[zasanya]

In another thread some very knowledgable posters mentioned that they feel that their 'pessimist' outlook could be a weakness at the bridge table.At least one of them seemed to imply that conservative bidding is pessimistic and pessimists do not double their opponents as often as they should.
Q.1 How does one define a pessimist or optimist attitude?
Q.2 Which attitude would win "in the long run?"

[kenberg]

I suppose you could try to quantify Q1 by having a person say whether he more often gets bad results from being in 3 making 4 or in 4 making 3. Or, in mps, whether he more often gets a bad result by playing safely for contract when an overtrick was available or by going down trying for the overtrick when playing safely for the contract would have been right.

I have found myself to be very resourceful at finding ways to get bad results with a variety of techniques but I think I am pessimistic when it comes to balancing (I often pass it out, sometimes right, sometimes wrong) and optimistic about bidding 3NT in fourth seat, after first seat preempts and two passes, with shaky or non-existent stoppers (sometimes right, sometimes ridiculous).

Few of us are unmitigated optimists or pessimists. I guess it was W C Fields who noted "Sometimes you just have to take the bull by the tail and face the situation". This seems to be a useful approach to bridge hands.

[BillHiggin]

Q.1 I don't try to define this scale because it seems too one dimensional to me. Poker players use more two dimensional descriptions like "tight aggressive". A similar term I like for bridge is "controlled aggression".

However, I know a B/I player who always seems to plan play according to "how best to get out for down one" - a true pessimist.

Q.2 I think balance is most important. If one player is too aggressive (optomistic), his partner will be forced to adopt a more conservative style or forever overbid. But a cautious bidder will, over time, force his partner to become too aggressive. A balanced partnership will have nearly equal aggression by both (slightly optomistic) and that seems best.

[Trumpace]

zasanya, on Aug 21 2007, 03:36 AM, said:

In another thread some very knowledgable posters mentioned that they feel that their 'pessimist' outlook could be a weakness at the bridge table.At least one of them seemed to imply that conservative bidding is pessimismistic and pessimists do not double their opponents as often as they should.
Q.1 How does one define a pessimist or optimist attitude?
Q.2 Which attitude would win "in the long run?"

I would define pessimist as one who thinks that the odds in his favour are not as high as they actually are.

The optimist thinks that the odds in his favour are higher than they actually are.

If say, playing rubber bridge with a limited bankroll, both will become bankrupt eventually, but my guess is that the optimist will get to zero before the pessimist does.

[barmar]

What is it we're calling an optimist versus a pessimist? The IMP scale suggests that you should bid vulnerable 40% games. Are you an optimist if you bid games that are worse than 50%, or do you have to go below this 40% to be considered an optimist?

[Trumpace]

barmar, on Aug 21 2007, 04:49 PM, said:

What is it we're calling an optimist versus a pessimist? The IMP scale suggests that you should bid vulnerable 40% games. Are you an optimist if you bid games that are worse than 50%, or do you have to go below this 40% to be considered an optimist?

You have to go below 40% to be considered optimistic...

[Trumpace]

Jlall, on Aug 21 2007, 06:54 PM, said:

I think optimists are definitely the big winners in bridge, it's not really close. I've never heard of people winning events from making several great stops in 2D.

By "optimistic" do you mean "aggresive" ?

I think, by definition, an optimist believes his luck is good.

[joshs]

What do you call expecting bad things to happen to you, but expecting even worse things to happen to your opponents???

[zasanya]

Trumpace, on Aug 21 2007, 05:16 PM, said:

barmar, on Aug 21 2007, 04:49 PM, said:

What is it we're calling an optimist versus a pessimist?  The IMP scale suggests that you should bid vulnerable 40% games.  Are you an optimist if you bid games that are worse than 50%, or do you have to go below this 40% to be considered an optimist?

You have to go below 40% to be considered optimistic...

But how can you calculate the % with any accuracy before the dummy hits the table?During bidding you have general guidelines but it is impossible to calculate the % with any accuracy.Suppose the bidding goes 1NT-3NT.Now all you know is that declarers side has 24+points but probability of the contract making on that particular deal will range from 0 to 100.One bids the game simply because statistics tells you that over a period of time you will come out with a plus so the terms optimist /pessimist dont apply here.
My personal definition of an optimistic bridge player is somebody who makes plays or bids on even when she knows she will need more than a fair share of luck
on that deal.Such an outlook should not prove to be successful yet most experts advocate optimistic attitude.Jlall's post just confirms it.

[barmar]

zasanya, on Aug 22 2007, 11:12 AM, said:

But how can you calculate the % with any accuracy before the dummy hits the table?During bidding you have general guidelines but it is impossible to calculate the % with any accuracy.Suppose the bidding goes 1NT-3NT.Now all you know is that declarers side has 24+points but probability of the contract making on that particular deal will range from 0 to 100.

But you're not calculating the odds of that particular deal (since you can't see all the cards), you're only concerned with the odds of all deals consistent with the auction. Thus, the odds of making 3NT go up with the number of points your side has. I don't know the actual odds, but I imagine that it's something like 50-60% when you have 26 HCP. Of course, this is a statistical average -- any particular hand will deviate from it. You can't tell from an auction like that that you have an unprotected suit that's breaking 5-3 or 6-2; on the other hand, the suit could block so the defenders can't take all their tricks.

