How aggressive should I be in a mixed field?

[AL78]

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

 

I do play weak NT with the partners I play Acol with. With the 5 card major partners I play strong NT. One of those partners (the one who is often criticised on here) doesn't like Acol and is unlikely to change to a weak NT.

 

One of the issues of playing a strong NT is when the opponents come in at the two level and I hold the weak NT hand as opener. I am reluctant to bid again unless I hold a maximum weak NT for fear partner will place me with a better hand and bid up to a losing contract. It is a bit easier playing a weak NT because I will not hold a poor 8 loser flat hand (I'm either intermediate or strong or have a long suit) and so I can either support partner at the three level or bid NT and I will have the playing strength to justify that.

 

I'm guessing from your question you are visualising me as a player who has played Acol weak NT for years and has fairly recently in his bridge career moved into playing strong NT and isn't getting the competitive decisions right (e.g. being too timid) due to lack of strong NT related system knowledge/experience. If you are spotting a common pattern that is possibly causing me to lose in the competitive auctions I would be interested and grateful to hear it.

[AL78]

 

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

 

My partner held that hand, I was the one who overcalled 3♠. As it happens, once the opponent's prevent me from playing in 3♠ we are destined for a poor score unless we can find a double and get them down which is extremely unlikely.

[AL78]

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.

 

This is what I suspect and probably my partner(s) needs to balance more as well. Last week I played against one of my partner's where I opened 1♥, she (LHO) doubled, my partner raised to 3♥ passed out and I made 10 tricks. LHO held a 4333 19 count and tried to blame her partner for not bidding 3♠ with a 4 count (holding 5044 shape, ♠KJxxx). I said with a hand that strong she should have reopened with a double, they can make 3♠. The reason it was a 50% board is because other tables were allowed to play in 3♥X=.

 

You are correct that in the fields I play in, people do bid hyper-aggressively at times overcalling on rubbish, but they have a habit of finding partner with wonderful support or mamage to do it at the perfect time to stuff up our bidding, and it is difficult to punish them properly when they are wrong. Once they get used to getting away with poor bidding it fuels more poor bidding. Several times I have asked a couple of my partners to stop overcalling vulnerable at the two level on five to the KQ and barely an opening hand. Expert players have solid methods and judgement which allows them to work out what is going on and swing the axe on poor bidding, and have the defensive skill to take the full multiples of 100.

[mycroft]

I think I was the one that said that "on this hand I don't want to try to win the board in the auction", and I did mean "on this hand".

 

Because (at least on this side of the Pond), I'm the only one who's having the auction my way already (because it was a weak NT auction, or at least one affected by the weak NT), so there's already that gamble; so I am less willing to step "out of the boat" to make what IIRC was a try for slam, when "all roads lead to 3NT". Now, when my different system gives me the information that shows that the slam is very much odds-on, even if I know the opponents won't have that, sure, I'll use it; but when it's just a maybe? Not really.

 

I'm generally a very aggressive bidder; I think that's clear. There are places where I'm unusually conservative (bidding over the opponents' preempts, for example), but that's a deliberate choice (that allows partner, when I do bid, to comfortably bid game with a "well, if that's a real bid..." hand; knowing that we pay off on other hands). And I play (for the area) unusual systems by preference. I am very happy to win the hand in the auction, a lot of the time.

 

Yes, if you're one of the best players in the game, especially if you're one of the best defenders in the game, by all means bid with the field and play better. It works very well, especially because "gadgets is fun, and so people don't spend time practising play". Obviously, if you're one of those people, you're likely also one of those who can get more out of the field system (and the more comprehensive followups to them that you play), and definitely use that when it comes up, sure (yes, Mike, I hear you).

 

Having said all of that, if you don't compete, it's really hard to win when you're defending all the time; and it's really hard to win when you're defending one level lower than most others, too. I certainly am not in favour of "conceding the auction" - that's not "trying to win in the auction", either.

[nullve]

My partner held that hand, I was the one who overcalled 3♠. As it happens, once the opponent's prevent me from playing in 3♠ we are destined for a poor score unless we can find a double and get them down which is extremely unlikely.

In a strong MP field, almost every EW pair would be able to reach 4♥, e.g. after 1♣/1♦/1N-(3♠)-X(=negative), and make the contract. So competing to 4♠ would be the winning action for NS.

