Surprising and strange statistic

[AL78]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk62h9dajt765cj94&w=s543hj72dk82cat87&n=saqj8hq53dq9cq652&e=st97hakt864d43ck3&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1n2hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I was North. 2♥ made +1 for a joint bottom. One East played in 3♥, but the rest were in 3♦ by South.

[akwoo]

I was North. 2♥ made +1 for a joint bottom. One East played in 3♥, but the rest were in 3♦ by South.

 

Do you play Lebensohl?

[AL78]

Do you play Lebensohl?

 

With the partner on that evening, yes. I guess South could have bid 2NT followed by 3♦. If West then bids 3♥ we lose the board, but at least we would have given ourselves a chance to match the room.

[AL78]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk984h964d95cj532&w=st32hj732d2cqt764&n=sj75hakq8dqjt83ca&e=saq6ht5dak764ck98&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1ddp1hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I was North. 1♥ just made, we should have got it one down but that makes no difference matchpoint-wise, a 37% score.

[helene_t]

[hv=pc=n&s=skjt3hkjt7d873ct6&w=s7542hq9642d96cq5&n=sa986h85dkqjck872&e=sqha3dat542caj943&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=pp1n2dppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I was North. 2♦ makes exactly for a NS bottom. It was an evening with only three and a half tables, and this board only got played three times. The other two scores were 1NTX= by North, and 2♠+1 by North (they may bave been playing a strong NT 5 card major system).

If you play t/o doubles here (personally I don't think t/o doubles are best when playing weak NT, but maybe I am wrong), then I think South should double. It can backfire when North has a 3334 and (32)35, but at matchpoints you have to take that risk I think.

[helene_t]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk62h9dajt765cj94&w=s543hj72dk82cat87&n=saqj8hq53dq9cq652&e=st97hakt864d43ck3&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1n2hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I was North. 2♥ made +1 for a joint bottom. One East played in 3♥, but the rest were in 3♦ by South.

Partner apparently forgot about Lebensohl. Btw, without Lebensohl, 3♦ should probably be to play when playing weak NT.

[helene_t]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk984h964d95cj532&w=st32hj732d2cqt764&n=sj75hakq8dqjt83ca&e=saq6ht5dak764ck98&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1ddp1hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I was North. 1♥ just made, we should have got it one down but that makes no difference matchpoint-wise, a 37% score.

The bidding seems normal. Except that the teacher has to have a talk with East about takeout doubles.

 

It is more interesting how to defend 1♥. Indeed, GIB says it should be one down.

[hrothgar]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk984h964d95cj532&w=st32hj732d2cqt764&n=sj75hakq8dqjt83ca&e=saq6ht5dak764ck98&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1ddp1hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I was North. 1♥ just made, we should have got it one down but that makes no difference matchpoint-wise, a 37% score.

 

The choice to double a 1!D opening seems strange.

 

Either a 1NT overcall or possibly a pass (planning to convert a penalty double) look much more normal.

[Tramticket]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj93h2daqt6c8763&w=s72hqt7dk954cakj9&n=sak654ha84dj8ct42&e=st8hkj9653d732cq5&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1np2dp2hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

There are four chances to compete on this hand:

- North could bid 2S over 1NT. As has been said above, it is usually a poor strategy to compete over 1NT on a balanced hand - and a 5332 shape is a balanced shape. But I have seen much worse overcalls - our suit is headed by the AK, we have an outside ace, we own the spade suit, we are both non-vul, we are playing Match Points, we want partner to lead a spade if on lead (unlikely). Club players will often make worse overcalls and you are probably playing with the room in overcalling. But we do have a good lead against 1NT, so probably wisest to pass.

- South could compete over 2D. This is easy to rule out.

- North gets a second chance to bid over 2H. I would be very tempted to throw in a bid here. I was happy defending 1NT, but much more interested to compete over a suit contract. I know that it is a live auction and partner might have nothing, but it is MPs and you need to muscle in at this vulnerability.

- Finally, South can protect once it is clear that the contract will be passed out. It is absolutely clear to bid at this stage. You know that the points are roughly equally divided and you can't sell out at the two-level when the opponents almost certainly have at least an eight-card fit.

