Good luck

[Hanoi5]

In all endeavors of life humans encounter things or events which they cannot explain and which they attribute to luck. Say you play this hand against a pair who opens a weak Flannery:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt543h96dt5ckj9&w=s9876haj8732d83c2&n=skj2hkqtda7caqt76&e=sh54dkqj9642c8543&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=2h]399|300[/hv]

 

You stop in 3NT (or 4NT) while they reach 6♠ at the other table. Would't you call this bad luck?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq5ht97dak9c543&n=s643h83dt743cakq2&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1np2cp2sp2np]266|200[/hv]

 

Out of 24 tables 19 reached 3NT, 4 stopped at 2NT, and 1 at 1NT. Say at your table they stopped in 2NT while your teammates reached the game. No suit broke 3-3 and QJ of diamonds were not doubleton. Would you call this bad luck?

 

Now, if we accept this exists, can something be done about it? Of course, you might argue that this kind of events don't happen all the time, but what if someone, or a pair, or a team determines that their bad results are ocurring for 'bad luck'? Would you try to do something about it? Would you try to do something to avoid 'bad luck' even if it happens just sometimes?

 

Anyway, I know a lot of people have superstitions and luck charms, what have you heard about it? What have you seen people doing?

[gnasher]

I wouldn't call it bad luck on either deal: on both deals the opponents bid better than we did, and they deserved their swings.

 

Now, if we accept this exists, can something be done about it? Of course, you might argue that this kind of events don't happen all the time, but what if someone, or a pair, or a team determines that their bad results are ocurring for 'bad luck'? Would you try to do something about it? Would you try to do something to avoid 'bad luck' even if it happens just sometimes?

I'd try to find partners and teammates who are more objective.

 

If you were to go through the results of a supposedly unlucky pair, I bet you would find mistakes which cost far more in total than the bad luck. And you'd find lots of good luck that they'd forgotten all about or just not noticed.

[diana_eva]

I just stop playing for the day when i see my robots reach distributional slams in Best hand, or my opps are the only pair in 3nt making while everyone else goes down in 4M. I admit i assign that to "bad luck", "bad karma" or whatever - something slightly superstitious.

 

For live play, i never think it might be "one of those days" before i leave home, so i don't do something specific to prevent bad luck from striking.

 

Plenty of charms available in Romania to chase bad luck away, but i never tried them :)

[Free]

If it was possible to take the percentage action all the time, then you'd still have good boards and bad boards. In the long run you'd outscore most opponents. You'll be able to win against the best in the world (pretty frequently), and you'll also be able to lose against a couple of LOLs (rare).

 

The second example is a good one. Percentages are in favor of bidding game. On this occasion your opponents decide your faith. If they simply bid game, they'll pay the cost to gain in the long run. However, if they start inviting and declining, they're playing for top or bottom. They'll have more bottoms than tops in the long run, but this will be one of the "damage control" boards for them.

 

So are they really lucky? No. Are we unlucky? Yes. Why? Because opps threw the dice. So what can we do about this bad luck? Nothing.

 

I've seen people who start drinking something else to change the tides. That drink won't change anything on it's own ofcourse. But if they feel more comfortable trying all sorts of beer just until they finally get a good result, then why shouldn't they? Feeling more comfortable can result in better actions, which in turn improve their results. For them it might seem like the new drink helps them win, and if we look at the psychological effect of the drink, it actually does...

[ggwhiz]

I don't believe too much in the Law of Total Tricks but do believe in the Law of Total Luck.

 

Close your eyes and imagine the payback when the wheel turns.

 

My personal record is 29% in a game where we played well and were similarly fixed on what seemed like every hand. The very next day we took a double east west in a stratified pairs and declared something like 48 out of 52 hands, winning for fun.

[NickRW]

Out of 24 tables 19 reached 3NT, 4 stopped at 2NT, and 1 at 1NT. Say at your table they stopped in 2NT while your teammates reached the game. No suit broke 3-3 and QJ of diamonds were not doubleton. Would you call this bad luck?

 

I don't know what you're complaining about. The hearts could have been 5-3 or even 6-2. People make their decisions as to whether to bid thin games and whether or not to play without an invite opposite 1NT openers etc. Live with it.

 

Nick

[cloa513]

In all endeavors of life humans encounter things or events which they cannot explain and which they attribute to luck. Say you play this hand against a pair who opens a weak Flannery:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt543h96dt5ckj9&w=s9876haj8732d83c2&n=skj2hkqtda7caqt76&e=sh54dkqj9642c8543&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=2h]399|300[/hv]

 

You stop in 3NT (or 4NT) while they reach 6♠ at the other table. Would't you call this bad luck?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq5ht97dak9c543&n=s643h83dt743cakq2&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1np2cp2sp2np]266|200[/hv]

 

Out of 24 tables 19 reached 3NT, 4 stopped at 2NT, and 1 at 1NT. Say at your table they stopped in 2NT while your teammates reached the game. No suit broke 3-3 and QJ of diamonds were not doubleton. Would you call this bad luck?

