[halfstep]

i am still learning how to play bridge, so far i am intoduced to one of the main aspect of the game, regarding the play of the game, to me bridge is just a more complicated version hearts, I am boggled that there are so much established community and literatures on bridge, even though the play of the game is basically hearts.

just how important is the bidding part? does it require more strategies than the play part? if so, it would make more sense to me why bridge is to hyped up and hearts is not

[vuroth]

Taking 10 tricks can be worth:
150-180 points
400-530 points
negative 100-500 points
depending on your bidding

Taking 12 tricks can be worth:
170-240 points
460-590 points
620-940 points
negative 50-200 points
again, depending on your bidding.

So yeah, the bidding can be fairly important.

The reason there's so much literature out there is that it's not just your personal skill in bidding that's key, it's also that you and your partner understand each other.

For my money, the biggest difference by far between hearts and bridge is that you have a partner in bridge. Communication, both during bidding and during the play of the cards, is very important.

0.02, and welcome to the game!

Edit: watch someone correct my numbers.....

[TylerE]

At the highest levels success is perhaps 80% bidding, 20% play, because everyone at that level will play and defend almost perfectly.

[mikeh]

halfstep, on Apr 15 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

i am still learning how to play bridge, so far i am intoduced to one of the main aspect of the game, regarding the play of the game, to me bridge is just a more complicated version hearts, I am boggled that there are so much established community and literatures on bridge, even though the play of the game is basically hearts.

just how important is the bidding part? does it require more strategies than the play part? if so, it would make more sense to me why bridge is to hyped up and hearts is not 

As someone who supplemented his income, in university, by playing hearts for money and who almost flunked out of that same university because of bridge, I can tell you that the games have little in common, other than the (common to many card games) taking of tricks.

I think an intelligent player can become expert at hearts in a few months of steady play, especially if there is a good player in the game, from whom you can learn the relatively simple techniques.

Bridge is a game for a lifetime. The more you know, the more there is to know.

I would agree only that someone with a natural talent for hearts probably, but not definitely, will have success at bridge if he or she is prepared to work hard enough. In other words, you need 'card sense' to be good at bridge, but you also need a heck of a lot more... which is why it is such an addictive game.

As for bidding/play: they go hand in hand.... there is no sense becoming an excellent bidder if you can't play the hand... and, of course, play encompasses defence as well.. and that, since it is a partnership game, is very complex...... so complex that it is really not covered very well in most training for beginners.

At the highest level, virtually all players use customized bidding methods... even those whose methods are broadly similar to 'standard' will have agreements and tweaks virtually incomprehensible to most beginners, and many pairs use methods that cannot be interpreted without a manual. But the best line in any given situation will be almost always agreed-upon by experts.

This only applies to perhaps the top 5-10% (at most) of the duplicate playing population. For the greater majority, bidding and play are of approximately equal importance.

[dcvetkov]

TylerE, on Apr 15 2008, 10:46 AM, said:

At the highest levels success is perhaps 80% bidding, 20% play, because everyone at that level will play and defend almost perfectly.

You did not mention the ellement of luck;)) which is not insignificant. You should leave at least 30% aside, especially for pairs events.

[jdonn]

TylerE, on Apr 15 2008, 10:46 AM, said:

At the highest levels success is perhaps 80% bidding, 20% play, because everyone at that level will play and defend almost perfectly.

This is EXTREMELY far from true. Justin is on record as saying, and I completely agree, there are very large differences in play abilities even among the absolute top players. The real reason you might argue bidding is more important (which I still don't believe, but this is the argument) is that you can bid every hand, but you are dummy 1/4 of the time.

