Anti-Odds Actions that Do Not Work: Always Bad?

[AAr]

Suppose you made an anti-field, anti-odds play, hoping that the field will do the normal bid/play, and your play is right, only that your play is wrong, resulting in a gift top for the opponents, and therefore a bottom (albeit perhaps deserved) for your side. Now...

 

1. Can this ever actually place you higher in a tourney? (Meaning, a bottom can actually bebetter than an average in some siturations?) I'm guessing no, which leads me to...

 

2. Can a bottom board actually cause you to place lower in a tourney (by at least one place) than an average? If, so, what are the odds of this?

 

2a: Also, as an IMP Question: In an IMP Pairs tourney, what are the chances that blowing 12 IMPS (the value of a game swing) will cause you to drop at least one place?

 

3: If you take an antinormal action that does NOT work out while most of the Field took a normal action that does, result in the Field beeting your score and giving you a poor score, should my partner be happy at my play (despite the result), or unhappy?

 

3a: Assuming you think your partner would be unhappy, should you defend your play, saying it was correct despite the score, or apologize to your partner saying that I was wrong and blew it.

 

3b: Assuming you do defend your bid/play, what would be your basis (as it can't be the score, since it's a poor one against the Field.) Or, say the Field that sat on your seat got lucky. Or, can I honestly tell my partner that we can still expect a good board despite my wrong play and most the field expected to make the right play?

 

4. Are players that consistantly makes anti-odds and anti-field actions at the wrong times really generally less likely to do well in tourneys than by-the-book players?

 

I do tend to make gambles that don't work while the Field is takingnormal actions that do very often, and partners don't like this. Any advice? Would I likelty do better in tourneys if I stuck to the book?

 

Also, in defense/play in IMPs, should I focus on the trick that'll make or set the contract than use a maximum trick strategy that'll risk the contract/set for overtricks or undertricks?

 

Thanks!

[P_Marlowe]

Question: when do you go against the fields / against

the percentages? When you need a swing, i.e. according

to your estimates you are behind, and you need to catch

up, or if you dont know any better.

 

If the reason is the later, try to improve, if the first one:

If you are desparate and you try something despararte,

and it does not work (great surprise), why should you be

happy / unhappy, you should be unhappy, because of the

lots of stupid things you did the rounds before.

 

If you want to win, you should choose the best bid/play

independ from the fields actions, i.e. going with the odds.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

There was an incident here in the Netherlands some years ago when a pair found out that they could actually increase their own chances of ending in the money by loosing to certain opps. I didn't understand the logic but it was something like "let's give some presents to those pairs that will get low carry-overs in round 2".

 

Something like that could in principle happen whenever the round robin selects teams for a second everyone-versus-everyone in which the carry-overs are based on your results against other qualifying teams, while your results against non-qualifying teams are unimportant. Say you lost 0-25 to a team that is now at the edge of qualifying to round 2. In the last match of round 1 you meet said team's rivals who need at least 8 VPs to qualify. They are in bad shape so you could crunch them. But by winning only 22-8 instead of 25-0 you get your 22 VPs in your carry-over instead of the 0 VPs you would have if the other team, to whom you lost, qualified.

 

It's an interesting question how one can design tourneys to minimize such incitements to "loose". Some forms, for example knock-outs, have no such incitements but sometimes one wants a round-robin structure or such for other reasons.

 

But in general it is sound advice just to play as well as possible and don't speculate about state-of-the-match. Tourneys tend to be designed so that they enourage good play, so if someone tells you that anti-odds play is attractive in a specific situations, odds are good that he's selling snake oil.

 

As for your other questions about probabilities, they depend on a lot of unknowns so they cannot be computed theoretically. One could ask how often said things have actually happened in major events.

[AAr]

Which leads me to my next question:

 

Would that 10% MP Board or -10 IMP board early, as in on the first board really hurt me as much than if I had that same board late, as in on the last board? Are good starts really that important in MP and IMP tourneys. Meaning, comebacks are rare?

 

 

So, a bad board in the first round can doom me just the same than if I had it in the last round, and should not rely on comeback results after bad starts?

[P_Marlowe]

Which leads me to my next question:

 

Would that 10% MP Board or -10 IMP board early, as in on the first board really hurt me as much than if I had that same board late, as in on the last board? Are good starts really that important in MP and IMP tourneys. Meaning, comebacks are rare?

 

 

So, a bad board in the first round can doom me just the same than if I had it in the last round, and should not rely on comeback results after bad starts?

A bad start will hurt you, if you throw another 1-2 bad boards

after the first one.

The thing to learn is, that one has to focus on the board

in front, and to forget the last one.

 

People quite often forget, that other pairs as well will have

disasters, they will occur, and it does not matter if they occcur

in the beginning, in the middle or at the end.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[AAr]

So, even after a bad start, normal by the book play is still usually better in the hopes that at least some of the field opponents will make bad decisions and the field disasters are made by field opponents and not field teammates?

 

Then again, it does seem like my good plays are only awarded with average boards while by bad plays are penalized with bad boards, but I guess I can't control what the other tables do. I guess I can only hope that when I make a good play, the opponents in other tables won't, and if I make a bad play, that the opponents in other tables will also make the same play or (if I'm really lucky) even worse plays.

 

Perhaps I should stop looking at the Movie in tourneys until the end of them. B)

[Gerben42]

1. Can this ever actually place you higher in a tourney? (Meaning, a bottom can actually bebetter than an average in some siturations?) I'm guessing no, which leads me to...

