Jump to content

"Shooting" in the last round of an individual?


Recommended Posts

A post by pigpenz in the TD Director's forum (the thread about irrational bids) got me thinking. In a pairs tournament scored at IMPs, I have sometimes "shot" for a good result in the last round. Rarely, and in moderation, e.g. redoubling a doubled contract which I think there's a decent chance to make instead of passing it, etc. Partners have generally been understanding/agreed with the logic whether or not it worked.

 

It was my understanding that so long as the "shooting" is not irrational, and is infrequent, in the last round etc. it is ethical (if this is wrong, please correct me).

 

But is "shooting" in an individual tournament ethical? Is one obliged to be conservative -- despite needing a good IMP result -- because it might hurt one's partner to "shoot" for a good result in the last round?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is "shooting" in an individual tournament ethical? Is one obliged to be conservative -- despite needing a good IMP result -- because it might hurt one's partner to "shoot" for a good result in the last round?

 

I would not consider it ethical... "shooting" with a partner that has participated in the not-so-good results so far is understandable, here you might damage somebody who has had good enough results in the previous rounds that he only needs to hold the cards on the last board to win the event...

 

Indy events are generally wild - at least the non-paid ones.

 

I played a 4x1board indy yesterday and added 3 entries to my enemy list :( - because my partners either overrated their playing skill by 2+ levels or deliberately violated bidding rules that are the foundations for the beginner/intermediate levels :).

 

(Not that my bidding was at it's best at the table, but at least I trusted the partners :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you want to "shoot" in the last round? If there are money prices and your skills are about the middle of the field, a case could be made for shooting all the time, since you will have to live from statistical fluctuations. On the other hand, if you're one of the best and you can continously score plus two or three imps, you should play normal and expect to climb the ladder, since those who are ahead of you early in the tournament probably are so due to fluctuations.

 

This is different from high-level competition. The idea behind "shooting" is that your competitors play decent bridge so if you do that as well you will score appr. zero imps. But in online tournaments open to public, expecially indys, you can't make assumptions about the field.

 

And if your goal is to score as many imps as possible, not heading especially for the first price, then you should just play normal all the time.

 

But assuming that players at place 2-4 will shoot in the last round and other players will not, I think it's unethical unless agreed on with partner. Indy or not, bridge is a partnership game. I think the right thing to do is not to look at the barometer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you want to "shoot" in the last round? If there are money prices and your skills are about the middle of the field, a case could be made for shooting all the time, since you will have to live from statistical fluctuations.

This is not exactly true.

 

If you "feel" that your previous results have been pretty good but not good enough to win (let's say that you would estimate being i.e. 5-10th in a 100), you can assume that to beat all the top players (who are most likely as good as you or better), you simply need a swing... If being first once and 20th once is more valuable to you than being 5th twice, it is a clear position for the lucky shot in the last round.

 

Scoring an ave+ on the last board might push you above some of the pairs ahead of you, but highly unlikely you would jump over all of them.

 

Shooting all the time will put you in the middle of the field in the long run (and I think that the long run here is much shorter than one would expect). If the statistical fluctuations are to provide you with a hefty margin for shooting, the "normal, decent" play would most likely provide enough to give you the grounds for last round "shooting".

 

(That is, if you shoot in every round, the possibility of a good average due to statistical fluctuations will quite likely be outweighed by the probability of getting not just a bad result, but the occasional disaster where the bad breaks cause a double of your "shot")

 

Shooting in the last round, given that all the previous rounds make you feel just slightly below the top, is a perfectly sound concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

 

And if your goal is to score as many imps as possible, not heading especially for the first price, then you should just play normal all the time.

 

But assuming that players at place 2-4 will shoot in the last round and other players will not, I think it's unethical unless agreed on with partner. Indy or not, bridge is a partnership game. I think the right thing to do is not to look at the barometer.

