[sceptic]

Hi

I am curious as to how the experts think and play against different levels of opponents and how the decide when they sit at a table with strangers how they evaluate them.

my thought process is this (usually a mistake when I start thinking)

I see comments and questions here and the experts put on it expert opps or average opps, so it got me thinking that you must play differently against experts than you do against average players

I am also curious, is it harder to use your toys and fancy conventions against people you cant trust to bid accurately

[sceptic]

I think it is hard to go off topic here so any commebnts you have about this are welcomed

[Stephen Tu]

Lately I have been assuming opponents are mediocre/bad unless I know who they are, until I see them making good plays consistently.

How do I play differently - against bad players I am going to take more middle of the road actions in the bidding, since they are likely to just hand me trick(s) in the play if I haven't lost the board already. Against expert I am more likely to take higher variance action if I think it is better on average. In the play, the main difference in tactics is in suit combinations; in some positions vs. expert who falsecards appropriately it is right to play one way while vs. bad player you get better result on average playing them to have played a true card. Also against bad player you might delay claim sometimes if they are capable of making some truly awful discard to give you extra trick. But otherwise it is the same, you just take advantage of their mistake same as if expert made that mistake; bad players just give you something much more often. Also when you make a mistake, they give it back to you quite often. Against expert usually if you make a mistake the board is over.

Quote

I am also curious, is it harder to use your toys and fancy conventions against people you cant trust to bid accurately.

Not really. Stay disciplined yourself, your hand will be reasonably defined enough for partner to take proper action even if opponents are nuts. They will stick you with some random bad result sometimes through their strange action, but usually you are getting 2-3 tops for every bottom.

[PriorKnowledge]

Agree with Stephen Tu.

On preempts: Against weaker opps, I preempt soundly. No sense giving them a top with an easy double - Make them earn it. Against stronger opps, I preempt more freely to disrupt their "fancy toys."

[Stephen Tu]

You don't want to get too conservative vs. bad players though. I'd still preempt aggressively, just not "crazy". One of the big things that separate bad players from experts is their ability to deal accurately with competition & preemption. You still want to give them problems to get wrong.

[Free]

I'm always afraid if I have to play against absolute beginners, because I usually get either 100% or 0% each board, there's no middle road, and these beginners can sometimes do crazy insane stuff (because they don't know any better, or they mix up things). That's why I usually bid more agressive against them, to scare them out of the bidding, and hope my partner will know how to cope with it.
Remark on this one: if my partner wants me to play always the same, I'll try ofcourse. If he wants me playing solid, that's what it's gonna be...

Against experts I usually play pretty sound with some crazy moments, so they can't really know if I'm bidding destructive or constructive at a certain time. I know my regular partner knows how to deal with it, and opps usually don't know where they stand. Even opps I know for many years still don't know when I'm bidding crazy and when I'm not

Falsecarding doesn't work much against good opps, but sometimes it helps. I try to randomize my falsecards/truecards against players I know, but against unknown players I try to first gain their trust that I don't falsecard, and when I actually falsecard for once they'll believe me and make a mistake

[luke warm]

one of the only times falsecards work against the good player is when the lead system lends itself to that strategy.... journalist leads come to mind

from an objective point of view, it seems that the better the field, the more you'd want to bid with the field... with a less skillful field, you don't know what par will be half the time

[Fluffy]

Against weak players you have a bunch set of defending signals you can take use of without any danger, you always give the count on suits, always lead low with a honnor, and high without, and after count is made you have a ton of preference signals that they won´t notice also.

Against strong players bidding 'freely' might end on defending hard contracts while declarer knows a lot of the hand and has easy card plays.

[Stephen Tu]

Bidding does sometimes help a good declarer out, but IMO it pays in the long run to be aggressive. If you pass a lot the opponents aren't under pressure to make the right decision all the time. Watch Meckwell, they get in the opponent's auctions constantly. If opps are always allowed to bid unmolested and settle in nice cozy 2H/2S contract they will beat you easily.

If you are willing to get in the auction on not much, then your overcall won't conclusively locate too many high cards for declarer. He can finesse you for everything & find your partner with them .

Quote

It seems that the better the field, the more you'd want to bid with the field... with a less skillful field, you don't know what par will be half the time

Hmm, I think the opposite. As the play/defense ability of the field starts to reach or surpass your own, the more important it is to win boards in the bidding. Playing in tough competition I always remember many more boards won/lost in the bidding than in the play. Against weak competition I see more swings in the play.
Maybe in a better field it's more that the field is trying to bid similar to you, the good player, not that you are trying to go along with the field.

It can be frustrating not having field protection in a weak field. Certainly you see a lot more strange results. But usually you can just shoot for what you think par would be in a good field, and what would be an average result there turns out to be 65%.

[luke warm]

Stephen Tu, on Nov 21 2004, 06:42 AM, said:

It can be frustrating not having field protection in a weak field.  Certainly you see a lot more strange results.  But usually you can just shoot for what you think par would be in a good field, and what would be an average result there turns out to be 65%.

maybe so, maybe not... that was my point, in a weakish field you don't really know what par will be... if i'm declaring in a strong field, as soon as dummy comes down i can pretty much tell where others are likely to be, and sometimes whether they're making or not... this likely par result guides my play, especially if i'm in an inferior contract (say i'm in 3nt and i can see most will be in 4M making... at matchpoints i might risk down one out of what i perceive to be necessity - of course i might do that anyway heheh)

in a weak field, par is harder to judge... for me, anyway

[EricK]

luke warm, on Nov 21 2004, 04:33 PM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Nov 21 2004, 06:42 AM, said:

It can be frustrating not having field protection in a weak field.  Certainly you see a lot more strange results.  But usually you can just shoot for what you think par would be in a good field, and what would be an average result there turns out to be 65%.

maybe so, maybe not... that was my point, in a weakish field you don't really know what par will be... if i'm declaring in a strong field, as soon as dummy comes down i can pretty much tell where others are likely to be, and sometimes whether they're making or not... this likely par result guides my play, especially if i'm in an inferior contract (say i'm in 3nt and i can see most will be in 4M making... at matchpoints i might risk down one out of what i perceive to be necessity - of course i might do that anyway heheh)

in a weak field, par is harder to judge... for me, anyway

Do you really mean "par result"?

In a weak field you may not know what the other tables' results will be, but the par result is a function of the actual cards held.

For what it's worth, I play much the same against weak pairs as against strong pairs. But if I know a particular weakness of a weak player (eg they're scared to double part scores, or they "always" bid one more) then I may make a call I wouldn't normally make to account for that.

Eric

[EarlPurple]

If you play in, say, the main bridge club and play against the same pair continuously, you might get to pick up their "style" and play against it.

Against pairs that will always compete to the death, you continue to push them up until you are just comfortable enough to double them then extract penalty after penalty. One of my most common penalties is 500 against 3♠-X - opps with a spade fit will rarely resist bidding them as often as they can, and will compete any part-score deal up to 3♠. Of course if the trump fits are bigger, bid 4♥ and then hit them in 4♠ (which you know they are going to bid).

When you are declaring, watch if the opps always signal their count and high cards. Especially helpful to declarer at MP.