Philosophy at Pairs

[jmc]

I was kibitzing some good pairs one day and someone was commenting that how one might bid on certain boards would depend on their philosophy for pairs. Is it a war? Do we try and win every battle?

 

I would like to here people express their ideas about what this means and what kind of philosophies are out there. Do you know how most top pros approach the game? Has someone written about these ideas in a book?

 

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

 

jmc

[gwnn]

fight for the partscore

double more often (with consideration, of course)

try to play in NT or M (if they make)

try to play 5m as seldom as possible (only as a sac or if you're 110% sure 3NT has no chance)

watch the colors!

 

defend more passively

as declarer, be sure you aim for the most tricks available (even putting the contract at jeopardy - within reasonable limits)

 

Were you looking for this sort of stuff?

[matmat]

Keep Partner Happy.

 

This is especially relevant when you're playing with me. You won't like me when I am not happy.

 

:P :D :blink:

[Tola18]

Is it a war? Do we try and win every battle?

The bidding is certainly more aggressive, especially in the contested auctions. The D is more frequently both for take out and for punishment; "Double for one down in pairs, double for two down in foursome"...

 

Why it pays to be much aggressive?: The occasionally misfortune dont cost so much. Bottom is bottom and no more. Next deal please. but in Imps, when misguessed phantom-sacrifice, -1100 against 420 or even 140 /(-50!) may decide the whole match.

 

A good pair also rely on their superior dummy play against weaker oppostion. And anyone can do a defence mistake, even World class players are known to do such now and then. But a good declarer has always a plus against good but not excellent defenders: shehe sees what they try to signal - and understand this often better then the partner who perhaps dont even notices which spot it was...

[glen]

A lost battle is a battle one thinks one has lost.

Against the 1NT and 1 or 2 of a major contracts that the opponents will often score well with, compete often.

 

For Philosophy and poker players:

Life begins on the other side of des pair.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

It is a war. Matchpoints revolves around the scoring method. Beating a pair 'by any amount' gains you one matchpoint. Losing by any amount costs you a matchpoint.

 

Kit Woolsey wrote a very good book called Matchpoints.

 

To be a good matchpoint player you have to make some crazy bids. I have doubled contracts that I believed would likely make because our side rated to

get a very bad score if it made and doubling would lose few matchpoints. If it happened to go down, we rated to win many more matchpoints.

 

Regards,

Robert

[Guest Jlall]

I was kibitzing some good pairs one day and someone was commenting that how one might bid on certain boards would depend on their philosophy for pairs. Is it a war? Do we try and win every battle?

 

I would like to here people express their ideas about what this means and what kind of philosophies are out there. Do you know how most top pros approach the game? Has someone written about these ideas in a book?

 

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

 

jmc

The overall matchpoint strategy employed by most top players is to go for average plus on each deal. If you bid a normal 3N for instance, you rate to get 60 % of the matchpoints in the play and you're never risking putting yourself in a zero position.

 

The only time you should risk a zero is when you feel like you're already in an average minus position and the upside is a top. For instance, if you get to 3D, and the vul opponents bid 3S, and you know you have about 23 high cards and were likely to make 3D, you should typically be cracking them in 3S. The reason is you're likely in an average minus position (depending on the auction, the opps seem to have done well to bid 3S). This is why in high level fields you will typically see vulnerable balances and competitive bids doubled, and why the typical winning low level matchpoint player won't perform well in the third day of the blue ribbon pairs unless he adjusts (since he will get doubled a lot).

 

Partscore bidding at MP is completely different than at imps. At imps you want only to go plus on partscore deals as often as possible, and don't really care about the size of the plus. So if you can make 140 in 3S, but you get +50 against 3C, it's not a big deal at imps, but at MP it's a disaster. In matchpoints with all white it frequently pays to bid 2 over 2 or 3 over 3 since the only time it's wrong is when both contracts were down. White/white is really a green light to be very aggressive. In low level matchpoint events you can usually get away with aggressive 3 over 2 balances. The reason is that instead of doubling you, they will frequently bid 3 over 3 almost regardless of their hands. This kind of pushing them up a level will win you a lot of matchpoints in the long run, but you have to be careful against good opponents.

