[AL78]

mycroft, on 2019-October-24, 11:37, said:

On topic: I agree with most here - it looks like "bidding is for finding game", not "competing for the part score" is in OPs- or partner's - mind. Especially at matchpoints, you will be eaten alive if you let them play 2-of-a-fit; frankly if you let them play 2-of-a-suit unless you *know* that this is going to be difficult for whoever declares. That goes double for the 1 level, unless it's the 1♠-p-p- "You know, I bet opener's got 20 or so" ones, rather than the "it looks like partner has a penalty double over there" ones.

Since OP has a lot of data to look at, one way to check is to see how many hands they're declaring vs defending, and what their scores are when on play vs on defence. From the examples given, it looks like they'd be defending 65-70% of the hands. Not only may that mean that they are defending more than their opposition, but defence is hard (and it's even harder when defending lower contracts than the rest of the room!)

I don't think I do take the attitude that bidding is for finding game, I tend to think that coming into an auction where the opponents are unlimited requires a fairly decent hand. The problem is, I mostly hold flat single digit point counts when the opponents are first to bid, and I can't see a way of getting into the auction if partner can't find an overcall or double. It is different if I have a long suit with some shape, or shortage in opponents suit, I will come in, but it seems it is rare I have those hands when LHO or RHO has opened. I think some people have hit on something, in that we do get screwed after one of us has opened a weak NT and an opponent comes in. We need to agree to play takeout doubles to try and avoid the -110 or -140 which is often a bad MP score (whilst not going over the top and giving them +200).

Over the last 12 months I have defended 72.19% of the time according to Pianola. Some other statistics:

Average score - 51.75%
As declarer - 56.54%
As dummy - 50.67%
As defender on lead - 52.01%
As defender not on lead - 48.74%

This covers all sessions with all partners. I could pull off some statistics only including sessions with one of my regular partners, but that will take some time.

It has been a bit of an eye-opener going back and looking at historical sessions. This started off as an enquiry about whether there was any meaning in defending well above half the hands over a year or two, and has evolved into looking at why my results are below par. Having looked at about a dozen sessions has brought up a few areas where I am leaking matchpoints:

1. Not being competitive enough (either myself or partner), and consequently letting the opposition get away with aggressive actions that we should either counter, or punish them for.

2. Defensive cock-ups. Lack of concentration, bad opening lead, or the situation where I work out there are two reasonable lines of defence, each of which is required on a particular feasible layout, but if I pick the wrong one, it will blow a trick or two, and I pick the wrong one.

3. The unique contract bottom. Opponents do things against us that aren't replicated around the room, and it happens to be right on the layout. One example was in a competitive auction, we had the hearts, the opponents had the spades, we bid to 3♥, the opponents bid to 3♠, I doubled as they were vulnerable and felt we needed to go for the +200 penalty and 4♥ had little to no chance. They make 3♠X, everyone else is allowed to play in 3♥=. Otherwise known as the pairs double.

I will have a chat with one of my regular partners abouit competitive auctions and the need to get into the bidding and/or stop being owned by the opposition. Many thanks to everyone who has contributed with some very constructive input.

[Vampyr]

As a rule of thumb, letting the opponents rest in 2♠ or lower generally does not generate a good matchpoint score. On the most recent hand you posted you were terribly unlucky. Was the field fairly weak? You can get bad scores in weak fields since there is no field protection.

[AL78]

Vampyr, on 2019-October-24, 16:08, said:

As a rule of thumb, letting the opponents rest in 2♠ or lower generally does not generate a good matchpoint score. On the most recent hand you posted you were terribly unlucky. Was the field fairly weak? You can get bad scores in weak fields since there is no field protection.

The field is very mixed, although I play on the two strongest evenings. The ability of the other pairs ranges from a bit better than the players on the beginners/improvers evening, to a pair of EBU grandmasters (who almost always come in the top three, so their superior skill overrides field variability).

[akwoo]

Depending on whom you're playing with and how you see the partnership developing, you may just have to decide to occasionally bid for a timid partner.

We all "bid for partner" on occasion - when we are in passout seat at a low level we frequently make the assumption that partner must have a decent hand based on the opposition bidding, and bid assuming he has decent values. There are other occasions - when opponents have preempted and we don't have room to find out how much partner has, we frequently make the assumption that partner has roughly their share of the remaining cards and bid accordingly.