[awm]

Hmm... 80% bidding, 20% play... what about defense? I think defense is a huge factor at the highest levels -- I see a lot more defensive "mistakes" than declarer play "mistakes" in the top events, and a lot of imps are swung on opening leads too. Defense is tricky because you don't get to see as many of the high cards, and because you need to be on the same wavelength with partner while at the same time not giving declarer too much information. It's also important to note that while bidding produces a lot of large swings, there is an awful lot of luck in that (i.e. say there is a 50% slam that one table bids and one doesn't, this will always be a huge imp swing, but it's not really that one table is bidding "better" and in the long run will even out).

I think I would divide things up more like 40% bidding, 40% defense (including opening leads), 20% declarer play.

Anyways, I think the biggest difference between bridge and hearts (even more than the bidding) is the partnership aspect. You have more information with which to make your decisions because partner is signaling and making decisions on the other side of the table -- but at the same time you need to have some agreements with partner and some trust for partner's actions. Often there are plays that you can make which help partner win a trick which have no real place in hearts.

[mikeh]

awm, on Apr 15 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

. Often there are plays that you can make which help partner win a trick which have no real place in hearts.

I think you underestimate the complexity of hearts (not that it is remotely as complex as bridge). I haven't played hearts for many years, but certainly there is room and need to try to help another player win a trick or lose a trick... usually when one player has a substantial lead, the other players will cooperate.

On the other point... while I agree that even at the higher levels, there is a significant variance in card play ability, that has relatively little impact because we are speaking of the ability to choose a slightly better line in contracts where there is, in fact, a difference in outcome.

All top players will handle MOST tough hands the same way. The best players will only rarely even have a chance to gain an advantage through superior play.

Without pretending that these numbers reflect life, we might argue that the top 2-tiers of experts will gain a significant edge over an advanced player on 40% of the hands. The top tier will gain a significant edge over a 2nd tier expert on maybe 5% of the hands... on average 1 or 2 boards a session, at most. And the edge will not always generate a gain.. sometimes both lines generate the same result and sometimes the inferior line wins!

I think this is why, despite the clear differences that obtain at the higher levels, bidding, which is far more idiosyncratic, due at least in large part to methods, has more impact on the outcome at high levels, relative to declarer play.

[jdonn]

There is way too much emphasis being placed on bidding in these estimates. Most top players would give play (meaning declarer play and defense) probably 75% or 90% or 99% and bidding the rest.

[Trumpace]

halfstep, on Apr 15 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

even though the play of the game is basically hearts.

Not true at all.

The aim is very different (This itself should be an indication that the play will be different). The amount of information you have is different. The strategies of play are very different.

For instance, there is no trump suit in hearts. Correct play with the presence of a trump suit is a book in itself (NoTrump play is equally difficult, though)

You will realize all this as you get more experience at bridge. Please don't just dismiss Bridge as "another version of hearts". It is a lot different (and a much better game, I think).

Bridge and Hearts do have one thing in common though: counting.

In order to play well in both games, you need to keep track of the cards played.

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Apr 15 2008, 06:01 PM, said:

There is way too much emphasis being placed on bidding in these estimates. Most top players would give play (meaning declarer play and defense) probably 75% or 90% or 99% and bidding the rest.

Yes. Maybe there is a stage when you start playing bridge while having earlier played Whist, Hearts or some such, at which your progress in bidding skill determines your overall rate of progress. At my club in Amsterdam (which is a rather weak club) I think it is more about bidding in the B-line and more about play in the A-line.

The better club players have already reached a stage where they can bid the easy boards correctly, but not everyone can play the easy boards correctly. As you move to higher levels (stronger clubs, regional competition) it will be more about the difficult boards, but I suppose that there as well, it will be play rather than bidding that separates the stronger players from the rest.

Not sure why bidding is so predominant in bridge literature and discussions. Maybe it's just easier to communicate a bidding problem than a play problem. Or maybe bidding is somehow more intellectually satisfactory. For me, both explanations apply. Also, bidding is something unique to bridge.

[1eyedjack]

helene_t, on Apr 15 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

Not sure why bidding is so predominant in bridge literature

I don't think that this premise is true. Any daily newspaper article tends to be an illustration of good card play. Maybe I read different newspapers. I also think that there are more books on card play technique than on bidding, but I am happy to be corrected.

