12:30 you made my day, great humor! Reminds me of Mel Brooks as Moses in _History of the World part 1_ ) “I bring you 15 (drops a tablet) 10… 10 commandments”.
great advice. it all also applies to competitive TCGs. Never be results oriented, its not about winning every time. Sometimes you have a blowout hand, sometimes you can't do anything. The difference between a great player and a mediocre player is that a great player is better at converting edge cases in their favor!
Yes very insightful. I too have used counting up, and this video has persuaded me to switch to counting down. I've worked hard on card play, and adopted conventions that may end with same contract, but make it a safer choice, or allow for better communication, such as your two way checkback. Working out who holds what and getting count has been a relative weakness, counting diwn might be a revelation.
I've been trying to learn 'counting down', i.e. to "unlearn" counting up to 13. I found it educational the way you began counting each suit as it was played. I've been trying to get the count of all 4 suits in my head as soon as dummy hits the table. It seems doing the initial countdown when the suit is first played (and thus making it an even smaller number!) makes it easier and less work. Of course, the count and distribution of ALL the suits is important to consider before playing on the first trick, in order to plan where you're hoping to get or establish tricks, but I think what I noticed was that it is unnecessary to task yourself with committing all four distributions to top of memory at that point. I hope to try this new-found (and seemingly obvious) idea when online and playing in my local club going forward.
@@BridgeWithPete Thanks. I find it harder to count down in defence because the numbers start so high, but I guess with practice it gets easier. I do see the logic of doing it this way though, because as the game progresses and gets more complicated, at least the numbers to keep track of gets smaller, and that's nice.
0:42 Famously, Larry Cohen has said that the less conventions you use, the better off you are. I love your comment about how often (infrequently) do the opportunities to use them, and how often would you arrive at them same contract without them. Has anyone done a detailed, mathematical study of the actual number of times (i.e. the percentage of random deals) that particular conventions would be (a) usable and, then further, (b) actually beneficial or advantageous to have in one's convention arsenal?
Here are the conventions I would say are really useful and come up often : Lebensohl : it has so many uses (when they intervene over our 1N, when we double their weak 2, when we reverse to show a very poor responder, etc) Checkback : comes up a lot and can be simple of quite sophisticated 4SF : can’t see how we ever did with out it Jacoby and Bergen raises Italian cue bids (1st or second round control, not just 1st, when showing controls) All of the above come up often enough to make learning them worthwhile. I would also add to that group inverted minors, not because it comes up often, but because those hands are very difficult to bid without it.
I didn't know about the counitng strategy, that was awesome. The other stuff is too complicated for me to comprehend yet. The jordan 2nt is what my phone calls that first aucton convention you menitoned. "limit raise or better" is the description, and I have no idea what that means, but I just bid it because my phone tells me to, hahaha!
We’ll, I did find this video instructive, especially the last one on counting the number of cards by suit. But Peter, was that point four or five? It seems a bit ironic that a guy who can track all the cards by suit can’t remember whether that was the fourth point or something else. Do as I say but not as I do?
You say that when you are counting down, you can allow yourself to forget how many they started with in total, but then you say that you also want to figure out how many cards they started with in each suit. How do you go from "they had two remaining" via "oh, east showed out" to "west must have started with five"? Do you use your knowledge of your original distribution to figure out how many rounds of a suit have been played or something else, if you don't count up. If you really do remember how many rounds of a certain suit have been played, are you not guilty of counting up anyway?
I use my knowledge of the original distribution but there are hands where I know I don't need to work out what they started with but I just make sure they are out of trumps and with that I allow myself to forget how many they started with.
12:30 you made my day, great humor! Reminds me of Mel Brooks as Moses in _History of the World part 1_ ) “I bring you 15 (drops a tablet) 10… 10 commandments”.
Thanks, this was great. I'm guilty of 'counting up', and I'm going to make a conscious effort to 'count down' instead.
great advice. it all also applies to competitive TCGs. Never be results oriented, its not about winning every time. Sometimes you have a blowout hand, sometimes you can't do anything. The difference between a great player and a mediocre player is that a great player is better at converting edge cases in their favor!