If you know that partner won't compete on certain hands, you may have to decide in some situations that the chance they have an appropriate hand is high enough that you have to do the competing for them, even when they still have another chance. A good example is the first hand where we all said your partner should have made a double in passout seat. If you know your partner won't make a double in passout seat even with such an obviously suitable hand, you'll have to bid 2♠ yourself more often.

Keep in mind that risks at matchpoints have nothing to do with the magnitude of the penalty. The difference between -100 and -110 is usually a lot bigger than the difference between -500 and -1400. If you're already getting a zero for -110, you might as well gamble for -100, because the zero for -1400 is the same score.

Once in a tournament, a well-known American pro player (known for these kinds of tactics) overcalled 1♦ (nonvul vs. vul, over my 1♣ opening) with ♠987 ♥Q975 ♦QJ98 ♣J8, playing with a decent but not great client. He got an above average board for it when we missed game as a result. (There was continued competition in the bidding, but that wouldn't have happened without his ultra-light overcall.)

[Zelandakh]

akwoo, on 2019-October-24, 18:37, said:

Once in a tournament, a well-known American pro player (known for these kinds of tactics) overcalled 1♦ (nonvul vs. vul, over my 1♣ opening) with ♠987 ♥Q975 ♦QJ98 ♣J8, playing with a decent but not great client. He got an above average board for it when we missed game as a result. (There was continued competition in the bidding, but that wouldn't have happened without his ultra-light overcall.)

That looks like a 2♦ overcall to me.

The idea of bidding ultra-aggressively to compensate for a timid partner is one that is likely to bring short term gain but is I think ultimately self-defeating as it will tend to drive the player into being even more cautious. Better is to get the partner to buy into a style of play that separates out constructive and competitive decisions and plays the latter very aggressively. Not only will that eventually result in the partnership being stronger, it will also make the partner a better player with much more understanding of important bidding concepts, which further advances the status and potential of the partnership.

[mycroft]

I am impressed that given the contracts you show as playing, your defence score is average or a bit above. You need really good defence skills (which you get lots of practise in, I guess!) when you're defending a level lower than the field, and defence is usually harder than declarer play, so you have to overcome that advantage as well as get back the bad results on the hands like you've been showing us.

I am well known as a bad card holder (I even have on one of my "joke" convention cards "Mycroft only: APAD", which means "Always Pass As Dealer"), and even I am not unlucky enough that I *average* 70% of hands defending (55? I think that's about right).

I agree with those who say that becoming more aggressive yourself will not work with an ultra-conservative partner; once they cotton on and get one bad result, they'll back off even more. One of the chapters in "Why You Lose At Bridge" discusses "okay, when partner will never see the hand, and I get to play it, I'll overbid by a trick, but if I have to put my hand down, it will be exactly what partner expects"; just as true now as in 1930.

What might work is a "bidding pact". You have to agree beforehand, and there has to be no recriminations for following the rules, but if you and partner agree that for the next month:

• you will not pass 2-of-a-fit undoubled (doubles are takeout, but can be passed), and
  
• you will look for any chance to bid over their resting 2-contract (like the "automatic" lebensohl-into-3♦ after 1NT-(2♠) above) even if it's not known to be a fit, and
  
• you will never comment (besides your version of the automatic "thank you partner. Nice hand") about dummy when it comes down in these auctions, and
  
• you will play your hardest in these balances, even if you know already that you're trying to turn -800 into -500, and
  
• the only comment after the hand allowed is "nice push, partner", even if you failed in your attempt to avoid -800;

then you just might find that at the end of the month your judgment, and partner's judgment, in these situations is much better. You will sometimes pass 2-and-out, you will even sometimes pass out 2-of-a-fit, but you'll feel awful about doing it, and you will check the score to see if you were right and it's a 30% board (even if anything else would have been worse!) You may also find that as you learn to play horrible contracts better and with confidence, that that -150 zero you were booked for magically turned into -100 or -50 for a great score because, again, defence is hard.

You might want to restrict your "bidding pact" games to pair games - or at least to matchpointed games. Disappointing team mates can be hard on future relationships.

[AL78]

mycroft, on 2019-October-28, 10:47, said:

I am impressed that given the contracts you show as playing, your defence score is average or a bit above. You need really good defence skills (which you get lots of practise in, I guess!) when you're defending a level lower than the field, and defence is usually harder than declarer play, so you have to overcome that advantage as well as get back the bad results on the hands like you've been showing us.

