[DavidKok]

Motivated by https://www.bridgeba...15-17-hcp-hand/, in particular mycroft's response.

I've never quite understood the fear of bidding against the field. What little calculations I've seen on the topic all point out that it's a net winner if you think your contract is going to be better over 50% of the time and a net loser if not, although obviously with huge variance. This leads to the obvious recommendation 'bid to the best contract you think your side has available, regardless of system'. A lot of people also like to point out that if you are much stronger than the field, especially at matchpoint scoring, it is desirable to end up in the same contract as the field and then outplay them (presumably since your edge in the play is bigger than your edge in the bidding).

But on some level I just don't know what's going on. If I play in the Netherlands (most people play 5cM, strong NT, 2/1 not GF) is it desirable to switch to that system just because that is going 'with the field'? And if I were to play in the UK (for any reason), would that mean swapping to a weak notrump will improve my score? Surely all systems are trying to accomplish broadly the same things - get to good contracts, stay out of bad ones, make it difficult for the opponents to achieve the aforementioned. Are people worried about the variance alone - maybe knowing that a lot of boards will be 0% or 100% with nothing in between will be stressful and exhaust you during the play?

Or am I reading too much into things, and is the use of "against the field" in the particular example of 1NT vs 2M in that thread (arguably the most important against-the-field result of strong NT vs weak NT by frequency) shorthand for "statistically we know that the contract the strong notrumpers will end up in is superior, so we need to adjust our system here or frequently pay up?". Even then I don't understand what the field has got to do with it - if you are armed with this knowledge (for the record: I don't really see how the claim in the previous sentence can be true) you could make a killing in a weak NT field with your adjusted system by matching the statistically superior result in a field where nobody is.

I've always thought of going against the field in the context of a given system as a sort of bias-variance tradeoff, where you take the anti-percentage action in the hope of swinging the match when the situation is dire. But going against the field because that is your systemic bid is not inherently good or bad, but rather a statement about the effectiveness of bidding systems in general. What am I missing?

[mikeh]

I usually play imps and, in my two partnerships, we play distinctly non-standard methods, more (by a lot) in one than the other. I can’t be bothered, nor (I suspect) would be my partners, to play different methods dependent on mps or imps.

So for me, there are not going to be a lot of hands where our methods are similar to ‘the field’s’. Even our strong NT is 14-16, so unlike the usual 15-17 in NA and unlike a weak notrump method.

I think it obvious, from our approach to bidding, that we don’t care about the ‘field’. Our goal is to reach the optimal contract on any set of hands where we own the hand and to make life difficult when we don’t.

The only time I seriously consider the field is if, on seeing dummy, I realize that we may be in a poor contract.

Say I’m in 3N and suspect the field is in 4M. I can see that 4M always makes 4…but in 3N I have only 9 top tricks….I have a finesse for ten but will be set should it lose. At imps, of course, I spurn the finesse…so our bidding cost us an imp….C’est la vie. At mps, I take the hook anytime I think a lot of other pairs will play 4M.

Similarly, if we’re saving I may risk 1100 to try for 500 if I think the field is plus 620/650 their way and my alternative is to settle for -800. At imps, I’d take the 800 unless I thought the risky play was a favourite to work.

I guess I can sum it up with a little arrogance. In most fields, with either of my partners, I think we bid better than most, and play our cards better than most, so I’m not throwing away our perceived edge in bidding by trying to mimic the field

If you’re not yet at that level….my advice is to focus on getting better….and getting more partnership trust…and let the field do what it wants..other than the sort of play decisions referenced above.

If you are consistently missing good contracts by virtue of non-standard methods, then change your methods. But if you’re happy that your methods should give you an edge…don’t worry about the field. Unless, of course, you’re fooling yourself, lol. Be aware that many of us tend to credit our methods when they work but forget to remember the bad results when they don’t.

[DavidKok]

Thank you, that's exactly my line of thinking as well. The actions of the field just don't factor into it during the bidding, and will be rare even in play decisions. Maybe the appeal to 'going with the field' is just a mistake.

