Bidding is 80% of bridge

[aguahombre]

On the very limited evidence of boards 17-32 of the EC open teams final, it's 75%

At my local club it's about 20%

Interesting that you did that. The segments I chose (just because I ran into them first in the archive) were the first and the third. I got bored after calculating approximately 100 IMPs attributed to bidding and 16 to play or defense. My methods were quite sophomoric, but I doubt the margin for error was more than 10%. Some of the hands I used awm's ideas rather than just looking at whether the contracts were different.

 

On others, like the five IMPS for a doubled game at one table making, while just making at the other table ---since the contract could have been defeated with a different lead and the double might have swayed the lead (but didn't), I decided that failure to assess the double was a bidding thing.

 

Then I realized that calls like pass and double were not bids at all, got a headache, and quit.

[chasetb]

If luck is 20% of the variance in a 16-board match then it is 11% in a 32-board match, 6% in a 64 board match, 3% in a 128 board match etc. So you can't quantify luck without specifying the length of the event.

I was actually going to specify that, but I was promptly kicked off the internet because my dad was expecting an important phone call so I had to cut my post short (we can only get dial-up where we live). Luck unfortunately isn't something you can completely quantify, but I think we can all agree that the longer the event, the less luck plays a role. Not only that, but the quality/ of the competition, the closeness in the ability, and the set of boards play a big role in how much luck can affect the outcome. In the span of two free Express races a few days ago, I had a 25% game and a 71% game. The reason most people seem to discount luck is that in the end, it all balances out, or at least I'd like to think.

 

I feel not counting luck, that bidding CANNOT be 80% of the game simply because of the number of bidding systems that have had success. Back a few decades, Fred Schenken used his Strong Club, Alvin Roth had a really conservative 2/1, and Barry Crane had an aggressive 2/1, and all three had major success in the US. In the modern day, Meckwell play a Transfer Precision, De Wijs-Muller play a Relay, Levin-Weinstein play 2/1, Versace-Lauria play a different 2/1, and Balicki-Zmudzinski play Polish Club, and all of them have had success internationally; Doub-Wildavsky play K-S and have had success with it as well, they were on USA 1 for the 2009 Bermuda Bowl. What they all have in common is they know the systems extremely well and are very disciplined (Meckwell's real discipline is in always bidding and wearing down opponents, and they do that very well).

 

Now when gaining or losing points are concerned, I can easily believe that Bidding causes 80% of the differences at the top-most competitions. If I had to break down what makes the difference of Bridge at the top level (say the Bermuda Bowl), here's how I assign might things:

11% = Luck

9-11% = Stamina/Focus/Experience

22% = Defense

11% = Declarer play

15% = Bidding in non-competitive auctions

30% = Bidding in competitive auctions

0-2% = Brilliance/Creativity

[jogs]

USBC finals.

 

114 of 120 finals board auction histories were readable.

41 boards uncontested at both tables.

40 boards contested on only one table.

64% of boards were contested on at least one table.

51% of auctions were contested.

[WellSpyder]

You're asking how to improve everyone's wardrobe without ever seeing the individual, or looking through their closet or chest of drawers. I just don't get it.

+1

[Zelandakh]

It is a well-known fact that 98.3% of statistics are made up on the spur of the moment.

[matmat]

Nowadays 60% of all auctions are contested.

 

USBC finals.

 

114 of 120 finals board auction histories were readable.

41 boards uncontested at both tables.

40 boards contested on only one table.

64% of boards were contested on at least one table.

51% of auctions were contested.

 

so in this sample, out of 228 (114*2) total auctions:

122 (about 53%) were uncontested (41*2+40)

106 (about 47%) were contested (228-121)

 

in other words, less than half of the auctions sampled were contested? as opposed to the initial authoritative statement of 60% being so?

[jogs]

so in this sample, out of 228 (114*2) total auctions:

122 (about 53%) were uncontested (41*2+40)

106 (about 47%) were contested (228-121)

 

in other words, less than half of the auctions sampled were contested? as opposed to the initial authoritative statement of 60% being so?

 

So memory is faulty. Still read the literature. The vast majority of all the pages on bidding are devoted to uncontested auction.

[matmat]

So memory is faulty. Still read the literature. The vast majority of all the pages on bidding are devoted to uncontested auction.

 

I really take no issue with a memory lapse, it's the absolute self-assured statement that I find inappropriate in this sort of discussion.

[32519]

I was having a discussion with a friend / partner and she said 80% of bridge is bidding.

 

I said that since you spent 50% of the time defending how can that be.

 

Bidding is what separates the top top bridge player from the rest of us however I believe that intermediate players and even most good players can best improve their game working on defense and declarer play.

I believe these come first. They are the easiest to a person to work on by himself. Better bidding will follow and might be easier at that time.