 

Back at your table, are you sure West wouldn't compete to 5♥ over 1N-(3♠)-4♥(???)-(4♠)? Are you sure East, who just bid 4♥ on a 4c suit and then managed to go down down, would never let 4♠X through, e.g. after

 

1. ♦A-♦6-♦8-♦3

2. ♦4*-♦K-♦5-♦2

3. ♠K-♠A-♠6-♠3

4. ♦T**-♦7-♦Q-♠2

 

* "the ♦8 looked encouraging, must follow order"

** "haven't forgotten that ♦8, partner!"

 

?

[Douglas43]

I do play weak NT with the partners I play Acol with. With the 5 card major partners I play strong NT. One of those partners (the one who is often criticised on here) doesn't like Acol and is unlikely to change to a weak NT.

 

One of the issues of playing a strong NT is when the opponents come in at the two level and I hold the weak NT hand as opener. I am reluctant to bid again unless I hold a maximum weak NT for fear partner will place me with a better hand and bid up to a losing contract. It is a bit easier playing a weak NT because I will not hold a poor 8 loser flat hand (I'm either intermediate or strong or have a long suit) and so I can either support partner at the three level or bid NT and I will have the playing strength to justify that.

 

I'm guessing from your question you are visualising me as a player who has played Acol weak NT for years and has fairly recently in his bridge career moved into playing strong NT and isn't getting the competitive decisions right (e.g. being too timid) due to lack of strong NT related system knowledge/experience. If you are spotting a common pattern that is possibly causing me to lose in the competitive auctions I would be interested and grateful to hear it.

 

Well I wondered, because I'm a Brit who mostly plays weak NT and saw from your profile that you are a Brit too. Also, two of the hands cited would be weak NT openers. Two things to consider:

 

After 1NT (overcall)- pass - (pass) it's worth reopening with a takeout double when NV on shape rather than strength

I much prefer 1NT -(overcall) X to be takeout with 7+ hcp. Good penalty doubles are rare

 

If playing strong and 5, do you use support doubles? They don't work with weak NT (imo - I've seen different views from good players), but seem to be very widely used in the US?

[AL78]

Well I wondered, because I'm a Brit who mostly plays weak NT and saw from your profile that you are a Brit too. Also, two of the hands cited would be weak NT openers. Two things to consider:

 

After 1NT (overcall)- pass - (pass) it's worth reopening with a takeout double when NV on shape rather than strength

I much prefer 1NT -(overcall) X to be takeout with 7+ hcp. Good penalty doubles are rare

 

If playing strong and 5, do you use support doubles? They don't work with weak NT (imo - I've seen different views from good players), but seem to be very widely used in the US?

 

I play 1NT (overcall) X as takeout as well and similarly 1NT (overcall) P (P) X. When playing 5CM 15-17NT I do play support doubles with one partner. With the first niggle hand in this thread this was with a new partner and we had forgot to agree support doubles.

[akwoo]

As someone who frequently screws up competitive auctions when playing strong NT (b/c I usually play weak NT in an area where very few play it)... (Every time I play strong NT I warn partner I'll pitch roughly a board a day on some stupid mistake in competition.)

 

The important thing to remember is that responder needs to be slightly less aggressive. When it goes 1D-(3H) to you, with 4 spades in a balanced 9 count, you have to come in playing weak NT (b/c partner is very likely to have either a strong NT hand or a fit with an unbalanced hand) but you pass playing strong NT (b/c partner with 4 spades in a balanced 12 count still might still go down in 3S).

 

The flip side to this is that opener needs to be slightly more aggressive holding those 14 counts, or with some shape, because responder had to be more cautious.

 

Also, I rarely play with weak partners now, so I'm finally losing my bad habit of bidding for them knowing they wouldn't bid one more when they should. (There was a time when 1C-(1D)-1H-(1S)-2H-(2S)-P-(P) resulted in an automatic 3H bid for me to compensate for partner rarely bidding 3H with a 5 card suit even though that should be basically automatic based on Law of Total Tricks.)

[P_Marlowe]

<duplicate>

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

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

<snip>

You did not end up with a bottom due to the preempt, you did end up with a bottom due to your partner raising you.

If you play with someone, who has no idea, when to raise and when not, you are better of passing and defending.

 

If you want to succeed in the mixed field you are playing, try to build up a stable partnership.

