[AAr]

My partners often hate me because I often go down in makable contracts. I usually say don't worry, because in (MPs at least anyway) going down in makable contracts don't cost anything as long as you get a top (or not lose anyway) because of your misplay.

HOWEVER, it seems like almost every time I go down in a makable contract, I get a poor score (in both MPs AND IMPs). EITHER: The Field is in the same contract but makes it, beating my score big time, or stops in a safer contract and makes it, again beating my score, or defends setting their contract, also beating my score. In many of these cases, I would have tied or beaten the Field score had I made it, but instead had to settle for a near bottom (MPs) or big IMP loss (IMPs).

So:

1. When CAN you expect a good score (MPs or IMPs) despite going down in a makable contract?
2. How often WILL you get a good score (MPs or IMPs) despite going down in a makable contract?
3. Is it generally better to try to be in antifield contracts when your declarer play is inferior to the Field's?
4. What are the chances of placing high in a tourney despite having declarer play inferior to the Field's?

It just seems to be that going down in makable contracts, especially games, usually costs in both MPs and IMPs. Is this really true?

Thanks!

[Al_U_Card]

Usually, bridge is 2 opps against 2 pards.......if you make it 3 against 1 then it is likely that the results will be skewed against "your side". Practice until you can make the "makable by everyone" contracts and the results will take care of themselves.

[hotShot]

At MP's you get 1 MP for any score that is worse then yours and 1/2MP foe each that is the same. The percentage your get is is taken against "number of scores -1".

So if you don't make a makable game, everyone making it will have a better score.
If a board is played 11 times, and it is made 10 times you will have 0%.
It someone shares your score you will have 5%.
Your only hope is, than making the contract is so difficult, that a lot of other players will go down to. This can save you an average score but never a good one.
If you are very lucky, the right line of play fails (e.g. a fines is not working). Your line may then go down less, but this should be very rare.

At IMPs you loose/win if you play differently than the others. Missing a makeable contract can cause a big swing. If the others miss it, you win big, if you miss it they win (of cause they need to make it first....).

So making makeable contracts should be your best line of improvement.

[muggle]

First, improve your declarer play. I recommend the book, Bill Root's "How to Play a Bridge Hand". And, of course, Fred Gitelmans' Bridge Master software, and How to Play Bridge tutorials.

If you are an average player or better, taking the anti-field action is a losing tactic. The way the math works, in matchpoints, if you make the inferior anti-field, bid that is successful 49% of the time, and everyone else makes the field bid, which works out 51% of the time, you will end up with a top 49% of the time, and a bottom 51% of the time, and end up with a net 49% score.

In your case, until you feel more confident about your declarer play, I suggest being somewhat conservative with your bidding. Be really solid with your bids, don't make borderline bids, and pass if it is one of the logical choices. My team of non-lifemasters once beat one of the top seeds in a unit KO (a flight A+ team) in a 24-board unit knockout event this way -- they bid aggressively, like they are suppose to in IMPs, and I swung a bunch of +6 imps our way by being conservative. When they went down in games at the other table, I was cleaning up with +90s and +140s.

[barmar]

Going down when you could make rarely gets you a good score. However, in MP it doesn't necessarily mean that you played incorrectly. There are often situations where you have to take a chance to get an overtrick; if it works you'll get a good score, but it could result in going down; taking the safe line of play will just get you an average. And if you're in a different contract from the field, just making your contract could still be a bad score; for instance, if you're in 3NT and the field is in 4♥ and making it, you need to make an overtrick to avoid getting a bad score, so going down is not going to make things much worse.

Often this depends on the field. In a strong field, many of the other declarers will use the same strategy, so they'll also go down and you're score shouldn't be too bad.

[kenberg]

What strikes me is that you and your partner might try silence at the table with discussion later. When you go down in a cold contract it doesn't help for partner to tell you that this isn't good, and it doesn't help for you to say it doesn't matter. In the long run nothing matters (we will all be dead) but in the here and now making contracts is better than going down.

As to whether on any given hand it really will matter if you go down, here is the way I approach it:

Even at matchpoints most of my energy is devoted to making the contract I am in or defeating the contract I am defending. Only when I am pretty sure I have the hand worked out do I risk a contract for an overtrick. Similarly, in bidding I try to get to makable contracts and let the opponents save if they choose. This sort of conservative approach can be overdone of course, but it's a good place to start.

Also, I like to sit down with the hand records after a game, by myself, and go over the hands. I try my best to assess where I erred, where I was unlucky, where partner may have erred, and so on. If you are honest with yourself this can be enlightening. In some cases, it won't be clear if you erred. For example on opening leads, many hands will provide options and experts would disagree about the best choice. But you may find a pattern to your bad results. If your partner is open to honest review, discussion can be useful. In fact it is essential if the two of you are to improve as a pair. Some partners just can't do this with any objectivity. That would be a problem.

