[lenze]

An Essay:

Lately on the board, there have been several threads regarding psyches, light openings, and wild (undisciplined) pre-empts. It seems to be the current approach. It is not, however a new approach. When I started playing 35 years ago, I too, employed these tactics. At that time, I was not a good defender, nor did I play the dummy that well. We called these tactics, “Putting the ball in the air”. On nights they worked, we would have a great game. When they didn’t, then we went and cried in our beer. Over the years, however, as my defensive and declarer skills improved, it became obvious (OK, I had some great players point this out) that I did not need to create action to get good results. I could sit in my chair and win my share. That was in the late 1970’s.

In 1982, I quit bridge to raise my family, playing only occasionally. Only in the last 2 years have I started playing again (the kids are in college). For the last year, I have had the privilege to play with an up and coming player, very willful to learn. When we started playing, I began to track results. One thing I looked at was our MP score on hands where the contract was normal. I defined a normal contract as one that 70% of the field reached. I soon discovered that on hands we defended a normal contract, we averaged 57.4% of the matchpoints. I also learned that when we declared a normal contract, we averaged 58.3% of the matchpoints. With those numbers in mind, why would I ever want to create action?

On the subject of undisciplined pre-empts, I can only say this. Against good opponents, they may give you a tactical advantage. Against poor opponents, who will be in the wrong spot 60% of the time or more, you are throwing away your natural advantage. From my experience, when I make a weird pre-empt against a weak pair, I more than likely push them to a game they would have never bid on their own, and which I can NOT defeat.

Just my thoughts. I could be wrong.

lenze

[flytoox]

Quote

An Essay:

Lately on the board, there have been several threads regarding psyches, light openings, and wild (undisciplined) pre-empts. It seems to be the current approach. It is not, however a new approach. When I started playing 35 years ago, I too, employed these tactics. At that time, I was not a good defender, nor did I play the dummy that well. We called these tactics, 揚utting the ball in the air? On nights they worked, we would have a great game. When they didn抰, then we went and cried in our beer. Over the years, however, as my defensive and declarer skills improved, it became obvious (OK, I had some great players point this out) that I did not need to create action to get good results. I could sit in my chair and win my share. That was in the late 1970抯.

In 1982, I quit bridge to raise my family, playing only occasionally. Only in the last 2 years have I started playing again (the kids are in college). For the last year, I have had the privilege to play with an up and coming player, very willful to learn. When we started playing, I began to track results. One thing I looked at was our MP score on hands where the contract was normal. I defined a normal contract as one that 70% of the field reached. I soon discovered that on hands we defended a normal contract, we averaged 57.4% of the matchpoints. I also learned that when we declared a normal contract, we averaged 58.3% of the matchpoints. With those numbers in mind, why would I ever want to create action?

On the subject of undisciplined pre-empts, I can only say this. Against good opponents, they may give you a tactical advantage. Against poor opponents, who will be in the wrong spot 60% of the time or more, you are throwing away your natural advantage. From my experience, when I make a weird pre-empt against a weak pair, I more than likely push them to a game they would have never bid on their own, and which I can NOT defeat.

Just my thoughts. I could be wrong.

lenze

I just cannot agree more. To win or to lose is not decided by those hands. I think great players have far better judgement and table sense, and solid defensive and declaring skills.

[the hog]

I re read an interesting article by Larry Cohen the other day, where he was describing the different styles he used with different partners, ranging from "wild" with Bergen to ultra conservative with others.

The reason I remembered this article was that a week ago in a strong teams match I held the following:

Kxx
Kx
Axxxxx
Kx

Pd opened 3H and I was able to bid a confident 3N, because I "knew" that my pd would hold AQ to 7 H, and a black suit lead would give me the 9th trick. Playing with my ex pd I would not even have made a GT with this because I would likely have gone off in 3H.

I guess the moral of this story is that it does not really matter too much what you play, as long as you and partner are both on the same wavelength.

I do disagree with you on light openings though. The game has changed since I started playing. In those days if you opened a big C, no one overcalled on trash. Today the uncontested auction is the exception rather than the rule. I believe it is important to get into the auction and out of it as quickly as you can on limited hands.

The other thing to bear in mind, Lenze, is "Degustibus non est disputandum". In other words, taste is not a matter that can be disputed. It would be incredibly boring if we all bid the same way, and anyway what would we old farts have to discuss in forums like this one?

Cheers
Ron

[pbleighton]

lenze writes:
"On the subject of undisciplined pre-empts, I can only say this. Against good opponents, they may give you a tactical advantage. Against poor opponents, who will be in the wrong spot 60% of the time or more, you are throwing away your natural advantage. From my experience, when I make a weird pre-empt against a weak pair, I more than likely push them to a game they would have never bid on their own, and which I can NOT defeat."

