Strategy and Tactics

[zasanya]

The other day we were playing in the last 4 stage of an important event .We were supposed to play 3 segments of 10 boards each.We had a carry over of 5 imps .We added another 35 in the first 2 segments.So before the third and final segment of 10 boards we were 40 imps up.We had the choice of seats meaning our ops were to take their places first and we could then decide which pairs would sit and which axis they would sit in.We knew that the opponents were generally considered the strongest team in the event and they would be looking for swings and 1 particular opponent was known to be the swinger of the team.We had 2 strong pairs (by our standards ;) ) and one not so strong pair.

What should our strategy/tactics have been in this segment?

The possible strategies I could think of were as follows.

1)The 2 strong pairs should just play normally ignoring the score.

2)Play one strong pair and one not so strong pair and play normally.

3)The strong pair should sit in the same axis as the opponents swinger and bid chancy games and slams which we would not normally bid but the swinger opponent is likely to bid to ensure same result .If they make we make.If they go down we go down resulting in a push board.

4) The strong pair should sit on the same table as the swinger to ensure best defence against opponents games and slams.

5)It does not matter.If you are destined to lose you will.

[the hog]

I would have adopted strategy 1. After all, you got to this lead by playing better. Playing for swings appears to be rolling the dice, and while there can be spectacular results, these are rare and what generally happens is that the swinging team loses by even more.

[mich-b]

I think far too much effort and thought is put into this issues like this.

It is often difficult to figure out while playing a board , how the bidding might go in the other table, because of system or style differences , the opps may be faced with different decisions.

I feel that playing ones normal best bridge is likely to be the best strategy. Minor adjustments that one can considered when leading by 35 IMPs, 10 boards to go are:

1. Don't risk large penalties, by borderline balancing against a partscore.

2. Bid VUL games , when it looks reasonable, because you can afford losing 5-6 IMPs for going down , but not 11 IMPs for not bidding it.

3. When playing against the swinger , look for opportunities to double him.

 

But again, most important is : don't think too much about the score, or about what your opps are likely to do, just play normally , and the IMPs will go to your side.

[Codo]

Of course the best defenders should play against the swinger. Most swingers tend to overbid more then to underbid.

 

Whether you play with the two best pairs or with the weaker one is a delicate descission. I would not change it due to the score.

If we have a fixed rotation, I would still use it. If this meant that our best pair is on the side line, so be it. Only change: if one pair does not want to play.

 

But this is up to the team- or the captain.

 

If I had played a serious event with a pair of "novices" in a 6 player squad, my goal had never been to win the event, but to play the best bridge and have a nice time. So, I would not see any reason to change this goal in the middle of the tournement, just because we have a surprising success.

 

And if we have six good players, but on pairs is a little worse, I would never change the rotation, because the difference is too small to matter.

 

But of course there is no right or wrong here and I am sure that others have a complete different opinion.

[hotShot]

Playing for swings is a losing strategy with a variance so high, that once in a blue moon one gets lucky and wins.

Obviously the best strategy is to let opps do their losing effort and change nothing.

So don't double their partscores to games, don't let them push your partscores a level to high and hope that the games opps bid are not so close that your side won't bid them.

[Free]

Act normal, strategy 1. I don't see the point in letting a weaker pair play.

[Fluffy]

Act normal, strategy 1. I don't see the point in letting a weaker pair play.

I do, they will have to play sooner or later, and 40 IMPs ahead 10 boards to go looks like the right time to play. Of course if our only goal is to win this matche then they won't play. But the 40 IMP difference is HUGE, and they should be playing.

[Trinidad]

For me strength is not the relevant factor. I would look at systems and style.

 

When they field a pair playing strong club as NS in the open room, we will put strong clubbers as NS in the closed. If their aggressive preemptor sits East, our aggressive preemptor will be East, etc.. In that way, it is most likely that the result at both tables will be the same. And if they are not the same they had to do something out of the ordinary for it, which puts them in an uncomfortable position.

 

Other than that, I think it is more important to be cool about the thing than to sit exactly right and be incredibly nervous thinking of whether your seating tactics were right. B)

 

Rik

[gnasher]

Unless someone actually wants to sit out, just play in your normal rotation. You entered as a team, so you should win as a team.

 

Having decided that, put the better pair against the more dangerous opponents, and tell everyone to play their normal game (unless their normal game is very high variance). If you try to duplicate the action that you think they might take in the other room, you're more likely to increase the randomness than not.

Edited March 17, 2010 by gnasher

[helene_t]

Do the two opp pairs differ in terms of system or style? If so, make your pair most similar to their NS pair sit NS and v/v.

 

Otherwise, as other have said, just play normally.

[nige1]

The other day we were playing in the last 4 stage of an important event .We were supposed to play 3 segments of 10 boards each.We had a carry over of 5 imps .We added another 35 in the first 2 segments.So before the third and final segment of 10 boards we were 40 imps up.We had the choice of seats  meaning our ops were to take their places first and we could then decide which pairs would sit and which axis they would sit in.We knew that the opponents were generally considered the strongest team in the event and they would be looking for swings and 1 particular opponent was known to be the swinger of the team.We had 2 strong pairs (by our standards  :lol:  ) and one not so strong pair.

What should our strategy/tactics have been in this segment?

The possible strategies I could think of were as follows.

1)The 2 strong pairs should just play normally ignoring the score.

2)Play one strong pair and one not so strong pair and play normally.

3)The strong pair should sit in the same axis as the opponents swinger and bid chancy games and slams which we would not normally bid but the swinger opponent is likely to bid to ensure same result .If they make we make.If they go down we go down resulting in a push board.

