[han]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-17, 14:29, said:

I never go down the route of worrying whether things are 'anti-field' or not. I think you should just do what you think is right (given matchpoint scoring) and not do what you think is wrong. The "field" is so random there's never any way to know what they are doing in the first place.

I completely agree with this. Also, I would bid 4S.

Phil, on 2012-May-17, 08:30, said:

While I do not agree with these conclusions, I agree with the philosophy.

I agreed with the conclusion (bidding 4S) but not with the philosophy.

[JLOGIC]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-17, 14:29, said:

I never go down the route of worrying whether things are 'anti-field' or not. I think you should just do what you think is right (given matchpoint scoring) and not do what you think is wrong. The "field" is so random there's never any way to know what they are doing in the first place.

So on this hand, if you think double is right, double. If you think 4S is right, bid 4S.

Jesus, this.

[JLOGIC]

bluecalm, on 2012-May-17, 14:35, said:

and you have borderline hand between say invite and 3NT and you very fine judgement tells you it's better to bash game but most of the field is in 1/2NT then even if the game makes say 53% of the time you only collect 53% from the hand while being where the field is could allow you to score much more exploiting their weak defense.
In general I believe good players have bigger edge in cardplay than in bidding judgement so going "with the field" in such situations is quite important (assuming you can predict what the field does).

You cannot predict the field very accurately, and more importantly you cannot have a fine estimation that on hands where the field passes 1N 2N game will be 53 % and you will gain only 1 % of the time because of 1N 3N vs 1N 2N 3N. Nobody has judgement that fine. Not to mention, how do you know partner has a "field" 1N? How do you know that RHO has a field pass. There are way too many variables. Just do what Frances said, make the decision that rates to work out the best in your opinion. It is crazy to think that you can routinely pass up on edge to lower variance to win a matchpoint event (where you have to have a very good game to beat every other pair).

On this hand, why on earth do we think that every other table is going to go 1H p 4H? It is very possible the 1H bidder has a light hand (we have a lot of points), and it is extremely likely that not everyone will bid 4H no matter what RHOs hand is. And even if it were, are you going to say with a straight face that you think X will get a top 52 % of the time and a bottom 48 % of the time so you will bid 4S? Those numbers would be basically completely made up.

I do not know any good player who frequently is trying to go "with the field." Perhaps I should not play strong club at matchpoints because it is so anti field and will make me win less consistently. lol. The only players who I hear saying they based a bridge decision on what the field will do consistently are bad players who have read too many bridge books/posts and do not win every matchpoint event they play in with their superior strategy. Yes, there are some spots for it, and some spots where you avoid taking a top/bottom spot because it is too marginal/likely to result in a bottom, but it's not like these are common occurrences or spots like this is where we are thinking about it.

[rtewari]

4S is right especially at Match points. Partner with 3 spades and 5+ minor may bid a minor for a near bottom and in many hands even 5-2 spade may be enough to make 4S.

[nige1]

humilities asks "Game all, Matchpoints. I know this room and the room is bidding 4♠. Double would not even occur to 90% of them. Nevertheless I feel that double might be superior enough to merit going anti-field. What do you think?"

IMO 4♠ = 10, X = 8, P =6. Restating the obvious:
- It is almost as hard to guess what the field will do as to play well. If you can guess what others will do and you bid and play with the field then you can expect an average score. This may be plausible tactic If you're doing well so far, and now you need only average to win (or qualify). IMO. in that situation, there is a better argument for playing slightly more conservatively.
- Most players imagine they can bid and play better than average. Some players are content to bid with the field. because they are confident that they can outplay the field. But If their bidding is good, too, then they're sacrificing half their advantage. In any case, IMO, you should back your own judgement in both bidding and play because it's more fun

---

[Statto]

humilities, on 2012-May-17, 05:57, said:

Do you go anti-field?

You are asking the wrong question.

At MPs you choose the actions that will give you the best chance of a better than 50% success rate.

It barely matters what the field is doing; that is a fallacy perpetuated by some bridge players who haven't seen the light.

I will try X here if predominantly take-out. 2nd choice 4♠. It's close.

[bluecalm]

Quote

On this hand, why on earth do we think that every other table is going to go 1H p 4H? I

I don't
I was referring to general principle which I think have some merits but admittedly in much simpler situations (say, in field when most pairs play 15-17nt we get some 9hcp and face a dilemma of bashing a game or inviting it).

I accept your and Frances' point about not predicting what the field does as close to impossible task in most cases.

Quote

1N 2N game will be 53 % and you will gain only 1 % of the time because of 1N 3N vs 1N 2N 3N. Nobody has judgement that fine

You "just" need to know what the field does and feel your decision is a close one to apply the principle not exact %'s.

Quote

It barely matters what the field is doing; that is a fallacy perpetuated by some bridge players who haven't seen the light.

I think you are misusing the word fallacy. It's not a fallacy. It's a sound principle which applies to situations when certain conditions occur. Now it might well be true, especially with many great players stating so, that those conditions barely ever occur in practice but I wouldn't call the whole thing a "fallacy".

Btw, I bid 4S, I think hands with 3 spades are too big part of partner's range to risk a double.

[gnasher]

I'd double, assuming that we really play it as for takeout, ie showing an offensive hand rather than just a collection of high cards.

Even if partner has three spades, that doesn't mean we belong in 4♠. If he has a heart trick with his three spades, we probably want to defend; if he doesn't, 4♠ may be in trouble after we get forced at trick two.

Even if partner has four spades, if he decides to pass my double that might well be best: imagine him with something like xxxx Kxx xxx Jxx.

[Phil]

han, on 2012-May-18, 03:31, said:

I completely agree with this. Also, I would bid 4S.



I agreed with the conclusion (bidding 4S) but not with the philosophy.

The conclusion that I was referring to that I did not agree with was that 4♠ will lead to an average result at worst. Do you agree with that?

[dkham]

Can we see the whole hand? I know it's basically irrelevant but always fun to see!

[the_clown]

I cant imagine, bidding anything but 4♠.