[BillHiggin]

jdonn, on Aug 22 2007, 12:37 PM, said:

Lucky in cards, unlucky in love...

When I was 40, I married a very pretty lady in her late 20's. No wonder my chances of earning a star are near non-existant. O well - I made the right choice!

[awm]

Seems obvious that this kind of thing depends on the situation and how you mean pessimist and optimist. What I have noticed though:

It pays to be optimistic in competitive bidding situations, and in bidding games. The point is that bridge is a tough game, and even the best opponents make mistakes. Even if you bid a game which is (strictly speaking) against the odds, sometimes your opponents make a bad lead or misdefend and you make anyway. Sometimes when you compete over the opponents 4♠ opening and you rate to go for 800, they forget to double you. The point is that you shouldn't assume opponents will always make the right decisions.

It pays to be pessimistic with regard to grand slams. Some of this is that people don't always calculate odds correctly -- there are often "weird" lies of the cards that defeat your contract which combine to a surprisingly high percentage to fail. But even calculating correctly, the IMP odds for bidding a grand assume that they bid small slam at the other table. Sometimes the other table stops in game, and then you feel like a moron going down in a grand slam. I think it was Barry Crane who told his teammates never to bid grand slams at swiss.

I find that it pays to be pessimistic on opening lead. What I mean is, I find that I'm better off not trying to be a hero and find some brilliant lead which might be "the only lead to set the contract" but rather try not to be the goat who makes "the only lead to let the contract make." Some of this is a corollary to the first rule -- if opponents are optimistic in game bidding they will probably bid a fair number of games that just have no play, and setting these routinely will serve me better than heroics.

[kenberg]

A rose by any other name...

On another thread there was a discussion along the following lines: partner opens 1N, you hold someting like Jxxxx/Qxxxxx/x/x (or maybe the Q and J were reversed). Some drove to game, some invited game, some transferred to hearts and passed. Justin, who advocates optimism, advocated transfer and drop. I agreed, describing myself as a pessimist. In fact, partner has three hearts, they split 2-2, and a spade finesse works. Ten tricks. Call it optimism, call it crazy, call it whatever, bidding 4 works. I describe transferring to 2H and passing as pessimistic. It sounds like a reasonable use of the word.

Here is a play situation: You hold AT9xxx of hearts. Partner holds Kx. Diamonds and spade tricks aplenty are available for the taking. You have a stiff club, partner has two. You are in 4H at mps. You ruff the second club, you play K then ace of hearts, everyone follows. If you play another heart and they split, you make five. If they don't split, you go down. If you abandon trump and start cashing winners you make exactly four, no question. Optimism? Pessimism? Desire to roll the dice? What should we call it? (Yes, 6D is cold but you cannot do anything about that now. I will put it up for bidding comment on its own thread. We were in 5H. Our luck was in.)

[han]

Here are two similar situations where I think an optimistic view is best:

Sometimes you have to chose between a value bid that doesn't describe your hand or an overbid that does do justice to your hand. For example playing 2/1 and holding x Axxx AQ10xxxx xx after partner opens 1S. Here I think that it is right to force to game, even if that means that you might end up too high when partner has a misfit. If you start with 1NT then you won't be able to show your hand.

Sometimes you know game will be really good if partner has a good fitting minimum, yet quite bad if partner has a bad fit with extras. If you cannot make a descriptive invite then it is usually best to just bid game hoping that partner has a decent fit. An example: x Axxx KQJxx xxx, partner opens 1S and rebids 2H over your 1NT. Now it seems clearly right to bid 4H. If partner has diamond shortness then this may be a poor spot but you cannot find out below game and often game will be great.

I think the principles are correct but I made the hands up on the spot. I would like to hear it if anybody disagrees with my suggested bids (I think that the second one is quite clear, the first one is a little closer to a decision).

[han]

mikeh, on Aug 22 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

3) it is sometimes a failure to double, but I rarely lose imps when I don't double... altho I often fail to win imps... not quite the same thing, but important if my team is behind or outgunned

I think failing to win IMPs should often be regarded in the same way as losing IMPs. Bridge decisions should be viewed in terms of expectancy. If a double rates to win 5 IMPs 60% of the time and lose 5 IMPs 40% of the time then it is clearly right to double in almost all situations, and certainly at the start of any long match.

Maybe I misunderstood the comment, I'm rather surprised to read this. I'm a big fan of making what seems to be the "right" bid, instead of the "normal" bid which partner and teammates will easier accept if it turns out badly. (even though I realize that the "right" decisions often will turns out to be "wrong" decisions in retrospect, at least in my case).

[awm]

While I agree with Hannie's examples some of the time, some of the time I don't...

I guess there are a few points:

(1) When your methods don't allow you to accurately describe both your shape and your strength, it's better to describe shape even if this requires you to overbid a little. This is because being in the right strain but wrong level is usually less of a disaster than vice versa, and because opponents sometimes misdefend odds-against games. I agree with Hannie on this point.

(2) On the other hand, I think these "impossible to describe" hands are sometimes a sign of bad methods, and that by playing better methods you will improve results. Both Hannie's example hands are much easier to bid in standard american type methods rather than 2/1, for example the second hand 1♠-2♦-2♥-3♥ basically shows the strength and the side suit, and partner is much more likely to make the right game/no game decision, whereas in 2/1 after starting with 1NT (forcing) partner's odds of making the right decision are not great and as long as I'm deciding for him I might as well bid game based on point 1.

(3) Finally, I think that in many cases methods are such that it's easier to upgrade a hand than to downgrade. If I have some shapely ten-count that will make game opposite a good fit, I can pass first and then bid my head off if a fit materializes later (well okay, assuming the hand doesn't pass out). If I open and it turns out there is no good fit then it's hard to put on the brakes when partner's already game forced with the misfitting 12-count. So I prefer to be a pessimist in constructive auctions where I have good odds to "catch up later" after determining degree of fit.

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Aug 22 2007, 03:22 PM, said:

Sometimes you have to chose between a value bid that doesn't describe your hand or an overbid that does do justice to your hand. For example playing 2/1 and holding x Axxx AQ10xxxx xx after partner opens 1S. Here I think that it is right to force to game, even if that means that you might end up too high when partner has a misfit. If you start with 1NT then you won't be able to show your hand.

Let me be the first to shout that it's always hard to show a 1472 shape.

[Echognome]

And I will be the first to agree and disagree with Adam's view.

Quote

(1) When your methods don't allow you to accurately describe both your shape and your strength, it's better to describe shape even if this requires you to overbid a little. This is because being in the right strain but wrong level is usually less of a disaster than vice versa, and because opponents sometimes misdefend odds-against games. I agree with Hannie on this point.

I agree with this notion. If you have to make a choice between being in the right strain or the right level, then being in the right strain typically works out better.

Quote

(2) On the other hand, I think these "impossible to describe" hands are sometimes a sign of bad methods, and that by playing better methods you will improve results. Both Hannie's example hands are much easier to bid in standard american type methods rather than 2/1, for example the second hand 1♠-2♦-2♥-3♥ basically shows the strength and the side suit, and partner is much more likely to make the right game/no game decision, whereas in 2/1 after starting with 1NT (forcing) partner's odds of making the right decision are not great and as long as I'm deciding for him I might as well bid game based on point 1.

I think this is picking at one of the flaws of 2/1 without taking the whole system into consideration. The fact that the forcing 1NT is flawed is well understood. Do you think it would be right if we sat here and picked out some flawed aspects of Standard American and used that to discuss "impossible to describe"? I also want to note that part of the flaw is due to system restrictions. I fully believe that transfers at the 2-level opposite a 1M opening are much better, yet they are not allowed at GCC level. So, do I cry over spilt milk, or do I just work with the best system I can use given the regulations?

Quote

(3) Finally, I think that in many cases methods are such that it's easier to upgrade a hand than to downgrade. If I have some shapely ten-count that will make game opposite a good fit, I can pass first and then bid my head off if a fit materializes later (well okay, assuming the hand doesn't pass out). If I open and it turns out there is no good fit then it's hard to put on the brakes when partner's already game forced with the misfitting 12-count. So I prefer to be a pessimist in constructive auctions where I have good odds to "catch up later" after determining degree of fit.

This is again to the point of system regulations. If I could use a non- game forcing relay and bail out on misfit hands, it would be much better. But I can't, so I make do. (Unlike the above example, this is a difference between mid and super charts.) Also, the fact that we are in some bad 3NTs might be more than made up for by the fact that we are in the auction early and opponents are on the defensive.

So overall, while I agree with your point about methods solving some of these problems, I'm sure you will agree that it's unfair to argue those points in isolation and that system regulations can have a profound effect on what we methods we choose to play.

Hannie's point was that you sometimes have to take a view in your own system and that overbidding might make sense in certain circumstances. I don't believe you if you say that in your system, you never have to make such a decision. Especially as when there are competitive auctions, these decisions will arise more frequently.

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Aug 22 2007, 03:31 PM, said:

I think failing to win IMPs should often be regarded in the same way as losing IMPs. Bridge decisions should be viewed in terms of expectancy. If a double rates to win 5 IMPs 60% of the time and lose 5 IMPs 40% of the time then it is clearly right to double in almost all situations, and certainly at the start of any long match.

Maybe I misunderstood the comment, I'm rather surprised to read this. I'm a big fan of making what seems to be the "right" bid, instead of the "normal" bid which partner and teammates will easier accept if it turns out badly.

I very much agree with all of this. Here are some frequently made arguments that I really hate:
- "Very risky to bid this slam" (a slam bad on the right lead but good on others, when it is equally risky to stay in game while the other table bids slam)
- "How do you explain to teammates that you went for 1100 after such an overcall?" (How do you explain to teammates that opponents made 3N since you failed to get a lead director in, how do you explain to teammates that opponents always had easy constructive auctions - oh right teammates won't know about that...)

Of course if you beat opponents in a bad vulnerable game with bad splits three tricks you won't lose IMPs on this board, but if you tend to miss such opportunities and opponents tend to double you when YOU overbid you will lose IMPs in the long run.

[Winstonm]

It is neither the optimist nor the pessimist who wins; it is the realist.

[ulven]

mikeh, on Aug 22 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

2) it is OFTEN a decision in a competitive auction. How high to preempt, whether to bid aggressively over their strong 1N opening, whether to bid one more in a high level auction.

..........

And I 'know' this intellectually. It is the difference between trying to play error-free bridge and trying to maximize opponents errors. Focusing on error-free bridge was, I think, a winner 30-40 years ago, when even top players made lots of what we would now term bidding errors (bidding has come a long way) but isn't anymore.

Great post!

Some comments:

My observation is that people, in general, are too conservative (pessimistic) entering the auction. The risk of going for a number is often overrated, btw.
And overbidding (optimistic) when it comes to preempts and later rounds of a competetive auction.

About forcing opponents errors, this is a field of mixed views. If you tend to make a significant number of unforced errors yourself, you may need to adopt a pressure style to win against teams better than yourself. Against weaker teams, you risk losing matches if things go wrong. The main thing is to identify which auctions/situations that are suitable for pressure and which are not. Like counting the deck in Black Jack and only go aggressive when odds are favourable (the main aspect here is how much information is exchanged between opps).

I think the need to force errors is overplayed. Focusing on error free bridge is still a winner. Sure the number of errors of a certain kind are much lower now than years ago but check the finals of a long knockout tournament and you'll see that focusing on playing well yourself wins most matches. The number of unforced errors are much higher when people are tired. Avoiding those outnumbers "pressure imps" by a significant margin. The setting may be a factor though.

Some people fail to make the transition in style as their skill level increase. Early in their 'career' they need to be on the wild side but as they gain experience and become good players they fail to see that they should adjust as they don't need to roll the dice as often.

My 2 cents.

[barmar]

Trumpace, on Aug 22 2007, 02:12 PM, said:

There is the assumption here that we are in an ideal world i.e. defenders defend perfectly etc.

So even though the odds of making a game might be 40%, you actually make the game more than 40% time. Also, (I think) most of the events are not long enough for the "against the odds" to manifest (if you are not overly optimist), even in an ideal world.

An optimist, if he goes plus, will likely have a bigger plus than the pessimist or even the realist.

But aren't those factors already taken into account in the rules of thumb for "normal" contracts? E.g. the people who discovered that it usually takes about 25 HCP to make game in NT or a major did this by playing against ordinary opponents, not some theoretical ideal opponents who defend perfectly. Have opponents gotten worse since these guidelines became well known, so now it pays to be more optimistic?

I have a feeling that people who bid 40% games feel like they're being optimistic, not just going with the odds. Psychologists who study the way people approach risk have generally found that intuitive behavior does NOT match up with mathematical analysis of expected value. So even though we know mathematically that IMP scale makes the expected value of bidding a 40% vulnerable game a net positive, it still feels like you're taking a risk bidding a contract that's against the odds.