Pessimist Vs Optimist

[zasanya]

In another thread some very knowledgable posters mentioned that they feel that their 'pessimist' outlook could be a weakness at the bridge table.At least one of them seemed to imply that conservative bidding is pessimistic and pessimists do not double their opponents as often as they should.

Q.1 How does one define a pessimist or optimist attitude?

Q.2 Which attitude would win "in the long run?"

[kenberg]

I suppose you could try to quantify Q1 by having a person say whether he more often gets bad results from being in 3 making 4 or in 4 making 3. Or, in mps, whether he more often gets a bad result by playing safely for contract when an overtrick was available or by going down trying for the overtrick when playing safely for the contract would have been right.

 

I have found myself to be very resourceful at finding ways to get bad results with a variety of techniques but I think I am pessimistic when it comes to balancing (I often pass it out, sometimes right, sometimes wrong) and optimistic about bidding 3NT in fourth seat, after first seat preempts and two passes, with shaky or non-existent stoppers (sometimes right, sometimes ridiculous).

 

Few of us are unmitigated optimists or pessimists. I guess it was W C Fields who noted "Sometimes you just have to take the bull by the tail and face the situation". This seems to be a useful approach to bridge hands.

[BillHiggin]

Q.1 I don't try to define this scale because it seems too one dimensional to me. Poker players use more two dimensional descriptions like "tight aggressive". A similar term I like for bridge is "controlled aggression".

 

However, I know a B/I player who always seems to plan play according to "how best to get out for down one" - a true pessimist.

 

Q.2 I think balance is most important. If one player is too aggressive (optomistic), his partner will be forced to adopt a more conservative style or forever overbid. But a cautious bidder will, over time, force his partner to become too aggressive. A balanced partnership will have nearly equal aggression by both (slightly optomistic) and that seems best.

[Trumpace]

In another thread some very knowledgable posters mentioned that they feel that their 'pessimist' outlook could be a weakness at the bridge table.At least one of them seemed to imply that conservative bidding is pessimismistic and pessimists do not double their opponents as often as they should.

Q.1 How does one define a pessimist or optimist attitude?

Q.2 Which attitude would win "in the long run?"

I would define pessimist as one who thinks that the odds in his favour are not as high as they actually are.

 

The optimist thinks that the odds in his favour are higher than they actually are.

 

If say, playing rubber bridge with a limited bankroll, both will become bankrupt eventually, but my guess is that the optimist will get to zero before the pessimist does.

[barmar]

What is it we're calling an optimist versus a pessimist? The IMP scale suggests that you should bid vulnerable 40% games. Are you an optimist if you bid games that are worse than 50%, or do you have to go below this 40% to be considered an optimist?

[Trumpace]

What is it we're calling an optimist versus a pessimist? The IMP scale suggests that you should bid vulnerable 40% games. Are you an optimist if you bid games that are worse than 50%, or do you have to go below this 40% to be considered an optimist?

You have to go below 40% to be considered optimistic...

[Guest Jlall]

I think optimists are definitely the big winners in bridge, it's not really close. I've never heard of people winning events from making several great stops in 2D.

[Trumpace]

I think optimists are definitely the big winners in bridge, it's not really close. I've never heard of people winning events from making several great stops in 2D.

By "optimistic" do you mean "aggresive" ?

 

I think, by definition, an optimist believes his luck is good.

[joshs]

What do you call expecting bad things to happen to you, but expecting even worse things to happen to your opponents???

[zasanya]

What is it we're calling an optimist versus a pessimist?  The IMP scale suggests that you should bid vulnerable 40% games.  Are you an optimist if you bid games that are worse than 50%, or do you have to go below this 40% to be considered an optimist?

You have to go below 40% to be considered optimistic...

