[pclayton]

The setting:

You enter a regional Bracket I (perhaps II in the larger tourneys) KO and you are playing against a 5 bagger comprised of a weak client playing with a pro and a pro pair at the other table. Another good player will take the place of the client in the 2nd half. Your team is made up of four good players that are solid, but may not find the big play at the crucial time. You are looking for an edge. You rate to lose to this lineup in the 2nd half, so you'd like to amass a cushion in the 1st 1/2.

The client sits down at your table in the first half. He will be sitting out the second half so any opportunity to exploit his play will only be over the next 12 boards.

Lets say this pro will frequently be doing things to make sure he gets to make the bulk of the decisions, including opening wider-range and off-shape NTs, opening lighter, and trying not to make takeout doubles (if you are aware of other tactics, say so). He is also more willing to defend part scores instead of letting his partner play the hand. He will fight like hell not to be dummy, but may not doing anything completely out of the ordinary to do so. I also tend to think the pro will rarely overbid to a thin game or slam if the client is playing the hand, and he won't make a tight penalty double for fear that thee client won't defend optimally. You can disagree with these sentiments, but it happens.

If you agree with the above, how would you change your style of play in order to capitalize on the weak client, if any? What other methods would you employ to take advantage of a weak player?

If you truly feel that the right answer is, "play your normal game, you'll get plenty of IMPs thrown into your lap", that's fine but I'm specifically interested in looking for ways to exploit the weaker player. If you think there aren't any tactics that make sense and that they will only be counter-productive, feel free to say so.

Side Note:

I also realize that there are some decent, if not good (in some cases outstanding) clients that hire teams, so don't take this that I'm trying to stereotype a client as a weak player since that always isn't the case. I also don't think a pro player is acting out of line with these tactics.

I don't want this thread to turn into a dialogue about the disclosure / legal issues involved with the tactics involved by the pro (or your own counter-measures ), because we know they exist. We all know it happens and if you've played this game long enough you learn to expect it when you play against a pair like this. I don't want these side issues to be the focus here.

[TylerE]

Some things I'd try:

Get into their NT auctions frequently and quickly. 4-4 two suiters, that sort of thing. Jump overcalls are good.

Open lighter than normal.

Raise partner aggressively.

Basically the goal being to make them take the last guess as often as possible.

[Trinidad]

Basically play your normal bridge, but...

Try to make the weak player make the opening lead.
Bid more aggressive to games when the weak player makes the opening lead.

Opening leads is the area where weak players make the big mistakes.

Don't compete aggressively when the weak player will declare. Do not take the save against their game or slam when the weak player will find a way to go down anyway.

Do the opposite when the pro needs to lead or play.

In general:
Be slightly more aggressive, so that your side declares more than they do. It is easier to have a good defense when both players are about equally strong.

But don't do anything extreme. Just use these tactics to break a tie in when you have a difficult decision.

Rik

[hrothgar]

TylerE, on May 2 2008, 07:34 PM, said:

Basically the goal being to make them take the last guess as often as possible.

Slight modification: The goal is to force the client to make the last guess as often as possible....

[keylime]

I sit my more aggressive of the two players to the right of the client.

Force the client to make more decisions (raise freely, preempt more, open light, respond heavy, double more often).

Lastly, as mentioned, try to declare and force the client to exert that much more interest in the game.

[TimG]

I know you didn't really want to hear this, but I wouldn't attempt to adjust my game to take advantage of the weaker player. For one reason: it is a distraction. Another: if you're taking unusual actions (opening lighter, interfering more aggressively) your partner is not going to be well placed.

I think you are better off putting the thinking energy that you would put into adjustments into concentrating on playing solid bridge. If you say that you can play solid bridge and still put forth effort into adjustments, I say you under-estimate your chances in the second half (and thus don't want to take unnecessary risks in the first half).

[jtfanclub]

If the pro's card says he opens 1NT with 15-17 and I suspect that he's actually opening it with 13-18, then I'm going to overcall those times that I would overcall over a 13-18 NT.

I'm not an expert myself, but I don't think I'd try to take advantage of the client. I'd try to take advantage of the pro masterminding the hands.

[hotShot]

I) "Mute the client", so the pro won't get information.
1) Play an uncommon System or exchange common conventions with uncommon conventions. If the client is not so skilled, he won't know the defenses. He'll be forced to make decisions and they will be unpredictable for the pro.
2) Open and overcall aggressive in front of the client. 5 card weak two's and 5 card weak jump overcalls force the client to enter bidding on the 2+ level. Bid extremely solid behind the client, so that the pro can't conclude how the strength is distributed between his client and his RHO.

II) Exit to the client
If you need to give away a trick and there is a chance to get a beneficial lead, exit to the client.

