Playing a better team

[TMorris]

Do you do anything different when you are playing a team that is much better than you (in a 32 board match for example)?

[P_Marlowe]

No.

 

We try to play our best and hope that the cards help us.

We have a hgh variance style, we try to create lots of

pressure in the bidding / in the part score fight, sometimes

they have tough decision and they get them wrong.

 

If the cards favor a technical styl we will loose, but they

were the better team in the first team.

 

My experience is, that you need luck, and you have to grap the

few chances they giveyou, and avoid errors that throw those

presents away.

 

If you know the team and the partnership style, it may be

worthwhile to adapt the seating, a guess - your high variance

pair against their high variance pair.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[CSGibson]

I do not, aside from paying particular attention to my mental preparation ahead of time, and making sure that I'm coming into the match with the attitude that its my table they are playing at.

[semeai]

What's your goal?

 

A) Impress the better players

B) Slightly increase your odds of winning

 

If A, just play your best and take your normal actions. A low scoring match will be impressive itself.

 

If B, mostly just play your best and take your normal actions. If you see a chance to do something abnormal that really is (emphasis on really) just about zero expected value, feel free to do it. If you can or already do play an active style without any (emphasis on any) detriment to your game, feel free to do so. The trick is not to over do it: you'll look silly and wild (bad for secondary goal A) and likely also have silly, wild, poor results. The problem is that unless you've thought carefully about it, you're likely bad at only taking unusual actions that really are close enough to zero EV. Also, even if you have thought carefully about it, spending too much time thinking about such things during the match may detract from more useful normal bridge thinking.

[Fluffy]

preempt more agresively, preempt with side 4cM you have more to win and less to lose if you are inferior. Offshape doubles might also work althou I never tried them.

[Phil]

We used to talk about this subject many years ago here. I would try to do the following:

 

- In general, play your own game and do not beat yourself by trying tactics you see on vugraph. You don't need to do anything fancy; just make fewer errors.

 

- Do not get sucked into their tempo. Its bad enough when you are up against better card players, but don't compound it by making mental errors. Take all the time you need.

 

- Go into the match with a relaxed but focused attitude. You really have nothing to lose because everyone expects them to beat you, and if it happens, it happens. OTOH, you have a lot to gain for your own self-image by playing well and putting up a good fight. If a few things go your way, you can pull off an upset.

 

- Here's my favorite, especially in a long KO. If they are a low seed playing a higher seed, they want to conserve energy for the 'real' bridge tomorrow or the next. Grind like crazy and make them work for every trick. I have seen many high seeds dig themselves a hole after one or two quarters, because they are expecting you to throw boards, and as a result, they do not have to play their "A" game.

 

- Believe it or not, there's pressure too when you are the favorite. You are expected to win, especially if there is a client on the team.

[ArtK78]

At the risk of repeating what has already been said, I will quote Zeke Jabbour: "Give them your best game."

 

If you play your best and still lose, then you have nothing to be ashamed of. But if you play less than your best, you have no real chance.

 

It is surprising how well you can do even against truly good teams if you play your best game.

[SimonFa]

I've just finished the book Why They Win by Stephen Cashmere and Justin Corfield reckon that 70% of it is because of the stronger teams better bidding judgement. They have some recommendations at the end which are worth considering, one being to prune your convention card.

 

Its quite an entertaining book, especially the last match which involves Zia.

[gnasher]

By and large, you should just forget the idea that they're better than you. If it's in the forefront ouf your mind that you're outclassed, it's likely to affect your judgement. Then you end up undercompeting, missing penalty doubles, imagining that they're going to play and defend miraculously well, etc. Or you'll do the opposite, and start doing wild things that have no hope of success.

 

It doesn't matter who they are, they'll still make loads of mistakes. If you're very lucky, enough of those mistakes will cost for you to win, but if you've already chucked 50 IMPs that won't help you much.

