmetical shortcuts for declarer' is a very good source of this type of problem; the whole book is about working about the best percentage line in a contract.

[gszes]

awm, on 2011-December-29, 11:20, said:

Sometimes when playing (or defending) a hand, there are several lines of play which seem roughly comparable. Occasionally I find myself trying to compute odds mathematically as to which line is slightly better. However, I don't feel that I'm doing this every time it might be of help; if I did I might run into problems with time and/or fatigue more than I actually do.

Is this something top players do much of? Would it be worth my time to try and do more of this (suffering short-term issues with time/fatigue for sure) in the hopes of getting faster at it? Or is it something that experts normally just do "by feel" and break ties by table presence or something rather than doing anything numerical?

As you learn more and more about squeeze play you may become one of many that prefer to
make a contract on a squeeze rather than a finesse:)))) However, once you get much
beyond the concepts of

1. secondary assumption -- something HAS to work a certain way so you assume it does and then
come up with a lop that caters to that.

2. distributional squeezes and endplays.

3. learning basic math like is it more likely that a finesse will win or an opps suit break 33.

4. ruffing finesses.

we are talking about contracts that generally have a small chance of making and the squeezes
involved require a lot of study. (when they work it feels good though). How much work you
put into this great game is up to you. It can be enjoyed by players with a huge range of
skills. One of the big downsides of learning is that the thrill of accomplishment has a
tendency to be replaced by a been there done that attitude to most problems. The much rarer
"odd" contract or bidding sequence is what keeps the most skilled players entertained:)))

In case you wonder why top level players seem to bid more it is because they have a very
large treasure trove of information on how to play esoteric contracts:) The more you
learn the more you will want to bid em up:)

4.

[JLOGIC]

awm is a very strong expert, pretty sure he knows about all of those things lol.

[jogs]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-December-29, 13:01, said:

In a match I played against Zia the other week he took a good 20 minutes to play a 3NT contract, trying to decide what the best line was. He also took a long time in a slam, again working out the best percentage line.
The next day we played Tony Forrester (possibly less famous in the US but a very, very good player) and he sat and thought for about 10 minutes in one 3NT contract - trying to find any layout that would let it make (there wasn't one; he conceded for 1 off very soon afterwards).

During the final two rounds of major knockout type events, there should be a director at each table. The director can speed up the play or access a slow play penalty. Players shouldn't be required to call the director on opponents. In sports one doesn't get to call penalties or fouls on opponents. It shouldn't be necessary in bridge either.

[FrancesHinden]

jogs, on 2011-December-29, 19:26, said:

During the final two rounds of major knockout type events, there should be a director at each table. The director can speed up the play or access a slow play penalty. Players shouldn't be required to call the director on opponents. In sports one doesn't get to call penalties or fouls on opponents. It shouldn't be necessary in bridge either.

I wasn't complaining about the time taken. There are some very difficult hands and it's reasonable to take a long time on them (I believe the play in 3NT took ages at the other table as well).
(FWIW Zia did get a warning for slow play.)

[Fluffy]

I use 50%, above 50% and below 50% for most of my calculations. For rare things suck as Qx failling with AKx opposite J9xx I have no clue of how to calculate them.