[helene_t]

---

Yesterday I think I can take responsibity for at least half of the IMPs we lost. Sorry Eagles and teammates. I can't really blame it on cows that flew by or alcohol or lack of partnership agreements or bad luck. Some of the board were just too diffciult.

But some mistakes just seem very easy avoidable, even given the constraints on my ability to focus and other bridge skills. Take the one above.

If I had been half asleep my spade lead might have been a misclick or a misread of the auction or the failure to realize that this is IMPs and we are not going to take the contract down with passive defense since opps have made a quantitative invite so they should have enough power to make 4nt. In other words, an aggresive or speculative lead is called for. I realized all those things before I made the lead.

I also realized that partner can't have many points and that it is generally good advice to avoid leading from broken suits if partner is unlikely hold values in that suit. And the fact that declarer must have the strongest hand and stoppers in the unbid suits added to this. Those considerations would have led me to a passive lead if we had been playing matchpoints or if opps could have a combined 24 HCPs or it looked like things would break badly for declarer.

Now that I am thinking about it afterwards it feels as if I actually knew that I had to lead a heart but that the spade lead had some strange mental advantage to it. A little like ethical dillemas (should I tell my best friend that I lied to here when she asked me about her husband's afair last year? Nah I won't do the right thing I will just avoid the issue and hope that it solves itself). But this is of course a ridicolous comparison because this is just a game. If Eagles (or one of the teammates) had been a regular F2F partner who often gets frustrated when my bridge actions show lack of trust then maybe it would be understandable that such psychological nonsense could factor in.

But maybe I am overthinking this. Maybe it is just a deja-vu and maybe it was a close decision given the thought process I actually went through before I made the lead. Maybe, if I had thought about it a little longer and realized that
- Partner's (unlikely) spade trick is not going away since spades is their source of tricks. Unless he has Qx and I ruin it by leading a spade.
- If I can take three heart tricks plus partner has an entry to lead hearts through then the contract is down so a heart lead is quite unlikely to cost the contract. OTOH a heart lead might well be necesary if declarer can stop the heart suit once regardless of where the heart lead comes from.
- Our most likely entry is my ♣K so I will likely have to attack the hearts myself anyway.

... then I would have led a heart. Who knows.

Anyone else who have such neurotic thoughts about bridge? Or even better, have found a way to deal with it, maybe making less of those unforced errors or at least getting less annoyed with themselves?

Nice (DD) problem on the lead of ♥7 by the way but that's another issu.

[eagles123]

helene_t, on 2015-March-15, 05:56, said:

---

Yesterday I think I can take responsibity for at least half of the IMPs we lost. Sorry Eagles and teammates. I can't really blame it on cows that flew by or alcohol or lack of partnership agreements or bad luck. Some of the board were just too diffciult.

But some mistakes just seem very easy avoidable, even given the constraints on my ability to focus and other bridge skills. Take the one above.

If I had been half asleep my spade lead might have been a misclick or a misread of the auction or the failure to realize that this is IMPs and we are not going to take the contract down with passive defense since opps have made a quantitative invite so they should have enough power to make 4nt. In other words, an aggresive or speculative lead is called for. I realized all those things before I made the lead.

I also realized that partner can't have many points and that it is generally good advice to avoid leading from broken suits if partner is unlikely hold values in that suit. And the fact that declarer must have the strongest hand and stoppers in the unbid suits added to this. Those considerations would have lead me to a passive lead if we had been playing matchpoints or if opps could have a combined 24 HCPs or it looked like things would break badly for declarer.

Now that I am thinking about it afterwards it feels as if I actually knew that I had to lead a heart but that the spade lead had some strange mental advantage to it. A little like ethical dillemas (should I tell my best friend that I lied to here when she asked me about her husband's afair last year? Nah I won't do the right thing I will just avoid the issue and hope that it solves itself). But this is of course a ridicolous comparison because this is just a game. If Eagles (or one of the teammates) had been a regular F2F partner who often gets frustrated when my bridge actions show lack of trust then maybe it would be understandable that such psychological nonsense could factor in.

But maybe I am overthinking this. Maybe it is just a deja-vu and maybe it was a close decision given the thought process I actually went through before I made the lead. Maybe, if I had thought about it a little longer and realized that
- Partner's (unlikely) spade trick is not going away since spades is their source of tricks. Unless he has Qx and I ruin it by leading a spade.
- If I can take three heart tricks plus partner has an entry to lead hearts through then the contract is down so a heart lead is quite unlikely to cost the contract. OTOH a heart lead might well be necesary if declarer can stop the heart suit once regardless of where the heart lead comes from.

... then I would have lead a heart. Who knows.

Anyone else who have such neurotic thoughts about bridge? Or even better, have found a way to deal with it, maybe making less of those unforced errors or at least getting less annoyed with themselves?

Nice (DD) problem on the lead of ♥7 by the way but that's another issu.

It's generous of you to say so, but I can't agree with that assessment!

[hrothgar]

I made some spectacularly bad bids

(Knew as soon as I bid 3N that I should have bid 4♥ instead)

[mgoetze]

Ugh... must you always remind me of my sloppy play, Helene?

(I should duck the ♥J to rectify the count for a possible minor suit squeeze if clubs are not 3-3.)

[Trinidad]

mgoetze, on 2015-March-15, 08:13, said:

Ugh... must you always remind me of my sloppy play, Helene?

That's the psychology for the next match. You don't realize how shrewd Helene can be.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Did the 2♦ relay deny 4 hearts? Can the 2NT rebid be 2434? 2425? The way the alerts read I would assume the answers to these are no, yes and yes but I have my doubts. I think asking about what the relay denied before choosing a lead would definitely be sensible.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-15, 19:07, said:

Did the 2♦ relay deny 4 hearts? Can the 2NT rebid be 2434? 2425? The way the alerts read I would assume the answers to these are no, yes and yes but I have my doubts. I think asking about what the relay denied before choosing a lead would definitely be sensible.

The answers are "no (but 3NT almost surely did)", "yes" and "not systematically".

[nige1]

helene_t, on 2015-March-15, 05:56, said:

Yesterday I think I can take responsibility for at least half of the IMPs we lost. Sorry Eagles and teammates. I can't really blame it on cows that flew by or alcohol or lack of partnership agreements or bad luck. Some of the board were just too difficult. But some mistakes just seem very easy avoidable, even given the constraints on my ability to focus and other bridge skills. Take the one above. If I had been half asleep my spade lead might have been a misclick or a misread of the auction or the failure to realize that this is IMPs and we are not going to take the contract down with passive defense since opps have made a quantitative invite so they should have enough power to make 4nt. In other words, an aggresive or speculative lead is called for. I realized all those things before I made the lead. I also realized that partner can't have many points and that it is generally good advice to avoid leading from broken suits if partner is unlikely hold values in that suit. And the fact that declarer must have the strongest hand and stoppers in the unbid suits added to this. Those considerations would have led me to a passive lead if we had been playing matchpoints or if opps could have a combined 24 HCPs or it looked like things would break badly for declarer. Now that I am thinking about it afterwards it feels as if I actually knew that I had to lead a heart but that the spade lead had some strange mental advantage to it. A little like ethical dillemas (should I tell my best friend that I lied to here when she asked me about her husband's afair last year? Nah I won't do the right thing I will just avoid the issue and hope that it solves itself). But this is of course a ridicolous comparison because this is just a game. If Eagles (or one of the teammates) had been a regular F2F partner who often gets frustrated when my bridge actions show lack of trust then maybe it would be understandable that such psychological nonsense could factor in. But maybe I am overthinking this. Maybe it is just a deja-vu and maybe it was a close decision given the thought process I actually went through before I made the lead. Maybe, if I had thought about it a little longer and realized that
- Partner's (unlikely) spade trick is not going away since spades is their source of tricks. Unless he has Qx and I ruin it by leading a spade.
- If I can take three heart tricks plus partner has an entry to lead hearts through then the contract is down so a heart lead is quite unlikely to cost the contract. OTOH a heart lead might well be necesary if declarer can stop the heart suit once regardless of where the heart lead comes from.
- Our most likely entry is my ♣K so I will likely have to attack the hearts myself anyway.
... then I would have led a heart. Who knows.
Anyone else who have such neurotic thoughts about bridge? Or even better, have found a way to deal with it, maybe making less of those unforced errors or at least getting less annoyed with themselves?
Nice (DD) problem on the lead of ♥7 by the way but that's another issue.

---

Agree with Helene_T. At imps, ♥A = 10, ♥J = 9. ♠ = 7.
No bell tolls at the table -- and I would probably lead a ♠ too. After every tournament, I analyse my performance, expecting about two mistakes per board That still allows an occasional win Finding your own mistakes is more productive than looking for partner's. It improves your game and is good for your soul.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-March-15, 05:56, said:

A little like ethical dillemas (should I tell my best friend that I lied to here when she asked me about her husband's afair last year? Nah I won't do the right thing I will just avoid the issue and hope that it solves itself).

I am curious, what is the 'right thing' here?

[helene_t]

I don't know but just saying that even if I knew I might find an excuse for not doing it.

[Vampyr]

I think we all have learnt from experience that when you lead from a strong holding and it is wrong, it is often spectacularly wrong.

[dicklont]

nige1, on 2015-March-16, 16:46, said:

Finding your own mistakes is more productive than looking for partner's. It improves your game and is good for your soul.

Never had a signature until now.

[GreenMan]

IMO Vampyr hit on a big part of the problem: An action that isn't a "safe" one may seem less likely to go wrong but more likely to be spectacularly wrong if it does. This makes the downside look larger in comparison.

We are hard-wired to pay twice as much attention to potential downsides than upsides, so it requires more courage to take the non-obvious action.

[petterb]

What will happen if East ducks first club trick?

[cherdano]

mgoetze, on 2015-March-15, 08:13, said:

(I should duck the ♥J to rectify the count for a possible minor suit squeeze if clubs are not 3-3.)

Why?

[mgoetze]

cherdano, on 2015-March-20, 17:10, said:

Why?

Could you be more explicit with your question? Do you want to know why I might need a squeeze, or why a squeeze might be on, or why the count needs to be rectified?

[cherdano]

mgoetze, on 2015-March-21, 16:19, said:

Could you be more explicit with your question? Do you want to know why I might need a squeeze, or why a squeeze might be on, or why the count needs to be rectified?

Come on. I'd suggest
1. Count tricks.
2. Post.
as the correct order of doing things. You are in 4N, and unless spades are 5-1 the ♥K is your 10th trick...

[rmnka447]

First, no one player is usually responsible for the result of a team match. So don't beat yourself up too much for the result. There are usually several boards in a match where your teammates might have done much better and have significantly altered the results.

I'm more focused on the comment that you knew a heart should be lead, but found some attraction in a spade lead. That sounds suspiciously like the battles I've had over the years with "table presence" or "table instinct". It's my belief that as you acquire experience, you also acquire a feeling or instinct for what's happening at the table beyond all the conscious bridge logic and mental acuity you acquire.

At times, this table presence pops up as a gut feel about the lay of the cards or about what to do on a hand. This doesn't occur on every hand, but does come up occasionally. The problem is that your conscious mind often finds reasons to ignore those feelings and do something else. My experience has been that the instincts have been right substantially more often than the alternative. The hard part is recognizing when the feelings are really table presence and then getting in line with them.

I think what I'm describing is very akin to something from "Zen and the Art of Archery". They describe the process of shooting an arrow which hits the bull's eye on the target. At some point, it is pointed out one has to get one's conscious mind out of the way so it doesn't prevent one's body from shooting the arrow so it hits the target. Similarly, pro golfers often have a terrible time playing well when trying to rework their swing to improve. When that happens, knowledgeable pundits will usually say that the golfer needs to get back to just playing golf rather than thinking about the mechanics of their swing.

I'm not suggesting that you throw logic completely aside, engage entirely in wishful thinking or play solely by intuition. I'm just saying that these moments do occur. If you can recognize them and take advantage of them so much the better for you.

[Zelandakh]

The Doctors had great "table presence" at times. I suspect that these instincts improve substatially when playing with the same partner over an extended period. Of course I might be wrong and it is vibrations at some unsensed level of the universe talking to us. On the other hand, perhaps this is the kind of table presence you might have to completely re-learn once you start playing with screens.

[barmar]

rmnka447, on 2015-March-22, 12:08, said:

At times, this table presence pops up as a gut feel about the lay of the cards or about what to do on a hand. This doesn't occur on every hand, but does come up occasionally. The problem is that your conscious mind often finds reasons to ignore those feelings and do something else. My experience has been that the instincts have been right substantially more often than the alternative. The hard part is recognizing when the feelings are really table presence and then getting in line with them.

I think what I'm describing is very akin to something from "Zen and the Art of Archery". They describe the process of shooting an arrow which hits the bull's eye on the target. At some point, it is pointed out one has to get one's conscious mind out of the way so it doesn't prevent one's body from shooting the arrow so it hits the target. Similarly, pro golfers often have a terrible time playing well when trying to rework their swing to improve. When that happens, knowledgeable pundits will usually say that the golfer needs to get back to just playing golf rather than thinking about the mechanics of their swing.

This sounds a lot like the System1 versus System 2 distinction in "Thinking Fast and Slow". When you gain expertise in an activity, much of it becomes automatic and intuitive -- that's what it means to have expertise. The systems in the brain that make these intuitive decisions are able to perform very efficient, rapid statistical analysis of many inputs. They deal with probabilities, which makes them perfect for dealing with things that have regular patterns. The conscious mind can generally only juggle a small number of details, and is really poor at determining probabilities.