4) The strong pair should sit on the same table as the swinger to ensure best defence against opponents games and slams.

5)It does not matter.If you are destined to lose you will.

IMO...

 

You should field your strongest pairs against the strongest team in the event, because against them, a 40 imp lead is not safe. Keep your weaker pair for similar situations and weaker opposition.

 

The danger of trying to echo a swinger's efforts, is that your opponents are more likely to double speculatively than your team-mates in the other room. On the contrary, you should dampen your actions, taking middle-of the road decisions, perhaps leaning slightly towards conservatism rather than aggression. This is likely to dribble a few imps but you can spare some. In contrast, bad luck with dodgy slams and telephone-number penalties can deluge more imps than you can afford.

 

If opponents know how strong they are, then they are unlikely to swing much, anyway. They are likely to rely on their natural superiority and "easy come, easy go". Anyway, opposition pairs don't need to overbid all the time, to create swings. For example, high variance tactics may entail overbidding and underbidding on alternate boards or making against-the-odds plays. It is hard to be sure what is happening in the other room.

 

Let opponents try to win the match - ensuring that you don't fritter it away with flights of fancy.

[ArtK78]

Here is an example of why you should just play your best game.

 

Recently I played in a local double KO match. My unit runs this event each year and it extends for several months. After several matches we were in the losers bracket semifinal.

 

Due to a series of unfortunate occurances, we were down 35 IMPs after 12 boards in our 24 board match. On the first board of the second half, I bid to an aggressive (but not absurd) 6♣ contract. After a favorable (but normal) opening lead and bringing in a side suit of AT98xx opposite Q for five winners (and one loser), all that remained was for trump to be 3-2. Trump broke 4-1. Another 13 IMPs down.

 

So, we were down 48 IMPs with 11 boards to go. What happened? We lost by one. Our opponents played terribly over the last 11 boards, and we took advantage of almost everything.

 

The point is that in any set of boards there can be a lot of IMPs available by just playing sound bridge. Rather than try to create swings (or, in your case, trying to duplicate swings) you should just play your best game. Usually that will be good enough.

[Phil]

Play verrrry slowwwwlly so the director pulls boards.

[glen]

I play Hamman & Zia against the swinger, Hamman to his left, and Meckwell at the other table, Meck in the swinger's spot.

[nige1]

I play Hamman & Zia against the swinger, Hamman to his left, and Meckwell at the other table, Meck in the swinger's spot.

Brave to put in your weakest pairs against the strongest team in the tournament :)

[TimG]

I don't suspect the stronger team will be particularly swingy down 40 with 10 to go. Maybe halfway through if nothing favorable has happened.

 

I was once on a team that came back from down 44 at the half of a KO match (14 boards). We did it without a single double digit swing in the second half. Unusual for sure.

[MFA]

(...)

The danger of trying to echo a swinger's efforts, is that your opponents are more likely to double speculatively than your team-mates in the other room. On the contrary, you should dampen your actions, taking middle-of the road decisions, perhaps leaning slightly towards conservatism rather than aggression. This is likely to dribble a few imps but you can spare some. In contrast, bad luck with dodgy slams and telephone-number penalties can deluge more imps than you can afford.

(...)

I think this is a somewhat dangerous piece of advice.

Becoming too cautious when defending a lead is a major pitfall. It's important to realize that one cannot eliminate the natural variance in bridge. There is no such thing as playing for 0-0 in imps. The swings will be there, and if sufficiently many of them are adverse, we will lose.

 

So playing normally should include being willing to make all the normal, aggressive moves. The moves that gave us the lead in the first place and the moves that we consider percentage bridge. Also, any sudden change in partnership style might cause uncertainty if it leads to some bad boards.

 

One could even argue that taking cautious views is even more dangerous against a team that is likely to play over-aggressive, since this will amplify the variance (instead of the opposite that was the intention). But I'm not a big fan of such speculations.

 

I know you didn't mean that we should stop and play scared. But any advice about playing conservative is dangerous since inexperienced players will do just that (tend to play scared in such situations). No need to push them further.

[Finch]

Unless someone actually wants to sit out, just play in your normal rotation. You entered as a team, so you should win as a team.

 

Having decided that, put the better pair against the more dangerous opponents, and tell everyone to play their normal game (unless their normal game is very high variance). If you try to duplicate the action that you think they might take in the other room, you're more likely to increase the randomness than not.

I echo this.

Whatever you decided you were going to do in terms of team rotation before the event started, you do it now.

 

And just play normal bridge (not super-conservative, but normal). If the opposing team think they are much better than you they may not swing that much because they'll be hoping you will yield a load of imps. And if they do swing, on average they will lose imps.

 

Playing aggregate (which I realise you weren't) your tactics do change when you are a lot up, but playing imps they don't. You got to 40 up playing the way you having been playing, why change?

 

In terms of line-up you might have some slight psychological issues, if you have a pair that get flustered if a swingy action works against them. One successful swingy thing is only, say, 10 imps. You've still got 30 left, and you may get some good boards or they may have done something stupid at the other table and your teammates have good boards.

[zasanya]

Thank you all for your replies .To complete the story I who was given the responsibility of deciding the line up decided to go by rotation policy but i asked the best pair to sit in the same axis as the swinger with an advise to to play normal bridge.Alas the swinger bid 2 slams which our pair didnt .Our pair bid a slam which went down and was not bid in the other room.Our pair misdefended and allowed a game to make.We lost this session 55-0

Unfortunately hand records are not available and i didnt have the heart to ask them about the deals.I dont know whether the slams were bid first and whether the other 2 deals happened as an aftershock.

So perhaps no conclusions can be drawn.

[gwnn]

very sorry to hear that ;)