[OleBerg]

Inspired by another tread, I am asking:

Is it generally wrong to make and "Anti-Field" bid or play?

[awm]

There are a lot of things to consider here.

(1) Obviously if your bid or play is substantially better than the field action, you should take it.

(2) However, there is usually a reason the field action is the field action. Typically it's not the case that the field action is really awful and there is a much higher percentage action available (else why is the field action the field action, unless the field is really bad, in which case see 3).

(3) If your partnership is generally better players and/or defenders than the field, it's often best to take the field action. The point is that if you declare a normal contract, you may expect a 70% board. If you make a non-field call to reach an abnormal contract, you therefore need your action to be right more than 70% of the time and not just more than 50%. Of course, if your partnership is generally worse players and/or defenders than the field, the opposite reasoning may apply.

[OleBerg]

Jlall, on May 27 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

OleBerg, on May 27 2008, 01:08 PM, said:

Inspired by another tread, I am asking:

Is it generally wrong to make and  "Anti-Field" bid or play?

generally, yes.

Why?

[OleBerg]

awm, on May 27 2008, 08:13 PM, said:

There are a lot of things to consider here.

(1) Obviously if your bid or play is substantially better than the field action, you should take it.

(2) However, there is usually a reason the field action is the field action. Typically it's not the case that the field action is really awful and there is a much higher percentage action available (else why is the field action the field action, unless the field is really bad, in which case see 3).

(3) If your partnership is generally better players and/or defenders than the field, it's often best to take the field action. The point is that if you declare a normal contract, you may expect a 70% board. If you make a non-field call to reach an abnormal contract, you therefore need your action to be right more than 70% of the time and not just more than 50%. Of course, if your partnership is generally worse players and/or defenders than the field, the opposite reasoning may apply.

I agree with 2) and 3)

Concerning 1): What if your bid or play is slightly better?

[han]

Adam answered so well I can't imagine adding anything to it.

If your play is slightly better than (1) is only slightly the case.

[OleBerg]

han, on May 27 2008, 08:36 PM, said:

Adam answered so well I can't imagine adding anything to it.

If your play is slightly better than (1) is only slightly the case.

I agree that Adam gave quite a qualified answer.

If you use your imagination a little, I'm sure, however, that you will be able to find something to add.

And engslish is not my native language, so I didn't understand your second line. Care to explain?

[Gerben42]

I guess the opening poster is looking for situations like restricted choice, something that even managed to mystify on of my physics professors. Although obviously correct, most MP fields don't believe in it, don't know it, or don't trust it.

So should you decline restricted choice because that's what "the field" does? I say no. If you think the field is stupid, don't act stupid yourself.

A similar case is with preempts. Should you adapt your preempt style to the field? I think not. You should stick to what you think is right.

I for one think that after two passes, this hand is worth 3♥:

♠6
♥KQT942
♦T764
♣32

The field does not. But I will bid it anyway.

[Apollo81]

Of course, there is still the issue of determining whether your anti field bid is "substantially better" than the field action. I suspect it's easy to identify hands from everyday play where good players would disagree.

This is obviously much less of an issue in the play.

[NickRW]

This is something that doesn't worry me too much.

I used to play Precision using a 13-15NT in a field of 12-14ers. It wasn't uncommon for our auctions to be different.

These days I play an opening NT that is about 12-14 - but we upgrade a very few 11s, downgrade quite a lot of 12s and a rare 13. Similarly at the upper end there are differences to the field.

I don't think we were worse off than the field, if anything better.

If you're looking to improve your judgement/system then you won't find out if you're right by ignoring your judgement/new system

I find it very hard sometimes to predict what the field will do anyway. Last night RHO opened 1D, I had what I thought was a reasonable take out double with min opening values and a 3415 shape and not too good a club suit (AT8xx IIRC). LHO had 6HCP and 4 diamonds and raised to 2 (inverted minors are not so common in the UK). My partner declined to bid and that ended the auction. After the board was over I opened the traveller and I found several 2C contracts by my hand. So clearly several with my cards had decided to overcall rather than double and the LHOs had decided not to make the natural 2D bid. RHO and I exchanged mildly puzzled comments as we filled in the score. If people can disagree over such basic things as overcalls/versus take outs in 2nd seat and raise versus pass in 3rd then trying to deduce what the field will do is a bit like picking a horse, eyes shut, with a pin and sticking it in the list of runners.

Nick

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on May 27 2008, 01:14 PM, said:

OleBerg, on May 27 2008, 01:08 PM, said:

Inspired by another tread, I am asking:

Is it generally wrong to make and  "Anti-Field" bid or play?

generally, yes.

