[Vampyr]

 bluenikki, on 2020-August-23, 07:01, said:

I believe you misread my comment.

Worrying about the field is relevant only in the last round.

Why do you think this?

[mycroft]

As someone who deliberately plays anti-field systems, I guarantee that "bid with the field, play better" is a recipe for success. When dummy comes down and you see that you are booked for 10%, maybe 20% if you manage some brilliancy, 5 or 6 times a session, it literally doesn't matter how good a player you are. It also doesn't matter when dummy comes down and you see that you are booked for 70+%, 60% if you butcher it.

One of the joys of playing Precision is that a lot of hands that are tricky or delicate or revealing playing a standard system are straight book auctions, or bash-and-drop for you. You get to the right contract, you're comfortable it's the right contract, and usually the opponents have less to go on. The ones that cause grey hairs are the ones where you know all the standard players are having a bash-and-drop auction, you're not, and you know they're in a bad contract. Because you either back your system and play for top/bottom, or you play the field and give up all your advantages. The worst are things like "the field is going 1NT-3NT. You're at 3♥, and you know that there's a decent shot that 6♦ is there. But if you don't bid 3NT now, and we find out it's wrong, we're playing 5♦ into a field full of +630. Your bid."

Of course you always consider the field, and what the percentages of each line is and what the payout odds of each line is. That's Matchpoints.

[bluenikki]

 Vampyr, on 2020-August-23, 09:17, said:

Why do you think this?

Because only at the end can you judge that a 45% action, say, will not reduce your standing and a 55% action will not improve it.

[Vampyr]

 bluenikki, on 2020-August-23, 11:42, said:

Because only at the end can you judge that a 45% action, say, will not reduce your standing and a 55% action will not improve it.

The post above indicates, much better than I could have put it, why you are wrong.

I am wondering, Mycroft, when you are playing to win you will of course play your system because you think it is best. But playing against the field can often produce a higher-variance game. So what about in a qualifying event? I am wondering this myself, because 2/1 GF is becoming popular here, and it is a very simple treatment to play, with few nuances or delicate auctions. When real bridge is back again, I am considering changing my system when the aim is to qualify.

[bluenikki]

 Vampyr, on 2020-August-23, 12:59, said:

The post above indicates, much better than I could have put it, why you are wrong.

I am wondering, Mycroft, when you are playing to win you will of course play your system because you think it is best. But playing against the field can often produce a higher-variance game. So what about in a qualifying event? I am wondering this myself, because 2/1 GF is becoming popular here, and it is a very simple treatment to play, with few nuances or delicate auctions. When real bridge is back again, I am considering changing my system when the aim is to qualify.

Nonsense. Trying to make the same mistakes as the field is just trying to minimize losses.

That is just giving up *unless* you already have a big lead.

Example: The player on your right has opened with a pre-empt. You end up declaring and have a 2-way guess for the queen in a 9-card fit. The odds clearly favor finessing into the pre-emptor. In the long run you win. But for some reason fields don't know that. So you risk a very bad score on this deal when the odds-on fails. That can *only* be a consideration if this particular score can worsen your standing.

[Vampyr]

 bluenikki, on 2020-August-23, 16:05, said:

Nonsense. Trying to make the same mistakes as the field is just trying to minimize losses.

That is just giving up *unless* you already have a big lead.

Example: The player on your right has opened with a pre-empt. You end up declaring and have a 2-way guess for the queen in a 9-card fit. The odds clearly favor finessing into the pre-emptor. In the long run you win. But for some reason fields don't know that. So you risk a very bad score on this deal when the odds-on fails. That can *only* be a consideration if this particular score can worsen your standing.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The idea that you would deliberately make mistakes is laughable. As Mycroft commented — bid with the field, play better.

Another thing that is important in MP is knowing whether to risk your A+ for a top or bottom. My approach is usually to take the A+ and get into the newspapers on another board. There can be different considerations in a barometer game, and this is where it will matter mainly on the last few rounds.

When you land in a different contract to the field, you have to consider whom you are competing against. If you judge the field will be in a making Major-Suit game, by all means risk your +600 for the chance of an overtrick, as your +600 will be the same bottom as your -100. If you missed a slam that it looks like most people will have reached, you may wish to play for a layout that beats the slam, but not if it endangers your contract. But if it is near, say 50/50, or the slam will clearly make, it is usually best to disregard those in slam as you are not competing against them, but rather those with you in 3NT. And of course if you are in a superior contract or got an especially favourable lead, play it safe as you are already ahead.

