[OleBerg]

Thank you all for your comments in my first "Anti-Field" poll/thread.

As the replys started to roll in, I quickly realized, that I hadn't been carefull enough with my wording.

So, here follows the claim, I want you to agree or disagree with:

"Playing in a field, where all players are roughly the same strength, you should never discard a bid or a play, because it is "Anti-field". Actually you shouldn't even think in terms of what the field is doing, you should simply make, what you believe to be the best bid or play.

There are, of course, exceptions, where you would make an effort to play with or against the field.

These include, but are not limited to: Needing a swing, needing to protect against a swing, expecting to generally be better than the rest of the field, being a better player/defender, being an inferior player/defender, opps being better/inferior at playing/defending.

The effort you make to go "Field"/"Anti-field", will of course vary with circumstances."

[the hog]

I would certainly agree with this Ole. If you believe that you are one of the better players in the field, then to NOT make what you believe to be the correct decision is a gross mistake imo.

[han]

OleBerg, on Jun 1 2008, 03:40 AM, said:

"Playing in a field, where all players are roughly the same strength, you should never discard a bid or a play, because it is "Anti-field".

Completely agree.

Quote

Actually you shouldn't even think in terms of what the field is doing, you should simply make, what you believe to be the best bid or play.

No this is wrong as stated. For example if you are in a slam then you should consider if most of the field will be in the slam. If you think few will be in slam then you should play as safely as possible. If you think almost everybody will be in the same slam then you can take more risks for overtricks.

If you meant that you shouldn't pay much attention to whether your play or call is with or against the field then I agree but that's not what you wrote.

As you stated one clearly correct and one clearly false claim I don't know what to vote for.

[OleBerg]

han, on Jun 1 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Jun 1 2008, 03:40 AM, said:

"Playing in a field, where all players are roughly the same strength, you should never discard a bid or a play, because it is "Anti-field".

Completely agree.

Quote

Actually you shouldn't even think in terms of what the field is doing, you should simply make, what you believe to be the best bid or play.

No this is wrong as stated. For example if you are in a slam then you should consider if most of the field will be in the slam. If you think few will be in slam then you should play as safely as possible. If you think almost everybody will be in the same slam then you can take more risks for overtricks.

If you meant that you shouldn't pay much attention to whether your play or call is with or against the field then I agree but that's not what you wrote.

As you stated one clearly correct and one clearly false claim I don't know what to vote for.

Hi han,

Looks like I have trouble with my wording again.

What I mean, in a really short sentence:

"Everything else being equal, you shouldn't think in terms of what the field is doing."

[han]

I don't agree with this phrasing. If everything else is equal then you might very well, if you have the energy for it. However, usually all things aren't equal and then you generally shouldn't worry about the field.

I still feel like we are all repeating what awm said in his first post in the other thread. How many books do you want to be written on this subject?

[OleBerg]

han, on Jun 1 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

How many books do you want to be written on this subject?

Hi Han,

my mission is to establish, that: "Not Bidding/playing against the field" is not an argument in itself. There has to be a reason for it.

This might be usefull in other treads.

[jtfanclub]

But there's two entirely different issues here.

Not caring whether you're playing 'with the field' is not the same as not caring where the field is, especially in Matchpoints.

The example I used last time was when you're in 3♣ not vulnerable when you know the field will be in 2♠ the other way making 2 or 3. You take the safety play to make sure you'll go down no more than 2, rather than take the risky play that might make it but is more likely to go down 3.

If you're in 3NT and you know everybody else will be in 4♠ making, you risk the contract to try to get the overtrick. On the other hand, if you're in 3NT and you know everybody else will be in 4♠ down 1, you just try to make it.

[NickRW]

OleBerg, on Jun 1 2008, 11:57 AM, said:

..."Not Bidding/playing against the field" is not an argument in itself. There has to be a reason for it.

I agree with that. Simply saying, I'm going with what I think the field action is simply because it would be the field action is lazy reasoning. About the only time that might be useful is if you're way ahead already and don't want any really bad scores.

Nick

[NickRW]

P.S. I am not sure really why we're having this discussion in this forum. If you play a "non natural" system, you're already doing something "non field" anyway. You're bound to get some different auctions right from the off.

Nick