[AL78]

The choice to double a 1!D opening seems strange.

 

Either a 1NT overcall or possibly a pass (planning to convert a penalty double) look much more normal.

 

Some people at my club double on any opening strength hand.

[hrothgar]

Some people at my club double on any opening strength hand.

 

I expect that you're going to need to get used to all sorts of random ***** happening then...

[Zelandakh]

Hand B3: One of the known properties of playing a Weak NT is that it tends to hide suit fits. Most of the time that hurts the opps more than us but part of the mentality of the system is accepting that sometimes we will be the ones that get the short end of the stick. While South could potentially Double 2♦, my instinct is to put this one down to luck. On average I would expect to come out ahead if an opp overcalled our 1NT with 2♦ on that hand; here they get a lucky make while our spade fit gets buried.

 

Hand C7: South not bidding on this hand is a serious mistake imho. I daresay that most players would have opened the hand with 2♦. With that unavailable South should certainly be willing to compete over 2♥

 

Hand D12: This appears to be an example of poor bidding being rewarded. East's Double is an absolute abomination whereas the N-S bidding looks normal. At Pairs this looks more like a cardplay hand than a bidding one though. There are plenty of opportunities to gain or lose tricks and perhaps the real answer here is that the majority of good players are sitting N-S. What were the other scores that +50 only got 37%?

 

So far on 50% of the hands your partner has badly undercompeted and the other half are primarily down to system factors, at least as far as bidding is concerned. I suspect already that a big part of the problem here could actually be the club culture, which is surely a major influence on your partner's style of bidding. The Double on the last hand demonstrates clearly that the prevailing thinking is for the hand with honour strength to bid and for weak hands to pass. While there is some degree of truth in this for constructive bidding, it is absolutely the wrong way of thinking when the auction gets competitive. Assuming you know enough to play a more mainstream and modern style, you are probably either going to need to retrain your partner to bid much more aggressively, accepting the odd 4 figure penalty along the way with good grace, or find a new partner that has already learned the lesson.

[AL78]

Hand D12: This appears to be an example of poor bidding being rewarded. East's Double is an absolute abomination whereas the N-S bidding looks normal. At Pairs this looks more like a cardplay hand than a bidding one though. There are plenty of opportunities to gain or lose tricks and perhaps the real answer here is that the majority of good players are sitting N-S. What were the other scores that +50 only got 37%?

 

1♥ W 7 -80 (us)

2♥ N 6 -200

2♦ N 9 +110

2♥ W 4 +200

2♥ W 5 +150

1NT E 7 -90

2♥ N 8 +110

1♦ N 7 +70

2♠ S 6 -200

 

I'm sure there are hands where I did the wrong thing, I haven't found them yet. I am not deliberately cherry picking hands to make my partner look bad.

[Vampyr]

If you play t/o doubles here (personally I don't think t/o doubles are best when playing weak NT, but maybe I am wrong), then I think South should double. It can backfire when North has a 3334 and (32)35, but at matchpoints you have to take that risk I think.

 

Do you play weak NT much? Takeout doubles work pretty well in my experience. Without them it seems you will very often lose the partscore battle,

[mycroft]

Caveat: I play in a world where about 15% of the room plays weak NT (and outside the city, that percentage plummets). Some of our reasoning would not be relevant if one has a lot of company with one's weak NT auctions.

 

I enjoyed playing penalty doubles of interference over our weak NT - it was rewarding and enjoyable. It was just that for every time we had one of those, we had 4 or 5 "I'd like to compete, but I don't know where" that would cost us 4-5 IMPs/30-35% a throw. Since switching to takeout doubles, we're now back to the field a lot more; yes, we've let through a few -150s and -200s that should have been -500 or -800, and a few -100s that could have been very nervous -200 tops, but we are *clearly* ahead of the game.

 

And last night we got: p-p-p-1NT; p-p-3♦-p; p-X-AP for 500 into nothing when I passed with ♦Jxxx and two-and-a-half tricks.