 

Not actually higher in the tournament, but higher in the prizes for example. Consider a weekend MP tourney where on Saturday you have qualification, on Sunday A&B final with carryover. If a few boards before the end you are almost on the last qualification spot, it can be better to throw a board so that you can instead have the largest carryover for B (and play for the €200 prize rather than be in a almost hopeless position for the top places in A where the first prize is €500).

 

In the actual case Helene talked about it was a system where the 4 best out of 6 results count, and there was just 1 final to qualify for. In the 6th match the pair in question were not going to improve on their score, so their idea was: If we give points to pairs that have already qualified for the final, they will get the top places in the last heat and our fellow contenders won't get these top places, so we will qualify.

 

Sportsmanlike dumping is very common and it is hard to make regulations that rule it out in multiple-round structures.

 

2. Can a bottom board actually cause you to place lower in a tourney (by at least one place) than an average? If, so, what are the odds of this?

To your other questions: Unless you are way ahead or way behind, the odds of dropping at least one rank because of a mistake is almost 100%.

 

3: If you take an antinormal action that does NOT work out while most of the Field took a normal action that does, result in the Field beeting your score and giving you a poor score, should my partner be happy at my play (despite the result), or unhappy?

 

There can be situations where your non-field action can be good and not work out (i.e. you are the only pair in a 80% slam but it fails). However if you take an inferior line and it does not work, that is simply a mistake.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

Perhaps I should stop looking at the Movie in tourneys until the end of them. B)

Another point is, where do you play.

Your comment indicates BBO tourneys,

but the field in BBO tourneys is quite

inhomogenious, i.e. you have a large luck

factor, quite often, pickup partnerships

play there.

 

You should focus on improving your bridge

and the understanding with your partner (!!!),

and if you have a run, you will win in this kind

of tournament.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[AAr]

Actually, I stick with Indy Tourneys. I just always, FSR, fell more comfortable in Indys than in Pairs. Than again, I am a beginner skill level.

 

I also feel more comfortable with and against beginners and intermediates than with/against advanceds and experts. It seems like the beginners, although they may not be as good as, they usually are (or at least seem to be) more polite than the experts.

 

Should I stick to the MBC instead of tourneys if I feel more comfortable with and against beginners and intermediates, as that'd be where I'd be more likely to find beginners?

[helene_t]

Oh that's another issue.

 

Play wherever you feel more comfortable. You'll find some advice in this thread.

[Free]

1. Can this ever actually place you higher in a tourney? (Meaning, a bottom can actually bebetter than an average in some siturations?) I'm guessing no, which leads me to...

Maybe in some early stage, for example in a swiss. If you start off poorly you'll play the entire tournament against relatively weaker players than if you start off with a good score. This may lead to better results.

However, in a normal movement it won't help at all. Maybe like Helene says, you can have some advantage between rounds (which is basically the same principle with my swiss-example).

 

2. Can a bottom board actually cause you to place lower in a tourney (by at least one place) than an average? If, so, what are the odds of this?

Playing a normal MP tournament, it will place you lower for sure. Your score of an individual board will be added to your total, but some scores will be better than average and some will be worse. If you could've made 100% and you gain 0% on 1 board, you drag your average down...

Once again: in swiss movement you might get weaker opponents because of an early mistake, you it doesn't necessarily place you lower in the end.

 

2a: Also, as an IMP Question: In an IMP Pairs tourney, what are the chances that blowing 12 IMPS (the value of a game swing) will cause you to drop at least one place?

100%. Not everyone will be in this vulnerable game, so you already lose to them. But the big bucks you'll lose against people who bid and make the game with a safe line of play.

 

3: If you take an antinormal action that does NOT work out while most of the Field took a normal action that does, result in the Field beeting your score and giving you a poor score, should my partner be happy at my play (despite the result), or unhappy?

He should never be happy, that's for sure, but depending on the situation he can be anything from "very unhappy" to "ok with it".

 

3a: Assuming you think your partner would be unhappy, should you defend your play, saying it was correct despite the score, or apologize to your partner saying that I was wrong and blew it.

Just explain why you did it, admit that it didn't turn out ok, and get to your next board...

 

3b: Assuming you do defend your bid/play, what would be your basis (as it can't be the score, since it's a poor one against the Field.) Or, say the Field that sat on your seat got lucky. Or, can I honestly tell my partner that we can still expect a good board despite my wrong play and most the field expected to make the right play?

My basis would be the reason WHY I did it, not the result. If your reasons are good, your partner can't be mad at you. But if you pull this off because of the wrong reasons, then maybe he can explain you later why you shouldn't do such things B)

 

4. Are players that consistantly makes anti-odds and anti-field actions at the wrong times really generally less likely to do well in tourneys than by-the-book players?

Yes. Odds are odds, and in the long run they'll be right. Going against them will result in poor results in the long run. You might try to get an edge by going against the odds on 1 board, and if you're lucky you'll get your edge (and stop playing anti percentage now, because it won't work next time). Just don't keep doing this at every opportunity!

[P_Marlowe]

Actually, I stick with Indy Tourneys. I just always, FSR, fell more comfortable in Indys than in Pairs. Than again, I am a beginner skill level.

 

I also feel more comfortable with and against beginners and intermediates than with/against advanceds and experts. It seems like the beginners, although they may not be as good as, they usually are (or at least seem to be) more polite than the experts.

 

Should I stick to the MBC instead of tourneys if I feel more comfortable with and against beginners and intermediates, as that'd be where I'd be more likely to find beginners?

Do you want to improve, do you care about the

results?

 

If you play only with beginners you wont improve,

and naturally you dont have chances to win consistently.

Even playing Indies, you need a fair knowledge

about standard bidding behaviour to survive.

 

To improve you need a partner, bridge is a

partnership game, repeat it, a partnership game.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe