Another judgment call

[jdonn]

Are you aware that at favorable vul partner won't (shouldnt) take your 1♣ opening too seriously?

So you think partner should play you for an 8 count any time you open 1♣ at this vul in third seat? And you just accept your terrible scores every time you have 14?

But nobody wins a pairs event by going for averages.

Are you claiming opening hands like this is the way to win pairs events? Let's be serious please.

[rogerclee]

The whole point is that it is matchpoints. If it was IMPs or anything else, pass is obvious, but at MPs bidding for the lead is an important strategy.

 

Who cares if the opps have no game of any kind? If they make 2♠ + 1 because partner chose to lead a diamond (for example), instead of 2♠ =, then that is a bad MP score.

 

Are you aware that at favorable vul partner won't (shouldnt) take your 1♣ opening too seriously? That the opponents may play you for all the points, and thus misguess? Yes, we know the potential downsides you are mentioning. But nobody wins a pairs event by going for averages.

You don't double at matchpoints because you think it is your deal? You don't like to compete for part scores?

 

I was certainly not aware of two things:

 

1) That partner shouldn't take my opening bids seriously, because it is winning bridge to open all hands in 3rd seat.

2) That you win a pairs event by shooting for tops.

 

The 1♣ bidders are just taking a good bridge principle (opening in 3rd seat lighter than traditionally, because it forces the opponents to bid defensively and gets us in at a low level) way too far.

[the hog]

I would pass this. Just because its matchpoints does not mean you have to go totally overboard. A 1C opening is not going to stuff up the opps too much anyway.

[mike777]

Here's another hand from Sunday

 

White on Red

Two passes to you

 

You hold

 

S xx

H QJ87

D xxx

C KQT9

 

What's your plan?

i pass and thought wtp but then perhaps this is losing bridge at mP?

pass at barry crane style

pass at roth stone style

at ks style ..i guess pass :P

[effervesce]

Are you claiming opening hands like this is the way to win pairs events? Let's be serious please.

My claim is that a swingier style increases the chances of winning. On average, you have have a worse % but you may still increase your chances of winning.

 

For example, assume a field of 100 pairs with a SD of 10, such that a winning score (top 1% or first place) is typically 71+. If you have an average MP score of 60, with a SD of 10, you have a 14.7% chance of obtaining a 71+ score. However, if you have an average MP score of 55, but a SD of 15, your chances of a 71+ score is 14.9%.

 

Thus increasing swinginess at the risk of worse MP scores is a valid MP strategy (assuming that the actions taken for increasing swinginess do not lower your overall average too far).

 

Of course, MP scores are probably not normally distributed for the field, and neither would a pair's MP scores be normally distributed, rendering the above numbers invalid, but it's for illustrating a point/

[jdonn]

Are you claiming opening hands like this is the way to win pairs events? Let's be serious please.

My claim is that a swingier style increases the chances of winning. On average, you have have a worse % but you may still increase your chances of winning.

 

For example, assume a field of 100 pairs with a SD of 10, such that a winning score (top 1% or first place) is typically 71+. If you have an average MP score of 60, with a SD of 10, you have a 14.7% chance of obtaining a 71+ score. However, if you have an average MP score of 55, but a SD of 15, your chances of a 71+ score is 14.9%.

 

Thus increasing swinginess at the risk of worse MP scores is a valid MP strategy (assuming that the actions taken for increasing swinginess do not lower your overall average too far).

In practice it DOES NOT WORK! Maybe because the high variance actions are lower expectation than you think, maybe because players are bad at judging, but I PROMISE the people who win matchpoint events are sound players who simply play well and let their opponents make the mistakes. Your example was more like taking avg 60 SD 10 and making it avg 40 SD 15.

[Finch]

Are you aware that at favorable vul partner won't (shouldnt) take your 1♣ opening too seriously? That the opponents may play you for all the points, and thus misguess? Yes, we know the potential downsides you are mentioning. But nobody wins a pairs event by going for averages.

You seem to be saying that

- partner will play on the assumption you might have an 8 count

- opponents will play you for a full opening bid

 

Welcome to the idea of full disclosure

[effervesce]

Are you aware that at favorable vul partner won't (shouldnt) take your 1♣ opening too seriously? That the opponents may play you for all the points, and thus misguess? Yes, we know the potential downsides you are mentioning. But nobody wins a pairs event by going for averages.

You seem to be saying that

- partner will play on the assumption you might have an 8 count

- opponents will play you for a full opening bid

 

Welcome to the idea of full disclosure

That is disclosed on our CC-3rd seat, fav vul. Which is more than can be said for the large number of people who would open 1♥ 3rd seat fav vul with

xxx KQT9 xx QJxx, but don't write anything about such tendencies on their CC.

[rogerclee]

Are you aware that at favorable vul partner won't (shouldnt) take your 1♣ opening too seriously? That the opponents may play you for all the points, and thus misguess? Yes, we know the potential downsides you are mentioning. But nobody wins a pairs event by going for averages.

You seem to be saying that

- partner will play on the assumption you might have an 8 count

- opponents will play you for a full opening bid

 

Welcome to the idea of full disclosure

That is disclosed on our CC-3rd seat, fav vul. Which is more than can be said for the large number of people who would open 1♥ 3rd seat fav vul with

xxx KQT9 xx QJxx, but don't write anything about such tendencies on their CC.

Ok, if you play a style where you have agreed that your third seat favorable openers could be on anything (which to me is fine), then opening 1♣ is totally obvious. The risk associated with opening 1♣ is considerably smaller when partner will never hang you.

[Finch]

Are you aware that at favorable vul partner won't (shouldnt) take your 1♣ opening too seriously? That the opponents may play you for all the points, and thus misguess? Yes, we know the potential downsides you are mentioning. But nobody wins a pairs event by going for averages.

You seem to be saying that

- partner will play on the assumption you might have an 8 count

- opponents will play you for a full opening bid

 

Welcome to the idea of full disclosure

That is disclosed on our CC-3rd seat, fav vul. Which is more than can be said for the large number of people who would open 1♥ 3rd seat fav vul with

xxx KQT9 xx QJxx, but don't write anything about such tendencies on their CC.

Your original post said that opponents will play you for one type of hand while partner will play you for a different one, which should never be the case (which you seem to agree with).

 

Personally I would either pass or open 2H on xxx KQT9 xx QJxx and my cc is quite clear about our 3rd in hand favourable preempts.

[pclayton]

The weird thing is that I would rather take some kind of shot with ♣KQJx and out in 3rd chair than the actual hand.

[whereagles]

The weird thing is that I would rather take some kind of shot with ♣KQJx and out in 3rd chair than the actual hand.

Open a weak 2♣? :blink:

[jdonn]

The weird thing is that I would rather take some kind of shot with ♣KQJx and out in 3rd chair than the actual hand.

Sure, that makes a club lead slightly more likely to be right, and the opponents quite a fair amount more likely to have a game.