[SoTired]

1) If you are not a top expert, you cannot accurately determine the field action, so this topic is worthless for you.
2) If you are a top expert, this topic is worthless because you already know the answer to this question and do not need our advice nor would you think it is better than your own.
3) Most fields are variable strength so there is no field action.
4) If you are not a top expert, but somehow are real adept at predicting field action, and you happen upon the rare hand which you can accurately predict, since you are not a top expert, you will likely not know what to do with the information, anyway.
5) If you are not a top expert, but somehow are real adept at predicting field action, and you happen upon the rare hand which you can accurately predict, and you know precisely what to do with that information, you will be so busy watching all the pigs flying all over the place, you won't have time for bridge.

[kenrexford]

I would actually toss in one caveat. Predicting other contracts in determining play is important, but I think that is different. In other words, playing distinctly against the field because of an inferior contract, or protecting because of a superior contract, makes a lot of sense.

[SoTired]

kenrexford, on May 28 2008, 07:12 AM, said:

I would actually toss in one caveat. Predicting other contracts in determining play is important, but I think that is different. In other words, playing distinctly against the field because of an inferior contract, or protecting because of a superior contract, makes a lot of sense.

So what you are saying is: If you are in a good contract and you know you are in a good contract, take a safety play to make sure you make.

But if you are in a bad contract and you know you are in a bad contract, try to find a way to make your contract.

Sage advice

[MickyB]

I think there are definitely times when you can see what contract the field is likely to be in.

Alternatively, say you are playing 2m at favourable. It's quite likely that making a 9th trick may be more important than making the 8th.

[david_c]

kenrexford, on May 28 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

There was a hand years ago where I opened 1NT with a 13-count featuring AKQxxx in clubs.  Partner bid 3NT with a balanced 15-count that I liked.  I decided (LOL) that the field would bid 4NT with his hand and that the field (I was sick then, even in comparison to how I am today) would clearly accept with my hand and reach the 28-point slam.

I was disgusted!

So, I looked at the deal to decide whether 6NT (or 6♣) could possibly fail.  It would fail only if two of three specific cards were all in the wrong seat.  So, I actually played for all three cards to be wrong, despite this being completely anti-percentage.

There is no logic in this.

This is quite a common situation: you are in a game contract, which is sure to make and the only question is overtricks, but you suspect that most of the field will be in slam. Now there is an argument along these lines:

"The only way I will get a good score on this board is if the slam is not making. So, I should assume that the cards are lying in such a way that the slam does not make, and play accordingly."

But that is a complete fallacy.

There is nothing you can do about the matchpoints you have against the pairs in slam. If the slam makes then you will lose those matchpoints; if the slam goes down you will win. Your play has no effect on this whatsoever: the outcome is already decided.

The only pairs you are competing against in the play are the ones who are in game. That is the "field" you need to consider. You should play to maximize your expected matchpoint score against the other declarers in game, ignoring completely what would happen in slam. Basically that means you should take the "normal" matchpoint line.

[jtfanclub]

SoTired, on May 28 2008, 07:18 AM, said:

So what you are saying is: If you are in a good contract and you know you are in a good contract, take a safety play to make sure you make.

But if you are in a bad contract and you know you are in a bad contract, try to find a way to make your contract.

Sage advice

No, if you're playing Matchpoints, and you can see everybody else is getting score X. then all that matters is whether you go higher or lower than X. It doesn't matter whether you make the contract.

For example: I'm in 3♣ not vulnerable, and I know the field will be playing 2♥ the other way making 2 or 3. I don't look for some rare lie of the cards that will make the contract, instead I play it safe for down 2. Or at least I should.

Believe it or don't, I'm no expert, but I can still usually figure out when we've competed higher than the field will.

[MickyB]

Ah yes, good point David, missed that.

Rarely, you get a situation where you think the entire field will be in a more ambitious contract. In this case, there is some logic for doing everything you can to make your contract at the expense of overtricks - you don't want your 3♠-1 to be losing matchpoints when some pairs are in 4♠-1.

Anyway, back to the original subject.

I think this whole "anti-field" thing is overplayed. There are a lot of factors, though.

You need to know what you are aiming for. In most events, I'm happy to increase my chances of winning at the expense of reducing my chances of finishing in the top x places. In some events, you are just aiming to finish in the top x places in order to qualify for the next stage.

