[pbleighton]

"If you've studied books like "Inferences at Bridge", these inferences generally assume that the opponents are playing "correctly". But flight C players don't always do the right thing, and your inferences will frequently be wrong as a result. As a result, you're more likely to be "fixed" by weak players. "

I'm guessing that Mike is already aware of this. This is a WILD, WILD guess, but I'll go out on a limb

Peter

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Dec 14 2006, 03:51 PM, said:

awm, on Dec 14 2006, 01:58 PM, said:

(1) Against weak pairs, you usually just want to let them "do their thing." Don't make wild preempts or psyches against them. If you have a close decision though, err in favor of doubling them or bidding game. If half the field is in game and half isn't, you want to bid the game opposite the pair who will probably misdefend and hand you the making trick. Also weak players sometimes get flustered when doubled and go down in an otherwise makeable spot.

(2) Against the strong pairs, it can pay to create some action. If they bid themselves to a normal contract you will often get average-minus because they will play it correctly and much of the field will not. So some aggressive bidding that gets them out of their comfort zone and possible puts them in a non-field contract can easily pay off.

Interesting, I think the opposite. I like to preempt more and overcall more aggressively against weak opponents. When you make them use they're judgement that's when they're really screwed. And if you give away clues because of your hyperactivity, they won't figure them out in the play.

Against good opponents if I preempt or bid they're more likely to play the hand better and more likely to double me and less likely to go horribly wrong.

Preempting is a double edge sword.

My opinion is that wide ranging, single suited preempts are effective against all opponents. What you lose in giving away information, you make up in hogging the bidding space. A great player will judge the auction better than a so-so player, but no one likes 3 levels of bidding taken away. There is a certain class of weaker of opponents that will overcompete as well, which gives extra benefit to preemption.

The information one gives away is partly illusory anyway. With a single suiter, its likely the play will reveal the distribution at an early point anyway, so the bid doesn't really affect the play that much.

Two suiters are a different story. You are tipping 9 or 10 cards in your hand (versus 6 or 7) and use caution against the best in the field. Unless you have good prospects of a sac, or buying the hand, don't make noise with 2 suited preempts.

[awm]

In my opinion the issue with wide-ranging preempts, as with any aggressive action taken in the bidding, is that you're reducing the importance of the play/defense in determining your score. For example, suppose I bid 3♠ when the field is bidding 2♠. A fair amount of the time, the field was buying the contract in 2♠-1 and I am in 3♠-2 for a bottom board. Balanced against this, sometimes opponents will judge wrong and I will play 3♠X-2 when they should be in 4♥= or the like. But in any case, because I made a non-field preempt decision I will often end up in a non-field spot. This will frequently give me a top or bottom board almost regardless of whether my declarer play is better/worse than the field or the opponents defense is better/worse than the field.

Of course we can argue endlessly about whether KQJTxx x xxx xxx is a 2♠ bid or 3♠ bid, or at what seat/colors or after which opening bid it is a 2♠ or 3♠ bid. The point is though, that if I know most people are bidding 2♠, when I bid 3♠ that decision in itself will often determine my result on the board, one way or another. Even if I believe that 3♠ is a better call 60% of the time, if my opponents are so bad that my expected score against them was 75% if I just play "normal bridge" then why did I bid 3♠? On the other hand, even if I believe 3♠ is usually a worse call, but I admit it works better 40% of the time, maybe I should bid 3♠ against opponents where my expected score is 25%?

[whereagles]

Preempts introduce an element of randomness. You don't want randomness against weaker opps. You'll beat them by playing straight-down-the-middle, so why give them a chance to guess right?

[mikeh]

whereagles, on Dec 18 2006, 02:33 PM, said:

Preempts introduce an element of randomness. You don't want randomness against weaker opps. You'll beat them by playing straight-down-the-middle, so why give them a chance to guess right?

One of the main differences between a good player and a poor player lies in the area of competitive judgement. Simply put, a poor player will tend to be at his or her worst in competitive situations. So getting in the face of a weak player will maximize the chances of the weak player making a huge mistake.

In a club game or a small tournament, simply taking your 75% board expectancy on the majority of hands played against weak pairs may work, but in a large, weak field, you have to try to take 90% boards or better. I speak from years of experience when I say that back to back 63% games get you 3rd overall, three or more boards back of 1st If you want to destroy the weak opps, get into their auctions, early.

[whereagles]

Poor players will anyway make mistakes in the play if they get to play the hand. What I'm saying is there's no need to push your preempts vs weaker players as much as you would push them against good players.

In a weak field you can play a solid straight-down-the-middle preempt style and do fine. You're automatically in AVG+ mode by doing so because a. you don't slop as many tricks on defense as opps do and b. opps are likely to slop tricks against you. In a good field opps will reach their par contract and play it for your AVG-. In this case you have to try and stop them from reaching that contract, with a twisted pree if necessary. (I speak from experience as well.)

Finally, a higher variance vs weak players is what you DON'T need. The sharper that peak is, the better for you because your peak is higher than opps' peaks. If you take measures to smear out that peak, you risk losing your statistical advantage

[mike777]

If the definition of level one is a field that includes non flight A players that is almost all of bridge except the very top games, yes?

[pbleighton]

"Poor players will anyway make mistakes in the play if they get to play the hand. What I'm saying is there's no need to push your preempts vs weaker players as much as you would push them against good players.

In a weak field you can play a solid straight-down-the-middle preempt style and do fine. You're automatically in AVG+ mode by doing so because a. you don't slop as many tricks on defense as opps do and b. opps are likely to slop tricks against you. In a good field opps will reach their par contract and play it for your AVG-. In this case you have to try and stop them from reaching that contract, with a twisted pree if necessary. (I speak from experience as well.)

Finally, a higher variance vs weak players is what you DON'T need. The sharper that peak is, the better for you because your peak is higher than opps' peaks. If you take measures to smear out that peak, you risk losing your statistical advantage"

Whereeagles, if you haven't done so already read Adam's post in this thread on what is a weak player, and Justin's reply. When Justin is talking about "weak" players, he means compared to him, as in the majority of duplicate players - and I suspect that I (and maybe you) are in this category

He's not talking about beginners (or Life Beginners) who manage to screw up even basic non-contested auctions and simple declarer play. Against those folks, you're right, just let them bid and play. However, against the average-to-above-average duplicate player, preempting works quite nicely. I also do it against the best players, because I WANT to randomize against them.

Peter

[whereagles]

Quote

When Justin is talking about "weak" players, he means compared to him, as in the majority of duplicate players - and I suspect that I (and maybe you) are in this category 

Hum.. speak for yourself

Quote

He's not talking about beginners (or Life Beginners) who manage to screw up even basic non-contested auctions and simple declarer play.  Against those folks, you're right, just let them bid and play.  However, against the average-to-above-average duplicate player, preempting works quite nicely.  I also do it against the best players, because I WANT to randomize against them.

Yeah, those are the weaker players I mean. Average or avg+ opps should be preempted aggressively.

[pbleighton]

"Hum.. speak for yourself"

I'm not speaking for you, I'm just speculating, based on the evidence before me

Peter