Finally, playing against the field is not only useful if you feel it gives you an edge; it is also a good strategy if you are in a field where your pair are unlikely to win. In this case you will want the highest variance you can muster.

Sorry for those who have read this far. This is all pretty novice-y stuff, but I thought that as we were on the subject I would go into a little bit of detail on field considerations.

[Stephen Tu]

 Vampyr, on 2020-August-23, 20:13, said:

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The idea that you would deliberately make mistakes is laughable. As Mycroft commented — bid with the field, play better.

Bah, humbug. As an above average player in most events (non national level), I think I bid and play better than most. Why should I not try to win boards both in the bidding as well as the play? I am going to back my bidding judgment on close decisions.

Besides, if I think it's close, most likely it *isn't* a clear universal field decision, and there will be people doing different things. If it's truly clearcut raise to 3nt, everyone in it, then I probably think it's clear also. If I don't for some reason, and I'm proven wrong and everyone is bidding it, I'll take a look at computer simulations to see if I was too conservative and maybe adjust my evaluation in the future for similar hands.

On this hand, people are claiming that 3nt is the field bid, but in reality OP reported half the field did not bid game. So it really wasn't a field bid.
If you think game is < 50% at MP, stay out, even if you think you are playing in a field of rampant overbidders.

Not bidding games super-aggressively when close actually backs your play edge. If you are taking more tricks than the field, you automatically beat everyone taking < 9 tricks whether you bid game or not, bidding game is overkill against those people who don't make it. And if game just has no play you also happy, and in the long run if this happens more than you make the game, you get more MP on average. It's only when game is just trivial to make and the field has bid it that you are really unhappy. If no play % > icy, that's enough to stay out.

Stretch vul at IMPs. Not matchpoints.


Finally, I'd like to quote from one of BBF legend JLOL's blogs, who sadly passed last week:

"Unless you are being ridiculously conservative, nobody ever got a bottom for +170. If you didn't bid game there are other people who won't, and some people will be going down in game or getting +140. That's the thing about matchpoints, you don't need to bid close games, there is a bonus simply for playing it correctly. However if you do bid a close game and don't bring it in you're going to get a terrible score."

[bluenikki]

If you bid to the inferior contract to match the field, it is average minus not plus. By the way, isn't it intentionally making a mistake to deliberately bid to the inferior contract?

[Phil]

The subject hand looks pretty close to me, and I am not surprised Thomas Andrews sim backs this up. I'd kick it in at IMPs and probably pass at MPs.

Regarding the 'bid with the field idea', that is good general advice, but it's a rare hand that this applies to. You have no idea what is happening at other tables (did other tables preempt, was ours the only one that did, etc..) that I tend not too worry about things I cannot control, and just try to do my best and detach from the result. You just aren't getting every close decision correct. The good news is that you do not have to in order to win.

Focus on getting the bread and butter hands right. Double when you need to. Take your tricks. Don't do stupid $hit.

[Trinidad]

 Stephen Tu, on 2020-August-23, 21:14, said:

 Vampyr, on 2020-August-23, 20:13, said:

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The idea that you would deliberately make mistakes is laughable. As Mycroft commented — bid with the field, play better.

Bah, humbug. As an above average player in most events (non national level), I think I bid and play better than most. Why should I not try to win boards both in the bidding as well as the play? I am going to back my bidding judgment on close decisions.

I fully agree with Stephen. The adage "Bid with the field, play better" is only valid if your strength lies in the play. Bid to the same contract, take a trick more, leads to a top. But if your strength lies in the auction, it is utter nonsense. Then you need to beat them in the auction.

Rik

[AL78]

 bluenikki, on 2020-August-23, 16:05, said:

Nonsense. Trying to make the same mistakes as the field is just trying to minimize losses.

That is just giving up *unless* you already have a big lead.

Example: The player on your right has opened with a pre-empt. You end up declaring and have a 2-way guess for the queen in a 9-card fit. The odds clearly favor finessing into the pre-emptor. In the long run you win. But for some reason fields don't know that. So you risk a very bad score on this deal when the odds-on fails. That can *only* be a consideration if this particular score can worsen your standing.

That nearly happened to me once. My RHO opened a pre-empt and my partner ended up in a spade slam which required picking up the queen in a nine card fit to make. If I were declaring, I'd have played for my LHO to hold Qxx. My partner played for the drop. My partner was right, my RHO held Qx in spades. It illustrated that many club players will follow rules without thinking where they come from and when these rules apply (playing for the drop with a nine card fit is the percentage action if there is no information about the opponents distibutions).