The basic idea is that you use the auction to gather clues about partner's hand, to determine which contracts have an appropriate chance to make. All the general rules we learn as beginners (e.g. you should have an 8-card fit and around 26 HCP to bid game in a major) come from the odds that have been discovered or calculated over the years.

Given this, someone would be considered aggressive or optimistic if they routinely and intentionally bid to contracts that are against the odds, given the information they gained from the auction.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Aug 21 2007, 03:54 PM, said:

I think optimists are definitely the big winners in bridge, it's not really close. I've never heard of people winning events from making several great stops in 2D.

Completely agree.

There are times to hold back, but much of your gains come from overbidding, not underbidding.

[Free]

Optimist in bidding, pessimist in play! Balanced out

[jdonn]

Lucky in cards, unlucky in love...

[zasanya]

barmar, on Aug 22 2007, 12:24 PM, said:

Given this, someone would be considered aggressive or optimistic if they routinely and intentionally bid to contracts that are against the odds, given the information they gained from the auction.

If I read you correctly optimists/aggressive players bid/play against the mathematically calculable odds.I fully agree.
Then how can optimism/aggression be profitable?

[mikeh]

As a frequent pessimist, but much more effective optimist, I concur with Justin's comments.

As for what makes me pessimistic, and thus ineffective far too often:

1) it is NOT a decision as to whether to bid a close game or slam... I don't miss many reasonable games or good slams (note the difference... I am happy to stay out of a slam that needs, for example, a 4-1 or 3-2 trump break plus a finesse... this is less than 50%. I'd usually bid those games, even white and always red (I am talking about imps here, obviously)

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.

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

4) all of this comes through visualization of the cards... and I tend to 'see' bad layouts for my side. And, most importantly, I tend to overestimate the chances of the opps doing the wrong thing.

I think, and I may be kidding myself, that my 'visualization' is not the real problem, because I don't focus only on the bad possibilities. The real problem is the assumption that the opps will take the optimum course, for them. In real life, especially if you have confident table presence, the opps (who are also operating with imperfect data) will do the sub-optimum thing sufficiently often as to make the aggressive move, perhaps wrong or neutral double-dummy, the strong winner in the long run.

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. But knowing it intellectually and applying it at the table is one of my biggest problems.

BTW, playing optimistically is a LOT more fun as well

[Trumpace]

zasanya, on Aug 22 2007, 01:10 PM, said:

barmar, on Aug 22 2007, 12:24 PM, said:

Given this, someone would be considered aggressive or optimistic if they routinely and intentionally bid to contracts that are against the odds, given the information they gained from the auction.

If I read you correctly optimists/aggressive players bid/play against the mathematically calculable odds.I fully agree.
Then how can optimism/aggression be profitable?

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.

People seem to be considering only optimism as being only during the bidding (I call that aggression, not optimism). Optimism during the playing of the cards is definitely a losing choice.

[1eyedjack]

I am an optimist when playing against bad players. A pessimist when playing against good players.

[mikeh]

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

People seem to be considering only optimism as being only during the bidding (I call that aggression, not optimism). Optimism during the playing of the cards is definitely a losing choice.

I disagree, at least in part.

If you mean that, at imps, playing safe for the contract, I agree (within reason.. there are times it is correct to risk a contract, especially a partscore, for an overtrick or two). But sometimes you are in a terrible contract and, if undoubled, it is often best to assume the optimistic approach that the cards lie well for you.

And at mps, in a big field, unless you are having a tremendous session, it is often useful to take chances in order to maximize your matchpoints... if you need a few good boards, for example.

But, on the whole, I agree: I see a lot of players who attack declarer play, at any form of scoring, as if the object were to win the most tricks possible... and that is a losing approach.

[Trumpace]

mikeh, on Aug 22 2007, 02:22 PM, said:

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

People seem to be considering only optimism as being only during the bidding (I call that aggression, not optimism). Optimism during the playing of the cards is definitely a losing choice.

I disagree, at least in part.

If you mean that, at imps, playing safe for the contract, I agree (within reason.. there are times it is correct to risk a contract, especially a partscore, for an overtrick or two). But sometimes you are in a terrible contract and, if undoubled, it is often best to assume the optimistic approach that the cards lie well for you.

And at mps, in a big field, unless you are having a tremendous session, it is often useful to take chances in order to maximize your matchpoints... if you need a few good boards, for example.

But, on the whole, I agree: I see a lot of players who attack declarer play, at any form of scoring, as if the object were to win the most tricks possible... and that is a losing approach.

If you are in a terrible contract, say a 30% vul (spade) game and say you can try making the contract at the risk of down 2 or you can take a 100% line for down 1.

If you play to make the contract, your expected score is 620*0.3 - 200*0.7 > 0

The odds favour playing to make the contract. Try to make the game is going with the odds.

Of course, the calculation of the odds varies with the scoring and state of the match comes into play etc, but the point is, it is not optimism to try and make the contract in the above case, it is realism (after all, you are going with the odds).

Optimism would be to try and risk down 3 doubled in order to make a 5% game.