[awm]

In the US we have regular events called STACs. These are special club games, where the percentage scores are compared across the district (or several districts). They are similar to the "worldwide pairs" games but more localized.

I'm interested in any special strategies people have for these games. Say you're playing at a local club; the field is pretty weak by and large, but there are a small number of good pairs who show up for the STAC. Do you vary your strategy depending on who you're sitting against? What kind of actions do you take in order to rack up a big game?

Suppose that you're one of the better pairs in the club -- you'd probably score in the high fifties or low sixties if you play your normal game, but this is obviously not enough to win the STAC (you need a score in the high sixties or low seventies for that).

[pclayton]

If you have a regular partner and you are both good, and its a typical club game, I would be disappointed if I wasn't averaging 62%. To get a 70%, you simply need to pick up a few boards and increase your variance a little, so I'd be doubling a little more, and bidding more games as you are trying to make that 170 which is an 8 into a 420 which is an 11.

If its a good club game, as I would consider Reseda or the old Balboa game, you probably need a little luck as well as some good boards. In a game like this, you might get a 70% once a year.

[CSGibson]

If you have the ability to change to a non-standard system, that would probably help. A partner and I playing a precision 2/1 hybrid racked up consecutive week scores of 71%, 23%, and 74%. While I don't expect those to be typical results, I think non-standard systems, whatever your local standard is, will tend to push your scores to more of an extreme.

[awm]

Here's a couple examples that happen to me a lot:

(1) I sit down against a bad club pair. They have an auction that sounds ridiculous, landing in some game contract. I have some defense but it's not obvious that they're going down based on my hand. Should I double? Typically, my strategy is not to double, because if their contract is as dumb as it sounds I will get a very good board in any case, whereas if they have accidently stumbled into the normal contract and I don't double I will get a good score because of their play. But in a STAC, I'm trying for a huge game. The marginal gain I get by doubling (in the usual case when their contract is poor) may be worth the risk that they've landed in the normal cold contract in a stupid way.

(2) I sit down against one of the good pairs. I have to decide whether to bid game or not in a close auction. Normally I would bid game, betting that my (or partner's) declarer play is good enough to make it (generally if there is a game that I think half the field will bid and half will not, I want to be there in order to bet on our declarer play). But perhaps since we're against the rare good pair, I should go conservative and hope the game doesn't make?

[Apollo81]

awm, on Feb 20 2008, 02:11 PM, said:

Here's a couple examples that happen to me a lot:

(1) I sit down against a bad club pair. They have an auction that sounds ridiculous, landing in some game contract. I have some defense but it's not obvious that they're going down based on my hand. Should I double? Typically, my strategy is not to double, because if their contract is as dumb as it sounds I will get a very good board in any case, whereas if they have accidently stumbled into the normal contract and I don't double I will get a good score because of their play. But in a STAC, I'm trying for a huge game. The marginal gain I get by doubling (in the usual case when their contract is poor) may be worth the risk that they've landed in the normal cold contract in a stupid way.

(2) I sit down against one of the good pairs. I have to decide whether to bid game or not in a close auction. Normally I would bid game, betting that my (or partner's) declarer play is good enough to make it (generally if there is a game that I think half the field will bid and half will not, I want to be there in order to bet on our declarer play). But perhaps since we're against the rare good pair, I should go conservative and hope the game doesn't make?

1. I'd not double just because they're bad, for the reasons you said. There are tons of other chances to gain on bad players. Besides you might find some brilliant defense to hold them to no overtricks when the field is making 1 or 2.

2. I would still bid game. Even if the game shouldn't make there are going to be lots of tables where it does since it's a STAC, so you rarely get a great score by stopping short.

[TimG]

awm, on Feb 20 2008, 02:11 PM, said:

(2) I sit down against one of the good pairs. I have to decide whether to bid game or not in a close auction. Normally I would bid game, betting that my (or partner's) declarer play is good enough to make it (generally if there is a game that I think half the field will bid and half will not, I want to be there in order to bet on our declarer play). But perhaps since we're against the rare good pair, I should go conservative and hope the game doesn't make?

Avoiding 50/50 games (or slams) is a legitimate way to try to generate swings. STaC or Spingold.

Is there some money riding on the result? There are probably things you could do to increase your variance and thus your chance at scoring up a >70% game (as well as a <45% game). But, I don't imagine it will help your game in the long run.

[helene_t]

I change my play a lot but bidding not so much. I do try to bid more disciplined against the weaker pairs but I don't always manage to do that.

[hrothgar]

The last time I played in a STAC, Sue OStrowski and I wracked up a 73% game.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...c=20013&hl=STAC

We weren't trying to play high variance or anything like that. However, as is oft the case a lot of weird ***** came to pass. We got quite lucky and landed on our feet way more often than we should have...

[han]

hrothgar, on Feb 20 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

We weren't trying to play high variance or anything like that.

I wonder what would happen if you were tryingto play high variance. I would like to be there.

[jdonn]

I firmly believe that you will get far more mileage out of the mental energy used to choose then apply a strategy by putting it toward playing good bridge instead.

[helene_t]

You are right of course, Josh, but it sounds very cool and intellectual to say "my decision would depend on factors such as opps' strength, state of the match, strength of the field, etc etc". So I use those phrasings whenever possible.

[gwnn]

I usually try not to give away too many contracts as a defender. I usually fail. This is regardless of the event. I wonder what percentage of all duplicate bridge players can actually improve by changing strategies like discussed by some.

[han]

helene_t, on Feb 20 2008, 07:09 PM, said:

You are right of course, Josh, but it sounds very cool and intellectual to say "my decision would depend on factors such as opps' strength, state of the match, strength of the field, etc etc". So I use those phrasings whenever possible.

Yep, I bet this is the case for most who say things like that.