[rbforster]

When the client's declaring, use signal honestly more frequently especially if you have an opportunity to make a less obvious signal (discarding hi/med/lo from a suit declarer is out of to show suit pref, since they might not have been keeping track of the remaining spots).

[hotShot]

III) "Tease the pro"
If the client is silent and you don't have game but you are quite sure to have a clear majority of points, stop bidding at the 2 level. The pro will assume a part of the unbid HCP with his partner and might try to capture the contract. Prepare to penalty dbl in such situations.

[kenrexford]

When in doubt, double the client.

[TimG]

I've never lost a match after the other team made an issue of seating. Now, maybe this is because players only make an issue of seating when they are behind or when they think they are a weaker team. But, I have to think that some part of it is that they are worrying about ancillary matters.

[uday]

Argh, I hate when a thread is interesting enough to drag me away from work.


IMO only, and much of what I say is untested.


Some pros treat their clients as if they weren't clients. The few times I've played w/Meckwell I've seen that they seem to bid exactly as if you were at their level. Perhaps they're just skilled at seeming to bid that way, or perhaps I can't tell the difference. I can think of several top-flight pros that do the same thing, and only one that doesn't.

Other pros do all the other stuff like open 1N with any shape/strength, refuse to make T/O Xs, etc.


The OP's pro sounds like he falls into the other camp.

There are two issues.

One, you're guessing as to what their system is. It isn't like any of this stuff is announced. "prealert: W will make no takeout doubles". They effectively wind up playing two systems - one, documented, for the client. The other, probably undocumented, for the pro.

To defend against this, I would yell for the TD every single time the pro did something off-kilter and insist that the opps played the same card. "Bridge judgment" isn't a card the pro can play too many times in one session. This will force them to alter their usual style at runtime, which can't be bad for your side.


Two, their altered system is likely less effective than a similar unaltered system (if it isn't we should all switch to 13-18 offshape NT or whatever). Thus, they're already at a handicap.


Of course you should "spike at their weakest player" every chance you get, but surely you do that anyway to some extent. Unless you're particularly skilled, trying to aim the ball too finely carries risks.


I have more theories on this, but they make me sound like a lunatic so I'll save them for the dog (he already thinks I'm a genius who smells great)

U

[hotShot]

Uday mentioned an important point, you need to be aware that by changing your routine you might weaken your own partnership.

[cherdano]

TimG, on May 2 2008, 12:28 PM, said:

I've never lost a match after the other team made an issue of seating. Now, maybe this is because players only make an issue of seating when they are behind or when they think they are a weaker team. But, I have to think that some part of it is that they are worrying about ancillary matters.

When we played Meckwell last year in the Spingold, they cared about the seating.
My memory might be fading, but I think they won...

[mikeh]

I don't think it makes sense to alter your bidding style or methods. Your main edge in the 'client' lineup lies in your superior bidding..... and superior (to the client) card play. Changing your bidding deprives you of an important edge... while you MIGHT gain by pressuring client, you are basically increasing the variance in the auction... an area in which you rate to be ahead if you play it down the middle...I don't mean suddenly be conservative, if your style is usually aggressive.. I mean stay with your style and methods.

But card play, on offence or defence, is another matter. You may opt to use a line that requires an error rather than the technical line, where the technical line is low probability. Or you may take a line against which there is a fairly easy 'for an expert' counter....where the defensive decision has to be made by the client.

[TimG]

cherdano, on May 2 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

TimG, on May 2 2008, 12:28 PM, said:

I've never lost a match after the other team made an issue of seating.  Now, maybe this is because players only make an issue of seating when they are behind or when they think they are a weaker team.  But, I have to think that some part of it is that they are worrying about ancillary matters.

When we played Meckwell last year in the Spingold, they cared about the seating.
My memory might be fading, but I think they won...

My sample size is small. But, I think the point is still valid. And, Meckwell might be an exception to players able to cope with ancillary matters and still play 100% (not that they needed to play 100% against you to survive!).

[Gerben42]

Quote

When we played Meckwell last year in the Spingold, they cared about the seating.
My memory might be fading, but I think they won...

Must have been because of the seating. Otherwise they'd have no chance, right?

As captain of my league team I care about seating. Some pairs do well against specific other pairs, so you seat them.

It's part of the strategy. If it doesn't cost, doesn't hurt either

[hotShot]

Every Team has a weakest player, you usually don't know in the first half and sometimes weakest is relative.
But you should be aware how to make use of that knowledge.

[xcurt]

Quote

When we played Meckwell last year in the Spingold, they cared about the seating.

Meckwell play some uncommon methods, so all other things being equal, their team benefits when they face the opposing pair less familiar with them.

An unrelated point -- if you know the pro habitually masterminds -- or if you have any intelligence about the opponents style -- don't give the opponents any indication that you have the intelligence. This strategy works best when you're opponents don't know who you are, of course.

This isn't compatible with Uday's suggestion, however.