 

The only change it's worth making is the sort of thing Fluffy suggested - preempt a bit more often, take some slightly off-centre actions, bid a few more games, etc.

[nigel_k]

I agree you shouldn't change much. Definitely do not preempt less aggressively or do anything else that assumes they will always get things right.

 

Pay more attention to what you do with small cards, especially on defence, because opponents will actually be paying attention to them, e.g. try to signal honestly only when it will help partner, and dishonestly or not at all when it is more likely to help declarer. It's easy to get lazy with that stuff if you are used to playing against weaker opponents.

[barmar]

Harold Feldheim's book "Winning Swiss Team Tactics" has sections on strategy when playing a much stronger and a much weaker team.

[Zelandakh]

If you have reached the point where you are playing a much better team you have presumably had some degree of success beforehand to reach this point. Why would you throw out doing what has been successful for you? Especially in a partnership game like bridge where having a partner know what you have is fundamental. If you change your game coinsiderably to allow for the opponents being better then you are taking your small chance of winning and reducing iot still further. If your opponents are having an off day, or the hands happen to be bad for their methods, then you could even win without even playing your best!

 

If you play an aggressive style then continue that - do not be scared that they might score something big. It has worked for you up to now, so stick with it. Even if your style is conservative, it is still more important to stick to methods. Perhaps you will be tough to score against and get a couple of lucky boards, 50% slams or whatever. It does not take much.

 

Most important is to be concentrated and avoid big mistakes. I do not mean aggressive bids that do not happen to work here, but rather going outside system to "make something happen" or in the cardplay. The better team is quite likely counting on your team making such mistakes. Avoiding them means they might not be able to afford to simply play safe all the time. If you can exert pressure at the same time, so much the better. Even better players make mistakes, especially under pressure.

 

My last suggestion is mental. Try not to go into the match feeling that they are the better team. They probably will not play their absolute best against you. One of the things that makes them a good team is likely to be that they usually win without playing their best. Their average is better than your average, sure. But your best is probably better than their average. Believe it and trust your partnership and team to have enough to grind out a win.

[WellSpyder]

Do you do anything different when you are playing a team that is much better than you (in a 32 board match for example)?

No-one seems to have mentioned the main thing that I do differently - I lose more often! :)

[gnasher]

One other thing: don't take any crap. Most good players are well-mannered and law-abiding, but a few of them think that greater ability gives them the right to lecture lesser players about the rules, control the pace of the play, not have a convention card, or be generally obnoxious.

[Cyberyeti]

If you have reached the point where you are playing a much better team you have presumably had some degree of success beforehand to reach this point. Why would you throw out doing what has been successful for you? Especially in a partnership game like bridge where having a partner know what you have is fundamental. If you change your game coinsiderably to allow for the opponents being better then you are taking your small chance of winning and reducing iot still further. If your opponents are having an off day, or the hands happen to be bad for their methods, then you could even win without even playing your best!

 

If you play an aggressive style then continue that - do not be scared that they might score something big. It has worked for you up to now, so stick with it. Even if your style is conservative, it is still more important to stick to methods. Perhaps you will be tough to score against and get a couple of lucky boards, 50% slams or whatever. It does not take much.

 

Most important is to be concentrated and avoid big mistakes. I do not mean aggressive bids that do not happen to work here, but rather going outside system to "make something happen" or in the cardplay. The better team is quite likely counting on your team making such mistakes. Avoiding them means they might not be able to afford to simply play safe all the time. If you can exert pressure at the same time, so much the better. Even better players make mistakes, especially under pressure.

 

My last suggestion is mental. Try not to go into the match feeling that they are the better team. They probably will not play their absolute best against you. One of the things that makes them a good team is likely to be that they usually win without playing their best. Their average is better than your average, sure. But your best is probably better than their average. Believe it and trust your partnership and team to have enough to grind out a win.

Most of this feels right to me.