But how can you calculate the % with any accuracy before the dummy hits the table?During bidding you have general guidelines but it is impossible to calculate the % with any accuracy.Suppose the bidding goes 1NT-3NT.Now all you know is that declarers side has 24+points but probability of the contract making on that particular deal will range from 0 to 100.One bids the game simply because statistics tells you that over a period of time you will come out with a plus so the terms optimist /pessimist dont apply here.

My personal definition of an optimistic bridge player is somebody who makes plays or bids on even when she knows she will need more than a fair share of luck

on that deal.Such an outlook should not prove to be successful yet most experts advocate optimistic attitude.Jlall's post just confirms it.

[barmar]

But how can you calculate the % with any accuracy before the dummy hits the table?During bidding you have general guidelines but it is impossible to calculate the % with any accuracy.Suppose the bidding goes 1NT-3NT.Now all you know is that declarers side has 24+points but probability of the contract making on that particular deal will range from 0 to 100.

But you're not calculating the odds of that particular deal (since you can't see all the cards), you're only concerned with the odds of all deals consistent with the auction. Thus, the odds of making 3NT go up with the number of points your side has. I don't know the actual odds, but I imagine that it's something like 50-60% when you have 26 HCP. Of course, this is a statistical average -- any particular hand will deviate from it. You can't tell from an auction like that that you have an unprotected suit that's breaking 5-3 or 6-2; on the other hand, the suit could block so the defenders can't take all their tricks.

 

The basic idea is that you use the auction to gather clues about partner's hand, to determine which contracts have an appropriate chance to make. All the general rules we learn as beginners (e.g. you should have an 8-card fit and around 26 HCP to bid game in a major) come from the odds that have been discovered or calculated over the years.

 

Given this, someone would be considered aggressive or optimistic if they routinely and intentionally bid to contracts that are against the odds, given the information they gained from the auction.

[pclayton]

I think optimists are definitely the big winners in bridge, it's not really close. I've never heard of people winning events from making several great stops in 2D.

Completely agree.

 

There are times to hold back, but much of your gains come from overbidding, not underbidding.

[Free]

Optimist in bidding, pessimist in play! Balanced out :)

[jdonn]

Lucky in cards, unlucky in love...

[zasanya]

Given this, someone would be considered aggressive or optimistic if they routinely and intentionally bid to contracts that are against the odds, given the information they gained from the auction.

If I read you correctly optimists/aggressive players bid/play against the mathematically calculable odds.I fully agree.

Then how can optimism/aggression be profitable?

[mikeh]

As a frequent pessimist, but much more effective optimist, I concur with Justin's comments.

 

As for what makes me pessimistic, and thus ineffective far too often:

 

1) it is NOT a decision as to whether to bid a close game or slam... I don't miss many reasonable games or good slams (note the difference... I am happy to stay out of a slam that needs, for example, a 4-1 or 3-2 trump break plus a finesse... this is less than 50%. I'd usually bid those games, even white and always red (I am talking about imps here, obviously)

 

2) it is OFTEN a decision in a competitive auction. How high to preempt, whether to bid aggressively over their strong 1N opening, whether to bid one more in a high level auction.

 

3) it is sometimes a failure to double, but I rarely lose imps when I don't double... altho I often fail to win imps... not quite the same thing, but important if my team is behind or outgunned

 

4) all of this comes through visualization of the cards... and I tend to 'see' bad layouts for my side. And, most importantly, I tend to overestimate the chances of the opps doing the wrong thing.

 

I think, and I may be kidding myself, that my 'visualization' is not the real problem, because I don't focus only on the bad possibilities. The real problem is the assumption that the opps will take the optimum course, for them. In real life, especially if you have confident table presence, the opps (who are also operating with imperfect data) will do the sub-optimum thing sufficiently often as to make the aggressive move, perhaps wrong or neutral double-dummy, the strong winner in the long run.

 

And I 'know' this intellectually. It is the difference between trying to play error-free bridge and trying to maximize opponents errors. Focusing on error-free bridge was, I think, a winner 30-40 years ago, when even top players made lots of what we would now term bidding errors (bidding has come a long way) but isn't anymore. But knowing it intellectually and applying it at the table is one of my biggest problems.

