How aggressive should I be in a mixed field?

[AL78]

On my recent thread where I made a questional pre-empt in third seat at favourable and ended up with a bottom, someone responded with this advice:

 

"I would not try to win boards in the bidding."

 

I can see where this is coming from and playing down the middle is arguably the most optimal way to get a decent score. On the other hand I get the impression I am not aggressive enough in the bidding, and on occasional hands posted on here, many people advocate bidding where I would have passed. I had a look on Pianola at my year-to-date stats and it says I have defended on 76.4% of boards. To my mind this does not look like an ingredient for winning bridge so I have been bidding more frequently in borderline situations where in the past I would have held back, and the 3♣ pre-empt is one example. Am I advised to avoid doing this?

[LBengtsson]

I had a look on Pianola at my year-to-date stats and it says I have defended on 76.4% of boards.

 

Think it is time you became a little more aggressive whatever the field :) That figure looks out of the ballpark imo, apologies for saying this, AL78. But there again it is a partnership game so maybe your partner is not helping your stats.

[DavidKok]

A few years ago my partner converted me to an aggressive playstyle (before that I was bidding more 'middle-of-the-road'). I think it is a winning approach to modern bridge, and would highly recommend you consider bidding more aggressively.

 

That being said, defending 76.4% of the time is so high (I assume this includes all boards, so the a priori guess should be 50%) that I don't think this is something you can change up overnight. You probably need to balance more, open more, raise more and pre-balance more - a single change won't cut it. Or maybe get (a) better (partner) at defending - opponents won't stretch and bid one more as easily if you are known as someone who wields the axe when it is right.

[eagles123]

76.4% defending seems pretty remarkable over a large number of boards. Are you sure this isn’t just hands where u personally aren’t declaring?

[DavidKok]

As an aside I am not at all a believer of adapting your style to the field you play in. It can stunt your growth as a player to play methods that only work in certain circles, plus it is difficult to switch up styles on the fly. Personally I always aim to play to the best of my own partnership style (aggressive in almost all situations), and watch as my opponents adapt.

There's certain benefits to adjusting to the level and style of your opponents, but in practice I think most of that is dwarfed by errors, suboptimal choices and misunderstandings. Focus on making the 'boring' system call first, and adjusting for the field only when the former has become second nature.

[AL78]

76.4% defending seems pretty remarkable over a large number of boards. Are you sure this isn’t just hands where u personally aren’t declaring?

 

No, it says "declaring side", "defending side" and "pass". Unfortunately there seems no way of inserting a png image into a post otherwise I would show a screenshot.

[Cyberyeti]

Last time I saw stats that high was when 2 junior world champions unveiled their avant garde "pass throughout" system at the Cambridge university BC when I was a student. They scored well over 60%.

[AL78]

A few years ago my partner converted me to an aggressive playstyle (before that I was bidding more 'middle-of-the-road'). I think it is a winning approach to modern bridge, and would highly recommend you consider bidding more aggressively.

 

That being said, defending 76.4% of the time is so high (I assume this includes all boards, so the a priori guess should be 50%) that I don't think this is something you can change up overnight. You probably need to balance more, open more, raise more and pre-balance more - a single change won't cut it. Or maybe get (a) better (partner) at defending - opponents won't stretch and bid one more as easily if you are known as someone who wields the axe when it is right.

 

Admittedly I have been going through a run of poor hands over the last couple of months (i.e. mean HCP well below 10). Last Wednesday was a good example, my average HCP 8.04, we declared 12 out of of 25 boards of which eight of those were declared by partner.

 

Another niggle is hands like this:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saj2hkj983d973c86&w=s987643h64daqt2cq&n=skht752dk64ckjt32&e=sqt5haqdj85ca9754&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1c1h1s3hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Sitting East I was reluctant to bid 3♠ with a minimal weak NT hand and badly placed heart honors. The field playing a weak NT don't have this problem as South will not overcall at the two level hence one pair plays in 2♠= and the other pair over-ambitiously plays in 4♠-2. I do somewhat frequently get these difficult competitive decisions thrown at me and get them wrong more often than not, only to find most of the field never got tested. I think there is a combination of mis-judgement in competitive auctions and being the only one to be put to the test, sometimes the opps bid one more where others don't and it is the winning action. I'm tempted to log the hands where we get pushed around and lose the board and see if I/we could have done more.

[DavidKok]

That example board was mostly unlucky. I happen to have the agreement that 3♠ is competitive and double is invitational (a Game Try Double) on that auction, and I would have bid 3♠. But bad boards will always happen - in the long run that averages out though. For every bad board where you got tested while the field didn't there are supposed to be boards that go the other way, or where you test the opponents where the field couldn't.