If you are the better player in the partnership, make your partner feel comfortable, try to understand, what he

is playing and play in most cases by the book your partner learned to play (whatever this means) and what he plays,

if you cannot stand it, dont replace it, just get rid of it / ignore it, most stuff will not show up anyway.

 

Finally: Agression does randomize the results a bit, if you are the only one regular doing reopening, this will

add to the randomization. If you are better than the average member, you need to minimize random things, the field

will randomize enough.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mikeh]

Well I wondered, because I'm a Brit who mostly plays weak NT and saw from your profile that you are a Brit too. Also, two of the hands cited would be weak NT openers. Two things to consider:

 

After 1NT (overcall)- pass - (pass) it's worth reopening with a takeout double when NV on shape rather than strength

I much prefer 1NT -(overcall) X to be takeout with 7+ hcp. Good penalty doubles are rare

 

If playing strong and 5, do you use support doubles? They don't work with weak NT (imo - I've seen different views from good players), but seem to be very widely used in the US?

I don’t understand why support doubles ‘don’t work with weak 1N methods. I have played support doubles with 10-12, 11-13, and 11-14 1N.

 

There are issues affected by the notrump range, but imo there remains a significant advantage, from support doubles, in determine degree of fit in competitive auctions.

 

Consider holding something like AJx KQx AJxxx xx. PlYing weak notrump, one opens 1D. Partner bids 1M and 4th chair bids 2C.

 

If we bid 2H, responder will be unsure if the degree of support, and won’t know whether you are raising on 4 card support in a minimum unbalanced hand or 4 card support with a minimum strong notrump or this kind of hand. One can hardly pass 2C….what’s partner to do in reopening seat with say Qxx AJxxx xx xxx?

 

A corollary might be that if opener is permitted to raise with 3 card support….say x AJx KQxxx Qxxx after 1D P 1H 1S 2H 2S….

how does responder know to compete to the three level when he doesn’t know how many hearts you hold?

[mycroft]

What I've seen is "we need opener's double to show 15-17, so we can't use it for support".

 

Playing K/S, my assumption is that partner has 15-17, probably balanced, when they open 1m. So, in support double situations, we pass with a hand that fakes 15-17 BAL without support for responder. Whether that's the odd 3145 or 4144 13 count, partner will still guess basically right. This goes with "with the overstrength weak 2, show it as soon as possible, when possible, so partner won't play you for a strong NT" agreement we also have. Therefore we can use the double as support.

 

I think a lot of Acol players don't have the sound minor opening "guarantee"; so they have a bunch of hands that aren't "15-17". So they have to use both double and pass to distinguish the weaker hands from the strong NT. There's a reason I have never felt comfortable answering Acol questions. Also see this discussion about Acol and 12-14.

 

I have said before that 10-12 plays more like strong NT than weak NT. I think this is one of those places.

[Douglas43]

I don't understand why support doubles 'don't work with weak 1N methods. I have played support doubles with 10-12, 11-13, and 11-14 1N.

 

There are issues affected by the notrump range, but imo there remains a significant advantage, from support doubles, in determine degree of fit in competitive auctions.

 

Consider holding something like AJx KQx AJxxx xx. PlYing weak notrump, one opens 1D. Partner bids 1M and 4th chair bids 2C.

 

If we bid 2H, responder will be unsure if the degree of support, and won't know whether you are raising on 4 card support in a minimum unbalanced hand or 4 card support with a minimum strong notrump or this kind of hand. One can hardly pass 2C….what's partner to do in reopening seat with say Qxx AJxxx xx xxx?

 

A corollary might be that if opener is permitted to raise with 3 card support….say x AJx KQxxx Qxxx after 1D P 1H 1S 2H 2S….

how does responder know to compete to the three level when he doesn't know how many hearts you hold?

 

Sorry, I meant to say they don't fit as well, not that they don't work at all. In the sequences you give I'd double to show a hand which is not looking for a penalty and which has extras. It is one of the disadvantages of weak NT that when you have a strong NT type and get intervention, it's harder to define your hand (whereas if you play strong NT and have a weak hand, you can just pass.) On the first hand I'd probably double, and on the second bid 2H on three card support.

