Gifts: Why are they so bad?

[AAr]

Two Questions: (Edited for grammar)

 

1. Why are partners rarely happy when I make an odd, stupid, anti-odds, and/or anti-field decisions in bidding and play that doesn't work when the Field is making normal decisions that DO work? Sure we're getting a bottom, but if my play works when the normal bid/play doesn't, I might've gotten a top!

 

2. Why do players that get bottom boards by giving the opponents gift tops very rarely do well in tourneys? I know bottoms are bad in tourneys, and bottoms are worse than averages but aren't tops better than average.

 

So, in general, is it best to always make normal bids and plays and try to do what you think the rest of the Field will do, when in any doubt at all? And, are bottoms really things to avoid in tourneys, MBC, or whatever? So, it consistantly going for and getting 60% boards but avoiding getting the occasional bottom (taking the 40% board if the normal action is wrong) better going for tops at the risk of getting bottoms?

 

It seems like bottoms are bad for both partnership morale, keeping partners happy, and your chances of winning tourneys? Is that true?

 

Thanks!

[Kalvan14]

All the answers are yes, without any minimum doubt.

Bottoms are bad; spinning the wheel very often to get a top or a bottom is bad; partner's confidence is one of the most important things in bridge.

 

Playing against the field is not wrong in itself, but:

- most of the times (3 times out of 4? 4 times out of 5? 5 times out of 6?) the field is playing according to the best odds. If you want to play always against the odds, bridge is not a good game.

- in general, the field results benefits the most consistent players: even in a lay-down contract there is always someone who does not reach it, or plays against the odds, or makes a mistake.

- tops (in general) are a present you receive from oppos. Bottoms are earned.

- if you get a bottom, and spin the wheel to get a top, odds are you get another bottom.

 

I know it sounds like popular wisdom. But it works.

[ochinko]

A 50% board may look average, but it actually is a good score, because it preserves your chances to win the tourney. If you score 60% in the next, you are in a pretty good position with 55%. You should be concerned more with not falling below 50% than to strive for tops.

 

Compare it with two swings where the first one is 5%, next one you thought would compensate, yet it turns out to be only 85%, and you have a lousy total of 45%.

 

It is not surprising that a more experienced partner would be displeased by a recipe for disaster move from you even if it turns out right this particular time. They know that in the long run anti-percentage decisions doesn't pay off.

[Free]

If you only have some averages and a top now and then because opps mess up, then you're doing great! Even 40-45% hands may be a decent score, since you just got an average on the board, you're with the hurd. The same amount of time you get 55-60% for similar averages where more people mess up. Your tops get you to the sky. You don't need to risk yourself to get tops too much, but when there's a reasonable chance for success I think you should take it.

 

First one from a tourney yesterday (rotated for convenience):

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=s3ht3dakj5caq9642&s=saq74hak62dq43ck7]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

South has enough precision to know North has x-xx-AKJx-AQxxxx. Should you bid grand and hope for a 3-2 ♣ split, or is 6NT enough?

We bid 6NT, +1, for 72,4%. I rest my case.

[geller]

spinning the wheel very often to get a top or a bottom is bad;

 

Yes, but the oppts can force you into a top or bottom situation at match-points. Say it's your hand for 3♥ and with both vul they push onto 3♠. If you think this won't be bid at most other tables, and if you think they'll probably be down you get a poor score for +100 versus your +140 in 3♥, so you have to double.

 

Of course your analysis of whose hand it is could be wrong.... But the oppts have forced you into this top or bottom situation.

[kenberg]

In your first question you ask, if I may rephrase only a little, "Why are partners not happy when I do something stupid?" It's hard to know how to answer this. Taking the post as a whole however, the topic seems to be whether one should never, sometimes, or frequently take some sort of flyer.

 

Many years ago I read an interview with Dorothy Hayden Truscott where she discussed her long term partnershio with B Jay (Mr.) Becker. Early on he told her (something like) "You have to quit psyching. If it works, people think we are wired. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work". So neither ever psyched. She went on to comment on an advantage "Whenever the bidding got strange, I knew it was not Mr. Becker."

 

Partnerships can take many forms. Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton come to mind. Or Bill and Hillary. Me, whether it's marriage or bridge, I like to have some idea of what my partner is doing and some confidence that we are doing it together.

 

Ken

[barmar]

It has been said that the way to do well in bridge is to minimize your mistakes. Sure, learning how to execute an end-play or squeeze is useful, but the hands where these are required (especially squeezes) don't come up all that often. But opportunities to do something stupid are all over the place.

 

It sounds like you're trying to make up for the gifts you've given away by trying for brilliancy on other boards. In the long run I think that's a losing strategy. Aim to avoid below-average boards in the first place, and the tops will generally take care of themselves (there are plenty of opponents out there throwing tricks at you, just remember to take them when they're offered).

[Al_U_Card]

Along the same line, there is usually only one or a few ways to succeed but about a billion or so others. btw antipercentage lines if they work half the time give you 50%. With a 50% game, are you going to win, or even place? Getting fixed happens so don't add to the problem.

[Stephen Tu]

It's OK to play an anti-field style at matchpoints, and generate many tops & bottoms, but you have to be good at it, and only do it when the odds are tilted in your favor. Barry Crane, considered the best MP player of all time, was the master at this, lots of tops/bottoms, but twice as many tops, so his scores were usually good. If you are doing this, but are fighting on the wrong end of the odds, you get twice as many bottoms, and your scores will be terrible. It's right to swing for top/bottom at MP if you think your action will work favorably close to 2 out of 3 times, with the odds. That way you think you'll average 66% on average, which is good enough to win most long events, & you'll score higher than taking the 55-60 you expect taking a less swingy action. (A good player expects to get better than average even on "normal" actions, by avoiding mistakes & taking advantage of opponent's mistakes later in the hand). On the other hand, if you are anti-odds & expect your swingy action to backfire 2/3 of the time, then that's averaging only 33%, and you would have been much better off just taking an average or even average-minus result if your opponents have found a good spot.

 

If you are purposely taking anti-odds decisions even though you know they are anti-odds, then that is just silly & will kill your score & your partnerships. Good players only purposely go anti-odds near the end of an event, when they know they are behind & need to generate a swing, and are willing to risk usually losing by more for a chance to win. And even then they look for close to 50-50 decisions to swing on, rather than going hugely anti-percentage. (In a pairs MP event, they only swing if close to the top & going for the win; doing so randomly when far behind with no chance to win is unsporting. And even this is rare because it's often hard to know exactly where you stand, silly to swing when you were really leading and a normal board would have won you the event!)

 

As a beginner/intermediate, it's going to be hard for you to have a good feel about when an anti-field decision is actually with the odds. So you are better off just trying to minimize mistakes. You can crush your peers this way, just playing totally normally, since mistakes are very numerous. Watching intermediates play you often see multiple mistakes per board, extra tricks being traded back & forth between declarer & defense. Watching experts play, often there is no trick-costing mistake, and if there is one, usually the board is immediately decided because one side takes the advantage & doesn't give it back. At the intermediate level if you can just take the trick handed to you, and not give it back later, and just take all the tricks due you if no gift, you will do very well.