As a relatively new player (and improving, thanks in part to reading this Forum) who plays at an average club level, I will say that very aggressive preempting when not vulnerable has worked very well for me. Our opponents at our club are mostly below average to above average players, with a few poor and excellent players - median masterpoints about 400.

NV, 1st seat, we will open a weak 2 with almost any 5 card suit 3-9 hcp - thanks ABCL. 2nd seat, we want some suit quality, 6-9 hcp, and no 4 card major side suit. We open complete garbage at the 3 level NV, 1st seat with a 6 card suit - 2nd seat too as long as our hcp are low enough We are also very aggressive on weak jump overcalls NV, doing this on 5 cards at the 2 level routinely.

We have been doing this for about 5 months, about 50 boards a week. Our experience is:
1) When pd passes, we have only played doubled twice, once for a top, and once for a bottom.
2) Our major problem has been preempting ourselves, and we have adjusted 2nd seat openings accordingly, which has cut down on the problem substantially.
3) This is effective against all levels of players, in my experience. It is more effective against average and poor players. Stronger players tend to double more and pass and overcall less. However, we push all sorts of players into inferior contracts.
4) Thus far, against club competition, aggressive preempts and jump overcalls have been a substantial winner for us. So have light openings at the 1 level, BTW.
5) Ron is absolutely right on the need to be on the same page as your pd. I have another pd, typically conservative ACBL player, who expects me to "have my bid" - so I do. If I tried this s**t with her, it would be a disaster

Peter

[inquiry]

Bridge is not to be a game of chance, and people who psyche for the fun of psyching are not keeping up with the spirit of the game. In addition, late in an event, if you are out of the running, psyching to hear yourself bid is not good form either. You either give good results to your opponents hurting the rest of the field, or you burn your opponents, hurting their chances iwth your wild bid.

But the carefully timed psyche, when the bridge gods have aligned everything in your favor, is a thing of beauty. The idea behind a psyche is to make it when, all things considered, you slant the odds in your favor that it will be successful. Some view this to mean, that pyching works best as a rule, when opponents are vul and your are not (their game worth more than hittign you when things go wrong), when partner is a passed hand (he ls less likely to go nuts), and when you are very weak (more to gain than to lose).

Thus, the clown seat threads.

ben

[luke warm]

i'm certainly one of the least qualified to give my opinions on this, but that's never stopped me before

look at the best (ie, most successful) matchpoint players in history... look at barry crane's system notes.. i open most 11 hcp hands *if* it has a 5 card suit, but crane opened them all if there was a king or an ace in the hand... he did believe in getting in and getting out, but he also bid an awful lot

i don't know what cohen had to say about his p'ship with bergen, but one thing's for sure... the two of them had *incredible* success together... i'm sure it was nervewracking (more so for cohen, probably), but bergen's ideas were so hated that the acbl felt the need to "stop him"

even meckwell seem to bid an awful lot of 23, 24 hcp no trump games... this can't be considered "sound" else it wouldn't generate the tops that it does

any style can be carried to extreme, but the days of waiting for that perfect preempt, or that perfect no trump, are long gone... pairs who play that way today seem to be at a distinct disadvantage

[keylime]

I'll quote one of the greatest players ever...

Benito Garozzo: "Bridge is a bidder's game. Enter the auction frequently, you'll win more than you lose."

Crane, Meckwell, Cohen-Bergen, Sabine Auken, Shawn Quinn...the list of attacking players goes on an on. Yet, all have had great success in the game.

I'll say this, my favorite player: Surprise, not either part of Meckwell! It's a toss-up between Bob Hamman and the Nickell-Freeman partnership. Hamman's played more 3Nt clutch contracts than anyone it seems, and Nickell-Freeman's absolutely simple brilliance deserves a lot more recognition than they get. Go look at their CC from the Bermuda Bowl - yes folks, KISS still works!

[gareth]

Quote

An Essay:

When we started playing, I began to track results. One thing I looked at was our MP score on hands where the contract was normal. I defined a normal contract as one that 70% of the field reached. I soon discovered that on hands we defended a normal contract, we averaged 57.4% of the matchpoints. I also learned that when we declared a normal contract, we averaged 58.3% of the matchpoints. With those numbers in mind, why would I ever want to create action?

While I agree that tracking your results may help discover the disadvantages or not of "creating action", statistics don't mean anything unless you put them in context. One missing figure is what you average when the contract is not "normal". What percentage of deals have a normal contract?

Secondly, does your conclusion follow logically from the quoted statistics? I would imagine that on deals where there is the opportunity to make a unilateral anti-field action, there is often no "normal contract". So using statistics about normal contracts doesn't necessarily provide good evidence for whether unilateral actions are good or bad.

Gareth