[LBengtsson]

I like the bidding quizzes you find in magazines such as Bridge World, etc. Given the variety of bids that the world class experts come up with on a number of hands, bidding against the field is probably more common than we think.

Jillybean's hand - see link above - should be easy to resolve as it is a simple rebid in a non-competitive auction, but here we are presented with three options: 1NT (15-17 balanced), 2♠ (slight underbid), 3♠ (slight overbid). Now which bid is bidding against the field here? 1NT because we supress the ♠ support, preferring to show the balanced shape and point count accurately? But there may be other partnerships thinking exactly the same as us. And if we decide to show the ♠ support, which bid - 2♠ or 3♠ - would be bidding against the field?

At each turn of the auction we have choice. How do we know that the field are doing exactly the same as us? I think only once in my lifetime I have seen a multiple table movement where all the hands were bid exactly in the same way, and exactly the same result achieved.

[DavidKok]

It is a good point, the field is likely very heterogeneous. This makes it very difficult or even nonsensical to claim some action is with or against the field. My main question(/point) though is that I think in the 1NT vs 2♠ vs 3♠ example the bids should be judged on their own merits, and what may or may not happen at other tables is not relevant even if we somehow were to know it.

[mycroft]

Since I'm the one raising it as an issue:

One small digression first, if you'll indulge:

Spoiler

I'm seeing more and more 14-16 in Expert+ bidding; it wouldn't surprise me if in the games Mike plays in most, he is actually playing with the field. I will admit that "what to do with the 9 count that the field is raising 15-17 to 3 and leaving the 11-14 in 1" was a fairly major headache when I was playing 14-16 in Precision.

1. In this particular case, we're talking about a hand that "the room" is opening with the "most +EV opening bid", and wondering whether to hide that information from partner on the second round. Or, "I know we have an 8-card major fit", a "teach people day 1 is a goal" level of information, and whether to hide that information from partner. In order to be right on these guesses, you have to *know* you're right, not "50+%".

2. You're right, the thing is that going "against the field" in the auction is much more high-variance than "outplaying the field". I have no complaint about "I bid better than the field, I'm not going to give that up 'just because'" - that's "outplaying the field" with those skills rather than "bridge should be about the beautiful play of the cards, not 'let's see how confused we can make the opponents in the auction' " (we all know I'm not one of Those People, right?). But "going against the field" in the auction is like taking the "anti-percentage line" in the play; great if you're right, zero if you're wrong.

So all I'm saying is what I said in the other thread. Not "don't bid against the field", but "why am I *choosing to* do it on this hand?" And if there's a good reason, then fine. If there's not a good reason, don't go "gambling full boards". If there's a reason that's based on "my bidding system is better" (or even "my bidding system has by sheer luck given me useful information the field doesn't have") - more power to you! Well done!

I beat Bob Hamman in the NABC+ Swiss a few years ago because our weak NT auction pinpointed the fatal flaw in an otherwise obvious club slam. Win 12 by being in 3NT (plus top-level for me play on the rest of the boards, of course!) was the match.

But a 4234 16 count, deciding what to do after 1♣-1♥? There's no reason to believe showing my spades now is going to be better than showing "15-17 balanced", and if I do it, I'm also backing my judgement against almost everybody else. So I don't.

I will remind people that I played Precision almost exclusively for 5 years. The biggest problem? Not remembering the system; not being able to use that information and make the right call; not being able to play the great contracts (or the horrible contracts) that I got to with the great system. It was the hands where I'm at 3♥, knowing the room is going to be having an (effectively) 1NT-3NT auction, and *knowing it's bad* (but against the 60% of the time 5♣ is right and we get a great score, there's the 40% of the time that 3NT makes anyway (4-4 split of the open suit? Blockage? Two cards in the right spot?) and even in the "great score", some pairs are making 3NT because the defence fatally slipped (possibly on trick 1). Or, knowing that the right card or two over there makes 6♣, but if I ask for it and partner doesn't have it, we're losing to all the +630s even if the defence slips and we make 6. That's a lot of "high variance" over the "better than 50%" decision to deal with.

It's not "don't back your system", it's "if it's not obvious which way to go, make the lower-variance decision, especially if your play is field+".

