[AAr]

They say you should always get a good board when you successfully push them to the 3-level, but my experience says that that is NOT the case when their contract makes exactly (for 140, no overtricks)m which happens to me about 90% of the time I push then to 3H/3S. Is this true?

I mean, -140 loses to +100, so you're losing to the tables where the oppoennts go for game. If you misdefend, the other tables defending the same contract will score +100, which beats your -140. And, if it forces them into a riskier play which works, it turns -110 to -140, and -140 loses to -110. And, if you can make your own contract (or even get off with down 1), the tables playing their own contracts will also usually get scores beating your -140. Futhermore, you only TIE the other tables who let them play at the 2-level (-140 ties -140.).

Or, am I missing something? Is the real reason to push them to the 3-level is to hope to turn -110 into +100 and not just to turn -140 into -140?

And, does pushing them to the 3-level really improve your IMP/MP score if they still make it exactly? Or, can you still only expect good boards when you either set them or they're missing game (and you have no game on your own)?

Thanks!

[Al_U_Card]

Hunh? I guess it may eventually tire them out from concentrating on making the higher level contract... Unless they are already tired and then go down when they could have made....

[inquiry]

All things being equal.. if your opponents are forced to the three level rather than the two level, you will be a winner in the long run. The logic is if they take 9 or more tricks, they get the same score they woudl have gotten if they stayed on the two level. If they take less than 9 tricks, you do better and they do worse than if they had stayed on the two level (with 8 tricks, they are down one rather than making, or with 7 tricks, they are down two rather than down one).

It is a winning bet in the long run. But notice, when they take 9 tricks or more, you get the same score you would have gotten if they stayed on the two level. It is simple heads you win, tails you stay even. In the long run, some of the time, they will take less than 9 tricks... you win on those.. .(as compared to letting them rest peacefully in two).. on the others, you get whatever score you were going to get, and that score could be good for you or bad for you.... but you were heading that way anyway.

[kenberg]

My only suggestion here is this: If someone tells you that you get a better score defendinng 3 spades making 3 than for defending two spades making 3, you thank them very much for this information that you had been unaware of, and then quickly get away from him before he starts explaining the Kennedy was killed by the CIA.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on Dec 14 2005, 04:21 PM, said:

My only suggestion here is this: If someone tells you that you get a better score defendinng 3 spades making 3 than for defending two spades making 3, you thank them very much for this information that you had been unaware of, and then quickly get away from him before he starts explaining the Kennedy was killed by the CIA.

Black Ops, not the CIA.....

[mikeh]

Who is this 'they' that people complain about?

No bridge authority worthy of the name would pretend that any particular strategy always produces a gain.

Pushing the opps to the 3-level will gain most plainly on those hands on which they can make only 8 tricks.

As you noted, it makes no (apparent) difference when they can always make 9 tricks.

However, there are other factors, some of which cut both ways.

The biggest edge is that you will develop a reputation as a tough opponent. There is a pair in my local club who constantly compete. They go too far, and are often nailed by good pairs for a penalty, but they definitely gain an edge against average or weaker opps. While their over-exuberance generally works to my advantage, even so, I respect them and I certainly have to make more difficult decisions against them than against most... and I do not always get those decisions right. Were they to improve their judgement a modest degree, then I would not enjoy playing them in a mp event.

Another edge that can accumulate is the situation in which they are cold for 9 tricks but can risk being held to 8 by adopting a line that will usually generate 10.

At imps, if the 10 trick line is better than 50%, they wil usually take that line if at the 2-level, but not at the 3-level. Even at mps, they may not want to risk a disastrous minus score. Now, this backfires if the extra trick line loses, but on balance, if the extra trick line is a favourite, you will gain by making it unsafe.

If you are an opponent who pushes, then the opps are going to have to make more uncomfortable decisions against you than against other opps. This may be an edge to you, especially in a long team match.

If you are a better defender than your opp is a declarer, then by pushing them, you will increase the mental fatigue level of your opp more than you will increase your fatigue level by having to focus on defending a 3-level contract. However, there are two defenders and only one declarer, so beware of exhausting partner

I am sure that there are other factors to consider to one degree or another, but this post is already too long

[Fluffy]

Al_U_Card, on Dec 14 2005, 09:27 PM, said:

kenberg, on Dec 14 2005, 04:21 PM, said:

My only suggestion here is this: If someone tells you that you get a better score defendinng 3 spades making 3 than for defending two spades making 3, you thank them very much for this information that you had been unaware of, and then quickly get away from him before he starts explaining the Kennedy was killed by the CIA.

Black Ops, not the CIA.....

Doh!, I always though it was South Africa-Greece-Philipine Islands who arranged that.


BTW, making them play at the 3 level also converts +50 into +100

[Double !]

