[keeper2]

The attached link contains some advice on this from a number of people likely to be playing on the "better teams" - compiled by Steve Robinson

http://www.districts...es/2005-08.html

[lalldonn]

All the advice about don't be intimidated, focus, etc is good. I highly recommend against all the advice about looking for chances to swing, doing something weird, and stuff like that.

I mean seriously, any time there has been an upset in a match, how often has it happened because the worse team played well and maybe got lucky somewhere along the way, and how often has it happened because they were swinging and randomizing and taking carefully-chosen-anti-percentage actions? I can't think of any instances at all of the second one, which I'm sure someone will come forward with some story of it happening but overall that would be way less common than just winning because you played your best and it was your day.

[awm]

What better team? Best not to believe there's such a thing.

[nigel_k]

I definitely agree with not doing anything anti-percentage. It's one of those things that is good in theory only. You can increase the scope for swings by sending your strong club pair to play their strong club pair, but that's about all.

[barmar]

awm, on 2012-August-08, 00:11, said:

What better team? Best not to believe there's such a thing.

ggwiz already made that joke.

[P_Marlowe]

If they are the better team, than we will take anti-percentage actions all the time, every
error in card play (play for drop instead of play for finesse / squeeze) is
anti-percentage, and can cause a swing.

Trying to do anti-percentage actions willingly, assumes, that we know the right action, but
if we always know, the right actions, than they wont be the better team.

Going anti-percentage may work, if you have a team Pro pair / Client pair, and the Pro Pair
being on the same (or even on a higher) level than the oponents pairs.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[phil_20686]

So it seems like all the discussion about anti % line ignores the fact that you have plenty of chances to generate action without being anti percentage. Just taking a two way finesse differently in those contracts where there is no information but nevertheless there is a `natural' way to play the suit.

Or those suits where the standard suit combination has several variations that are identical apart from one layout. AJxx opposite Txxxx for one loser when you cannot pick up a 4-0 break, or the lack of a force rules it out, for example. Now its equal to play ace and another, or to play low to the J. (There are two KQx onside, and two stiff honour offside), but for most people playing the ace feels unnatural.

Similarly, there will be invitations which are borderline/aggressive, and against v good cardplayers it is probably % to reject them, they will be doing the opposite, and you just hope that it goes off. I do not see these as anti-% actions, they are just close decisions, that could go either way, and normally I would choose to be aggressive, as its a good style to induce mistakes, esp from poorer defenders, but instead I will choose the low road, and I know this will generate more swings since experts tend to be aggressive in these situations, esp vs relative minnows.

[Free]

I kind of disagree with Fluffy. Preempting gives away info to opps. When you increase your preempting, your opps will have a decision to make, but when they make the right one, they'll play the hand better than the other table. Even if they overbid they can manage to score an extra trick because of our preempt. I'd rather preempt less, because face it, the hands where preempts do make a big difference aren't that common. And you've got to love the look on their face when they expect normal breaks while we hold some distribution

I like to play with 2 pairs playing different types of systems, for example natural and strong club (and different NT ranges). This increases the variance slightly and might turn to our favor. For the rest just play the best you can and realize mistakes can be costly.

[pigpenz]

TMorris, on 2012-August-06, 11:33, said:

Do you do anything different when you are playing a team that is much better than you (in a 32 board match for example)?

for me back in 1991 we played Jim Becker, Howard Chandross, Mike Smolen, and Billy Miller three times in a row in one month
and won 2 of the events beating them three times. We just played normal bridge and so did they....a couple of times
they didn't take sacs which where their main downfall.

[han]

Free, on 2012-August-09, 02:07, said:

I like to play with 2 pairs playing different types of systems, for example natural and strong club (and different NT ranges).

Playing different systems from eachother does not increase variance, better to both play a system which is different from the system of the opponents.

Better yet to play well.

[ggwhiz]

It might be useful to take stock of how you play when YOU are the better team.

In my case from reading and observing what my better opponents did to me the answer is nothing. Be conservative and patient until they beat themselves.

Bear down, concentrate and manage your tempo. Stick to little actions like leading 6th best against a suit contract that are unlikely to cost more than an imp.

If you can close the ability gap and sacrifice a chicken to the card gods you can pull off a few upsets.

ps. I've seen hands where -1100 red vs. white was the natural result and a push. Tough to keep your head on straight for the next hands but that's what you gotta do. That's what they do.