 

BTW, playing optimistically is a LOT more fun as well :)

[Trumpace]

Given this, someone would be considered aggressive or optimistic if they routinely and intentionally bid to contracts that are against the odds, given the information they gained from the auction.

If I read you correctly optimists/aggressive players bid/play against the mathematically calculable odds.I fully agree.

Then how can optimism/aggression be profitable?

There is the assumption here that we are in an ideal world i.e. defenders defend perfectly etc.

 

So even though the odds of making a game might be 40%, you actually make the game more than 40% time. Also, (I think) most of the events are not long enough for the "against the odds" to manifest (if you are not overly optimist), even in an ideal world.

 

An optimist, if he goes plus, will likely have a bigger plus than the pessimist or even the realist.

 

People seem to be considering only optimism as being only during the bidding (I call that aggression, not optimism). Optimism during the playing of the cards is definitely a losing choice.

[1eyedjack]

I am an optimist when playing against bad players. A pessimist when playing against good players.

[mikeh]

 

 

People seem to be considering only optimism as being only during the bidding (I call that aggression, not optimism). Optimism during the playing of the cards is definitely a losing choice.

I disagree, at least in part.

 

If you mean that, at imps, playing safe for the contract, I agree (within reason.. there are times it is correct to risk a contract, especially a partscore, for an overtrick or two). But sometimes you are in a terrible contract and, if undoubled, it is often best to assume the optimistic approach that the cards lie well for you.

 

And at mps, in a big field, unless you are having a tremendous session, it is often useful to take chances in order to maximize your matchpoints... if you need a few good boards, for example.

 

But, on the whole, I agree: I see a lot of players who attack declarer play, at any form of scoring, as if the object were to win the most tricks possible... and that is a losing approach.

[Trumpace]

 

 

People seem to be considering only optimism as being only during the bidding (I call that aggression, not optimism). Optimism during the playing of the cards is definitely a losing choice.

I disagree, at least in part.

 

If you mean that, at imps, playing safe for the contract, I agree (within reason.. there are times it is correct to risk a contract, especially a partscore, for an overtrick or two). But sometimes you are in a terrible contract and, if undoubled, it is often best to assume the optimistic approach that the cards lie well for you.

 

And at mps, in a big field, unless you are having a tremendous session, it is often useful to take chances in order to maximize your matchpoints... if you need a few good boards, for example.

 

But, on the whole, I agree: I see a lot of players who attack declarer play, at any form of scoring, as if the object were to win the most tricks possible... and that is a losing approach.

If you are in a terrible contract, say a 30% vul (spade) game and say you can try making the contract at the risk of down 2 or you can take a 100% line for down 1.

 

If you play to make the contract, your expected score is 620*0.3 - 200*0.7 > 0

 

The odds favour playing to make the contract. Try to make the game is going with the odds.

 

Of course, the calculation of the odds varies with the scoring and state of the match comes into play etc, but the point is, it is not optimism to try and make the contract in the above case, it is realism (after all, you are going with the odds).

 

Optimism would be to try and risk down 3 doubled in order to make a 5% game.

[BillHiggin]

Lucky in cards, unlucky in love...

When I was 40, I married a very pretty lady in her late 20's. No wonder my chances of earning a star are near non-existant. O well - I made the right choice!

[awm]

Seems obvious that this kind of thing depends on the situation and how you mean pessimist and optimist. What I have noticed though:

 

It pays to be optimistic in competitive bidding situations, and in bidding games. The point is that bridge is a tough game, and even the best opponents make mistakes. Even if you bid a game which is (strictly speaking) against the odds, sometimes your opponents make a bad lead or misdefend and you make anyway. Sometimes when you compete over the opponents 4♠ opening and you rate to go for 800, they forget to double you. The point is that you shouldn't assume opponents will always make the right decisions.

