Hard Work April 20, 2007
Posted by justinlall in Blog.Tags: Improving, Mental
6 comments
Professionals at the top of all sports and mind games spend countless hours with coaches training to improve their games and keep their edge. For some reason this doesn’t seem to hold true in bridge. Sure, the top players play a lot of hands (but not more than half of the year usually), but in general these are against weaker opponents and time is not spent critically analyzing the bidding and play. Is bridge inherently different from other games and sports?
I don’t think so. Certainly there are diminishing returns from studying positions and analyzing hands, but that is true in all sports. The edge gained from studying is worth it to stay sharper than your opponents. In general I believe that once the paychecks start rolling in and your play reaches a certain level it is easy to become complacent and not work on your game. Your hunger and desire goes away, and your thought process turns to landing your next client.
The biggest reason the Aces were so successful is that they analyzed every card played and bid made together with a critical eye. They would have heated discussions that would sometimes result in hurt feelings, but it made them tough. It made them into a machine that would just make fewer errors than their opponents (except the Blue Team). Players on the Aces like Hamman, Wolff, Soloway, Goldman ended up becoming some of the best players in the world.
I have realized I don’t want to become complacent, and I don’t want my game to stagnate. To take it to the next level I have to practice and train every day with peers, essentially I can’t just be lazy and be happy to get by with sub par performance. I have started training with Chilean junior Joaquin Pacareu and Josh Donn. I am also studying double dummy problems every day. Ideally we’d have a coach but no one fits the job, and if they did they would probably want to be compensated for it.
Yesterday we had several interesting hands. Here was an error I made that cost twelve imps. I picked up 
2 
AJ7 
AKQT654 
T6. I opened 1 and partner bid 2 which was game forcing. I chose to rebid 3 showing a solid suit and some extra values. Partner bid 3N. What would you do now?
I felt like I had shown my hand. I had shown solid diamonds and extra values, and that’s what I had. At the table, I passed. After a lengthy discussion I believe that this was a mistake. Notably, my hand would be far worse if I had 2 spades and 1 club as opposed to my actual holding. Having 2 clubs is really important opposite a long suit; we have more chances to establish it and we won’t be off 2 cashing tricks as often. For slam I really need very little, basically just good clubs. Also, it is very hard (but possible) to construct hands where 5 is going to go down so if I bid 4 and we end up playing 5 it’s not the end of the world. Had I bid 4 that would catch a 5 bid from partner which would really turn me on (no spade cue means good clubs), and I could have bid the slam.
Without having Josh and Paca analyzing hands with me, I may have just continued thinking partners 3N bid was bad. Or I may have just been lazy and not tried to figure out what went wrong at all. I’m really excited about these sessions and am hopeful that I can improve my game and fix some holes in my thought processes.
Love of The Game January 12, 2006
Posted by justinlall in Articles.Tags: Mental
10 comments
A reporter recently asked me two questions that I had surprisingly never thought about.
1) Why did you choose to be a bridge professional?
2) Why is your goal to become the best player in the world?
Answering question #1 was easier. The main reason is simple; I love bridge. I truly think it is the greatest game in the world. No matter how long you play it never becomes boring and you never master it. Every hand and auction has a certain beauty about it. The game challenges me, stimulates me, and affects my thinking in other areas of life. I find myself completely infatuated with the game and its intricacies.
I also love to compete. Those who know me know that my main goal in pretty much everything is to win. It doesn’t matter if you are my best friend or a family member, when I sit down against you I am hoping to kill you. I expect the same from others. There is something about competing that just gets my juices going and makes me feel alive.
Working a 9-5 job, I just feel like I’m going through the motions. It felt the same way in school, completely monotonous. That is not a good feeling and not the way I want to spend my life. A 9-5 job is just not for me. Sure, I could probably make much more money being a lawyer or programmer, but what good is it if I feel bored and unhappy? Money to me is just a means to live, as long as I can make enough to live playing bridge the rest is extraneous.
Some people have speculated that after playing pro for many years I will become bored or that I will look back on my life and feel like it was empty. This may be true, but this is also true of almost every profession. It’s impossible to tell the future, but I do think it is unlikely that this will happen.