[Cyberyeti]

That example board was mostly unlucky. I happen to have the agreement that 3♠ is competitive and double is invitational (a Game Try Double) on that auction, and I would have bid 3♠. But bad boards will always happen - in the long run that averages out though. For every bad board where you got tested while the field didn't there are supposed to be boards that go the other way, or where you test the opponents where the field couldn't.

 

This is fair, but you should beat 3♥ for an average, I take it you didn't.

[AL78]

That example board was mostly unlucky. I happen to have the agreement that 3♠ is competitive and double is invitational (a Game Try Double) on that auction, and I would have bid 3♠. But bad boards will always happen - in the long run that averages out though. For every bad board where you got tested while the field didn't there are supposed to be boards that go the other way, or where you test the opponents where the field couldn't.

 

Thanks, that is useful information. I agreed with this partner (first time partnership) that 1H -(1S) - 2H - (2S) - 3H is competitive and 1H -(1S) - 2H - (2S) - X is invitational but haven't talked about similar situations like this. Going by what you say it should be possible to agree that when opponents support to the three level, double is invitational in our or partner's long suit and bidding is purely competitive.

[DavidKok]

My exact agreement is "When we have a major suit fit, and the opponents bid to the 3-level in the suit directly ranking below ours, we play 3 in our suit as competitive, and double as a game try. If the opponents raise to the 3-level in a suit ranking two lower we use 3 of the major as competitive, double as takeout (no fit, extras) and the only free bid below 3 of the major as a game try." If we bid spades and they raise to 3♣ the agreement is more complicated. Note that on the example auction partner does not yet know of the spade fit, but we've decided that game try doubles are more important than takeout doubles even if the fit hasn't been established yet.

At any rate I think having Game Try Doubles (sometimes also somewhat mistakenly called Power Doubles, although there are also other forms of Power Doubles) is not going to make or break your competitive auctions. Accidents over the meaning of double will, at least in the short run, cost more than this convention will gain.

 

This is fair, but you should beat 3♥ for an average, I take it you didn't.

Doesn't this rely on getting the club ruff early? It's not obvious to me that you would find this on the auction, though it's probably percentage to try for it. If you lead a spade (for example) there is no time for the defence to both get a club ruff and establish the second diamond trick, since going for the club ruff establishes dummy's club suit for diamond discards.

[AL78]

This is fair, but you should beat 3♥ for an average, I take it you didn't.

 

No we didn't. Partner led the ♣Q, I overtook (I mean covered dummy's king) and gave him a ruff, we only got one heart and one diamond in addition. I can't see the killer defence although I agree there is a way to get it down. Declarer can pitch a diamond loser on a spade and the 2-2 heart break means he can ruff two losers in dummy. Our first two tricks have set up dummy's clubs as well. What am I missing?

[DavidKok]

Instead of the club ruff you could return a diamond, knocking out dummy's king. There is then no entry to the ace of spades, and after cashing two diamonds and the ace of hearts (in any order) you still get the club ruff. I think this is difficult to find - it relies on finding partner with pretty much the exact right diamonds and an empty spade suit.

[Cyberyeti]

No we didn't. Partner led the ♣Q, I overtook (I mean covered dummy's king) and gave him a ruff, we only got one heart and one diamond in addition. I can't see the killer defence although I agree there is a way to get it down. Declarer can pitch a diamond loser on a spade and the 2-2 heart break means he can ruff two losers in dummy. Our first two tricks have set up dummy's clubs as well. What am I missing?

 

Don't take the ruff immediately, switch to a diamond and he has no way back to hand to take the discard, fly the heart ace and take a ruff and 2 diamonds.

[AL78]

Yes I have just worked it out, we need to attack the diamonds whilst I hold the trump ace. After unblocking the spades declarer has no immediate way back to hand, their best chance is to try a trump, I go up with the ace and give partner his ruff and we have a second diamond trick. It is like mathematics, order of operations matters. I'm afraid I am not good enough to see that defence at trick one, I'll leave that one to the monks of St Titus. How do I know that isn't a frozen suit?

[akwoo]

Thanks, that is useful information. I agreed with this partner (first time partnership) that 1H -(1S) - 2H - (2S) - 3H is competitive and 1H -(1S) - 2H - (2S) - X is invitational but haven't talked about similar situations like this. Going by what you say it should be possible to agree that when opponents support to the three level, double is invitational in our or partner's long suit and bidding is purely competitive.

 

Meta-agreement: unless your length in the suit is limited by the failure to open it (opener is assumed to not have a 5 card major if they opened a minor), all raises in competition are competitive and presumed to be based purely on Law of Total Tricks.