 

The play and defense is a lot trickier in matchpoints. Instead of having the goal to make or set, your goal is to take the line that gives you the most matchpoints on average. I really think estimating what the field will be doing is overrated, but sometimes it's obvious that you're in an abnormal contract and the normal contract will take 1 more trick. In that case you want to go all out to take 1 more trick yourself. Again, you want to avoid making plays that will give you a zero when they won't work, but in some situations you will already be in an average minus position and then you can go for it to convert it into a top. Good sound play will give you 60 or 65 % of the matchpoints routinely, and sometimes your good play will pay off and you'll get an 85 %. Defense often becomes more passive in MP, as do leads, and you just want to hold down the overtricks. Again I would like to say trying to estimate what the field is doing is VERY overrated since I'm sure many will talk about that, in general you just want to make the most tricks you can in whatever contract you're in and not worry about it. Most of the time you have no idea what the field will be doing.

 

Playing 3N with a major suit fit is often a big winner in matchpoints. If it looks like it will be right, don't hesitate to try it. Often you just have an equal amount of tricks, often they have to find the right lead vs NT otherwise you have an equal amount of tricks, and often they'll give up a trick with an aggressive lead vs 3N (for instance, leading from AJxxx which won't happen against 4M).

 

As far as leads go, again I would advise you to keep the board up in the air and try to make normal (typically passive) leads rather than heroic leads that might lead to a zero.

 

So how will you win if you're playing for average plus? Afterall, you're bound to get some average minuses as well. Well, the plan is for you to play well, and to get some random tops from gifts the opponents give you to go with your average plus. That adds up to a 65 % game very quickly.

[ArcLight]

>I really think estimating what the field will be doing is overrated, but sometimes it's obvious that you're in an abnormal contract and the normal contract will take 1 more trick.

 

Justin, you certainly have much more experience than I do, but what you say seems to be at odds with what Hugh Kelsey says in "Match Point Bridge".

Basically, he says if you are not in the "right" contrat, you don't do well. And you have to look at what the field will be playing to decide how to play the hand.

(play for down 1, or make a speculative 3/3 or penalty double)

Maybe he is basing this on play against a good field, not the typical weak and random one. I see other authors showing problems in this frame of mind as well (we need Z to score well, play for some unlikely combination)

[Elianna]

Keep Partner Happy.

 

This is especially relevant when you're playing with me. You won't like me when I am not happy.

I hope that you follow this philosophy when you are playing.

[Guest Jlall]

>I really think estimating what the field will be doing is overrated, but sometimes it's obvious that you're in an abnormal contract and the normal contract will take 1 more trick.

 

Justin, you certainly have much more experience than I do, but what you say seems to be at odds with what Hugh Kelsey says in "Match Point Bridge".

Basically, he says if you are not in the "right" contrat, you don't do well. And you have to look at what the field will be playing to decide how to play the hand.

(play for down 1, or make a speculative 3/3 or penalty double)

Maybe he is basing this on play against a good field, not the typical weak and random one. I see other authors showing problems in this frame of mind as well (we need Z to score well, play for some unlikely combination)

99 % of the time you don't know what the field will do. In textbooks there are plenty of hands where you get to your 14 HCP slam and you take a safety play since no one else will be there, or you are in 3N when you have a 5-5 heart fit and a singleton and you take a backwards finesse in order to catch up to those in 4H. In reality, it's never so cut and dried, and if it were then you wouldn't be in the contract you were in! I mean seriously, if it's so obvious that the entire world will be in 4H, why aren't you there? Situations come up in real life where you can guess where the field is and change your line of play much less often than they do in matchpoint textbooks. Far more often I see people get a zero for taking some silly line of play because of "the field" rather than just take their tricks and get a 40 % because a lot of other people did the same thing they did in the bidding.

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, your most significant choice is whether you want to go with the field or against it.

 

I'd like to contrast two VERY different ways to score well at Matchpoint.

 

Option 1: Do what the field does, only better.

 

Many players advocate that the best way to advance as a bridge player is to focus on declarer player and defense. Master the technical aspects of the game. Try to minimize the number of mistakes that you make in a session.

 

Having achieved this noble end, your goal should be to mirror the field during the bidding. Ideally, you want to get to the same contract declarered in the same direction. Your ability to consistently generate an extra trick or two on offense or defense should give you a nice score.

 

Option 2: Time to roll the bones

 

There is an alternative theory that the best way to score well is to take anti-field positions. Face it. There is only ONE best pair at the tournament. Odds are its not you. Why make it easy for the top pair to benefit from their superior skill?

 

If everyone else is playing 2/1 Game Force, play Precision or Polish Club, or any decent system just so long as it isn't 2/1 game force. You want to make sure that the bidding system that you chose will have the same expected value per board played but a MUCH higher variance. The strategy will ensure that you place in the money much more that if you played the same system as the herd. (It also ensures that you will come in dead last much more often, however, last place usually pay the same number of match points as 4th)

 

To some extent, the decision to adopt a high variance bidding system takes your results out of your hands. If you get dealt a series of boards that are especially well suited to your methods, you'll score well. If you get dealt a large number of hands that a poorly suited to your methods you'll score poorly. I'm not saying that its not important to improve declarer play or defense. However, the fact that you open a weak NT while the field plays a 15-17 is going to have a MUCH more significant impact on your score that the fact that you know how to exercise a stepping-stone squeeze.

[Guest Jlall]

Honestly, I think Richard is overstating the effects of playing an anti field system. Most of the time you will land in the same contract with the same lead and you will have to take tricks regardless of your system. Most of the time the auction will be competitive and you'll have similar decisions...do i bid, pass, or double. Sure you will sometimes have different information to base that decision on, but the good players are usually going to be getting these right in a natural system or an artificial one, so you need to be getting them right as well. And most of the time the system generated swings average out if the event is 2 sessions long. You would have to play a lot of 2 session events where you win 3 boards extra just based on playing system A instead of system B, and if you dont have good judgement and good card play those 3 boards aren't going to win it for you.

[hrothgar]

Honestly, I think Richard is overstating the effects of playing an anti field system. Most of the time you will land in the same contract with the same lead and you will have to take tricks regardless of your system. Most of the time the auction will be competitive and you'll have similar decisions...do i bid, pass, or double. Sure you will sometimes have different information to base that decision on, but the good players are usually going to be getting these right in a natural system or an artificial one, so you need to be getting them right as well. And most of the time the system generated swings average out if the event is 2 sessions long. You would have to play a lot of 2 session events where you win 3 boards extra just based on playing system A instead of system B, and if you dont have good judgement and good card play those 3 boards aren't going to win it for you.

I agree with Justin's comment that improving your skill at declarer play and defense will help you regardless of what system you play.

 

As for his comments about the frequency with which an anti-field system will have a noticable impact on the final contract; I'll simply note that this is going to be a function of the extent to which the two systems diverge for one another. Lets consider the following simple case:

 

You're playing a Walsh response style over a 1♣ opening

I'm playing a transfer Walsh response style over a 1♣ opening

 

Some percentage of the time this will reverse the direction of the final contract. The change in the opening lead can create some pretty dramatic swings.

 

Assume for the moment that we contrast a couple radically different systems:

 

You're playing 2/1 game force

 

I'm playing MOSCITO which uses transfer opening bids, asusmed fit preempts, a weak NT, and a strong club opening. I'm guessing that differences in bidding will have an enormous impact on the declarer play and defense.

[barmar]

Justin's probably right about the field. Perhaps the only significant exception would be if you play weak NT, while most of the field plays strong NT (or vice versa). A common result of this difference is that NT contracts end up being declared from the opposite side, as well as different amounts of information being disclosed during the auction (an 1NT-3NT auction in one system will often translate to several suits being bid before deciding on NT in the other system). This will usually impact the opening lead, which can make all the difference in how many tricks you take.

[pclayton]

Echo what Justin says (as usual)'. Richard bring up some interesting points, but in an event that mattered, or where T walsh or Moscito would even be legal you arent going to win the event by playing an anti field method.

 

More to the point of the original post. Try for average plus on every board but keep in mind Simons advice - the best result possible not always th best possible result. In many events, especially long events, I will accept an Ave minus if I think thats the best I can do. For instance, the opponents bid what appears to be a tight 24 pt 3N and i can tell the cards are placed well'. I wont try to anything rash to beat the hand and play pard for a miracle holding. I will defend agressively, and try to hold down the damage and tie the pairs suffering the same fate.

 

I have more thoughts but i have this new PDA thats a pain in the rear to use'

[Cascade]

The overall matchpoint strategy employed by most top players is to go for average plus on each deal. If you bid a normal 3N for instance, you rate to get 60 % of the matchpoints in the play and you're never risking putting yourself in a zero position.

Along with this I think there is also a strategy of not turning your average minuses into zeros or near zeros.