 

Now, if we accept this exists, can something be done about it? Of course, you might argue that this kind of events don't happen all the time, but what if someone, or a pair, or a team determines that their bad results are ocurring for 'bad luck'? Would you try to do something about it? Would you try to do something to avoid 'bad luck' even if it happens just sometimes?

 

Anyway, I know a lot of people have superstitions and luck charms, what have you heard about it? What have you seen people doing?

You mean none of the black suits broke 3-3, diamonds breaking 3-3 wouldn't do you any good unless opponents never lead hearts or the hearts were blocked. 4 H+1D is down.

[bluecalm]

Of course there is tons of luck in this game. Luck factor is much bigger than skill factor in every deal. It's only in the long run where you can hope skill will prevail but obviously it's not always the case. This is just as obvious that for example in matchpoints tournaments the luckies win almost all the time. If the field is 200pairs almost always there are at least 15 which played well enough to win if they had winners luck. That's how bridge is.

Being able to cope with unlucky deals is part of the game. Live with it.

[JLOGIC]

There's luck in bridge? No wonder I don't always win!

[Quantumcat]

In all endeavors of life humans encounter things or events which they cannot explain and which they attribute to luck. Say you play this hand against a pair who opens a weak Flannery:

 

... they reach 6♠ at the other table. Would't you call this bad luck?

 

No. You should still have the ability to bid a suit naturally when the opponents might have only four. With my regular partner part of my system is a submarine 1♦ opening in 1/2 seat whenever we hold exactly four spades. The number of times the opponents have missed their 4♠ contract simply because they decided to agree a 1♠ overcall was michaels and not natural!!!

[johnu]

No. You should still have the ability to bid a suit naturally when the opponents might have only four. With my regular partner part of my system is a submarine 1♦ opening in 1/2 seat whenever we hold exactly four spades. The number of times the opponents have missed their 4♠ contract simply because they decided to agree a 1♠ overcall was michaels and not natural!!!

 

You are lucky :lol: As Rodney Dangerfield might say, if I didn't have bad luck, I wouldn't have any luck at all. My opponents would either stop in 3 spades or 3NT making when everyone else is in 4 spades going down because of the bad spade break.

[awm]

Of course there is tons of luck in this game. Luck factor is much bigger than skill factor in every deal. It's only in the long run where you can hope skill will prevail but obviously it's not always the case. This is just as obvious that for example in matchpoints tournaments the luckies win almost all the time. If the field is 200pairs almost always there are at least 15 which played well enough to win if they had winners luck. That's how bridge is.

Being able to cope with unlucky deals is part of the game. Live with it.

 

I still find it bizarre that people seem to think matchpoint tournaments involve more luck than IMPs.

 

What happens is that in any set of boards, there are some "uninteresting" deals. These are deals where any half-decent pair will effectively get the same result. The winner of the event is normally the pair (or team) that did best on the interesting deals, since the uninteresting ones are basically throw-aways.

 

The issue is that in IMPs, there are many more "uninteresting" deals. For a matchpoint deal to be uninteresting, there needs to be only one reasonable result. At IMPs because overtricks basically don't matter, there are deals where the only reasonable results are 3NT= or 3NT+1 and these are uninteresting whereas at MPs there is a potential swing.

 

The net result is that if you play a fixed number of boards, the number of interesting boards will be much lower at IMPs than at MPs. So effectively you are playing a smaller number of boards (i.e. at MPs 52 real boards might translate to 45 interesting boards, whereas at IMPs 52 real boards might translate to 25 interesting boards). Since any given interesting board can easily be decided by luck (i.e. the percentage game didn't make, the opponents aggressive preempt style fixed either you or them, etc) this makes IMP events inherently more luck and less skill than MPs.

 

With that said, there is definitely also a factor that pairs involves more luck than teams. The reason is that at pairs there is more luck about which opponents you played at which time. There are often boards that are interesting because your opponents have a difficult problem to solve, but where the result is basically out of your hands. At pairs you sometimes get a "run" of such boards which can lead to a lot of luck involving "which opponents you play when" and seemingly put your results totally out of your control... whereas at teams you can hope that your teammates do the right thing.

 

Anyway, the point is that if you don't like luck being a factor in your results, play more BAM. If you want more luck involved, play IMP pairs.

[jjbrr]

There's luck in bridge? No wonder I never win!