 

On topic: I agree with most here - it looks like "bidding is for finding game", not "competing for the part score" is in OPs- or partner's - mind. Especially at matchpoints, you will be eaten alive if you let them play 2-of-a-fit; frankly if you let them play 2-of-a-suit unless you *know* that this is going to be difficult for whoever declares. That goes double for the 1 level, unless it's the 1♠-p-p- "You know, I bet opener's got 20 or so" ones, rather than the "it looks like partner has a penalty double over there" ones.

 

Since OP has a lot of data to look at, one way to check is to see how many hands they're declaring vs defending, and what their scores are when on play vs on defence. From the examples given, it looks like they'd be defending 65-70% of the hands. Not only may that mean that they are defending more than their opposition, but defence is hard (and it's even harder when defending lower contracts than the rest of the room!)

[AL78]

On topic: I agree with most here - it looks like "bidding is for finding game", not "competing for the part score" is in OPs- or partner's - mind. Especially at matchpoints, you will be eaten alive if you let them play 2-of-a-fit; frankly if you let them play 2-of-a-suit unless you *know* that this is going to be difficult for whoever declares. That goes double for the 1 level, unless it's the 1♠-p-p- "You know, I bet opener's got 20 or so" ones, rather than the "it looks like partner has a penalty double over there" ones.

 

Since OP has a lot of data to look at, one way to check is to see how many hands they're declaring vs defending, and what their scores are when on play vs on defence. From the examples given, it looks like they'd be defending 65-70% of the hands. Not only may that mean that they are defending more than their opposition, but defence is hard (and it's even harder when defending lower contracts than the rest of the room!)

 

I don't think I do take the attitude that bidding is for finding game, I tend to think that coming into an auction where the opponents are unlimited requires a fairly decent hand. The problem is, I mostly hold flat single digit point counts when the opponents are first to bid, and I can't see a way of getting into the auction if partner can't find an overcall or double. It is different if I have a long suit with some shape, or shortage in opponents suit, I will come in, but it seems it is rare I have those hands when LHO or RHO has opened. I think some people have hit on something, in that we do get screwed after one of us has opened a weak NT and an opponent comes in. We need to agree to play takeout doubles to try and avoid the -110 or -140 which is often a bad MP score (whilst not going over the top and giving them +200).

 

Over the last 12 months I have defended 72.19% of the time according to Pianola. Some other statistics:

 

Average score - 51.75%

As declarer - 56.54%

As dummy - 50.67%

As defender on lead - 52.01%

As defender not on lead - 48.74%

 

This covers all sessions with all partners. I could pull off some statistics only including sessions with one of my regular partners, but that will take some time.

 

It has been a bit of an eye-opener going back and looking at historical sessions. This started off as an enquiry about whether there was any meaning in defending well above half the hands over a year or two, and has evolved into looking at why my results are below par. Having looked at about a dozen sessions has brought up a few areas where I am leaking matchpoints:

 

1. Not being competitive enough (either myself or partner), and consequently letting the opposition get away with aggressive actions that we should either counter, or punish them for.

 

2. Defensive cock-ups. Lack of concentration, bad opening lead, or the situation where I work out there are two reasonable lines of defence, each of which is required on a particular feasible layout, but if I pick the wrong one, it will blow a trick or two, and I pick the wrong one.

 

3. The unique contract bottom. Opponents do things against us that aren't replicated around the room, and it happens to be right on the layout. One example was in a competitive auction, we had the hearts, the opponents had the spades, we bid to 3♥, the opponents bid to 3♠, I doubled as they were vulnerable and felt we needed to go for the +200 penalty and 4♥ had little to no chance. They make 3♠X, everyone else is allowed to play in 3♥=. Otherwise known as the pairs double.

 

I will have a chat with one of my regular partners abouit competitive auctions and the need to get into the bidding and/or stop being owned by the opposition. Many thanks to everyone who has contributed with some very constructive input. :)

[Vampyr]

As a rule of thumb, letting the opponents rest in 2♠ or lower generally does not generate a good matchpoint score. On the most recent hand you posted you were terribly unlucky. Was the field fairly weak? You can get bad scores in weak fields since there is no field protection.

[AL78]

As a rule of thumb, letting the opponents rest in 2♠ or lower generally does not generate a good matchpoint score. On the most recent hand you posted you were terribly unlucky. Was the field fairly weak? You can get bad scores in weak fields since there is no field protection.