To be more specific....

You're playing in a field that's good but not as good as you are (Blue Ribbon Pairs, maybe), with a good regular partner.

You have a hand where, thanks to your techniques, you determine that this is a 55% slam- just based on whether a finesse is on, plus a small chance of misdefense. You're also able to see that most people in your field won't be able to find it, it's an accident of the system you play that you're even considering it.

Would you take the field game, or would you go for the slightly above average Slam? Would the scoring matter?

[Flame]

My opnion is different the the common one.
I believe that in a OK+ field most hands will be determened in the bidding rather then in the play and therefore its not really profitable to try and make the field bids and win in the play, you should aim to win in the bidding.
My opinion might be influented by my love to bidding unlike most who prefer the play, when i make a winning bid its more fun for me then when i make a winning play. I also dont have a big ago about my supriour play that will give me tops as long as im in the field contract.

[helene_t]

As a mediocre player I don't care about the field. I do what I think is best. In doing so I may increase my variance in situations where it is my true interest to decrease it, and vice versa, but I don't think it's a big issue. And it maximizes my long-term average and saves mental energy,

If the question is whether it is correct to make anti-field choices for the sake of it, it obviously has merits if
- You are not particularly good compared to the field, and
- It is a short event, and
- You only care for the first price, your expected percentage/IMPs is not the issue.

But even under those conditions (which are actually quite common for me) I wouldn't worry about it.

[kenrexford]

It is a rare occasion when I can accurately assess the "field" bid or play. That said, even if I could do this, I don't understand why this would be a default or preferred course of action. I could spend all day guessing what everyone else will bid and then what everyone else will play and then do the same thing. What would that accomplish me except hating the game?

I would much rather make the right bid and the right play and let the chips fall where they will. When the bid or play is a close decision, then at that point I might try to assess the field action to resolve a question. But, I am so incredibly miserable at assessing what lurks in the minds of the masses that I usually guess the field action wrong anyway. LOL

[MarkDean]

In general, I tend to make what I believe to be the best call/bid on average, with complete disregard to the field. In nerd-talk, I aim for the highest expected value possible and do not concern myself with variance (I am a risk-neutral player I suppose). Also, I have enough trouble figuring out what is right without worrying about what I think the field will be doing (and sometimes my views are skewed enough that I am completely wrong about what the field will be doing).

The best strategy depends upon your goal. For example, unless you are a very top notch player, variance is probably your friend in an event like the Blue Ribbon Pairs if your goal is a top 10 finish.

[xcurt]

Jlall, on May 27 2008, 03:57 PM, said:

I would easily take a 55 % slam that had nothing to do with card play. You cannot pass up huge edges like that.

55% is a bigger edge than it sounds like in a pairs game, since if your 55% slam goes set, you can adjust your strategy on future boards to compensate.

[CSGibson]

I don't care much what the field is doing in the bidding. I'm using my judgement to put us in the best plus position. I will, however, try to look at the contract I'm in and judge where the field is likely to be based on the cards, and make play decisions based on my judgement. This is something I'm just recently becoming more cognizant of.

The area that I am most aware of field protection is opening leads at a matchpoint game. I try not to make hero leads unless I am certain it is right on the auction, because I forfeit field protection.

During the play of the hand, if I am in a normal contract, I could care less what the field is doing, I just want to find the best line to maximize my matchpoint/imp expectation.

[helene_t]

A few weeks ago there was a rare incident were I actually thought I needed to take the field action into account:

Our auction went 1NT-3NT and partner tabled a 5-card spades. Obviously everyone would be in 4♠ (my partner is pretty much the only player at the club who would not use Jacoby with a 5M332) which looked pretty cold. So I desperately needed an overtrick while at the same time assuming a split on which 4♠ would be unlikely to give an overtrick. My plan failed and I was expecting 0% for my nine tricks. Turned out everyone else had 2♠+2 or 3♠+1 ..... oh yes of course, I upgraded my 3325 11-count with two tens to an Acol 1NT opening and forgot that nobody else would do that ....

And this was at the local club where everyone plays the same system and pretty much the same style, so in theory it should be easy to predict what the field is doing.

[kenrexford]

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. And. a bizarre line, at that.

All three were in the wrong seat. Accordingly, my line succeeded, and I scored up +690. I expected this to be a near top.

As it turned out, my line was required for my average. The field was in 3NT from the other side and received a very helpful lead, it turned out. That possibility never entered my mind.

Although it was cute, my partner took me to the woodshed, and we talked. LOL