 

Just like when you bid your games you rate to get average plus when the opponents have the cards and they bid their game you rate to get average minus. It is important not to turn these into complete bottoms.

 

I am continually noticing in my partnerships that the main reason that we do not do significantly better is we make too many mistakes. So I would put avoid mistakes way ahead of any fine tuning MPs/IMPs strategies as a way to improve your MPs (and IMPs) score(s).

[awm]

You have to play the opponents to some degree in a pairs game. Winning requires not just "doing okay against everyone" -- you have to seriously beat up on the weak pairs as well as holding your own against the strong ones. To some degree this just makes pairs more random -- you want to play the boards that are fairly flat against the strongest pairs in the field, and the difficult boards against the weak pairs rather than vice versa.

 

But to some extend you can still control your fate. Some guidelines for a weak to moderate field:

 

(1) Against weak pairs, you usually just want to let them "do their thing." Don't make wild preempts or psyches against them. If you have a close decision though, err in favor of doubling them or bidding game. If half the field is in game and half isn't, you want to bid the game opposite the pair who will probably misdefend and hand you the making trick. Also weak players sometimes get flustered when doubled and go down in an otherwise makeable spot.

 

(2) Against the strong pairs, it can pay to create some action. If they bid themselves to a normal contract you will often get average-minus because they will play it correctly and much of the field will not. So some aggressive bidding that gets them out of their comfort zone and possible puts them in a non-field contract can easily pay off.

 

(3) Keep in mind your expected score against this pair when you decide your actions. For example, suppose I can choose to open with a preempt one level higher than the field (like say opening 3M on a normal 2M hand). This is usually a top-or-bottom kind of action, and suppose I estimate it's close to 50-50 either way. Against a good pair my expected score may be below average, so this is a good risk. Against a weak pair I'm expecting a 70% board in any case so the aggressive bid isn't worth it.

 

In a strong field, the advice is actually somewhat different. There will be few to no weak pairs. So:

 

(1) Against most pairs your expected score will be around average (maybe a little better if you're among the stronger players in the field, a little weaker if not). It can pay to take any actions with a reasonable expectation. You definitely want to try to win boards in the bidding, since you're unlikely to win too many MPs by outplaying the field in a normal contract.

 

(2) Against really strong pairs, don't stick your neck out. Most of the time these pairs will "do something normal" and you have some protection from the field. If they bid a borderline slam and make it, at least a number of other people will be there. Don't worry about getting average-minus sometimes against the occasional really strong pair; your goal is not to let them give you a zero. When it's close it can pay to go conservative against these pairs, since avoiding a game that fails on an unlucky lie of the cards will always give you a good score whereas bidding a game that's tough to make is less likely to pay off against the good defenders.

[awm]

Another point in response to hrothgar's post. With one of my most frequent partners I play methods that are extremely anti-field, whereas with the other our methods are fairly mainstream.

 

I find that playing mainstream methods, there are still a lot of opportunities to take anti-field actions and produce swings when I want to. For example, I can preempt on a five card suit, or open a balanced 11-count, or decide to make only a single raise on a 4333 11-count opposite partner's opening bid. Any of these create a potential swing, just as much as if I had opened a 10-12 notrump or an intermediate 2♦ bid. The nice thing about playing mainstream methods, is that I can decide on the fly whether I want to create a swing. In general when we are up against weak opposition I usually would rather be in the field spot. Against strong opponents it could easily pay to create swings (but against really strong opponents I prefer to create swings by conservative actions rather than aggressive ones). If I'm having a bad game I can try to be swingier, and with a good score I can protect it. If you play weird methods you're pretty much handcuffed by the methods on a lot of boards, forced to be in an anti-field spot regardless of who your opponents are or how your game is going.

 

So why do I play non-mainstream methods with my other regular partner? Mostly for two reasons: we play almost exclusively in strong fields (national events only) where swinginess is more likely to work in our favor than against us, and because we honestly believe that on average our methods are substantially better than the field.

[Gerben42]

The road to victory is to realize that every board counts the same, including the first one (especially that one!). To win you must take risks that rate to win more MP when they are right then that they lose when wrong.

 

BTW do NOT bid 3NT as often as in IMPs. At IMPs, for 3NT to be right it needs to take at most trick less than the suit contract, at MPs for 3NT to be right it must take the same number of tricks as the suit contract!