 

The field is very mixed, although I play on the two strongest evenings. The ability of the other pairs ranges from a bit better than the players on the beginners/improvers evening, to a pair of EBU grandmasters (who almost always come in the top three, so their superior skill overrides field variability).

[akwoo]

Depending on whom you're playing with and how you see the partnership developing, you may just have to decide to occasionally bid for a timid partner.

 

We all "bid for partner" on occasion - when we are in passout seat at a low level we frequently make the assumption that partner must have a decent hand based on the opposition bidding, and bid assuming he has decent values. There are other occasions - when opponents have preempted and we don't have room to find out how much partner has, we frequently make the assumption that partner has roughly their share of the remaining cards and bid accordingly.

 

If you know that partner won't compete on certain hands, you may have to decide in some situations that the chance they have an appropriate hand is high enough that you have to do the competing for them, even when they still have another chance. A good example is the first hand where we all said your partner should have made a double in passout seat. If you know your partner won't make a double in passout seat even with such an obviously suitable hand, you'll have to bid 2♠ yourself more often.

 

Keep in mind that risks at matchpoints have nothing to do with the magnitude of the penalty. The difference between -100 and -110 is usually a lot bigger than the difference between -500 and -1400. If you're already getting a zero for -110, you might as well gamble for -100, because the zero for -1400 is the same score.

 

Once in a tournament, a well-known American pro player (known for these kinds of tactics) overcalled 1♦ (nonvul vs. vul, over my 1♣ opening) with ♠987 ♥Q975 ♦QJ98 ♣J8, playing with a decent but not great client. He got an above average board for it when we missed game as a result. (There was continued competition in the bidding, but that wouldn't have happened without his ultra-light overcall.)

[Zelandakh]

Once in a tournament, a well-known American pro player (known for these kinds of tactics) overcalled 1♦ (nonvul vs. vul, over my 1♣ opening) with ♠987 ♥Q975 ♦QJ98 ♣J8, playing with a decent but not great client. He got an above average board for it when we missed game as a result. (There was continued competition in the bidding, but that wouldn't have happened without his ultra-light overcall.)

That looks like a 2♦ overcall to me. ;)

 

The idea of bidding ultra-aggressively to compensate for a timid partner is one that is likely to bring short term gain but is I think ultimately self-defeating as it will tend to drive the player into being even more cautious. Better is to get the partner to buy into a style of play that separates out constructive and competitive decisions and plays the latter very aggressively. Not only will that eventually result in the partnership being stronger, it will also make the partner a better player with much more understanding of important bidding concepts, which further advances the status and potential of the partnership.

[mycroft]

I am impressed that given the contracts you show as playing, your defence score is average or a bit above. You need really good defence skills (which you get lots of practise in, I guess!) when you're defending a level lower than the field, and defence is usually harder than declarer play, so you have to overcome that advantage as well as get back the bad results on the hands like you've been showing us.

 

I am well known as a bad card holder (I even have on one of my "joke" convention cards "Mycroft only: APAD", which means "Always Pass As Dealer"), and even I am not unlucky enough that I *average* 70% of hands defending (55? I think that's about right).

 

I agree with those who say that becoming more aggressive yourself will not work with an ultra-conservative partner; once they cotton on and get one bad result, they'll back off even more. One of the chapters in "Why You Lose At Bridge" discusses "okay, when partner will never see the hand, and I get to play it, I'll overbid by a trick, but if I have to put my hand down, it will be exactly what partner expects"; just as true now as in 1930.