[bluecalm]

I still find it bizarre that people seem to think matchpoint tournaments involve more luck than IMPs.

 

Yeah I also find it bizarre but who suggested it ? :)

I agree with everything you wrote.

[whereagles]

With bad luck you either suck it or go play chess.

[Flameous]

I think the though that MPs involve more luck comes from people playing lots of BBO matchpoints, where the skill level and the amount of boards is so minimal that it's totally luck dependent.

 

A long MP where you play 2-3 boards against each participant is probably the most skill testing form of bridge. At least for one pair, long BAM might be even better to test for whole team.

[bluecalm]

A long MP where you play 2-3 boards against each participant is probably the most skill testing form of bridge. At least for one pair, long BAM might be even better to test for whole team.

 

Yeah but... if the field is huge still the luckiest win most of the time unless we play very long event with hundreds of boards, maybe not the luckiest but the luckiest from those who played well.

[ggwhiz]

The luck factor has more to do with the number of variables.

 

Bob Hamman said something along theses lines...

 

"Team matches are like two heavyweights slugging it out until one survives. In matchpoints, you take the same heavyweights, blinfold them and tie one hand behind their backs. Fill the ring with stumbling drunks and see who can knock the most out."

[awm]

The luck factor has more to do with the number of variables.

 

Bob Hamman said something along theses lines...

 

"Team matches are like two heavyweights slugging it out until one survives. In matchpoints, you take the same heavyweights, blinfold them and tie one hand behind their backs. Fill the ring with stumbling drunks and see who can knock the most out."

 

This is not really a valid comparison though. First, when he says "matchpoints" he really means "pairs." His complaint is basically that in a large pairs field including a wide range of skill levels, beating up on the bad players becomes key to a good result. This is somewhat random and less a test of skill than beating up on good players.

 

That's fine as far as it goes, but IMP pairs are still way more random than MP pairs. Further, when you look at a top-class pairs event like the World Open Pairs or the Platinum Pairs or the Cavendish, there aren't really a lot of "bad pairs" (at least in the late stages of the event). In fact a short IMP Swiss teams event has a lot of the same problems that Hamman complains about too.

 

I agree that knockout teams with really long matches and a strong field are a better test of skill than any pairs event. But it's not because of IMP scoring... if anything a really long BAM KO (no such thing exists, to my knowledge) would be an even better test of skill. The Reisinger (BAM event) is known as the toughest event on the ACBL calendar; I don't think Hamman would argue that the Reisinger is substantially easier or more about "luck" than the big IMP KOs of the Spingold or Vanderbilt.

[JLOGIC]

Obv MP has less luck than IMPs, and knockouts have less luck than pairs.

 

I think the Reisinger still has significantly more luck than the spingold or vanderbilt, it is a far shorter event (obviously more boards = less luck), and it is not a knockout format (having to beat a large field at once = more luck than having to beat 1 team at a time).

[f0rdy]

This is not really a valid comparison though. First, when he says "matchpoints" he really means "pairs." His complaint is basically that in a large pairs field including a wide range of skill levels, beating up on the bad players becomes key to a good result. This is somewhat random and less a test of skill than beating up on good players.

 

That's fine as far as it goes, but IMP pairs are still way more random than MP pairs. Further, when you look at a top-class pairs event like the World Open Pairs or the Platinum Pairs or the Cavendish, there aren't really a lot of "bad pairs" (at least in the late stages of the event). In fact a short IMP Swiss teams event has a lot of the same problems that Hamman complains about too.

 

I agree that knockout teams with really long matches and a strong field are a better test of skill than any pairs event. But it's not because of IMP scoring... if anything a really long BAM KO (no such thing exists, to my knowledge) would be an even better test of skill. The Reisinger (BAM event) is known as the toughest event on the ACBL calendar; I don't think Hamman would argue that the Reisinger is substantially easier or more about "luck" than the big IMP KOs of the Spingold or Vanderbilt.

 

I would certainly agree that in a fairly mixed ability pairs field, (which every field I've seen certainly is) the one decision which will have the most effect on your result is which table slip you pick up/where you sit down. The effect of playing a few flat boards against the best pairs in the room and some difficult boards against the LOLs, versus playing them the other way round, is huge. Moreover, a lot of the time the top or bottom you get has nothing to do with your skill; everyone in the room would get 10% if they play the difficult to find 6D against the good pair while everyone else happily scores up 3N+2.

Then you come to beating up the bad pairs, as you say; that certainly rewards skill, but can be pretty random precisely because they behave so unpredictably (assuming you're unlikely to know the foibles of all the pairs).

 

As to scoring systems, does anyone even play IMP pairs under a sensible scoring system like cross-imps, or is everything under something obviously flawed like Butler?