You need to know how you are doing so far. The better you are doing, the more you should play with the field.

You need to know how good you are. If you are average or below average for the field, it's worth going anti-field on close decisions - if the things you do happen to work then you may place highly, and if they don't, well, you probably weren't going to place highly anyway.

You need to know how good your opponents are. If they are likely to give you the board later on defence, you don't need to try to be a hero and win it in the bidding.

You need to look at the length of the event.If you are trying to win a short event, there's again more reason to go anti-field - a pair who average 53% are unlikely to get the 62% needed to win unless they take some risks.

[han]

MickyB, on May 28 2008, 09:10 AM, said:

I think this whole "anti-field" thing is overplayed.

Agree with this.

Nice post by David earlier.

[kenrexford]

SoTired, on May 28 2008, 07:18 AM, said:

kenrexford, on May 28 2008, 07:12 AM, said:

I would actually toss in one caveat.  Predicting other contracts in determining play is important, but I think that is different.  In other words, playing distinctly against the field because of an inferior contract, or protecting because of a superior contract, makes a lot of sense.

So what you are saying is: If you are in a good contract and you know you are in a good contract, take a safety play to make sure you make.

But if you are in a bad contract and you know you are in a bad contract, try to find a way to make your contract.

Sage advice

Not exactly that simple.

What I am saying is that if you are in an inferior contract (like 4♥ when the normal line yields the same number of tricks in 3NT), you might play anti-percentage (a backwards finesse, a eight-never-nine-ever, a restricted choice violation) to account for the field. You may be wagering a 33% for a 100% on close to even odds.

[kenrexford]

david_c, on May 28 2008, 07:50 AM, said:

kenrexford, on May 28 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

There was a hand years ago where I opened 1NT with a 13-count featuring AKQxxx in clubs.  Partner bid 3NT with a balanced 15-count that I liked.  I decided (LOL) that the field would bid 4NT with his hand and that the field (I was sick then, even in comparison to how I am today) would clearly accept with my hand and reach the 28-point slam.

I was disgusted!

So, I looked at the deal to decide whether 6NT (or 6♣) could possibly fail.  It would fail only if two of three specific cards were all in the wrong seat.  So, I actually played for all three cards to be wrong, despite this being completely anti-percentage.

There is no logic in this.

This is quite a common situation: you are in a game contract, which is sure to make and the only question is overtricks, but you suspect that most of the field will be in slam. Now there is an argument along these lines:

"The only way I will get a good score on this board is if the slam is not making. So, I should assume that the cards are lying in such a way that the slam does not make, and play accordingly."

But that is a complete fallacy.

There is nothing you can do about the matchpoints you have against the pairs in slam. If the slam makes then you will lose those matchpoints; if the slam goes down you will win. Your play has no effect on this whatsoever: the outcome is already decided.

The only pairs you are competing against in the play are the ones who are in game. That is the "field" you need to consider. You should play to maximize your expected matchpoint score against the other declarers in game, ignoring completely what would happen in slam. Basically that means you should take the "normal" matchpoint line.

Sure there is.

If you actually are thinking this way, your mind is fried. This usually happens for me at the end of the second session, after fighting tooth and nail with partner. I get a top, he gets a bottom. Back and forth. You think that you have him couped, and you actually care because you might be in the money. So, the last sick hand hits.

If the slam makes, all is lost. However, what if the slam fails? In that event, you want to maximize your score and get the top. Protecting a 2 from becoming a 0 is of no use; you are not in the money. Converting a 10 to a 12 is of great value -- you squeak by.

[NickRW]

I think you two are talking about the same thing. One of you correctly identifies the true field you're playing against and the other also identifies the same field, but is swinging against it - which just - just might be right in the circumstances - though I would have thought there would be a better board to swing on than this one.

Anyway, hope you haven't fried each others brains

Nick

[Free]

If you play in a good field, it's usually wrong. If you play in a poor field, just do what you do to win

[pclayton]

Its generally wrong, but I confess I have trouble trying to figure out what the field is doing, so I just try to play my best bridge.

I think Frank Stewart says in one of his books, "bla bla bla is the field bid, but the 'field' hasn't won any events lately".