lmilne, on 2015-March-04, 08:16, said:
Has anyone done anything like what I'm talking about - a regimented practice routine?
It's remarkable to me that the only famous example of people putting in hard yards practicing bridge is the Aces! Surely there are others?
People, especially top chess players I have talked to, often ask about this. Chess players are very regimented, they go over opening repertoire, their next opponents openings, study endgames, go over games of top masters, and do tactics problems. It is all easy to regiment.
In bridge, I don't think this is really the case. What are we going to go over? How to do certain types of squeezes? Double dummy problems? That is the easy part of the game. The hard part is staying sharp, making good judgements in bidding and in play/endgames. Those are hard to study, they are all situational. The reality is that bridge is simple enough relative to chess to not go over technical parts that much once you reach a certain stage. It's about making the right inferences and improving your judgement (hard to tell). Those things are best done by playing and talking with good players about your thoughts and reasoning. You get feedback like "that play is too big" (translation: I understand your clues but you are weighting them too high vs a priori odds), or obviously this guy has the queen (meaning whatever has happened, it is obvious to good players who has what and just back that despite everything else), etc etc. Bidding is even more reliant on talking with good players so you know if you're crazy, in the game, or automatic.
The things I think top pairs really go over in a regimented way are bidding system and defensive carding. If you play a lot, going over defensive ***** ups is really important, just go over what each of you was thinking, card by card, why you think your partner should have figured it out, etc etc. That exercise will leave you understanding your partner way more. If you understand how each other thinks, you will get much better and fluid at defense.
Bidding, that can be done in partnership bidding or in challenge the champs or w/e. But I think at a certain stage everyones constructive bidding is good enough, its competitive agreements that matter. I don't play a lot of conventions in competitive bidding, but knowing what stuff like doubles and 2N bids are are very important. Knowing stylistically what to expect based on vul, opps, state of the match, etc is very important and hard to get down in partnership bidding. Bidding when they don't bid is pretty easy, bidding when they are pressuring you and in different states of the match is a lot harder and more complicated. A lot goes unsaid but going over boards in those kinds of situations is important.
Basically, I think it's hard to just have a regimented practice session of bridge. The best thing the aces did was go over hands and talk to each other (top players). That helped with cardplay, judgement, etc. That is what happens at bridge tournaments (at least in USA). The top players go to a room and drink and hash things out and have really heated arguments. Sometimes fist fights are close! Sometimes bonds are formed, lol. But bridge is not such a technical game where it's all about studies. Yeah, I could know my squeeze plays better, and I'm no Michael Rosenberg. But I doubt there are many squeezes that come up in real life that I don't execute that a more technical guy would. More important is my judgement in bidding, my judgement in endgames about how to weight clues, my judgement in how my partner will play/bid in X situation, and my agreements in both bidding and defensive cardplay. Since those are all situational and non scientific, the best way to learn is to play a lot and talk things over with great players and also with your partner.
I don't know the bridge climate in Australia but if you don't have that readily avaliable, I would suggest a skype study session (AKA ***** on each other and hash ***** out, preferably while drinking), or an email list where everyone involves argues vocally for their point and calls each other retards etc. I know most people will think I'm RETARDED for saying it that way, but the best bridge discussions I've had have been with Brad Moss or Bobby Levin or Geoff Hampson where they tell me what an idiot I am and argue their point passionately. Ofc I would not treat others that way, but your peers know they are your peers and don't have to be diplomatic.
You are a poker player and this is exactly how you get better at poker. Know fundamentals, talk with people nonstop about spots and thought process, etc etc. Poker is way closer to bridge than chess is.