For me, IMP is a game where you try to get to 3NT as often as possible, MP is a game where you get to 1NT as often as possible (declaring!).

 

Playing anti-field methods make some difference also, but most of all to the variance. In a strong-NT field playing a strong NT will get you perhaps ten averages from the bidding, the weak NT might get you 5 tops, 2 averages and 3 bottoms. However on a bad day you might get all the bottoms in one tournament, which then will press very hard on your score.

 

About bidding game: it's not worth it bidding any game that needs a finesse, independent of how many people are in it (which you cannot control or guess). And if they misdefend against you and then let you make 2♠+2, that is usually good enough (better than 2♠ or 4♠ making 3!)

[awm]

Not sure I agree with Gerben about bidding game on a finesse. If it's really exactly on a finesse, then you're even odds. He's right about it not mattering what the field does, but your expected score is the same regardless of whether you bid game or not.

 

The issue is that often there are chances in the play or defense for different things to happen at different tables. Suppose for the moment that half the field bids a 4♠ game and half doesn't. If everyone makes the same number of tricks, and it's equally likely to be 9 or 10, then you'll get a 75% board if you guess right (bid game when it makes or stay out when it fails) and a 25% board if you guess wrong, for exactly average in the long run.

 

But say you make one trick more than the field. Now if you bid the game you'll always get a top -- either you make and no one else can take ten tricks, or you make an overtrick no one else gets. If you don't bid the game, you only get a top if everyone else makes nine tricks and you make ten. If everyone else makes ten and you make eleven, then you get only a 50% board (losing to those who bid game). So you're clearly better off to bid the game!

 

On the other hand, say you make one trick less than the field. Now if you bid the game you'll always get a bottom -- either you went down (making only nine tricks) when everyone else has a plus score, or you went two down when no one else failed by more than one (and the partscore bidders were making). If you stay out of game and the normal number of tricks is ten, you also get a bottom, but if the normal number of tricks was nine then you tie with the people in the field who played 4♠-1 (you're in 3♠-1) and salvage a 25% result. So it's better to stay out of game!

 

Of course, these are extreme cases, but in general when you have a close decision of whether to bid game, you can break the tie by saying "am I more likely to take a trick more than the field, or a trick less?" Obviously this depends on what you think of your own declarer play skills relative to the field, but it also depends on the defense and (especially) opening lead skills of your opponents. In general if you think you're likely to take an extra trick, you should be bidding game when it's close, and if you think your opponents are star defenders it's better to stop low.

[sceptic]

I am continually noticing in my partnerships that the main reason that we do not do significantly better is we make too many mistakes

 

Does not leave much hope for us mere mortals if you make statements like that

[MickyB]

It's probably getting a bit technical for much practical use, but at MPs you should bid game iff

 

Probability (you making enough tricks)

 

plus

 

Expected value of (proportion of the field to make enough tricks)

 

is greater than 100%. That's regardless of whether you think that the other tables will bid the game.

 

 

I think that must assume that everyone is in the same strain...if your anti-field methods have found a 4-4 fit when others will be in NT, say, your +140/+170 might be a pretty good score already.

[mikeh]

I like Adam's posts: in fact, mine will be the shorter because he has said most of what I wanted to say.

 

My own experience suggests a huge difference between strong fields and weak. Like most of us, I suspect, I don't go to Nationals very often so my 'toughest' mp games are usually at Regionals, and most of my mps is at a club or a Sectional tournament, and I am sure that these translate well to non-acbl players.

 

We have a tendency to stratified pairs in acbl-land, with usually only one flighted pair game per tournament. I have NEVER won a regional stratified pairs, altho I have won a number of the supposedly tougher Flight A events. Friends of mine of comparable skill and similar methods (usually more mainstream than mine, if anything) have had considerable success at both, and I think I know why.

 

I generally don't change my game much: I compete a little more for the partscore, I tend to bid notrump a bit more and so on but I generally try to 'play bridge'. I do the 'book' mp adjustments but I stay in the boat and play, usually, as if my opponents are not complete idiots, even when the evidence suggests otherwise. This works fine in a stronger field, because the opps will tend not to do really stupid things and they will tend to double when you over-reach, rather than to misdefend or overbid.