To Halfstep, I would really be interested if you made a diary note to revisit this question in a year's time, and then reconsider for yourself how the game compares with Hearts.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Apr 15 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

There is way too much emphasis being placed on bidding in these estimates. Most top players would give play (meaning declarer play and defense) probably 75% or 90% or 99% and bidding the rest.

Well, looking over high level tournament results, over many years, it seems to me that the impact of bidding is more important than the impact of play, if measured in the number and size of swings created.

This arises both from method and, to a lesser degree, style. Most top pairs are aggressive, but some are notoriously conservative... I think Rubin-Granovetter, for example, routinely passed some hands their opps opened.

The swings caused by methods usually balance out IF the match is very long. A pair that opens 1N on 13-15 will miss some games that a 15-17 pair reach, when both open 1N... maybe the game makes, maybe it doesn't.

A pair that opens 4 card majors will sometimes preempt the opps and sometimes preempt partner.

Fantunes will have different auctions than most, when they hold a minimum opening bid with a major. T-Walsh will get contracts played from the other side.

Big club methods may be preempted more effectively than standard methods would be, on a given hand, but may allow the partnership to bid accurately to a contract unreachable in standard.

There are so many different ways to bid, yet on any given hand, ignoring information from the bidding, there is usually only one 'best' way to play or defend.

We tend not to attribute 'fault' to swings caused by one (good, well-designed) method proving less effective or simply less lucky, on any one hand, than the equally good, well-designed but different method employed by the opps. More importantly, I know of NO way in which anyone can prove that one good method is actually 'the best'... and I doubt that anyone ever will, because I think it unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that anyone will ever invent a 'perfect' method (if they do, it will be impossible for a human to use it).

But play is a different matter... it is usually pretty easy for an expert to work out the 'best' line, if given enough time and access to a pen and paper. We have all, I am sure, awoken at 3 am and realized that we 'should have made that 3♠', etc.

I don't wake up thinking 'I should have made this call'... but 'I should have worked this out' is a common play thought in the early hours.

So I think that experts will routinely think of play differences... that is an area where a player has direct control.. while bidding variances are more often random effects of methods.

Bidding swings are more numerous, but will often cancel out. Play swings are less numerous but will often have more impact, because they usually accumulate in only one direction.

[han]

If you like tic tac toe, try chess sometimes! It has the same elements (thinking ahead, remembering openings, etc.) but it's more complicated. I would recommend it to any serious tic tac toe player.

[Echognome]

han, on Apr 15 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

If you like tic tac toe, try chess sometimes! It has the same elements (thinking ahead, remembering openings, etc.) but it's more complicated. I would recommend it to any serious tic tac toe player.

LOL! Great post Han.

[hrothgar]

I'm going to add a couple very basic observations:

First: the relative importance of bidding versus play very much depends on the populations of players that you are looking at:

For example, I can point to quotes from some of the top Italians who claim that the single most important skill to succeed at bridge is related to competitive bidding. I suspect that this answer is contingent on a (tacit) assumption that this is the KO round of the Bemuda Bowl.

1. There were no truly weak teams in the field.

2. The remaining 8 teams are all quite good

3. The variance in card playing ability is quite small. Yes, Michael Rosenberg probably has some slight edge in the card play department, but this won't matter on all that many hands.

As a result, issues related to bidding are (naturally) going to rise to the forefront.

If we were to look at a more mixed field - an ACBL regional or some such - you have all different levels of players competing. The variance in card play and defense is sufficiently great that one can achieve a significant edge through dilligent effort. Moreover, the techniques that need to be mastered are both simplier and come up more frequently.

Next: Card play is much simplier problem than bidding. Its possible to analyze nearly any card play problem and identify (with certainty) what the best technical line is. Card play is a done deal...