[AL78]

Another competitive hand where I got it wrong (I was North):

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s4hakj62dj98c9764&w=sajt7ht4daq76ct52&n=sk86h875dt52cakqj&e=sq9532hq93dk43c83&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c1s2h2sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I need to bid 3♥ which makes. Whilst I have four quick tricks in clubs I was again concerned with the high number of losers and that 3♥ would show a better hand with fewer losers. I didn't expect partner to hold a singleton. Again the weak NTers don't have this problem as East does not have a two level overcall and they can safely come to rest in 2♥ which is what happened at the majority of tables.

[AL78]

There was this one where I don't think we could have done better:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=st86h76dkj76ckt73&w=s43haj94dq85caj65&n=skqj9752hk85d32c8&e=sahqt32dat94cq942&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1n(12-14)3s4hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I thought East's last bid volunteering a four card suit at the four level was insane but it was a/the winning call and she drifted one off for a 20% score to us. Out of the other five tables three were in 3♠N, one doubled, all making. The only reason it wasn't a bottom was because one table played in 4♠X-1. If we cannot play in 3♠ we lose the board.

[Cyberyeti]

There was this one where I don't think we could have done better:

 

If we cannot play in 3♠ we lose the board.

 

Untrue, doubling 4♥ gets you a good board, but this is difficult to do, what did 3♠ show by your methods ? Was that typical or heavy ?

[AL78]

Untrue, doubling 4♥ gets you a good board, but this is difficult to do, what did 3♠ show by your methods ? Was that typical or heavy ?

 

3♠ is pre-emptive and my hand is a maximum for that here. How can I work out that doubling is a reasonable action here? As far as I am concerned at the time East has their bid and 4♥= will be a common score.

[Cyberyeti]

3♠ is pre-emptive and my hand is a maximum for that here. How can I work out that doubling is a reasonable action here? As far as I am concerned at the time East has their bid and 4♥= will be a common score.

 

You can't if that's the case, if you played something closer to 9-12 for the overcall then you might be able to double

[eagles123]

Weak players always bid too much, people overcall on random shite like 1S 2D on xxx Kxx KJxxx Kx or something, which no sensible player would do. Also they'll often have auctions such as [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2s3hpp3s4hpp4s]133|100[/hv] or some nonsense which again wouldn't happen at a better standard. So they will be a couple of reasons that you defend more, but it does seem if you're defending over 3/4 of the time, that probably you do need to be balancing a bit more, etc.

[nullve]

The real bidding problem on the first deal is:

 

[hv=pc=n&w=s987643h64daqt2cq&d=n&v=0&b=5&a=p1c1h1s3hpp?]133|200[/hv]

What I often do in situations like this is to try to figure out the distribution around table is and then apply LoTT (with adjustments).

 

More specifically, before I apply LoTT I assume that the actual distribution around the table is close to the mode distribution(s) around the table or, rather, what I get when I try to divide each suit as evenly as possible consistent with the bidding and the requirement that each player get 13 cards. (If that's a silly method, please let me know. :)) Here, for example, I get

 

N: 2434

E: 3235

S: 2533,

 

so I'd assume there are close to 18 total trumps. My poor trumps and (in my experience) also South's assumed 5T(332) shape suggest that total tricks may be lower than this, although rarely as low (16) as on the actual deal. So (by LoTT w/ adjustments) I'd assume 17 total tricks and bid 3♠ (competitive, NF) accordingly.

 

On the second deal I assume the 2♥ response was forcing to at least 2N. Then one possible agreement is that it sets up forcing pass to 2N, and North's pass over the 2♠ advance would actually be forcing. It doesn't seem like you have that agreement, so in this position

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sk86h875dT52cakqj&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c1s2h2s?]133|200[/hv]

you only had to decide whether to raise or not. You passed, which looks kind of defensible in view of the poor trump holding and the K of their suit (collectively suggesting total tricks < total trumps), so now your partner got the following problem

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s4hakj62dj98c9764&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c1s2h2spp?]133|200[/hv]

instead. LoTT would have told him not to pass, of course.

 

LoTT (or a corollary to it, "bid to the level of your fit") would also have told you what to do in this position

 

[hv=pc=n&s=st86h76dkj76ckt73&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1n3s4h?]133|200[/hv]

on the third deal, and your partner what to do in this position

 

[hv=pc=n&n=s985ht764dkjt3cj6&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp3cd?]133|200[/hv]

taken from a very recent thread.

[Douglas43]

At the risk of being controversial, have you considered going back to the weak NT?