 

I remember good friends of mine who put together a 236.5 and a 237.5, on a 156 average, to win a stratified by four boards. Going through the hands afterwards, they scored a huge number of 11's or 12's when the opps did something remarkably bad... but it wasn't really luck. On reviewing the auction and the play, the winners really put great pressure on their opps by doing things that, against good opps, should have resulted in terrible boards... but they picked their spots.

 

So my advice is to really pay attention to your opps in a typical weak field. I am not so sure about how this should affect your bidding, other than doubling the opps more often when they are weak, but in the play, when deciding on your line, tend to go with the line that promises the biggest reward even or especially if doing so requres a defensive error. I tend to rarely insult my opps by my line of play, and that is clearly wrong in a typical mp event.

 

In a tough(er) event, playing solid bridge is usually enough to keep you in the hunt and then take advantage of the inevitable gifts (you will not win many events without a gift or two) and avoid being the donors of the gifts. Avoid the zero, unless the game is kind of blah and you need to try to turn it around. Having said that, I read that Fantoni and Nunes played 3N twice with 10 card major suit fits en route to winning the recent Blue Ribbon, and I suspet those guys know a bit more about winning tough pairs games than I do :D

[Guest Jlall]

(1) Against weak pairs, you usually just want to let them "do their thing." Don't make wild preempts or psyches against them. If you have a close decision though, err in favor of doubling them or bidding game. If half the field is in game and half isn't, you want to bid the game opposite the pair who will probably misdefend and hand you the making trick. Also weak players sometimes get flustered when doubled and go down in an otherwise makeable spot.

 

(2) Against the strong pairs, it can pay to create some action. If they bid themselves to a normal contract you will often get average-minus because they will play it correctly and much of the field will not. So some aggressive bidding that gets them out of their comfort zone and possible puts them in a non-field contract can easily pay off.

Interesting, I think the opposite. I like to preempt more and overcall more aggressively against weak opponents. When you make them use they're judgement that's when they're really screwed. And if you give away clues because of your hyperactivity, they won't figure them out in the play.

 

Against good opponents if I preempt or bid they're more likely to play the hand better and more likely to double me and less likely to go horribly wrong.

[awm]

This is a sign that Justin plays in stronger fields... :D

 

Basically there are three levels of pairs, in broad terms:

 

(1) Really bad pairs. These pairs can screw up virtually anything. Pass throughout and they may not bid their cold game. Let them bid 3NT with ten top tricks and they may take only nine. Against these sorts of people, it's often best not to take risks. Sure, they will have no idea what to do if you preempt against them on a five-card suit, but they'll have no idea what to do if you pass. And sometimes you preempt a five card suit, they pass it out, and you just go down too many... Since your expected board is a near-top against these folks if you just play "normal bridge" there's no reason to do anything. These folks populate a lot of the local clubs and you will see them in stratified regional fields, but you won't find many of them in flight A fields at regionals.

 

(2) Mediocre pairs. These pairs can usually get a normal hand right. If you pass throughout they will usually get to game if they have it (and not when they don't). Assuming there's no hard play problems they will make the normal number of tricks when they declare. Against these folks, a little action can go a long way. When they're out of their comfort zone (i.e. you preempt them aggressively) they will make a lot of mistakes. They will have trouble figuring out when they need to double to preserve a good MP score. It can pay to be active against these folks. You see a lot of these sorts in flight A fields at regionals, or on the first day of national events. These are the better players in your typical club game. Many of them are gone by day two in a serious pairs field.

 

(3) Good pairs. These pairs will often declare a hand a trick better than the field. If you pass throughout they will virtually always get to a good contract and hand you an average-minus at best. They also tend to defend well. Being active against these pairs can pay off since they will occasionally judge wrong, but they are also very capable of taking you for a number when you get out of line. These are the best players in the game; you will find only a few of them in a regional pairs field. Against these players it's hard to do more than consistently hold your own. Playing a fairly sound game usually works better than being wild and crazy. The best way to get a really good board against them is often to underbid or otherwise go for reasonable non-field contracts, because this will more or less take their defense out of the equation (either your contract is better than the field spot or it isn't, and when it is better you will get a near-top regardless of how the good players defend the hand).

 

Anyways I expect Justin is playing mostly in flight A regional or national pairs where the "bad" players are type (2) and the good ones are type (3), which backs up his intuition about being more active against the bad pairs. Having played a fair number of club games I've noticed some type (1) players and honestly it's best to just stay out of their way and don't risk getting to some non-field contract that removes their defense or play from the equation!