[gwnn]

It is a simple fact of life that if you want to win at bridge, at some point in a bridge hand (bidding or play) you will need to do something 'anti-field', on at least some of the boards. If you copy what the field does every time*, it is very difficult to get a standout result. It is a semi-common belief that this moment should happen only in the play, but I never understood why this would be the case. If I can make an overcall that pushes them up a level or gets partner off to a good lead or allows me to buy the hand, that's a success. Sure, I will be careful when I bid games/slams at matchpoints, but even there, yeah, if I think the slam is a good 60+%, I will absolutely bid it.

 

*before someone comments this: yes, you can win at MP by just following what the majority of players do but avoiding really bad mistakes. But it's pretty unlikely, and you are giving up on lots of chances to increase your EV if you are trying to do this. Your edge over the field would need to be massive for you to give up on those opportunities. BTW once your edge over the field is massive enough, it becomes difficult to predict what exactly the field is doing.

[DavidKok]

I couldn't disagree more. The boards where I win the most are the ones where I have a standard, sometimes even boring, auction and my partnership agreements, methods or declarer and defensive play are simply better than those used by my opponents or throughout the rest of the field.

 

In some bridge text, unfortunately I don't remember the source, there was a mention of a 'creative' style as opposited to a 'by the book, 2.5 errors per evening average' style. I always thought the latter was some form of hyperbole - on average I can spot about 1-2 errors on average per board per player when reviewing (first and foremost in my own play), and that's in a pretty strong field. Never mind a 24 to 28-board evening. People do so many different things that I think it is much more productive to worry about taking the optimal or indicated action than to worry about whether that is with the field or anti-field. Just play bridge to the best of your ability, and your opponents will make enough mistakes that this will put you ahead of the field most of the time.

[AL78]

Just play bridge to the best of your ability, and your opponents will make enough mistakes that this will put you ahead of the field most of the time.

 

I try to do this but it hasn't worked that well for me over the last five or six years, hence why I tend to believe my bridge has regressed over the years.

[gwnn]

I couldn't disagree more. The boards where I win the most are the ones where I have a standard, sometimes even boring, auction and my partnership agreements, methods or declarer and defensive play are simply better than those used by my opponents or throughout the rest of the field.

When you say "standard"/"boring", I guess you just mean standard auction for you, not for the field, right? In many fields, people are passing wayyyy too much and I win boards by overcalling "light" and just posing problems to my opponents that other opponents in the field will not face.

[DavidKok]

When you say "standard"/"boring", I guess you just mean standard auction for you, not for the field, right? In many fields, people are passing wayyyy too much and I win boards by overcalling "light" and just posing problems to my opponents that other opponents in the field will not face.

Yes, precisely. Define a partnership style and write a set of system agreements, then stick with them. When my partners felt the need to go 'anti-field' and (deliberately) deviated from the call they thought was best we frequently ended up in a horrible spot. Conversely, the number of times that we compared scores in teams where I opened with "all boring hands, probably very flat" and we ended with "win 18-2, I guess those competitive decisions were problematic after all" far outranks the number of times that anti-percentage actions gave us the necessary edge. Being a consistent bidder is extremely good for your score.

 

I try to do this but it hasn't worked that well for me over the last five or six years, hence why I tend to believe my bridge has regressed over the years.

I think the solution to this is to reconfirm your style and partnership agreements, not deviate from them. It's a tough game, and every hand presents multiple decisions all of which may be critical. Also a lot of the bridge problems you've posted were simply the cause of incorrect action by your partner(s), which is difficult to fix.

[pescetom]

I'm afraid DavidKok is right. Even a good Director makes more than 2.5 errors per evening, many players will be well over 25.

[AL78]

I'm afraid DavidKok is right. Even a good Director makes more than 2.5 errors per evening, many players will be well over 25.

 

On a bad day my main error is turning up. :lol:

[P_Marlowe]

<snip> Also a lot of the bridge problems you've posted were simply the cause of incorrect action by your partner(s), which is difficult to fix.

I agree, the way to do it, is

#1 play regular with the same partner, learning his system / way of thinking, not correcting / teaching him anything new

#2 trying to arrange the seq. in a way, that lead to common situations for him, that may mean scaling down the agressive

preempts (maybe with the exception with preempts to the game level)

If you have the better judgement, try to give yourself a chance to listen, let partner do the talking (and for that matter

let the oponents talk)

[gwnn]

Also a lot of the bridge problems you've posted were simply the cause of incorrect action by your partner(s), which is difficult to fix.

Cattle prods and/or candy can do the trick.