Question #2 was a little bit tougher to answer, but I think it is closely related to my answer in question #1. I am very competitive, and if I am going to dedicate my time and life to something I want to be the best. Not one of the best, but the best. I’m sure many lawyers want to be at the top of their field, and professional athletes want to achieve greatness. There is just some internal drive in me to reach the top. Will I feel like I have failed if I become the great player but not the best in the world? It’s hard to say, but I think if I try my hardest and know that I did and someone happens to be better I will feel successful. The real failure would not be trying my hardest and having my game stagnate.
I think about, write about, talk about, read about, and play bridge every day. I try to do so with an open mind, willing to learn to things and discover that I have been wrong about certain things. I think if I keep this attitude I will be able to achieve my goal. Natural talent is necessary, but I think (hope?) that I have it. I do realize that other people probably have the same goal as me, and we can not all be the best.
I also realize that it’s hard or impossible to determine who the best really is. Many would claim Jeff Meckstroth is, very reasonably so, even though circumstances have not permitted him to hold the number one ranking in the world. It is hard to measure, and I will never really know so perhaps being “one of the best” is a more measurable thing to attain.
I think this is a good question for everyone to think about. To make it more applicable to most people I would ask what are your goals in bridge and why? Are you doing everything you can to achieve them?
Defining Moments January 3, 2006
Posted by justinlall in Blog.Tags: Declarer Play, Improving, Mental
5 comments
There are moments throughout every bridge player’s career that will define him as a player and competitor. Some will remain “percentage players,” some will become heroes, and some will become goats.
Making a bid or play that is anti-percentage during a critical match with your whole team counting on you can be a very scary thing to do. It takes a lot of guts and a lot of confidence in your own judgment. If you are wrong and it costs the match you will take heat from your captain, your partner, your teammates, the press, and the world.
Such a moment arose for Giorgio Duboin in the 2004 Olympiad in Istanbul. His strong Italian squad met the US squad in the round of 16. Many considered this to be the match that would decide the event. With 16 boards to play, Italy was down by 26 imps. This was not insurmountable, but against such a quality team it was significant.
Halfway through the segment, Giorgio estimated that they had lost another 15 imps. Little did he know that in the other room his teammates were having a very good set. Then this deal arose:
KT6
QT7
984
AKJ4
AJ8
63
AK532
Q83
Duboin arrived in a normal 3N with no bidding by the opponents. A heart was led to the ten and jack, and the opponents proceeded to cash 4 rounds of hearts. Duboin pitched 2 diamonds from his hand and a diamond from dummy. He cashed the AK of diamonds and Zia on his right played Jack then low, and Rosenberg played small then queen. It looked strongly like Zia had 3 diamonds to go with his 4 hearts. On the run of the clubs Zia followed twice then discarded 2 spades. So his shape was 4432. Duboin knew that his percentage play was to play Zia for the queen of spades by a margin of 4 to 3. However, after long thought he finessed Rosenberg for it and scored up his game. At this point Italy took the lead in the match and never lost it, winning by 11. They went on to win the event.
Duboin later said that he was essentially swinging, feeling like the American declarer would make the percentage play at the other table. His estimate of the match was actually wrong, but it took a lot of guts to back up his judgment.
I have only had one such moment so far in my career. In the finals of the World Youth Teams Championship in Australia. Our team faced Poland and with 3 sets to go we were down 45 imps. There were a lot of boards to go so we were certainly not swinging yet, but opportunities to gain imps were definitely welcome. The first hand I picked up was:
A872
T
AKQJ542
9
After 2 passes to me, I opened 1. LHO overcalled 1 and partner made a negative X. RHO now bid 2. At this point 3N is certainly the “normal” bid with my hand. I have 8 tricks and just need partner to contribute one. However, I knew partner had a stiff spade given the auction. He might have 10 round suit cards, but there was also a good likelihood he would have 3 diamonds. His values were probably outside of spades, so they would probably be working. The bid I really wanted to make was 4N, and drive to slam opposite an ace! This could work out ridiculously, but slam could also be cold. At this moment, the words my captain often uses echoed in my ears… “Keep the ball in play.” Such a unilateral flight of fancy certainly violated that. If slam went down, I would be digging a deeper hole for my team. In the end I decided I’d take responsibility if it went poorly, but that I was going to back my judgment. Partner showed 1 ace and I bid the slam. I got the expected spade lead and saw a mixed dummy:
T
A942
93
KJ8765
A872
T
AKQJ542
9
There were only 2 trumps, but the clubs offered some potential. Ruffing spades was not an option as that would leave me with a spade and club loser, so I had to try to set up the clubs. I won the spade lead and led a club immediately, LHO ducking smoothly. Not knowing the location of the heart honors, I could not gather any clues from the bidding. I did have one huge factor to base my play on, though. If I played the king and it won, I would be cold. If I played the jack and it lost to the ace, RHO would surely return a trump. Now I would need 3-3 clubs to make my contract. Accordingly, I took a deep breath and went up with the king. When that held I had 12 tricks and 11 imps. We ended up making 40 imps that set, and were right back in the match. It actually went into overtime, and we ended up winning. I still wonder what would have happened if I had gone down in that slam…
Remember when your moment comes up to back your judgment, that’s what got you to that point in the first place.