Anyway, I recommend doing your best to make contracts and accepting the fact it will seldom be good when you do not. Deliberate sacrifices don't follow this rule of course but you still have a goal of a certain number of tricks when you sacrifice so similar logic applies.

[luke warm]

at MPs it's difficult to judge whether a person played badly or had a bad plan.. sometimes (often?) it's right to play for the overtrick at the risk of being off 1 or 2.. someone looking in from the outside might not know what you're trying to do.. on the other hand, the plan itself may have been flawed

the hardest part to me is judging the field bid, especially when everyone seems to be in love with nt (rightly, probably)

[Robert]

Hello AAr

First off I would like to compliment you for your refreshing honesty.

I have met a number of very good bridge players that sometimes make mistakes.

I also have known many, many players that claim to never have made a mistake.
None of the players that claim to have never made a mistake are correct in their view of their bridge game.

The bad news is that bridge is a game that rewards the good card player with better scores.

If you are interested in improving your scores, you will want to go over the hands after a session and 'see' exactly where you went wrong. Once you know what the mistakes are, you can try and correct them.

You again show an excellent understanding of bridge scoring. If you go down in a makeable contract. The result is normally bad for you.

There are exceptions especially at MPs. If you can judge that the other pair can make 110+ going down -50 or -100 will often get you a top or an above average score.

Remember that beating another pair by any margin gives you 1 point.
Losing to that other pair by 'any margin' costs you 1 point. A tie score results in an average one half point score.

At imps a difference of a few points will not be cause for great concern. Going down in a makeable contract at IMPS is a sin. The rule at IMPs is to 'bid' your games and then you have to make them if at all possible.

3. No. A few rare exceptions do not overturn the general rule.

You should attempt to improve your card play. There are a number of very good books that can help.

If money is a major concern, go to a used book store and browse the bridge section. For card play any book by Reese, Stewart, Mollo, Kantar, Kelsey,
Root, Lawrence are just a few of many very good writers.

If money is of less concern, go on the net and look for bridge book dealers.
I have over 400 bridge books in my collection after thining it out a bit.

For defense I like Kelsey's books. Stewart, Root, Reese and Kantar all write very good books on defense.

Do not feel overwhelmed by the number of bridge books on the subect of play or defense. One good book can raise the level of your game quite a bit.

Mike Lawrence's book, How the Experts Read the Cards was a turning point for my game.

If you see a book by S.J. Simon, "Why you lose at bridge." Buy it and your game should improve also as soon as you read it.

A very good place to improve your game is to 'not' lose points. Get together with the best partner that you can find and go over your basic bidding. Even world class players lose points because they do not agree on what a given bid means.

Keep the number of conventional bids down. A convention that is misbid or 'forgotten' will cost you more than it is worth.

4. Very very close to zero %.

MPs highly reward over tricks. If you make 8 tricks and everyone else makes 7 tricks. In a 12 pair MP game you get a score of 11 and they each get 5 points. The good(or lucky) card player just had a tremendous result by making a single overtrick in a part score battle.

Going down in a makable contract especially game or slam is a horrible score.
A couple of those results will ruin your score.

The good news is that you know what the problem is. You are interested in changing the results. Check out those book stores/dealers and get some help.

Good luck and I hope that you make every contract that you do not play against me.

Regards,
Robert

[awm]

Of course you will often get bad scores for going down in makeable contracts. You can reduce the effect of this by bidding more conservatively though. For example, suppose you bid 2NT when the field is in a close 3NT. Suppose the good declarers are making 3NT. If you bid 3NT, you lose to all the good declarers and tie the bad ones... but if you stop in 2NT, you beat all the bad declarers and could well end up with an average (or even average-plus) board. Obviously this works better at matchpoints where you are comparing against many people (some of whom are also not great declarers) and where the penalty for not reaching/making a game is not as severe. In fact, you can also win some boards by bidding conservatively when opponents make a bad decision to balance (this also happens more at MPs, but can be pretty lucrative at IMPs).

Can you win when you're not a great declarer? Sure. But to have a good chance of winning, you need to play well in other aspects of the game. If I could defend every board double-dummy, I'd take an average-minus on every board I declare and still win any major pairs event... of course this is an extreme example. It also helps if partner's a good declarer, and you can try to "turn" the boards so she plays a higher percentage of them.

[Robert]

Hello awm

I agree with your comment that 'if' you could defend every hand double dummy, your declarer play could score average minus and you would still win events.

I only see one problem with that concept. Defense is a much harder to learn part of bridge than learning to play your cards well as declarer IMO.

There are many fine card players for playing the dummy. The number of good defenders is much more limited.

I think that a person having problems 'going' down in makeable contracts will not be defeating very many contracts with the same level of skill.