[mikeh]

I can’t speak for everyone but, imo, there are several reasons for the growing popularity of 14-16 1N

Many top pairs play a form of big club….often Meckwell lite. 14-16 meshes well….17-19 is shown via 1C then notrump and 11-13 or 10-13 shown via nebulous 1D

For players like me, using 2/1 with transfers to our 1C, we open virtually all 11 counts.

Thus it is useful to be able to break our notrump ranges into 3 point sequences

1C then accepting a transfer or bidding 1N over a 1S response shows 11-13

In one partnership we open all balanced hands, lacking a 5 card major, 1C…1D shows an unbalanced hand. Now after 1C 1R, we rebid 1N with 17-19, lacking 4 card support.

If we played 15-17, we’d either have to pass most 11 counts or our ‘balanced minimum’ rebid would be 11-14. While I’ve played 11-14 1N with a very fine partner, imo it’s fundamentally unplayable. One either misses games when opener has 14 and responder, say, 11 or one gets too high when both have 11 and responder bids. One point doesn’t sound like much, but over time a too wide range is expensive, imo.

[Cyberyeti]

 mikeh, on 2022-December-08, 14:48, said:

If we played 15-17, we’d either have to pass most 11 counts or our ‘balanced minimum’ rebid would be 11-14. While I’ve played 11-14 1N with a very fine partner, imo it’s fundamentally unplayable. One either misses games when opener has 14 and responder, say, 11 or one gets too high when both have 11 and responder bids. One point doesn’t sound like much, but over time a too wide range is expensive, imo.

I play 12-15 in my infrequent real diamond precision partnership. It hasn't been terrible.

I used to play even wider, but you need a very complicated system to deal with that to get any accuracy.

[DJNeill]

I spoke with Kit Woolsey for an hour and I brought up the idea of field, and he simply said, "F*** the field".

[DavidKok]

 DJNeill, on 2022-December-08, 15:55, said:

I spoke with Kit Woolsey for an hour and I brought up the idea of field, and he simply said, "F*** the field".

Thanks, that's precisely the answer I was looking for.

@mikeh: Ever since I've swapped to 14-16 NT I've also preferred it to 15-17, even without opening the balanced 11-counts. The increase in frequency while still being 'strong' is really nice, plus a lot of pairs play 14⁺-17^- anyway, which realistically looks like 14-16 as much as it looks like 15-17. I also like the extra bidding space opening 1♣ with a 17-count, having more information before getting to the 1NT level. The opponents rarely come in when I have 17, and even if they do my followups are well-defined. My normal ranges are 12-13, 14-16, 17-19, 20-21 and then 2-point ranges all the way to the top. I can take or leave including the 11-counts, honestly.

@mycroft: I still think we disagree somewhat, or at least I don't understand what you're saying. Of course if my system is giving me an advantage I am taking that. But by simple virtue of playing a different system you will frequently not have a clue what the field will bid, at least not until dummy comes down. Also, the message seems to still always be identical: 'bid to what you believe is the best contract available, regardless of system or field'. Is there any situation where you would deviate from this advice, for example because it would be high variance to follow it?

[helene_t]

Frances once said that a situation in which you should go for a low variance strategy is the qualifying round. Assuming you expect to qualify if you just play your normal game.

But generally there's no particular reason to aim at low variance in pairs events, and even if there is, I don't think trying to bid with the field achieves much in that respect. You may try to avoid extremes like grand slams and marginal partscore doubles if the barometer is positive, but that is just a general thing that doesn't require field feeling.

Robot rebate 55 % makes it attractive to tank in the beginning to get an accurate barometer (obviously hoping other players don't do this) so that you know if you need high or low variance to maximise the chance of being in the money. But without a barometer I wouldn't worry.

[Tramticket]

There are similar arguments at teams.

Suppose one half of the team plays a weak NT and the other half a strong NT. You are playing a known team, which also has one strong NT and one weak NT pair. If given the choice of seating, do you sit weak NT Vs weak NT and strong NT Vs strong NT? Or do you choose to have the weak NT pairings in each team playing the same cards? I have listened to team-mates arguing this question at length, but have never understood why it should be considered important!

