Do you go anti-field?

[humilities]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj43h5dakj2ck76&d=w&v=b&b=8&a=1hp4h]133|200[/hv]

 

Game all, Matchpoints.

 

I know this room and the room is bidding 4♠. Double would not even occur to 90% of them. Nevertheless I feel that double might be superior enough to merit going anti-field. What do you think?

 

Thanks for your input.

[dkham]

I'm bidding 4♠.

 

As a general Matchpoints query, what's the advantage of going with the field, apart from a lack of stress? (that's a genuine question, I'm not very experienced and don't know the answer)

[jmcw]

I would bid 4♠.

 

Double has a number of ways to win.

Partner might pass for a juicy penalty.

We might get to a minor game or slam when 4♠ goes down.

 

Is this the hand for it?. It may well be, If P has something like

 

x

xxx

Qxxxx

AQxx

 

Problem is I dont want to miss 4♠ opposite

 

xxx

xxx

xx

AQxxx

 

4♠ feels like the % call.

[billw55]

I reject double because it shoots for a top while risking a bottom.

 

After 4♠ the worst I can do is average. But I can still get ave+ in other ways. I might outplay the field, for example perhaps by endplaying west. Or maybe ops will bid over 4♠ and then I can double.

[Cthulhu D]

Double here is takeout implying decent spades right? Double doesn't seem so bad, though I guess partner won't play you for having 5 spades, but on the auction having 5 spades seems to be a decent possibility.

[ArtK78]

Double is technically takeout, but it implies a willingness to defend. This hand is primarily offensive. Partner is unlikely to take it out to 4♠ on a great many hands where 4♠ is making.

 

So, call me a conformist, but I am bidding 4♠.

 

By the way, the thought that you are going to get rich in 4♥x is very optimistic.

[dkham]

I reject double because it shoots for a top while risking a bottom.

 

After 4♠ the worst I can do is average. But I can still get ave+ in other ways. I might outplay the field, for example perhaps by endplaying west. Or maybe ops will bid over 4♠ and then I can double.

 

Is the implicit reason you want to go with the field on bidding then because you believe you are a better card player?

[Phil]

I reject double because it shoots for a top while risking a bottom.

 

After 4♠ the worst I can do is average. But I can still get ave+ in other ways. I might outplay the field, for example perhaps by endplaying west. Or maybe ops will bid over 4♠ and then I can double.

 

While I do not agree with these conclusions, I agree with the philosophy.

 

To the OP - why do you want to go 'anti-field'?

[phil_20686]

Is the implicit reason you want to go with the field on bidding then because you believe you are a better card player?

 

Yes.

 

Also, if there are lots of other boards where you rate to beat the field through better bidding, why risk a bottom? Bridge is quite a high variance game and doing consistently well at MP is as much about lowering the variance as getting tops.

[humilities]

Thank you all for the input.

 

To the OP - why do you want to go 'anti-field'?

 

I am not shooting for a 50% game :) Like you, I go against the field (in bidding or play) whenever I deem the chances of success outweigh the possibility of a poor score. When I have a 9 card fit missing for the Q I play for the drop like everyone else - However when there has been a 3S preempt I finesse even though in this particular field the old ladies are still playing for the drop.

 

Obviously it's a judgement call - on this hand I thought double was superior enough to 4S that it merited going against the field. Clearly many disagree - which is good, I need this feedback I'm trying to learn when I'm wrong about these things...

[Fluffy]

Double has a number of ways to win.

 

Bidding 4♠ has even more ways to win: sacrifice, push or make.

[aguahombre]

I know this room and the room is bidding 4♠.

Is the whole room bidding 4H? We probably have just enough HCP to assume this is not a strong club pair, or a no-system pair against whom we might be walking into a buzzsaw.

[billw55]

Is the implicit reason you want to go with the field on bidding then because you believe you are a better card player?