AAr, on Dec 14 2005, 03:44 PM, said:

They say you should always get a good board when you successfully push them to the 3-level, but my experience says that that is NOT the case when their contract makes exactly (for 140, no overtricks)m which happens to me about 90% of the time I push then to 3H/3S. Is this true?

Don't know who ever made this statement.

The purpose of pushing the opps to the 3-level is to obtain what some have called "a middle", roughly translated as "heads, you wins, tails, you tie". If the opps are always making 3 then you either lose nothing for your endeavors should they bid 3 (tails, you tie), or you gain when you make you make your contract or the opps don't bid 3 and your loss is less than the value of the opps making 3 (heads). And you also win (heads) when the opps push to 3 and don't make (although you need to now re-assess whether the amount of the penalty is sufficient to compensate for what you could have made in your contract).

DHL

[barmar]

And don't forget about the gains that you get when the opponents don't take the push, and you either make your own part score (usually better than setting them, unless you can double them) or go down 50 or 100 when they were making 2. I know the question was about successfully pushing the opponents, but if you're trying to push them you can also succeed when they don't take it.

[Chamaco]

AAr, on Dec 14 2005, 08:44 PM, said:

They say you should always get a good board when you successfully push them to the 3-level,

.........


Is this true?

I think this statement was not phrased properly: a better one would be "by pushing opps to the 3 level you are more likely to force them to the limit of theit potential, hence gaining more chances to defeat their partscore"

I mean, all things being equal, you are more likely to defeat them if they play at the 3 level than at the 2 level (yes, I felt a genius when I was typing this... ).

So, on average, pushing them is not a guaraantee of a good board, but, NOT pushing them is - many times - the best way towards a poor score, at least at Matchpoints pairs.

[pigpenz]

is this a real question
you may find that you get to play the hand and make or go -50 or -100 which is better than -110 or -140....if you dont try then nothing ventured nothing gained...it just improves your chances of going plus

[Gerben42]

Well maybe JFK is really still alive and who cares anyway, let's talk about Bridge.

What the poster's point is that if 3♠ is on a winning finesse that opps might not have taken if they were in 2♠ that his MP score just got worse. I think that in general this is not a thing to worry about as usually they will take the finesse anyway, and if not maybe it was losing.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Well maybe JFK is really still alive and who cares anyway, let's talk about Bridge.

I happen to know for a fact that JFK is not alive - Elvis himself told me.

Winston

[barmar]

Gerben42, on Dec 16 2005, 10:46 AM, said:

What the poster's point is that if 3♠ is on a winning finesse that opps might not have taken if they were in 2♠ that his MP score just got worse. I think that in general this is not a thing to worry about as usually they will take the finesse anyway, and if not maybe it was losing.

He specifically said "risky finesse", so I don't think he's talking about a finesse you take just for a possible overtrick, but if it loses you were going down. While this is sometimes necessary in matchpoints (just making a normal contract will get you at best an average board, so you need the overtrick for a good score), if the opponents push you to the next level then it's a forced play in any form of scoring. If the finesse is on, the best you'll get by pushing them is an average, since you'll lose to all the pairs who didn't push and whose opponents didn't go for the overtrick.

However, it's not always the case that the play for the 9th trick is so obvious. If making 3 requires very careful play or a good guess, you may get a good board because your opponents don't find the proper play. Letting them play at the 2 level is probably going to get you an average -- pushing them to 3 means you're either getting a top or bottom, depending on how well they can handle it.

But remember, most of the other pairs sitting in your seats are going to have the same decision to make. It usually pays to go with the field, so if this is a situation where pushing is normal, you should push as well.

[kenberg]

There are other things that can go wrong besides the taking of a needed (for nine) finesse they would not normally take. You cannot push them without partially disclosing the nature of your hand, and this may lead declarer, if he accepts the push, to adopt a successful line that would not be indicated without the disclosure.

Like most everyone else, I indulge in pushing both at mps and at imps and, by and large, it's no doubt a good idea. I think it is sometimes possible to diagnose it as being a bad idea, and sometimes the diagnosis is even correct. When it turns out not to be correct, partner rarely is interested in what led you to your decision to go passive. He is not supposed to just give you rules, "Always push to the three level", however. If bridge were that simple, intelligent people wouldn't bother to play it.

k

PS I just finished playing a hand where I decided not to push them. Wrong! Pard didn't say a word. Good pard.

[mikestar]

kenberg, on Dec 14 2005, 09:21 PM, said:

My only suggestion here is this: If someone tells you that you get a better score defendinng 3 spades making 3 than for defending two spades making 3, you thank them very much for this information that you had been unaware of, and then quickly get away from him before he starts explaining the Kennedy was killed by the CIA.

LOL!

But under Vanderbilt's original scoring table, 3♠ making exactaly did score less than 2♠ with an overtrick. Undoubled overtricks were then worth 50 points.

[kenberg]

Now this really is something I didn't know. It would add a zinger to mps.

Ken