When I was a
teaching assistant at Georgia Tech, I asked people to explain things rather
than simply look at the result and checking the work as done. College,
especially in engineering, is about learning how to solve problems more than anything else. In
presentations, I asked tough questions like why they chose a
particular algorithm for controlling their robot. All too often, teachers give a
formula and say it applies in these circumstances so all they have to do is plug in numbers into a formula (or in the case of non-math based classes, recall facts that they memorized). In the real world, things rarely if ever fit that mold - we'll generally have time to look up the formulas or facts but what is critical is knowing how to use that information. Essay
questions, particularly those that get students to put their thoughts into coherent sentences and articulate rather than regurgitate what was in the book are great and help create a strong level of understanding.
As a bridge teacher, I try to teach people what to think about during a bridge deal rather give them formulas for what to bid and what to lead. Of course, students always like the plug and chug methods because they are easier and require less brain power. When a beginning student asks if he should open 1H with a particular hand, I ask “What does 1H show? Does your hand fit that description?” When a beginning bridge student asks which card he should play, I ask “why do you want to play that card or that suit” and remind him of the few general guidelines (like leading top of sequences, leading partner’s suit, etc) and “what might happen if you play that card”. Even beginners can intuitively figure out the right plays when forced to think about the right things and visualize potential outcomes. The problem is many people were never taught a proper thought process, particularly for defense. When he asks if he should bid again, I ask whether he has already shown and whether he has something close to that, and whether his partner made a forcing bid. In bridge, what you can assume from the student varies widely depending on their level, but everyone should have some base from which you should assume they know or can figure out something and work toward something more.
As a bridge teacher, I try to teach people what to think about during a bridge deal rather give them formulas for what to bid and what to lead. Of course, students always like the plug and chug methods because they are easier and require less brain power. When a beginning student asks if he should open 1H with a particular hand, I ask “What does 1H show? Does your hand fit that description?” When a beginning bridge student asks which card he should play, I ask “why do you want to play that card or that suit” and remind him of the few general guidelines (like leading top of sequences, leading partner’s suit, etc) and “what might happen if you play that card”. Even beginners can intuitively figure out the right plays when forced to think about the right things and visualize potential outcomes. The problem is many people were never taught a proper thought process, particularly for defense. When he asks if he should bid again, I ask whether he has already shown and whether he has something close to that, and whether his partner made a forcing bid. In bridge, what you can assume from the student varies widely depending on their level, but everyone should have some base from which you should assume they know or can figure out something and work toward something more.
As a friend,
I also apparently want to try to make others think and connect the dots by
leaving out bits of information. This probably isn’t quite as good a quality as
being friends isn’t supposed to be exercise of the mind like school and work and bridge are. Basically, I don’t like telling people how to get places or trying to give them directions
or telling them what time they need to leave to get somewhere on time, in much
the same way you probably don’t like having a back seat driver or your mom
nagging you to clean your room and brush your teeth. We all have smartphones
and GPS now so we can fend for ourselves if you give us an address, right? We’ll
meet at X time ay Y place. The end. I will assume you can handle all the intermediate
steps like planning your day to meet the schedule, making arrangements with
whoever else is needed, driving, parking, taking toilet breaks, and calling if
you’ll be late or need help with something. Time and time again I get bitten by
this because some people just need the details spelled out.
While playing bridge when, it is assumed that my partner is already thinking plenty, I like to
do what I can to guide him to the right decision. Similar to the other
examples, he still has to think and process the information and form his own
conclusion. I often times hear other people say “well, I told you to lead
hearts when I discarded a high heart.” I think that is fundamentally a bad way
to look at signaling. Giving an encouraging heart signal more appropriately is
saying, “I have a preference for hearts (possibly because I have good hearts,
because I want to trump hearts, or because I have nothing useful anywhere but
this looks lease detrimental)”. Regardless, partner has the right and
obligation to think and decide for himself, based on his hand and other clues,
whether to agree to your suggestion or take an alternate defense. I would
rather partner take time, think, and come up with some reason for his play,
whether right or wrong, than to play quickly not considering the options. Anyone who plays bridge with me can tell you that the errors that bother me way more than the other are ones that come as a result of not taking time to think about a play that would be clear if you took a few seconds to analyze the situation. If you think, then you must have some rationale and if you have rationale, all is good. The logic used to get there may be flawed but it's a heck of a lot better than having no logic.