 

It pays to be pessimistic with regard to grand slams. Some of this is that people don't always calculate odds correctly -- there are often "weird" lies of the cards that defeat your contract which combine to a surprisingly high percentage to fail. But even calculating correctly, the IMP odds for bidding a grand assume that they bid small slam at the other table. Sometimes the other table stops in game, and then you feel like a moron going down in a grand slam. I think it was Barry Crane who told his teammates never to bid grand slams at swiss.

 

I find that it pays to be pessimistic on opening lead. What I mean is, I find that I'm better off not trying to be a hero and find some brilliant lead which might be "the only lead to set the contract" but rather try not to be the goat who makes "the only lead to let the contract make." Some of this is a corollary to the first rule -- if opponents are optimistic in game bidding they will probably bid a fair number of games that just have no play, and setting these routinely will serve me better than heroics.

[kenberg]

A rose by any other name...

 

On another thread there was a discussion along the following lines: partner opens 1N, you hold someting like Jxxxx/Qxxxxx/x/x (or maybe the Q and J were reversed). Some drove to game, some invited game, some transferred to hearts and passed. Justin, who advocates optimism, advocated transfer and drop. I agreed, describing myself as a pessimist. In fact, partner has three hearts, they split 2-2, and a spade finesse works. Ten tricks. Call it optimism, call it crazy, call it whatever, bidding 4 works. I describe transferring to 2H and passing as pessimistic. It sounds like a reasonable use of the word.

 

Here is a play situation: You hold AT9xxx of hearts. Partner holds Kx. Diamonds and spade tricks aplenty are available for the taking. You have a stiff club, partner has two. You are in 4H at mps. You ruff the second club, you play K then ace of hearts, everyone follows. If you play another heart and they split, you make five. If they don't split, you go down. If you abandon trump and start cashing winners you make exactly four, no question. Optimism? Pessimism? Desire to roll the dice? What should we call it? (Yes, 6D is cold but you cannot do anything about that now. I will put it up for bidding comment on its own thread. We were in 5H. Our luck was in.)

[han]

Here are two similar situations where I think an optimistic view is best:

 

Sometimes you have to chose between a value bid that doesn't describe your hand or an overbid that does do justice to your hand. For example playing 2/1 and holding x Axxx AQ10xxxx xx after partner opens 1S. Here I think that it is right to force to game, even if that means that you might end up too high when partner has a misfit. If you start with 1NT then you won't be able to show your hand.

 

Sometimes you know game will be really good if partner has a good fitting minimum, yet quite bad if partner has a bad fit with extras. If you cannot make a descriptive invite then it is usually best to just bid game hoping that partner has a decent fit. An example: x Axxx KQJxx xxx, partner opens 1S and rebids 2H over your 1NT. Now it seems clearly right to bid 4H. If partner has diamond shortness then this may be a poor spot but you cannot find out below game and often game will be great.

 

I think the principles are correct but I made the hands up on the spot. I would like to hear it if anybody disagrees with my suggested bids (I think that the second one is quite clear, the first one is a little closer to a decision).

[han]

3) it is sometimes a failure to double, but I rarely lose imps when I don't double... altho I often fail to win imps... not quite the same thing, but important if my team is behind or outgunned

I think failing to win IMPs should often be regarded in the same way as losing IMPs. Bridge decisions should be viewed in terms of expectancy. If a double rates to win 5 IMPs 60% of the time and lose 5 IMPs 40% of the time then it is clearly right to double in almost all situations, and certainly at the start of any long match.

 

Maybe I misunderstood the comment, I'm rather surprised to read this. I'm a big fan of making what seems to be the "right" bid, instead of the "normal" bid which partner and teammates will easier accept if it turns out badly. (even though I realize that the "right" decisions often will turns out to be "wrong" decisions in retrospect, at least in my case).