Back to Basics June 28, 2005
Posted by justinlall in Articles.Tags: Intermediate, Mental
5 comments
Every time a big tournament is coming up, I really try to focus and get into the zone. It is not enough to have the capacity to play well, you need to actually bring your A game. If I am not completely concentrating and ready to kill, I can’t do this. As mental preparation I usually get my mind prepared for war. I review books on squeezes or deceptive play or system notes. For this upcoming regional though, I am going back to basics.
The only time I ever really review the fundamentals is when I am teaching them. It is always good to have a refresher course on beginning declarer play. All too often we get ahead of ourselves and fail to think about the most basic elements of the game because we are planning our next squeeze. The following will probably not be news to anyone as it is in most major beginner textbooks, but it will be useful to take a look at again.
In suit play:
- Count your losers
- Figure out how do eliminate the losers. This can be done by ruffing, finessing, or discarding.
In notrump:
- Count your winners
- Figure out which suits can promote the most tricks and play them immediately.
Yeah, I really meant basic. We all do step 1 consciously, but often step 2 is done subconsciously. I think this causes us, or at least me, to overlook some very basic things. So during the regional I am going to go over this list before I ever play a card on every single hand. Sound silly? Maybe it is, but if nothing else it will help my focus and concentration level and cut down on any blind spots I may have. I will modify the list slightly as well.
In suit play:
- Count your losers and winners. Sometimes for cross ruffing or dummy reversals, counting winners is more beneficial. Also for squeezes.
- Figure out how to eliminate the losers. This can be done by ruffing, discarding, finessing, endplaying, or squeezing. In cross ruffing cases, figure out how to get 10 winners (I assume I will be in game, lol).
In notrump it will be the same except counting losers as well.
It will be interesting to see whether or not this makes a difference in my game. It could have an adverse effect on my game, in which case I will revert to letting my subconscious take over.
Also, in accordance with my theme I will be following some great advice Mike Passell gave me once. I played with him in a sectional and he told me to always have a reason for every card that I played. This advice is absolutely wonderful, but consciously I still do not do this. So I will be thinking before every card “why am I playing this?” If I can actually do this it will force me to really focus and not be lazy or make any careless mistakes.
The last basic I will remember to follow is non-stop counting. Luckily I am used to this one so it won’t be a problem. Counting is like breathing; even if I’m being lazy I count. I will still focus intently on doing this as it is easily the most important thing to do in bridge.
Some people have new years resolutions, I have regional resolutions. I am going to hold myself to these and hopefully will be able to see and think clearly. I have a good feeling about this one.
Consistency June 26, 2005
Posted by justinlall in Blog.Tags: Bidding, Intermediate, Mental
6 comments
Constructive bidding is all about describing your hand until somebody can place the contract. You start with a very general description, like a 1 opener showing 5+ spades, 11-21 HCP, and then refine that description with each bid. Since you are refining your hand based on previous bids, you are stuck with your prior judgment of the hand. You cannot change your mind.
How often do you see people feeling guilty about having an exceptionally strong or weak hand for their bidding and trying to compensate? Often if someone has opened a 5-5 9 count they will refuse to cuebid later, even if the auction makes it mandatory. If you are guilty of this, you shouldn’t be opening these hands. Once you have decided your hand is an opening bid, you cannot later change your mind. It must be bid exactly as all minimum openers would be.