Perhaps. I must have confidence. If I feel I must take shots in the bidding to compensate poor card play, I will be in a tough spot on many hands, not just this one.

 

That said, except in special circumstances I would take the action I believe to be best, and not worry much about the field. I find they are notoriously hard to predict. OP seems confident that 4♠ is the field bid, but is every table facing the auction 1♥-4♥? How could we know?

[Phil]

Like you, I go against the field (in bidding or play) whenever I deem the chances of success outweigh the possibility of a poor score.

 

I thought I started a thread five or six years ago about the concept of going anti-field when I you think its right. I called it the 'uncrowded lake" or something like that.

 

Can't find it :(

[aguahombre]

The problem might be in knowing that the field will be wrong when we think something is right..and thus knowing we are going against them. So, it comes around to playing your game and letting the field come in behind you when the results are posted.

[Finch]

I never go down the route of worrying whether things are 'anti-field' or not. I think you should just do what you think is right (given matchpoint scoring) and not do what you think is wrong. The "field" is so random there's never any way to know what they are doing in the first place.

 

So on this hand, if you think double is right, double. If you think 4S is right, bid 4S.

[bluecalm]

As a general Matchpoints query, what's the advantage of going with the field, apart from a lack of stress? (that's a genuine question, I'm not very experienced and don't know the answer)

 

The idea is that whatever edge you might have in close situations in bidding is lower than your cardplay edge.

For example if it goes:

1NT pass ?

 

and you have borderline hand between say invite and 3NT and you very fine judgement tells you it's better to bash game but most of the field is in 1/2NT then even if the game makes say 53% of the time you only collect 53% from the hand while being where the field is could allow you to score much more exploiting their weak defense.

In general I believe good players have bigger edge in cardplay than in bidding judgement so going "with the field" in such situations is quite important (assuming you can predict what the field does).

 

The "field" is so random there's never any way to know what they are doing in the first place.

 

That might well be true I admit. My argument is based on assumption that you can predict what fields does as OP seems to imply.

[rmnka447]

I'm bidding 4♠.

 

As a general Matchpoints query, what's the advantage of going with the field, apart from a lack of stress? (that's a genuine question, I'm not very experienced and don't know the answer)

If you "go with the field", then a number of other pairs are very likely to have the exact, same score as you do on the board. As a result, your score on the board is likely to be somewhere near average. On an 8 MP top (average=4), the result would likely be somewhere between 2.5 MP and 5.5 MP. Neither result is likely to lose or win the session for you, but you are likely to remain competitive.

 

If you decide to go "against the field", then you know other pairs are going to be getting a different result. If your decision was right, then you're going to get a better score giving you a very good result on the board -- a near top or top. BUT if you are wrong, you're going to get a bad result -- a bottom or near bottom.

 

As you get more experienced as a matchpoint player, you'll find that playing above average on most of the boards and minimizing bad results (bottoms or near bottoms) is a route to some success. Since "going with the field" usually precludes you from getting a bottom or near bottom, it falls in line with this approach to doing well at matchpoints.

[rmnka447]

I'm a 4 ♠ bidder also.

 

Partner might find a minor suit game after a Dbl, but if 4 ♠s also makes you're probably not getting many matchpoints.

 

If partner finds a 4 ♠ call, responder will be making the opening lead through your hand to opening bidder's hand. Undoubtedly, the lead will be a ♥ and probably a ♥ honor. If opener can let responder hold the lead, responder may find the killing shift (or, worse, be told if opener is able to show a suit preference on the opening lead). In any case, seeing your hand as dummy is likely help the defense more than seeing partner's hand.

 

If partner sits for the Dbl, then he probably holds enough cards for you to make game. That means you'll need to beat 4 ♥x three to get a better result.

 

If 4 ♠ goes down you're likely to have company.

[the hog]

Double is technically takeout, but it implies a willingness to defend. This hand is primarily offensive. Partner is unlikely to take it out to 4♠ on a great many hands where 4♠ is making.