[Free]

han, on 2012-August-10, 08:35, said:

Playing different systems from eachother does not increase variance, better to both play a system which is different from the system of the opponents.

Yes it does.

Suppose we play a team which plays the exact same systems (yeah I know, very hypothetically).

Case 1: we all play system A. In that case, it doesn't even matter how we sit, both EW pairs and both NS pairs are always playing the exact same system. In that case you better play well.

Case 2: system A is precision, system B is natural. First half we play at table 1 systems A NS vs B EW, same at the other table. At that moment you're again completely equal and again better play well. However, when you switch sides for the second half, you get systems A vs A at table 1 and systems B vs B at table 2. This means both EW pairs play different systems and both NS pairs play different systems, which increases the variance.

When your team plays the same system and you compete against very similar team (system-wise), then there's hardly variance. But when your team plays different systems, then you can't even meet a team which will play the same system all of the time. So while your claim is correct that playing different systems than your opponents at the other table increases variance, my claim is also correct because it indirectly increases variance as well, based on the same principle.

[JLOGIC]

Free, on 2012-August-10, 09:55, said:

Yes it does.

Suppose we play a team which plays the exact same systems (yeah I know, very hypothetically).

Case 1: we all play system A. In that case, it doesn't even matter how we sit, both EW pairs and both NS pairs are always playing the exact same system. In that case you better play well.

Case 2: system A is precision, system B is natural. First half we play at table 1 systems A NS vs B EW, same at the other table. At that moment you're again completely equal and again better play well. However, when you switch sides for the second half, you get systems A vs A at table 1 and systems B vs B at table 2. This means both EW pairs play different systems and both NS pairs play different systems, which increases the variance.

When your team plays the same system and you compete against very similar team (system-wise), then there's hardly variance. But when your team plays different systems, then you can't even meet a team which will play the same system all of the time. So while your claim is correct that playing different systems than your opponents at the other table increases variance, my claim is also correct because it indirectly increases variance as well, based on the same principle.

Case 3: Both of our pairs play system B, while both of the opponents pairs play system A. Now no matter how we sit there is always variance. So the case of max variance happens in your world when both of our pairs play the same system. Since we presumably do not get to always choose where we sit, this is the best.

Han was correct, all that would matter is playing different systems than the opponents.

[JLOGIC]

Having almost always been on the worse team early on in a big (long match), and having been able to win some of them despite that, I will just say that I agree with the people who say "play well"

Lets say a team has a range of playing from 8-10 (they are a great team, so their worst game is still an 8). Lets say your team has a range of playing from a 5-9. You have both a wider range, and a lower range, because you're not as good as them.

If you are even within 1 point of them, so if you manage to play a 7 and they're an 8, or you're an 8 and they're an 8-9, or you are on fire and play an 8 and they are anywhere in their range, you have a pretty good shot of winning. There is luck in bridge so being within 1 point on this scale will def give you a reasonable shot of winning. Think about:

-System swings (leading to playing with different information, from a different side, with a different lead, having different decisions, etc)
-Marginal swings with low EV but high volatility going your way (45-55 % slams producing a swing, a 40 % game going your way)
-Which mistakes cost. I mean let's say you make 2 or 3 more big mistakes than them as a team, but theirs cost and yours didnt matter or w/e.

There is easily enough luck even in a long match that you will win if you just play close to their level. 5-9 vs 8-10 is not an unrealistic scenario. Your job is to make sure you play towards the top of your range. That is something in your control.

Now, psyching yourself out, making mental mistakes, or even worse: DOING DUMB THINGS TRYING TO INCREASE VARIANCE THUS MAKING YOUR ACTIONS HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER EV will be giving you almost no chance. You need your hail marys to work. Over a long match. Good luck. You do not have a winning attitude.

To put into words these numbers, I think "these guys are great. I have to make sure I play my best in order to hang with them. They are better than me because they usually play near their best, and their worst is much less bad than my worst."

Seriously. Why am I not Helgemo? Because he is a beast, always. His C game is so good. He is consistent. But on this day, today, I can play like Helgemo. Do I usually? No. That's why hes better than me. But I can play at or near his level today. And then I'm 50/50 to beat him. If I go in thinkin, Helgemo is amazing maybe I'll win this long match by binking 3 30 % slams on him or purposely misplaying hands...well, good luck to me with that.

Ok, maybe you're not at the level where you will beat a top team in a spingold. Maybe we're thinking of a good local team in a regional (24 board match).