 

What might work is a "bidding pact". You have to agree beforehand, and there has to be no recriminations for following the rules, but if you and partner agree that for the next month:

• you will not pass 2-of-a-fit undoubled (doubles are takeout, but can be passed), and
  
• you will look for any chance to bid over their resting 2-contract (like the "automatic" lebensohl-into-3♦ after 1NT-(2♠) above) even if it's not known to be a fit, and
  
• you will never comment (besides your version of the automatic "thank you partner. Nice hand") about dummy when it comes down in these auctions, and
  
• you will play your hardest in these balances, even if you know already that you're trying to turn -800 into -500, and
  
• the only comment after the hand allowed is "nice push, partner", even if you failed in your attempt to avoid -800;

then you just might find that at the end of the month your judgment, and partner's judgment, in these situations is much better. You will sometimes pass 2-and-out, you will even sometimes pass out 2-of-a-fit, but you'll feel awful about doing it, and you will check the score to see if you were right and it's a 30% board (even if anything else would have been worse!) You may also find that as you learn to play horrible contracts better and with confidence, that that -150 zero you were booked for magically turned into -100 or -50 for a great score because, again, defence is hard.

 

You might want to restrict your "bidding pact" games to pair games - or at least to matchpointed games. Disappointing team mates can be hard on future relationships.

[AL78]

I am impressed that given the contracts you show as playing, your defence score is average or a bit above. You need really good defence skills (which you get lots of practise in, I guess!) when you're defending a level lower than the field, and defence is usually harder than declarer play, so you have to overcome that advantage as well as get back the bad results on the hands like you've been showing us.

 

I am well known as a bad card holder (I even have on one of my "joke" convention cards "Mycroft only: APAD", which means "Always Pass As Dealer"), and even I am not unlucky enough that I *average* 70% of hands defending (55? I think that's about right).

 

I agree with those who say that becoming more aggressive yourself will not work with an ultra-conservative partner; once they cotton on and get one bad result, they'll back off even more. One of the chapters in "Why You Lose At Bridge" discusses "okay, when partner will never see the hand, and I get to play it, I'll overbid by a trick, but if I have to put my hand down, it will be exactly what partner expects"; just as true now as in 1930.

 

What might work is a "bidding pact". You have to agree beforehand, and there has to be no recriminations for following the rules, but if you and partner agree that for the next month:

• you will not pass 2-of-a-fit undoubled (doubles are takeout, but can be passed), and
  
• you will look for any chance to bid over their resting 2-contract (like the "automatic" lebensohl-into-3♦ after 1NT-(2♠) above) even if it's not known to be a fit, and
  
• you will never comment (besides your version of the automatic "thank you partner. Nice hand") about dummy when it comes down in these auctions, and
  
• you will play your hardest in these balances, even if you know already that you're trying to turn -800 into -500, and
  
• the only comment after the hand allowed is "nice push, partner", even if you failed in your attempt to avoid -800;

then you just might find that at the end of the month your judgment, and partner's judgment, in these situations is much better. You will sometimes pass 2-and-out, you will even sometimes pass out 2-of-a-fit, but you'll feel awful about doing it, and you will check the score to see if you were right and it's a 30% board (even if anything else would have been worse!) You may also find that as you learn to play horrible contracts better and with confidence, that that -150 zero you were booked for magically turned into -100 or -50 for a great score because, again, defence is hard.

 

You might want to restrict your "bidding pact" games to pair games - or at least to matchpointed games. Disappointing team mates can be hard on future relationships.

 

Thank you, that is good advice. I will pass this on to my partner.

[AL78]

Here is one where I have to guess at the auction, it is the only way I can see we got there:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skj83hqtdq943cqt7&w=sq765hj842djtck62&n=s9hk63dak7652c543&e=sat42ha975d8caj98&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1dd1s2hpp3dpp3hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

We got it one off for a 33% score. Six other pairs. Four bid and made 2 or 3♦, two went off in 4♦.

[AL78]

This was against one of the strongest pairs in the club:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sq952hkj62d93ct65&w=sakt86hq97dk876c4&n=sj4h5daqjt4ckqj82&e=s73hat843d52ca973&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1s2n3hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

A bottom. We let through an overtrick but this makes no difference. Almost everyone else is in 3 or 4♣ going one or two down. One EW pair went down in 4♥. Theoretically 4♣ gets us back to the room, but only if we are allowed to play undoubled. Against this pair, the odds are against it I think (but we'll never know).

[helene_t]

That one is clearly well bid by NS, you expect 8+8 total trumps so even the 3♥ bid is not lawful.

 

Both sides can make 8 tricks so defending at the 3-level is right - assuming that both sides can defend double-dummy, of course.