I am assuming that the basics of bidding {Stayman, transfers, blackwood, etc] should be a top priority but other things can wait.

 

Opinions please!!!!

No matter how good you declare a hand, if you are in the wrong contract (overbid versus underbid, suit versus NT, wrong suit or whatever) you score poorly. First get to the right contract and then worry about the rest. The bigger clubs and all tournaments distribute hand records afterwards to tell you where you should have been. Its easy to track your progress against those.

[sathyab]

My observation is that interesting card play/defense hands at IMPs are a much smaller subset of total hands played and probably even smaller compared to hands that cause swings in bidding. Two years ago for example we were seed#57 in Spingold and played seed#8, needless to say we were to going to be seriously out-played and out-defended.

 

There couldn't have been more than six hands in the whole set that were interesting play/defense and the stronger team probably got 4 of them right against us getting 2 of them right. But it was swings in bidding that decided the match. A 28 IMP swing hand was definitely a big one. At our table we judged well to get to 4M judging that 6M was against odds given the lead of an obvious unbid suit. The bidding at the other table got messy with issues of UI being raised and when opponents got to 6M, our counterpart made a poor choice in lead and the slam came home.

[SteveMoe]

If you look at the ACBL convention card you might surmise that bidding is at least 75 % of the game... :rolleyes:

My limited experience says Defense > Declarer play >> Bidding. Best results have always had strong defense and sound but not perfect declarer play.

Consider the long run: we declare 50% of the time and defend 50% of the time. When declaring partner will play 1/2 and we will play 1/2. So 50% of the time we defend and 25% we declare, 25% we are dummy.

[blackshoe]

If you can't bid, you will play and defend in bad (for you) contracts. So the amount of time you spend bidding compared to tossing cards around is not the whole picture.

 

Another way of looking at it: a bridge hand has two parts: 50% is bidding, 50% is play or defense. So 50% is bidding, 12.5% is declaring, and 37.5% is defense. Even that isn't an accurate picture, though, because some hands are more difficult to bid than others, and some hands are more difficult to play than others, and some hands are more difficult to defend than others, and there's not necessarily any correlation between difficulty in one area and difficulty in another.

[32519]

In a recent teams match we ended third after throwing away 35 IMPS on two boards, both were bidding mistakes. Those 35 IMPS cost us second place.

 

On defence you can pick up an IMP or two by preventing declarer from making overtricks. Similarly you can gain an IMP or two when you as declarer make an overtrick. But you need plenty of boards to eat back the 35 IMPS that you yourself threw away because of a bidding error.

[mike777]

Clearly declarer play and defense is most important you need to make zero% games to win

 

You can bid zer% games or low % games and win if you can play well and defend well.

 

See last board of Spingold.

------

 

 

It just seems if you bid andmake your games and don't go for a number on part scores you will win your fair share.

 

That means if we need to win the part score battle to win I wont and that is ok.

If I need to fake out your team and steal hands with my bidding to win I wont.

OTOH if that means I need to be aggressive in my bidding and take chances to win..ok but steal from you no.....

 

----------------

 

 

btw it might help to define just what a bidding error is as compared to I just did not know what to bid.....

 

If you know the correct bid and don't make it that is an error....if you don't know the correct bid for whatever reason I would not call that an error. If I don't know that 1+1=2 that is more much more than a simple error.

 

If you keep losing 35 imps on simple errors..errors where you know the correct answer, then the problem is more than bidding.

 

OTOH you may be losing 35 imps for no other reason other than you don't know the correct answer and that is ok.

[Free]

On defence you can pick up an IMP or two by preventing declarer from making overtricks. Similarly you can gain an IMP or two when you as declarer make an overtrick. But you need plenty of boards to eat back the 35 IMPS that you yourself threw away because of a bidding error.

Short through the corner, as usual... You can also win or lose 10+ imps when you set the contract 1 trick, or if you manage to make an unmakeable contract. :rolleyes: And in MP every trick is important.

[32519]

We got system notes. So the correct bid can be found in our system notes. When you screw up something that is in your system notes, to me that is a bidding error.

[hrothgar]

Another way of looking at it: a bridge hand has two parts: 50% is bidding, 50% is play or defense. So 50% is bidding, 12.5% is declaring, and 37.5% is defense.

 

Why do people always ignore my finely honed talent in laying down cards as dummy?

I've worked hard to master this element of the game, and I humbly feel that I am the equal of any of the greats...

 

I've always been upset to see this aspect of bridge given such short shrift.

[Zelandakh]

So 50% is bidding, 12.5% is declaring, and 37.5% is defense.

Did you mean 50:17:33? I cannot imagine defending 3 times as often as I declare. You have to be playing a really cautious system to achieve that. We usually defend about 8-9 of 22 hands in the local club. Earlier it was more but the locals bid more aggressively against us now after being stolen from too often.