I suspect that reading books on play and defense will raise the level of play in defense and offense.

I believe that the ACBL bans Alvin Roth's(a great player) old methods for playing with his wife. She was only allowed to bid clubs and Roth 'guessed' and played every other contract.

They had a string of victories on some local level. Her friends make some comments about her 'one suit' bidding. Mrs. Roth asked her husband if she could
bid another suit. He agreed and they placed somewhat lower(second place?)

The next year Mrs. Roth returned to 'bidding' only clubs.
They won again that year.

Regards,
Robert

[pclayton]

AAr, on Nov 18 2005, 11:37 AM, said:

My partners often hate me because I often go down in makable contracts. I usually say don't worry, because in (MPs at least anyway) going down in makable contracts don't cost anything as long as you get a top (or not lose anyway) because of your misplay.

HOWEVER, it seems like almost every time I go down in a makable contract, I get a poor score (in both MPs AND IMPs). EITHER: The Field is in the same contract but makes it, beating my score big time, or stops in a safer contract and makes it, again beating my score, or defends setting their contract, also beating my score. In many of these cases, I would have tied or beaten the Field score had I made it, but instead had to settle for a near bottom (MPs) or big IMP loss (IMPs).

So:

1. When CAN you expect a good score (MPs or IMPs) despite going down in a makable contract?
2. How often WILL you get a good score (MPs or IMPs) despite going down in a makable contract?
3. Is it generally better to try to be in antifield contracts when your declarer play is inferior to the Field's?
4. What are the chances of placing high in a tourney despite having declarer play inferior to the Field's?

It just seems to be that going down in makable contracts, especially games, usually costs in both MPs and IMPs. Is this really true?

Thanks!

1. When CAN you expect a good score (MPs or IMPs) despite going down in a makable contract?

When the penalty of your contract is less than what they would have had if you let them play. This is true especially at MPs.

2. How often WILL you get a good score (MPs or IMPs) despite going down in a makable contract?

I don't think you can quantify this. However, if your bidding judgement is that tight (where you are nimbly finding the par spot), then I doubt if your declarer play is that poor.

At MPs or IMPs, a plus score is always nice. I can't remember the last matchpoint event I won where I had less than 2/3 of my scores as positives.

3. Is it generally better to try to be in antifield contracts when your declarer play is inferior to the Field's?

In theory, yes. But your time is better spent trying to brush up on your declarer play than to worry about such matters.

4. What are the chances of placing high in a tourney despite having declarer play inferior to the Field's?

Do bad players win? Sure. But its because they get more than their share of gifts from the opponents, not because they were swinging against the field.

[awm]

AAr, on Nov 18 2005, 02:37 PM, said:

EITHER: The Field is in the same contract but makes it, beating my score big time, or stops in a safer contract and makes it, again beating my score, or defends setting their contract, also beating my score. In many of these cases, I would have tied or beaten the Field score had I made it, but instead had to settle for a near bottom (MPs) or big IMP loss (IMPs).

This is an important quote from the original post. Notice that a fair portion of the field stopped at a lower contract, or defended and set. I think this is a sign that the original poster is bidding too aggressively.

If there's a borderline contract available, and you're a good declarer, you generally want to bid it. Basically there's three possibilities for any contract: (1) it's making on normal play (2) it can't be made (3) it can go either way on reasonable play or defense. As a good declarer, you assume that (3) will normally go your way, so you win more than you lose. This explains some of the bidding you see by expert players from time to time...

But if you're a bad declarer, you have to assume (3) will usually go against you. Fortunately, in most bridge games there are more bad declarers than good ones, and a lot of the bad declarers think they are good. So if you stay out of the borderline contracts, you will win in case (2) and your score in case (3) will be surprisingly good, since you expect more people to bid it and go down (because they think they're good declarers) than bid it and make (because they actually are good).

Of course there is no perfect method for winning tournaments when you're a bad declarer (or bad in any aspect of the game). The best you can do is to minimize the impact of your weaknesses.

[barmar]

awm, on Nov 28 2005, 03:35 PM, said:

AAr, on Nov 18 2005, 02:37 PM, said:

EITHER: The Field is in the same contract but makes it, beating my score big time, or stops in a safer contract and makes it, again beating my score, or defends setting their contract, also beating my score. In many of these cases, I would have tied or beaten the Field score had I made it, but instead had to settle for a near bottom (MPs) or big IMP loss (IMPs).

This is an important quote from the original post. Notice that a fair portion of the field stopped at a lower contract, or defended and set. I think this is a sign that the original poster is bidding too aggressively.

This is a common situation when using IMP strategy in a MP game. When playing IMPs there's more incentive to bid close games (when vulnerable, I think game only needs to be 40%). But at MP scoring the odds need to be better to bid game.