I am well known as a bad card holder (I even have on one of my "joke" convention cards "Mycroft only: APAD", which means "Always Pass As Dealer"), and even I am not unlucky enough that I *average* 70% of hands defending (55? I think that's about right).

I agree with those who say that becoming more aggressive yourself will not work with an ultra-conservative partner; once they cotton on and get one bad result, they'll back off even more. One of the chapters in "Why You Lose At Bridge" discusses "okay, when partner will never see the hand, and I get to play it, I'll overbid by a trick, but if I have to put my hand down, it will be exactly what partner expects"; just as true now as in 1930.

What might work is a "bidding pact". You have to agree beforehand, and there has to be no recriminations for following the rules, but if you and partner agree that for the next month:

• you will not pass 2-of-a-fit undoubled (doubles are takeout, but can be passed), and
  
• you will look for any chance to bid over their resting 2-contract (like the "automatic" lebensohl-into-3♦ after 1NT-(2♠) above) even if it's not known to be a fit, and
  
• you will never comment (besides your version of the automatic "thank you partner. Nice hand") about dummy when it comes down in these auctions, and
  
• you will play your hardest in these balances, even if you know already that you're trying to turn -800 into -500, and
  
• the only comment after the hand allowed is "nice push, partner", even if you failed in your attempt to avoid -800;

then you just might find that at the end of the month your judgment, and partner's judgment, in these situations is much better. You will sometimes pass 2-and-out, you will even sometimes pass out 2-of-a-fit, but you'll feel awful about doing it, and you will check the score to see if you were right and it's a 30% board (even if anything else would have been worse!) You may also find that as you learn to play horrible contracts better and with confidence, that that -150 zero you were booked for magically turned into -100 or -50 for a great score because, again, defence is hard.

You might want to restrict your "bidding pact" games to pair games - or at least to matchpointed games. Disappointing team mates can be hard on future relationships.

Thank you, that is good advice. I will pass this on to my partner.

[AL78]

Here is one where I have to guess at the auction, it is the only way I can see we got there:

---

We got it one off for a 33% score. Six other pairs. Four bid and made 2 or 3♦, two went off in 4♦.

[AL78]

This was against one of the strongest pairs in the club:

---

A bottom. We let through an overtrick but this makes no difference. Almost everyone else is in 3 or 4♣ going one or two down. One EW pair went down in 4♥. Theoretically 4♣ gets us back to the room, but only if we are allowed to play undoubled. Against this pair, the odds are against it I think (but we'll never know).

[helene_t]

That one is clearly well bid by NS, you expect 8+8 total trumps so even the 3♥ bid is not lawful.

Both sides can make 8 tricks so defending at the 3-level is right - assuming that both sides can defend double-dummy, of course.

[akwoo]

AL78, on 2019-October-28, 13:08, said:

Here is one where I have to guess at the auction, it is the only way I can see we got there:

---

We got it one off for a 33% score. Six other pairs. Four bid and made 2 or 3♦, two went off in 4♦.

At MPs, South must double 3♥, showing balance of power without values for game. North can judge to pass rather than bid 4♦.

Think of it this way. If E/W play 3♥ undoubled, you are booked for a bad score.

It's possible 3♥ makes; then you're -140, which is at most 25% (and probably a 0) for you since, if the other people your way are down 2 undoubled or down 1 doubled in 3♦, it's still only -100. If they make, the double turns -140 into -730, but the difference between -140 and -730 isn't very many matchpoints, maybe 25% of a board at most.

If 3♥ goes down undoubled, then you're +100, but when 3♥ goes down, the other pairs playing your way are probably making 3♦, which is +110, so the +100 is still only 25% (and maybe a 0). But now the double turns your +100 which was a bad score into +200 which is a very good score (beating +110 or +130 or +150), probably a gain of 50% of a board or more.

So a double costs not so much when it's wrong, but gains quite a bit when it's right. (Note, at IMPs, it's the opposite; the double would cost quite a bit when it's wrong but doesn't gain much when it's right.) Hence the odds favor doubling.

There's a classic book explaining this logic and how to apply it to various situations by Kit Woolsey titled "Matchpoints".

[AL78]

akwoo, on 2019-October-28, 15:19, said:

At MPs, South must double 3♥, showing balance of power without values for game. North can judge to pass rather than bid 4♦.

Think of it this way. If E/W play 3♥ undoubled, you are booked for a bad score.