We have very little BAM in the UK (as far as I know?) so I don't know how that behaves with mixed fields.

[jdeegan]

<_< The 6♠ hand is a good example of why the duplicate game has restrictions on what conventions are allowed, esp. in pair games and short Swiss matches. If your defenses to the weak F convention are well prepared and up to speed, then missing 6♠ is your fault. More likely this convention I never heard of was, or should have been, illegal.

[Free]

<_< The 6♠ hand is a good example of why the duplicate game has restrictions on what conventions are allowed, esp. in pair games and short Swiss matches. If your defenses to the weak F convention are well prepared and up to speed, then missing 6♠ is your fault. More likely this convention I never heard of was, or should have been, illegal.

Sorry but this is total bull to me. If you've never heard of a weak Flannery, then it's your own fault for not being prepared. Moreover, if it would be something really exotic, then your opps should pre-alert and you can quickly discuss some agreement based on similar conventions you do know (this will do for sure, and what are the chances they'll actually use that weapon against you the first time you encounter this pair?). If you don't know anything similar (like the normal Flannery), then it's probably your fault again... There's absolutely no reason to ban such a method just because people don't know it. Systems change, conventions change, and most of the time new stuff is a modification of existing stuff. It's part of the game.

 

I'm not saying we should allow everything in a 2-board a table pairs game. For example, BSC are more likely to be more exotic, even without any similar conventions known to opps, so perhaps one should ban these. Similar to HUM. But what on earth can you have against a convention that shows 9 cards? If you show 6♥ it's ok, but if you show 5+♥ and 4♠ it's not. Where's the logic in that?

[kenberg]

In the Cavendish I see that each pair plays four boards against each of the other pairs. I looked up the rules:

 

Systems and Conventions: All methods approved for the Cavendish Invitational Pairs are allowed, but no others. In general,

any convention that would require a pre-alert and suggested written defenses, including Multi, preemptive opening bids that do

not specify the suit or suits held, and other artificial bids that cannot be explained to an average player within 10 seconds, are

barred. If there is any question about the acceptability of your system, it must be approved by a member of the Tournament Committee

prior to the start of play.

[/Quote]

 

I am not particularly advocating these rules, or agitating against them either. Usually my main stipulations are that the rules should be clear, the directors should understand them, and they should be enforced equally.

 

Sometimes it helps to come at things from an entirely different perspective, so I have a story. Recently I, my wife, and another woman constituted a team in a spelling bee at a fund raiser. Toward the end we were leading with two words left to go and I thought it would be gentlemanly to let the two women each take one of the last two words. Uh oh. It turned out that we were supposed to respond in our proper turn, and I was up. We were penalized. I sort of lost my usual(?) cool and announced "That's idiotic". Justice prevailed and we won anyway. (A motorcycle group took second place, beating out the librarians, much to my pleasure.) The point here, if I have one, is along the lines of "The setting matters". People play bridge, or enter spelling bees, with varying expectations. In some settings people should be prepared for weak flannery, but maybe not in other settings.

[jdeegan]

Sorry but this is total bull to me. If you've never heard of a weak Flannery, then it's your own fault for not being prepared. Moreover, if it would be something really exotic, then your opps should pre-alert and you can quickly discuss some agreement based on similar conventions you do know (this will do for sure, and what are the chances they'll actually use that weapon against you the first time you encounter this pair?). If you don't know anything similar (like the normal Flannery), then it's probably your fault again... There's absolutely no reason to ban such a method just because people don't know it. Systems change, conventions change, and most of the time new stuff is a modification of existing stuff. It's part of the game.

 

I'm not saying we should allow everything in a 2-board a table pairs game. For example, BSC are more likely to be more exotic, even without any similar conventions known to opps, so perhaps one should ban these. Similar to HUM. But what on earth can you have against a convention that shows 9 cards? If you show 6♥ it's ok, but if you show 5+♥ and 4♠ it's not. Where's the logic in that?

<_< Fortunately, the bridge authorities in each country tend to allow the conventions favored by the more successful local bridge politicians. This aids and abets the evolution of the game, but it does mean that the allowable conventions for pair games differs from place to place. (There was a time when the Woodson two way one no trump opener (10-12) or (16-18) HCP was legal in US pair games because of Mr. Woodson.) Generally speaking, the ACBL seems to be more restrictive these days than most jurisdictions.

 

That said, the current US rule is that Flannery openers must have a minimum of 10 HCP. Personally, it wouldn't bother me to change that or to allow the 2♦ multi or a few other successful conventions popular on the other side of the Pond. BBO is a great forum for this since it is so multi-national. I do notice that in BBO indies everyone seems to play a standard SAYC card.