Similarly, if someone has a very good hand for their prior bidding he may feel compelled to bid again even if he was not invited to the party. There was an example of this on vugraph last night. A player who will remain anonymous held: K87 AJT93 4 9732 (spots approximated). His partner opened 1, and he chose to give a simple raise to 2. Not my choice, I think the hand is too good, but 2 was the bid he chose. His LHO competed to 3 and partner bid 3. This bid is not invitational at all, it is purely competitive. It is anyone’s best guess what he has, but it doesn’t matter as you should always pass. Having bid 2, you must simply consider this hand a maximum. It will forever be considered a 2 bid (well, for this hand anyways). If partner wanted to be in game opposite a maximum hand, he could invite. When he doesn’t then a pass is in order.
You also see this when a player preempts an exceptionally good hand. Sure, if you are 6-6 and started with a preempt planning to bid again, that is different. Your plan all along was to operate (and if there is ever a time to do it, freak distribution is the best). But let’s say you have chosen a 2 opener with KQT942 2 AT83 54 with nobody vulnerable. Maybe not your choice, certainly not mine. Partner raises to 3 and RHO bids 4. Are you tempted to bid on? You should resist that temptation. Having opened with a preempt, you must simply consider this a maximum preempt. Partner is in control and you can not bid again (unless that was your plan the whole time with a wildly distributional hand). He may have a doubleton spade and good defense, hoping to push them too high. He may have 4 small spades and out, hoping to keep them out of slam. He may have anything. You have shown a preempt and are stuck with that evaluation.
The point of all this is that you must bid your hand in a consistent manner. If you do not, intelligent partnership bidding will simply be impossible.
Master Solvers at The Table June 23, 2005
Posted by justinlall in Articles.Tags: Mental
10 comments
We all know him. Perhaps we have even played with him. He is known for confusing his partner at the table and then explaining his brilliance in the post mortem. Yes, that’s right, I’m talking about the master solver.
The master solver reads a lot of books and columns. His name is derived from reading the Master Solvers Club in The Bridge World. In MSC a panel of experts are given extremely difficult bidding problems and are asked to explain what they would bid and why. The winning bid is very often doubling, cuebidding, or bidding a 3 card suit. These bids generally do not describe the hand very well but induce partner to give us some useful information (hopefully) so that we can better solve the problem.
The master solver absorbs all of these textbook bids that the expert players frequently make. He is pleased with his sophistication and scores in bidding challenges. What he fails to remember is that these challenging hands represent a very small portion of all hands. Since he reads more than he plays he sees a completely disproportionate number of impossible bidding problems. To him, when the auction goes 1-1-2 a 3 card club holding is common. The exceptions are the rules.
Why, with all of his talent (as they usually have) and sophistication can he not seem to win? It must be his idiot partners, passing his cooperative X’s and raising him with only 4 trumps. Or perhaps it is because on the 99% of the hands where the master solver should be describing his hand or taking a stand in a competitive auction he is making his usual masterminding bids. He will hold: KQT942 AQ3 6 AJ2 and after opening 1 will rebid 2 over partner’s 1N bid. He will explain in the post mortem after he plays 2 unsuccessfully why it was such a good bid. If we have a heart fit, we will miss it by bidding 3. If partner has diamond values, we can stop at the 2 level which we can’t do if we bid 3. If partner raises clubs, we might find a club slam. Partner will rarely pass 2 so it is the perfect bid. It is a very convincing argument except that the 2 bid has nothing to do with the hand. His spade suit is good enough to jump to 3 spades, and his values are perfect. These bids are what make him a losing player.
In practice, the master solver’s brilliance consistently costs him on nothing deals. He may even cater to his partner making some master bid and place the contract incorrectly. Mental hand simulation, indispensable to accurate bidding, becomes useless when partner could hold anything. The master solvers win the post mortem. The old-fashioned players who bid what they have win the tournaments.
Another reason the master solver is a losing player is because bids always mean what he wants them to mean. A double or a cuebid shows exactly what he has and his partner must work it out. He is unwilling to commit one way or another and is always trying to be “flexible.” Unfortunately, their partners never know what to do and sometimes go wrong.
I am not implying that you should not read or learn from the Master Solvers Club. Actually, I read a lot about bridge and love MSC. When the situation comes up for a sophisticated bid or play I want to be able to make it. The trick is to realize on a majority of deals you just need to bid what you have. Nothing fancy, just try to describe your hand as well as you can. It is only on a few select deals that you should be using your “expert” bidding. Alter the previous hand to Q87532 AK4 6 AK2 and I completely agree with a 2 rebid. Your suit is terrible, and your hand is too good for a 2 rebid. Be cautious with overusing a bid like this though, or you might be as feared by your partners as the master solver is.