It's possible 3♥ makes; then you're -140, which is at most 25% (and probably a 0) for you since, if the other people your way are down 2 undoubled or down 1 doubled in 3♦, it's still only -100. If they make, the double turns -140 into -730, but the difference between -140 and -730 isn't very many matchpoints, maybe 25% of a board at most.

If 3♥ goes down undoubled, then you're +100, but when 3♥ goes down, the other pairs playing your way are probably making 3♦, which is +110, so the +100 is still only 25% (and maybe a 0). But now the double turns your +100 which was a bad score into +200 which is a very good score (beating +110 or +130 or +150), probably a gain of 50% of a board or more.

So a double costs not so much when it's wrong, but gains quite a bit when it's right. (Note, at IMPs, it's the opposite; the double would cost quite a bit when it's wrong but doesn't gain much when it's right.) Hence the odds favor doubling.

There's a classic book explaining this logic and how to apply it to various situations by Kit Woolsey titled "Matchpoints".

Yes I understand the concept of the pairs double, and that risking doubling them into game is worth it for the chance of getting +200 or +300 when it looks like we have been outbid. I have done souch doubles before, unfortunately rarely with success (they make their doubled contract usually). Here's one I completely misjudged:

---

2♣ showed hearts and a minor 5+4+ shape.

I thought the balance of power was either level or our way, and I decided to go for the +200, thinking the room would be in 3♥ our way, and this is a pair who are notorious for aggressive bidding. It wasn't to be, this was a bottom when 3♠X made with two overtricks (should have been +1 but that is irrelevant). Most were in 2♠ undoubled, two found the game and one went off. If I don't double, we get a near average, or 71% if we defend optimally and hold it to 10 tricks, so my pairs double was quite expensive.

This was with a different regular partner than the other hands I have posted. It was a rare win, just over 62%, and exceptional in that I declared 12 times out of 24 boards. My declarer play was 72%, my defence on lead (four times) 36% lol.

[akwoo]

Is the room playing 2-suited overcalls of 1N? If not, I don't see why you're expecting folks to find a bid over 2♠.

Was 2♣ specifically 5+♥ 4+ in a minor or could it be the other way? Was West minimum for 2♣ or could be even weaker? I have a feeling you and your partner are not quite on the same wavelength about 2♣.

[AL78]

akwoo, on 2019-October-28, 16:32, said:

Is the room playing 2-suited overcalls of 1N? If not, I don't see why you're expecting folks to find a bid over 2♠.

Was 2♣ specifically 5+♥ 4+ in a minor or could it be the other way? Was West minimum for 2♣ or could be even weaker? I have a feeling you and your partner are not quite on the same wavelength about 2♣.

Quite a few people do play defences like Astro or Landy, I;'m not sure how many were on that evening.

The 2♣ could be 5-4 either way, I took a chance she held a longer major. I maybe should have realised that holding a double fit, defensive prospects were not that great. I did expect a bit more for the overcall, a double figure HCP count at least unless very distributional, bearing in mind the vulnerability.

[akwoo]

Over 2♠, you should have an agreement about what bid asks for the minor - one of double, 2N, or 3♣ should do that - the bonus is that any of those bids shows strength or shape, so it takes East off the hook when it comes to doubling 3♠ - it's West's job now.

If West had held ♠Axx ♥Axxxx ♦xxxx ♣x the double would've been brilliant.

[Zelandakh]

akwoo, on 2019-October-28, 17:28, said:

Over 2♠, you should have an agreement about what bid asks for the minor - one of double, 2N, or 3♣ should do that - the bonus is that any of those bids shows strength or shape, so it takes East off the hook when it comes to doubling 3♠ - it's West's job now.

Typically Double is the equivalent of the relay, asking for the longer suit, and 2NT asks specifically for the minor. There are some minor nuances that can be done in addition but I think that is the easiest general agreement for the method as it essentially works in more or less any auction.

[AL78]

The declarer drought continues. I sat in with the beginners this evening to make up the numbers. 14 boards, declared once, my partner declared twice. Average HCP count our way 9.57 and 9.43. The good thing was despite defending 11 out of 14 hands, we had something to defend with, and even though I was partnering a 1st year student, we defended well, and we ended up second with 63.7%. If the helper hadn't encouraged her to bid the spade slam that went off on a 5-0 spade break (6NT makes thanks to the rest of the layout being favourable), we might have won.