 

The one time I've beaten a very much better team in a big KO event our opponents were complacent. They were a team of more than 4, and one of their team played golf instead. Set 1 was tight and in set 2, one of their pairs bid a series of poor slams and we acquired 63 IMPs which they whittled down to 42 over the next 24 boards, then got most but not all of them back on the last set.

 

The other occasion we beat a significantly better team (3/4 of them won the spring fours a couple of weeks later), I had to play with a scratch partner due to the Icelandic ash cloud, we didn't get on and played poorly, team mates were excellent, opps chucked more IMPs than we did, so hang in there even if not playing well.

[phil_20686]

People often forget how random bridge is. Over a 24 board match you expect 20 or so imps to turn on random decision making. They bid a good slam you miss that goes off, or you guess differently in a two way finesse etc. On a lucky day you can be twice that much up/down due purely to randomness. Of course, the longer the match the less likely it will all run in your favour, but the reality is, if you think your are so much worse that the randomness will not be enough to give you any chance of winning, then no matter what you do you probably don't have any chance of winning. :)

[guido]

I think one's odds of winning improve if you do things differently than the (better) opposition. The key is to do things differently, but just as well .. or as close to that goal as possible. My opinion is that the best way to do this is in the bidding and the best way to that is by increasing the differences in system. For example...

 

1) It is likely that your opponents are going to be playing a strongish 1NT opening (15-17 or 14-16), so use a weak NT.

 

2) If your opponents at the other table are playing Precision, play standard (or vice versa). If you are systemically versatile, play Blue Team or Acol or Polish or any other approach that is reasonable but different.

 

3) Use a similar strategy in your defensive and preemptive bidding.

 

4) Underbidding (in close situations) is likely to be more effective than overbidding in constructive auctions.

[TMorris]

Thanks very much for all the comments. Much appreciated.

[ggwhiz]

I refuse to admit that this is possible. :lol:

 

Just trying to have the right mindset going in. I'll panick later.

[Phil]

I think one's odds of winning improve if you do things differently than the (better) opposition. The key is to do things differently, but just as well .. or as close to that goal as possible. My opinion is that the best way to do this is in the bidding and the best way to that is by increasing the differences in system. For example...

 

1) It is likely that your opponents are going to be playing a strongish 1NT opening (15-17 or 14-16), so use a weak NT.

 

2) If your opponents at the other table are playing Precision, play standard (or vice versa). If you are systemically versatile, play Blue Team or Acol or Polish or any other approach that is reasonable but different.

 

3) Use a similar strategy in your defensive and preemptive bidding.

 

4) Underbidding (in close situations) is likely to be more effective than overbidding in constructive auctions.

 

These are all swingy strategies. Why would you start swinging right out of the gate?

 

We have had some discussions about playing a Nickell or a Monaco and the idea is that you are at least 1/2 an IMP worse per board before you sit down, so it makes some theoretical sense to increasing variance starting with the 1st board. However, if you are simply playing a 'better team', I'd be more patient than this and play your own game.

[keeper2]

The attached link contains some advice on this from a number of people likely to be playing on the "better teams" - compiled by Steve Robinson

 

http://www.districtsix.org/Articles/2005-08.html

[lalldonn]

All the advice about don't be intimidated, focus, etc is good. I highly recommend against all the advice about looking for chances to swing, doing something weird, and stuff like that.

 

I mean seriously, any time there has been an upset in a match, how often has it happened because the worse team played well and maybe got lucky somewhere along the way, and how often has it happened because they were swinging and randomizing and taking carefully-chosen-anti-percentage actions? I can't think of any instances at all of the second one, which I'm sure someone will come forward with some story of it happening but overall that would be way less common than just winning because you played your best and it was your day.

[awm]

What better team? Best not to believe there's such a thing. :)

[nigel_k]

I definitely agree with not doing anything anti-percentage. It's one of those things that is good in theory only. You can increase the scope for swings by sending your strong club pair to play their strong club pair, but that's about all.

[barmar]

What better team? Best not to believe there's such a thing. :)

ggwiz already made that joke.