I'm referring to those tournaments in which one's approximate IMP scores for each round are visible in the movie -- so one has a very good idea of how one is doing, IMP-wise. And I've certainly been in the position where, in the last round, I KNOW from the IMP score that e.g. a hard to reach/make slam will probably give me enough IMPs to place well, but a "normal" game will not.

 

So I disagree with your suggestion/implication that playing (bidding) normally all the time is the best thing, results-wise. One sometimes knows, given the movie which shows IMPs, that bidding normally (or making the percentage play which everyone will, or whatever) will not give a good enough result. Isn't the rational choice in such a situation to "shoot"?

 

With respect to unfairness to partner, I tend to agree with you, but then is it ethical at the start of the round when choosing bidding system to chat e.g.:

 

"P, let's use SAYC with conventions as in your profile and standard carding; plus I have bad results so far and want to be aggressive to try and pick up some IMPs."

 

and the response is

 

"That's okay with me, we'll use RKC 0314 and I too need a big result to place well so we'll both 'shoot' if the opportunity arises. Redoubles will be to play, not SOS, etc."

 

Is there any ethical objection to discussing at the start of the round when clarifying system and carding (it would be public of course so that opponents would be aware) one's results in the tournament thus far with partner to see if a more aggressive/shooting approach is okay with both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any ethical objection to discussing at the start of the round when clarifying system and carding (it would be public of course so that opponents would be aware) one's results in the tournament thus far with partner to see if a more aggressive/shooting approach is okay with both?

Indy events on BBO seem to be much more relaxed than real life... When you play Indy in a club, there usually is a VERY strict system, including carding - and using any extra conventions or making extra agreements it strictly forbidden.

 

Why should you be rewarded by a better result in the tournament just because you we're lucky enough to be seated agianst someone who knows and plays a similar system and the same gadgets?.

 

(And bidding strategy should fall in here as well...)

 

But, then, read the event rules and if they don't force any system upon you, play what you want and how you want - but still, without agreeing with a partner...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, then, read the event rules and if they don't force any system upon you, play what you want and how you want - but still, without agreeing with a partner...

I don't understand this. Do you seriously suggest that you should play your own pet system without agreement with partner? I.e. playing Moscito while partner plays Acol?

 

If the tournament does not prescribe a specific system (most don't), then you must make agreements with each partner. There is a significant number of BBO players who can't play SAYC. So if you play in an indy that takes place while America is sleeping, you will do better if you have some basic knowledge of WJ, Precision, Acol and four-card-majors-strong-notrump. That's part of the game.

 

Anyway, this thread is about whether it's ethical towards partner to play by a strategy that may be contradictory to partner's ends. So that's a different issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, then, read the event rules and if they don't force any system upon you, play what you want and how you want - but still, without agreeing with a partner...

I don't understand this. Do you seriously suggest that you should play your own pet system without agreement with partner? I.e. playing Moscito while partner plays Acol?

No, of couse I did not mean that :-). I always assume that partner plays SAYC or BBO basic. I've never noticed players making agreements in Indies on BBO ;) - so I play better minor and the rest follows naturally :lol:.

 

I don't think it is reasonable to play individual where you would have to make agreements with every partner. I would presume that it is OK to agree on basic approach as that can be handled quickly enough not to slow down the game...

 

But to return to the issue - when playing Indy I would consider it ethical must to play the same bridge and same strategies throughout the tournament. I would be extremely upset to lose 15 IMPS and i.e. end below average just because I had to sit against somebody for whom being 5/100 is not enough...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick comment:

 

I easiest way to understand this issue is to examine winning scores from BBO indies.

Regretfully, I don't have access to BBO at the moment, but as I recall players typically need to average between +5 and +8 IMPs per board in order to have a chance at finishing in the money.

 

"shooting" in the kast round isn't sufficient to win. Winning requires adopting high variance tactics throughout the event, combined with a fair bit of luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regretfully, I don't have access to BBO at the moment,

Richard did you get blacklisted !?! :o

Maybe he got suspended by the sacred inquisition (AKA ACBL) for playing satanic bidding systems like Moscito or Polish club.