[AL78]

 Trinidad, on 2020-August-24, 02:00, said:

I fully agree with Stephen. The adage "Bid with the field, play better" is only valid if your strength lies in the play. Bid to the same contract, take a trick more, leads to a top. But if your strength lies in the auction, it is utter nonsense. Then you need to beat them in the auction.

Rik

You have to go with the former if it is one of those biased evenings where the cards predominantly go the other way, because you are not getting into the auction very often.

[mycroft]

Vampyr: I have no idea how to answer your question. I play for enjoyment, I play the best I can every day, and if I do well I'm happy. If I played well for me and lose by 100 in a 60 board match, I'm happy.

Having said that, one thing I have always said is that if you're an underdog, or if in this event "second place is the first loser", then playing an anti-field system is something to consider, as is playing a high-variance system. Sure, you'll likely do worse than you would if you played either field-standard or tight, but if it's the difference between 47% and 42%, who cares? And when the cards lie right, you score uncommonly well.

Says the person who played EHAA Landau Standard 2-bids(*) in an NABC+ Mixed Pairs, and made the second day.

I play (several) anti-field systems for a number of reasons, including:

• I feel more comfortable in a "strong minor, weak NT" framework;
  
• Until very recently my "judgement" and "table reading" was poor, so systems that "do the thinking for me" were an advantage;
  
• I'm a "decent A player". I'm not a professional, will never get that good, don't want to;
  
• the homogeneity of bidding in North America (and the vitriol when you won't just "play along") bothers me at a visceral level;
  
• My "junior bridge" was 25-30, not 18-25.

But I play some really anti-field systems, and I pull them out when results matter and I'm not going to get any playing straight up (or even my "normal" anti-field). Or in the midnights. Or when people complain about our "weird" system. Or...

* The DIC of the event grabbed me about round 6 and told me we could play EHAA, if we played the legal version (which of course we were); but we were not allowed to *call it* EHAA. After the third pro flagged the TDs and raised a concern. Yeah, there are long memories.

[mycroft]

 Trinidad, on 2020-August-24, 02:00, said:

I fully agree with Stephen. The adage "Bid with the field, play better" is only valid if your strength lies in the play. Bid to the same contract, take a trick more, leads to a top. But if your strength lies in the auction, it is utter nonsense. Then you need to beat them in the auction.

Well, of course. When did I ever say anything different? (Seriously, check my history. I have a *lot* of history railing against the "we should try to minimize bidding variance so that the better card players get to shine" (when they consider themselves the better players of course).)

I'm just saying it's "a" valid strategy. Not "the only" valid strategy. It's a very good strategy, especially combined with "don't faff about with system, spend your time learning to play the cards. It doesn't matter if your system gets you to the perfect contract 90% or 60% of the time if you can't make them", which is also a valid Spike strategy. It works better if you can convince the field to play basically the same system, but you know.

[Stephen Tu]

 Trinidad, on 2020-August-24, 02:00, said:

I fully agree with Stephen. The adage "Bid with the field, play better" is only valid if your strength lies in the play. Bid to the same contract, take a trick more, leads to a top. But if your strength lies in the auction, it is utter nonsense. Then you need to beat them in the auction.

My main point is that when you have a bidding decision, there almost always isn't a "same contract", the field will be divided. So just do what you think is percentage. Also if you are getting extra trick from opp defense mistake or your play, that wins the board already without having to actually bid the game, and staying low saves you some MP when that extra trick to make the game doesn't materialize. You only lose big when the play is trivial and a big chunk of the field is bidding game. In the long run you come out way ahead staying out of 40% games even if big majority of field is bidding it.

The only time I would think about "going with the field" is on something akin to the following:
Say you are a believer in ultra-aggressive, maniacal preempting, and think this is +EV but with high variance. Late in a qualifying session if you think you are fine if you can just avoid zeros, you might forgo some of these that you know the field won't be doing.

[johnbryant]

 AL78, on 2020-August-21, 14:40, said:

---

2NT is 20-21. I didn't think my four count was quite enough to raise. I was wrong. A favourable layout and a heart lead taken immediately by South meant 10 tricks were easy. I tend to go by the guideline that you need a bit more than 24-25 HCP to make 3NT when nearly all the HCP are in one hand, it happened partner has a near perfect hand opposite mine. About half the field were in it, only a handful went down. I think it theoretically goes down on a spade lead, but North is never finding that.

[pescetom]

@johnbryant, welcome to the forum.
But you haven't said anything yet