Well now there is not only WAY more of a luck factor already (which works to your favor), but these guys will have a wider range than helgemo. They might just play bad and make mistakes. There is a reason they're not helgemo too.

Your range is wider too. Focus on playing your best game, your game. I bet if you play your best game, you're a favorite since they don't rate to. And even if they do, as long as you're playing close it's not that long of a match and you will have a good chance anyways.

If you go in thinking you have to do strange things to win, then you have lost already most likely. If you go in thinking "If I play my best today, I have a good shot" and you focus on making sure you'e concentrated, trying not to give them any free imps, playing your style of bridge that you and your partner know well, that will give you the best shot. That's how you're gonna pull off the most upsets.

[JLOGIC]

Also seriously many of you probably have in your mind a much much higher standard of play for these better teams, and a much higher level of consistency than actually exists. People really do suck at bridge. If they're not superstars, they probably have bad days, and a bad C game. Everyone is beatable if the match is shortish (like 24 boards). Ok, 64 boards the very top teams are probably not beatable for most people, but other than that anyone is beatable at that length too.

I think the biggest thing for most people is to get out of their head how well people play. Reputation/hype/people only telling their good hands/etc etc definitely makes people seem better than they are. Go in thinking that they suck and you're gonna beat em. Seriously.

[Fluffy]

Free, on 2012-August-09, 02:07, said:

I kind of disagree with Fluffy. Preempting gives away info to opps.

I really doubt that opening 3♥ with 6 cards gives away more info than opening 2♥, and that's more or less what I meant. I don't mean to do silly things with awful hands.

[MrAce]

JLOGIC, on 2012-August-11, 04:54, said:

Having almost always been on the worse team early on in a big (long match), and having been able to win some of them despite that, I will just say that I agree with the people who say "play well"

Lets say a team has a range of playing from 8-10 (they are a great team, so their worst game is still an 8). Lets say your team has a range of playing from a 5-9. You have both a wider range, and a lower range, because you're not as good as them.

If you are even within 1 point of them, so if you manage to play a 7 and they're an 8, or you're an 8 and they're an 8-9, or you are on fire and play an 8 and they are anywhere in their range, you have a pretty good shot of winning. There is luck in bridge so being within 1 point on this scale will def give you a reasonable shot of winning. Think about:

-System swings (leading to playing with different information, from a different side, with a different lead, having different decisions, etc)
-Marginal swings with low EV but high volatility going your way (45-55 % slams producing a swing, a 40 % game going your way)
-Which mistakes cost. I mean let's say you make 2 or 3 more big mistakes than them as a team, but theirs cost and yours didnt matter or w/e.

There is easily enough luck even in a long match that you will win if you just play close to their level. 5-9 vs 8-10 is not an unrealistic scenario. Your job is to make sure you play towards the top of your range. That is something in your control.

Now, psyching yourself out, making mental mistakes, or even worse: DOING DUMB THINGS TRYING TO INCREASE VARIANCE THUS MAKING YOUR ACTIONS HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER EV will be giving you almost no chance. You need your hail marys to work. Over a long match. Good luck. You do not have a winning attitude.

To put into words these numbers, I think "these guys are great. I have to make sure I play my best in order to hang with them. They are better than me because they usually play near their best, and their worst is much less bad than my worst."

Seriously. Why am I not Helgemo? Because he is a beast, always. His C game is so good. He is consistent. But on this day, today, I can play like Helgemo. Do I usually? No. That's why hes better than me. But I can play at or near his level today. And then I'm 50/50 to beat him. If I go in thinkin, Helgemo is amazing maybe I'll win this long match by binking 3 30 % slams on him or purposely misplaying hands...well, good luck to me with that.

Ok, maybe you're not at the level where you will beat a top team in a spingold. Maybe we're thinking of a good local team in a regional (24 board match).

Well now there is not only WAY more of a luck factor already (which works to your favor), but these guys will have a wider range than helgemo. They might just play bad and make mistakes. There is a reason they're not helgemo too.

Your range is wider too. Focus on playing your best game, your game. I bet if you play your best game, you're a favorite since they don't rate to. And even if they do, as long as you're playing close it's not that long of a match and you will have a good chance anyways.

If you go in thinking you have to do strange things to win, then you have lost already most likely. If you go in thinking "If I play my best today, I have a good shot" and you focus on making sure you'e concentrated, trying not to give them any free imps, playing your style of bridge that you and your partner know well, that will give you the best shot. That's how you're gonna pull off the most upsets.

Amen