 

So, call me a conformist, but I am bidding 4♠.

 

By the way, the thought that you are going to get rich in 4♥x is very optimistic.

 

It does not imply a willingness to defend to me. A takeout double is for takeout. am doubling.

[han]

I never go down the route of worrying whether things are 'anti-field' or not. I think you should just do what you think is right (given matchpoint scoring) and not do what you think is wrong. The "field" is so random there's never any way to know what they are doing in the first place.

 

I completely agree with this. Also, I would bid 4S.

 

While I do not agree with these conclusions, I agree with the philosophy.

 

I agreed with the conclusion (bidding 4S) but not with the philosophy.

[JLOGIC]

I never go down the route of worrying whether things are 'anti-field' or not. I think you should just do what you think is right (given matchpoint scoring) and not do what you think is wrong. The "field" is so random there's never any way to know what they are doing in the first place.

 

So on this hand, if you think double is right, double. If you think 4S is right, bid 4S.

 

Jesus, this.

[JLOGIC]

 

and you have borderline hand between say invite and 3NT and you very fine judgement tells you it's better to bash game but most of the field is in 1/2NT then even if the game makes say 53% of the time you only collect 53% from the hand while being where the field is could allow you to score much more exploiting their weak defense.

In general I believe good players have bigger edge in cardplay than in bidding judgement so going "with the field" in such situations is quite important (assuming you can predict what the field does).

 

 

You cannot predict the field very accurately, and more importantly you cannot have a fine estimation that on hands where the field passes 1N 2N game will be 53 % and you will gain only 1 % of the time because of 1N 3N vs 1N 2N 3N. Nobody has judgement that fine. Not to mention, how do you know partner has a "field" 1N? How do you know that RHO has a field pass. There are way too many variables. Just do what Frances said, make the decision that rates to work out the best in your opinion. It is crazy to think that you can routinely pass up on edge to lower variance to win a matchpoint event (where you have to have a very good game to beat every other pair).

 

On this hand, why on earth do we think that every other table is going to go 1H p 4H? It is very possible the 1H bidder has a light hand (we have a lot of points), and it is extremely likely that not everyone will bid 4H no matter what RHOs hand is. And even if it were, are you going to say with a straight face that you think X will get a top 52 % of the time and a bottom 48 % of the time so you will bid 4S? Those numbers would be basically completely made up.

 

I do not know any good player who frequently is trying to go "with the field." Perhaps I should not play strong club at matchpoints because it is so anti field and will make me win less consistently. lol. The only players who I hear saying they based a bridge decision on what the field will do consistently are bad players who have read too many bridge books/posts and do not win every matchpoint event they play in with their superior strategy. Yes, there are some spots for it, and some spots where you avoid taking a top/bottom spot because it is too marginal/likely to result in a bottom, but it's not like these are common occurrences or spots like this is where we are thinking about it.

[rtewari]

4S is right especially at Match points. Partner with 3 spades and 5+ minor may bid a minor for a near bottom and in many hands even 5-2 spade may be enough to make 4S.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj43h5dakj2ck76&d=w&v=b&b=8&a=1hp4h]133|200| humilities asks "Game all, Matchpoints. I know this room and the room is bidding 4♠. Double would not even occur to 90% of them. Nevertheless I feel that double might be superior enough to merit going anti-field. What do you think?"

 

IMO 4♠ = 10, X = 8, P =6. Restating the obvious:

- It is almost as hard to guess what the field will do as to play well. If you can guess what others will do and you bid and play with the field then you can expect an average score. This may be plausible tactic If you're doing well so far, and now you need only average to win (or qualify). IMO. in that situation, there is a better argument for playing slightly more conservatively.

- Most players imagine they can bid and play better than average. Some players are content to bid with the field. because they are confident that they can outplay the field. But If their bidding is good, too, then they're sacrificing half their advantage. In any case, IMO, you should back your own judgement in both bidding and play because it's more fun :)[/hv]