When was the last time that anyone identified a new practical way to improve the state of the art?
Has there been anything since Restricted Choice???

I certainly believe that people can write new and better books explaining how to execute squeezes or end plays or whatever, but the fundamental techniques don't seem subject to change?

In short, variance in card player seems to be (largely) a function of skill. if you want to improve, you should go off and spend a lot of time doing the equivalent of practicing your scales.

Bidding is enormously more complex. No one can agree what the best bidding system is. I don't think anyone can even agree how one would begin to determine what the best bidding system is. You have a multitude of different approaches.

Variance in bidding is a function of both skill (how well do you apply your mehtods) and choice of methods.

I don't find it all that surprising that folks prefer to argue and debate subjects in which the outcome isn't pre-ordained.

[karlson]

I think one of the factors that's not being given enough credit in this thread is the fact that in bridge you get to see 26 cards instead of 13. This turns out to have a huge effect on how much information you have to base your play decisions.

Sure, there are times in hearts when you can figure out the whole hand and make a perfect play. But very often, especially in the beginning of the hand, there are so many possibilities for the layouts of the other three hands that you're guessing on very vague principles, and very often several alternatives will all be very close in expectation (or at least any fluctuation/error in your analysis is an order of magnitude larger than the difference in expectation).

However, in bridge, you can often foresee the play many tricks ahead, (e.g. sometimes you can vizualize a 3-card ending at trick 1). This allows you to make a much more educated decision, and sometimes narrow down the holdings in the other two hands to only a small number of relevant possibilities.

This also applies to spades vs. bridge. Spades is much closer than hearts, since it at least has the elements of a trump suit, and partnership cooperation, which surely are huge factors as well.

[kenrexford]

halfstep, on Apr 15 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

i am still learning how to play bridge...

...just how important is the bidding part? does it require more strategies than the play part? if so, it would make more sense to me why bridge is to hyped up and hearts is not

As a new player to the game, the odd comments you may have read so far have no application to your experience so far. The reality is that bidding is of HUGE importance to your game right now.

The beauty of the bidding part, something that separates bridge from hearts, or spades, or anything else, is that there are as many theories on how to bid as there are existing and extinct languages. However, people group up into general approaches, just as people do not switch between German, English, French, and Swahili in a conversation. However, bridge can be extremely interesting, as the various languages of bridge create situations where, in essence, you carry on a four-person conversation where one side speaks "French" and the other "English," and each side must understand the other side to make sense of their own conversation, if that makes sense.

People spend hours arguing over what this or that should mean, always in an intelligent manner. This is not a sign that bidding is an art that cannot be mastered because it is nonsensical. It, rather, is an art that occasionally requires going into uncharted waters, where general principles (learned by some, not learned by others, or differently by two different people) must apply, which is fun.

This element of communication is unique to the game. It is sort of like the Newlywed Game. If you and your partner get each other, it works. If not, it does not. You have to trust him or her, and they you.

[Trumpace]

kenrexford, on Apr 15 2008, 05:44 PM, said:

halfstep, on Apr 15 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

i am still learning how to play bridge...

...just how important is the bidding part? does it require more strategies than the play part? if so, it would make more sense to me why bridge is to hyped up and hearts is not 

As a new player to the game, the odd comments you may have read so far have no application to your experience so far. The reality is that bidding is of HUGE importance to your game right now.

I disagree.

Given the confusion between play of hearts/bridge, seems like concentrating on the fundamentals of card-play is of the most importance IMO.

Giving undue importance to bidding during the formative years is a bad way to become a good bridge player (again, IMO).

[pclayton]

halfstep, on Apr 15 2008, 07:16 AM, said:

I am boggled that there are so much established community and literatures on bridge, even though the play of the game is basically hearts.

Quote

one of the reason i love about poker is that i can win money at it, and potentially lots of money, just wondering could i do the same with bridge, by that i mean, in the bridge society, is there popular cash staked bridge games going on?