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regretfully, I don't have access to BBO at the moment,

Richard did you get blacklisted !?! :o

Not to my knowledge... :-)

 

I'm visiting friends in Vermont. While I have access to the Internet and the forums, I don't have a system that can run the BBO client. I'll be back down in South in a day or two and willing/able to play.

 

For what its worth, I'll be taking an extended vacation to Australia starting July 22nd. While there, I'll be spending a couple days in Melbourne visiting the Hog. I'll also be working the Vugraph at the WBF youth congress in Sydney. In between, I'm going to be hiking and kayaking up arround Cairns. Unclear whether I'll be able (or willing) to access the forums...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if your trying to win the event i dont see anything wrong with it, I know i have made a partner mad or two at the end of the last round when they asked why did you do that, and I said my previous results were not good enough to win, so i was trying to create some action. :o to win the event!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thread I can relate to! :(

 

I often play in pay tourneys and have been known to "Shoot". Very often, I would enter the last round at about -10 IMPs or so, and know that only the top 40% players get the Masterpoints. So, I shoot the moon, meaning take agressive, anti-field bids/plays and hope it gains big. For me, they usually lose big, so I usually end up in last (or close to it). However, since only the Top 40% get it anyway: Example: If there are 40 players, you must be 16th or better: Meaning, 20th will give you the same BBO Points that 40th would give you: 0. Hense, I try for every IMP I could get and hope that it works and it is enough.

 

Now, if I'm doing WELL, I bid/play normal. I'm almost as happy for Second/Third Place than First. But, many pay tourneys have BBO$ awards for First Place, making it tempting to risk the Masterpoints for 2nd/3rd/etc. to go for First and win the BBO$.

 

But, I do see the arguments that, esp. in Indys, that you are tainting the results and hurting other tables by making bids and plays that you don't think other tables, facing the same decisions, will also make. But, it also adds a random luck factor and you know you could be field-fixed, but you have to take some risks, too.

 

But, really, I want to know other people's opinions on shooting in IMP Pay tourneys, esp. BBO Land and Sky Club, which often gives BBO$ awards for first place AND BBO Masterpoints. If you know you need a huge swing to even place in the Masterpoints (Top 40%), I almost wonder what is the point for NOT "Shooting" (esp. redoubling doubled contracts and hoping that they make, as making a redoubled game will result in a larger IMP gain swing than making a doubled game), other than the ethical fact that you might be hurting partner, opponents, and players at other tables by making decisions that you think will differ from the Field because you are tainting the scores. (Or course, if I am so far minus that I have NO hope of placing in the Masterpoints, I bid/play normal for the last rounds.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what its worth, I'll be taking an extended vacation to Australia starting July 22nd. While there, I'll be spending a couple days in Melbourne visiting the Hog. I'll also be working the Vugraph at the WBF youth congress in Sydney. In between, I'm going to be hiking and kayaking up arround Cairns. Unclear whether I'll be able (or willing) to access the forums...

i envy you that trip... not the hiking and kayaking part (i'd only do that if it was the only way to get to the beer), but especially the melborne part... one day i hope to see my friend ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i envy you that trip... not the hiking and kayaking part (i'd only do that if it was the only way to get to the beer), but especially the melborne part... one day i hope to see my friend ron

this raises a VERY important point...

Is there good beer in australia.

 

Foster's is near undrinkable (I hear that it, like Corona is only for export)

Steinlager never did much...

 

I've heard good things about "Full Sail". There is a beer here in the staes with the same name which is one of my favorites. Also, how dos XXXX rate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hI

Hope you enjoy your Oz trip. As for the beer.. it's generally awful on the big island, but at least is served cold in even the most humble establishment. If you come from the USA you wont notice any drop in standard anyhow ;)

If you get to Tasmania, 'Cascade' is pleasant enough. If beer quality is critical element in your holiday, you are in the wrong continent .. try Europe

 

Rgdds Dog :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...