[mikl_plkcc]

Tonight I had a session where we got a very poor result, -52.30 IMPs over 26, however, if we compared against double dummy, we would be +24 IMPs. That was a gigantic difference.

https://www.bridgewe...ub=youngchelsea

For example, our worst board was board 9, defending 3NT which ended up +1, -9.70 IMPs for us, but double dummy was just making, so we were -1 IMP from par. The actual reality was that not everyone bid game despite having 25 HCPs combined, and among those bid game, only a minority made with a few table going off in the DD-making 3NT.

Similarly, another bad board for us was board 7, defending a making 24 HCP major suit game in a 6-1 fit, where only a minority could bid it. Most were in partscore while a few were in 3NT going down.

Other bad boards include board 3, defending 6♣+1 where DD was 7NT, but other tables ended up playing 6♦x-1 which was much better than letting their slam making, or board 4 playing 5♦ to the DD result of -1 (losing 1 ♠ and 2 ♣s) when other tables played it from the other side and the ♣ opening lead gave a trick.

How can we know what we did wrong in these boards? For example, when defending a DD-making 3NT but other tables successfully defeated it, or when the opponents could find a cold game where other tables couldn't?

[blackshoe]

Sometimes you can't figure it out. Sometimes you did nothing wrong. Look at the boards. If you see an obvious problem, discuss it with your partner. If you don't see anything obvious, work on your defense. :-)

[bluenikki]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-June-27, 18:18, said:

How can we know what we did wrong in these boards? For example, when defending a DD-making 3NT but other tables successfully defeated it, or when the opponents could find a cold game where other tables couldn't?

This was pairs? That's the inevitable role of luck in pairs. At teams, you can hope your teammates will make the right (or lucky) decisions.

[awm]

There's no magic way to tell when you made a mistake vs. you were just unlucky. However, I'd definitely not use double dummy results for this purpose. Some things you might look at:

1. Take a look at what the rest of the field did. In a strong-ish game like the Young Chelsea, the results from the other tables are usually reasonable. If most other tables are doing better on a board, it means either your side made some mistake or your opponents did something good.
2. Try to figure out why the double dummy results say what they do; this is a good exercise in any case and will improve your play, but when you get to be good at it you'll be able to tell things like "this contract is supposed to go down, but I'd have to make a very weird lead to set it, so the fact that it made at my table is not really a mistake" vs. "this contract was supposed to make, but it requires dropping a singleton king offside, so no surprise that most declarers went down."
3. Ask other players what happened at their table, or how to best bid/play the hands, and really listen to their replies.

[awm]

I discussed this situation with my wife (an experienced bridge teacher) and her recommendation was to find a mentor who will (at minimum) go over the hands with you after the session and point out things you could've done better. Usually there are experienced bridge players in the community who are willing to help a young(ish) and keen player who wants to improve, and someone who actually played in the game might be more suitable than throwing things to an online forum (where the quality of commentators varies widely and even the best of us may not be familiar with the people or methods appearing at Young Chelsea).

[pescetom]

My club has a technical discussion group (on WhatsApp) which is primarily intended for this kind of peer review: where did we go wrong, how did you bid the slam, etc. etc.
If Young Chelsea has nothing similar (I would be surprised) maybe you could propose it.

[jillybean]

send me an invitation!
Perhaps this is what's needed to resurrect the post game bar discussions. I'm too new to the game to have participated in those.

[mike777]

 pescetom, on 2025-June-29, 06:30, said:

My club has a technical discussion group (on WhatsApp) which is primarily intended for this kind of peer review: where did we go wrong, how did you bid the slam, etc. etc.
If Young Chelsea has nothing similar (I would be surprised) maybe you could propose it.

Sounds wonderful

[pescetom]

 mike777, on 2025-June-29, 21:29, said:

Sounds wonderful

Took me all of one minute to create
The only real problem was convincing people to admit their mistakes publicly, which is contrary to Italian culture... but once people gained courage it worked fine, although a few players still snob it for one reason or another.
Of course like any discussion there are always more readers than contributors, but it helps them too so that's fine.

WhatsApp doesn't have bridge diagram support, but that is no issue as it's a cinch to post a screenshot from a bridge program. They finally added polling too, which helps.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2025-June-29, 20:38, said:

send me an invitation!
Perhaps this is what's needed to resurrect the post game bar discussions. I'm too new to the game to have participated in those.

Discussing at the bar is great, I only exp. this shortly as a student.
The problem is, fulltime work, you need to get up in the morning.

It still happens if you play a larger tournament, league matches and go eating together.
But rarely.

Its a loss, ..., the social aspect of the game is reduced.

Guided play, ..., is a method that works some way similar, ... as long as they dont
play a tournament / have to focus on getting moved.

[blackshoe]

I had an expert mentor some thirty years ago. We'd go to some fast food joint after a game and spend another three hours going over boards. Here's a typical discussion:

Mentor: Okay, board 12. Do you remember your hand?
Me: No.
Mentor: You had <blah, blah, blah>. Do you remember the bidding?
Me: No.
Mentor: It went <blah, blah, blah>. Do you see the flaw(s) in your bidding?
Me: No.
Mentor: Your second bid should have been <blah, blah, blah> because <blah, blah, blah>.
Me: <taking notes> I see.
Mentor: Do you remember your opening lead?
Me: No.
Mentor: <describes lead>. What was your plan for the defense?
Me: Plan? What plan?
...

We had hand records. He didn't need them. After a while I began to improve. I also found that I began to remember all that stuff -- and that the splitting headaches I had after the session began to disappear. <grin>