Yes very insightful. I too have used counting up, and this video has persuaded me to switch to counting down. I've worked hard on card play, and adopted conventions that may end with same contract, but make it a safer choice, or allow for better communication, such as your two way checkback. Working out who holds what and getting count has been a relative weakness, counting diwn might be a revelation.
I've been trying to learn 'counting down', i.e. to "unlearn" counting up to 13. I found it educational the way you began counting each suit as it was played. I've been trying to get the count of all 4 suits in my head as soon as dummy hits the table. It seems doing the initial countdown when the suit is first played (and thus making it an even smaller number!) makes it easier and less work. Of course, the count and distribution of ALL the suits is important to consider before playing on the first trick, in order to plan where you're hoping to get or establish tricks, but I think what I noticed was that it is unnecessary to task yourself with committing all four distributions to top of memory at that point. I hope to try this new-found (and seemingly obvious) idea when online and playing in my local club going forward.
more on learning to count would be fabulous, I too count up!
Question about the counting down: is it only when you are declearer you count down, or during defense as well?
In defense as well
@@BridgeWithPete Thanks. I find it harder to count down in defence because the numbers start so high, but I guess with practice it gets easier. I do see the logic of doing it this way though, because as the game progresses and gets more complicated, at least the numbers to keep track of gets smaller, and that's nice.
0:42 Famously, Larry Cohen has said that the less conventions you use, the better off you are. I love your comment about how often (infrequently) do the opportunities to use them, and how often would you arrive at them same contract without them. Has anyone done a detailed, mathematical study of the actual number of times (i.e. the percentage of random deals) that particular conventions would be (a) usable and, then further, (b) actually beneficial or advantageous to have in one's convention arsenal?
Obviously, the use of many conventions depends upon the system you play (SAYC, 2/1GF, ACOL, Precision, etc)
Here are the conventions I would say are really useful and come up often :
Lebensohl : it has so many uses (when they intervene over our 1N, when we double their weak 2, when we reverse to show a very poor responder, etc)
Checkback : comes up a lot and can be simple of quite sophisticated
4SF : can’t see how we ever did with out it
Jacoby and Bergen raises
Italian cue bids (1st or second round control, not just 1st, when showing controls)
All of the above come up often enough to make learning them worthwhile.
I would also add to that group inverted minors, not because it comes up often, but because those hands are very difficult to bid without it.
I didn't know about the counitng strategy, that was awesome. The other stuff is too complicated for me to comprehend yet. The jordan 2nt is what my phone calls that first aucton convention you menitoned. "limit raise or better" is the description, and I have no idea what that means, but I just bid it because my phone tells me to, hahaha!
You haven't learned how to count the number of lessons that you are discussing yet!
We’ll, I did find this video instructive, especially the last one on counting the number of cards by suit. But Peter, was that point four or five? It seems a bit ironic that a guy who can track all the cards by suit can’t remember whether that was the fourth point or something else. Do as I say but not as I do?
The 5t tip was how to better describe a holding when asking someone for advice afterwards.
Somewhat ironic that counting down is a lesson, and the title mentioned 5 things I wish I knew 😅🎉
Sometimes you make mistakes when counting up.
You say that when you are counting down, you can allow yourself to forget how many they started with in total, but then you say that you also want to figure out how many cards they started with in each suit. How do you go from "they had two remaining" via "oh, east showed out" to "west must have started with five"? Do you use your knowledge of your original distribution to figure out how many rounds of a suit have been played or something else, if you don't count up. If you really do remember how many rounds of a certain suit have been played, are you not guilty of counting up anyway?
I use my knowledge of the original distribution but there are hands where I know I don't need to work out what they started with but I just make sure they are out of trumps and with that I allow myself to forget how many they started with.
@@BridgeWithPete Thanks a lot for clarifying how you do it.