[bd71]

So our C-level team (basically, intermediate players in the US) is playing in a multi-month teams competition where you play one match per month for 4 months. Each match is 24 boards with IMP scoring converted to Victory Points on 30-point scale.

Going into our last match, our team is in first and can only lose to the team we play, and only if they get 25 Victory Points...i.e. if they beat us by 32 or more IMPs.

Is this a big enough lead to make significant changes to our approach or strategy? We don't really know anything yet about the other team (system, aggressive/conservative, etc.) so we can't really try to replicate what we think they would do. Should we be more conservative overall? Should we still bid games aggressively but only bid fairly certain slams? Any advice is appreciated...

[rogerclee]

It sounds like you are playing a team who you are at least somewhat better than, and you have a moderate "lead" on them, so play the bridge that you are most comfortable playing.

[Lobowolf]

I think it's as much a game theory question as anything else. I wouldn't change too much, but to the extent you're going to change at all, don't go conservative; they're probably going to go agressive, and you should do the same thing to minimize the swings. You can't blow a big lead by doing what they do at the other table. Again, that doesn't mean bidding 10% slams; I'd just be careful to resist any temptation to go the other way. If you're conservative and you're not, that creates swings. Even if the odds are in your favor on any given hands, creating swings isn't what you're after with a big lead.

[jukmoi]

Just play your normal bridge. This good advice is given by Jeff Meckstroth in his book Win the Bermuda Bowl with Me. And many others I suppose in other books.

It is just as easy to lose imps by going conservative as by going aggressive. I would avoid really wild swinging actions though, like psyches, ultra-aggressive pre-empts and speculative doubles, even if that was my normal style.

Trying to duplicate their actions sounds good on paper but is impossible to do in practice.

[H_KARLUK]

I forgot who said "Failure is only a temporary change in direction to set you straight for your next success."

When things went wrong have you ever tried to exchange partners in team Good luck.

ps. I assume there's no emotional conflicts.

[655321]

Agree with just play normal bridge.

I strongly believe that trying to do anything other than playing your normal game is a losing tactic. Don't even think about this other stuff, just make your normal bids and normal plays on every hand, and as always, try to play as well as possible.

[Rossoneri]

I don't see any reason to change strategy, just play normally and you should be fine.

[pooltuna]

bd71, on Feb 22 2010, 12:04 AM, said:

So our C-level team (basically, intermediate players in the US) is playing in a multi-month teams competition where you play one match per month for 4 months. Each match is 24 boards with IMP scoring converted to Victory Points on 30-point scale.

Going into our last match, our team is in first and can only lose to the team we play, and only if they get 25 Victory Points...i.e. if they beat us by 32 or more IMPs.

Is this a big enough lead to make significant changes to our approach or strategy? We don't really know anything yet about the other team (system, aggressive/conservative, etc.) so we can't really try to replicate what we think they would do. Should we be more conservative overall? Should we still bid games aggressively but only bid fairly certain slams? Any advice is appreciated...

fly straight and narrow. let them do the barrel rolls and loup-de-loups that increase the chance of crashing and burning.

[helene_t]

Lobowolf, on Feb 22 2010, 07:59 AM, said:

I wouldn't change too much, but to the extent you're going to change at all, don't go conservative; they're probably going to go agressive, and you should do the same thing to minimize the swings. You can't blow a big lead by doing what they do at the other table.

True but on the other hand, bidding a slam can create a larger swing if it is bid on both table but only makes on one table. Staying in game cannot lose more than the difference between a making game and a making slam, or that between a making game and a slam going down (which is about the same).

Anyway, agree with others that the best thing to do is not to worry about these tactical consideration but just play solid bridge.

If you have seating rights and you know something about opps pairs, let your most-similar-to-their-NS-pair play NS.

[cherdanno]

You are ahead 32 with 24 boards left in a KO match. That's a good lead, but nothing dramatic either. Just keep playing better bridge than them.
Definitely don't go more conservative than you would normally play. Imagine you are trailing, and bidding a close game. Don't you wish for the other table to stay in partscore?
OTOH, don't go crazy trying to copy the other table. When you are trailing, and bidding an anti-percentage slam, aren't you hoping that the other table bids it too (so it's a push in case it's a no play slam), and then you can gain 17 IMPs on getting the right lead?
So yeah play normal bridge.

[paulg]

You are ahead of them currently because you have been playing the better bridge. I don't see any reason to consider changing that.

Although it is a very reasonable question, I don't think many A-flight teams are good at implementing a strategy to overcome a deficit or protect a lead. For a C-flight team to consider it is right, but I recommend that you just focus on the basics and not worry about the lead.

Helene's advice about matching systems (e.g., get the strong club pairs playing the same direction) is about the most I'd do.

Paul

[jjbrr]

Don't change anything about your game, except don't do things that can go for large numbers.

[Jlall]

Yeah your "lead" is not very big at all, you need to play normal. Everyone has lost by 32 in 24 boards, especially if their opps are going for it. The best way to not lose imps is to just play to maximize your imp expectancy on each board.

If you had to avoid losing by 70 then you could alter your approach to minimize variance, but 32 is not nearly enough.

[NickRW]

I'd like to reiterate, if any reiteration should be needed here, 32imps over 24 boards is a useful position to be in, but not a lot at all.

I played in a 30 board six team round robin yesterday afternoon. Of the 15 total matches, 7 produced swings of 18imps or more - that's over just 6 boards per match. OK the field was a bit mixed - but even so - you see that 32 imps over 24 boards can easily be caught. Just play your soundest bridge you can.

Nick

[Jlall]

BTW imo your opponents best strategy should also be to start out playing their best bridge as if it were a tied match, because the margin is quite small. After half the boards they can maybe re-evaluate that, but that's how they should start out. Most people who try to swing just do many wildly anti-percentage things (much more anti-percentage than they think) and dig themselves into a hole they can't get out of real fast. I mean if they have 2 disasters early on they will actually need to swing, and they'll basically be out of it. On the other hand if in 12 boards they just pick up 1 game swing, and their teammates play solid and do the same, they're down like 10 with 12 boards to go etc.