[blackshoe]

Did you mean 50:17:33? I cannot imagine defending 3 times as often as I declare. You have to be playing a really cautious system to achieve that. We usually defend about 8-9 of 22 hands in the local club. Earlier it was more but the locals bid more aggressively against us now after being stolen from too often.

No, I meant what I wrote, but I probably got it wrong. :-)

[helene_t]

If dummy time doesn't count and half the time is spent bidding, then the ratio should be 4-2-1. But I don't think that was the OP statement. It's not about time.

[kenberg]

[hv=pc=n&s=s9hqj72daqt9752c9&w=sj2ht9863dj8cqj65&n=st7653hkd64ckt842&e=sakq84ha54dk3ca73&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=3dppdp3hp3nppp&p=c9cqc2]399|300[/hv]

 

Suppose 3NT makes. Kudos for play? Kudos for bidding? Criticism of defense? Criticism of 3♦? If 3NT goes down, is it bad bidding or bad play?

 

Mike, above, mentions the Spingold. This is from the Spingold, and 3NT was made. Looking at the EW cards, I would not say 3NT is a favorite although, looking at all four hands, it seems to be on ice. The opening lead was a club, Q holding. Bad lead? The spades were played small to the Jack, small back to the 8. Very good, but no doubt made easier by the opening 3♦. Oh, and that's eight tricks after bringing in the spades.

 

There are of course hands where the contract is hopeless, other hands where you cannot go down (although some still do go down). On many hands, I find it difficult to say whether the result was mostly do to the play or mostly do to the play. Here the play was excellent, but they had to first get to 3NT and, as I say, I am not so sure EW would have chosen that contract if they saw each other's cards.

 

So is this good result for EW due to bidding or play? I prefer to simply see it as really good bridge.

[sfi]

Playing any reasonable system, having good agreements is far more important than what those agreements are (my guess would be at least a factor of 10). If you assume both pairs have reasonable agreements, then the majority of the points are likely to come down to declarer play or defence.

 

For one useful data point, I took a look at the final we just played the other night. All 8 players are competitive in national events and several have represented Australia, so the standard was pretty good. Over 28 boards the score was 61-40, and it turns out it's clear how to attribute all of those IMPs:

 

Declarer/defence: 57

Bidding judgement: 27

System differences: 16

Psyche: 1

 

Since defence and declarer play are intricately linked, it's quite hard to separate the two, but that sort of breakdown feels pretty normal. It's also hard to separate swings that should be attributed to a better system than those properly attributed merely to a difference in system (my view is that all 7/16 was due to a misunderstanding and the other 9 to hands that just happened to work better for one pair).

 

It's worth noting that all the double digit swings came from games that were made at one table and set at the other - mostly due to difficult defensive decisions or defensive errors.

 

Looking just at the swings doesn't necessarily tell the whole story, but it's an easy first approximation.

[cloa513]

In a recent teams match we ended third after throwing away 35 IMPS on two boards, both were bidding mistakes. Those 35 IMPS cost us second place.

 

On defence you can pick up an IMP or two by preventing declarer from making overtricks. Similarly you can gain an IMP or two when you as declarer make an overtrick. But you need plenty of boards to eat back the 35 IMPS that you yourself threw away because of a bidding error.

I saw a hand that was stone dead due to extreme distribution on good defence- not one opponent found the defence.

 

Basically it was in 4 spades and the lead was the best club to AK in partner- doubleton clubs in dummy. The killer return was a diamond as partner was void. That would have been a lot of IMP transfer. Amazingly playing with GIBs they found that killer. Some opponents in that tournament played three rounds of clubs. Excellent defence or lucky defence can kill otherwise good contracts.

[mycroft]

sfi: How many of the play/defence swings could be due to system differences in the auction? One side bid X where the other bid Y, and so declarer/partner knew/could guess better...

[sfi]

sfi: How many of the play/defence swings could be due to system differences in the auction? One side bid X where the other bid Y, and so declarer/partner knew/could guess better...

 

I don't have the auctions at the other table, but it looks like 13 IMPs were due to the hands being declared from the other side and getting a different lead. Systemic differences appear to play a part in both cases (the big swing came when declarer had to guess which king to finesse for and I had led low in one of those suits. At the other table the other hand had a safe lead and declarer misguessed). Another hand cost 13 IMPs when declared from a different side. Here also the play at trick 1 gave away the contract, but that one was defender error rather than who was declaring.

 

Different leads from the same side also directly resulted in 13 of the IMPs. Only 1 of those might have been affected by the auction.

 

So 39 IMPs were decided at trick 1, and 1/3 of those are due to differences in system.

 

The other play decisions were unaffected by any bidding IMO.