[mycroft]

I am simply saying "your default should be 'take the choice that limits the variance' to maximize the chance that your play skill will matter." Same as "your default should be 'pull trump', if trumps are out." Obviously there are *lots of cases* where you don't take the default, because reasons.

I am saying that in club games in the ACBL (and basically anything below "flighted A events" at tournaments), the homogeneity of bidding system is such that when you have a 4234 16 count you can simply assume that 90+% of the other tables' auctions started "1NT" (++ if you're in first seat); and yes, I know "the auction" won't go the same way at every table, but auctions that start 1NT-2♣ or 1NT-2♦ (or even 1NT-(interference)) are more often in better shape than my 1♣-1♥ auction than worse off (ignoring the however big "doesn't matter" cases). I agree that "you can't tell" in general what will happen at the other tables until dummy comes down; but there are specific cases - lots of them, frankly, in the "K/S in a ACBL standard world" scenario - where you definitely have a really good idea.

So, given the choice between showing my 4-4 blacks and showing the same information that is the cause of "in better shape", I pick "the field choice". Is it right? Not necessarily, and definitely not necessarily on this hand. Does resolving this require more tweaking of our later auctions (especially XYNT agreements)? Sure. But having dummy hit and realizing that partner would have made the "obvious" call if she had just known what everybody else knew, and now it doesn't matter what she does in the play is an issue - of course, sometimes "it doesn't matter" what she does because at worst, she's getting 90% on the board, not at best 10%.

Sure, it's an issue we who play anti-field systems (again, especially in a One True Bidding Style world) have to accept day 1 will happen (both ways). And have to recheck over time still is worth it. And despite MikeH (who I absolutely always listen to, and clearly recognize his ability), some of "it's worth it" doesn't involve "it's better" or "we get better results" - and it doesn't have to. Sure I was happy to play Precision, because my skill at constructing, memorizing (or working out from principles ATT) and using the information from system was much stronger than my judgement, and it was really nice that "the system thinks for me" a lot more than standard. My results were better for it. But the real reason I played Precision was because I had more fun playing bridge than I would have playing "ACBL standard" all the time.

MikeH wouldn't have as much fun if he wasn't trying for the BB whenever he plays bridge. I absolutely respect that - kind of wish I had made the decisions that would allow me to be there (but I am *very happy* with the decisions I actually made, no worries). But to me, the *only* bad actions are those that lead to players stopping playing. I think you see this in my history. And if your reason to play anti-field is "it's more fun?" Fine. If your decision, playing anti-field, is to back anything that's 51+%, knowing that it leads to pajama bridge situations where the play may not matter (or if it does matter, it might have led to the same win)? Sure, go for it.

But my opinion (and yeah, it's only my opinion, but I think it's a good one) is aimed at the people who treat the high-variance nature of their bidding system as a consequence of the decision to play it, not a reason to. And for them, "when in doubt, take the low-variance option" works.

In answer to your last question specifically to me, what's your answer to the Precision conundrums I posed in my last? Back your "60%" 80% vs 10% play (that even in the 60%, might be just "double-dummy 60%", IRL most of the room won't get the killing lead), or the "these cards make slam, but not-these cards are going +600/+620 into +630 basically throughout" decision, or bid 3NT, bank your "average", and try to beat the field in the play? Does it make a difference if you're playing BAM? If you're playing a NABC+ BAM event? If you're playing against a team of pros vs. just another "normie" team? If you're playing a Calcutta, and you are a "good game is in the money" pair? This one is much easier at IMPs, of course.

Helene, quoting Frances - heh, I've offered the opposite advice. If you're a "don't expect to qualify" and can, go high-variance. Sure, your expected 48% is likely to be a 42%, but when things work, it's 54%...

[mycroft]

Tramticket: I remember one Swiss I played in Toronto, where about round 3, our teammates came back and finished scoring, and said "We play Precision. We're used to being the swing pair, not the stable one." Of course, that was the round that it went 1NT (12-14)-X-XX-2♠; X "what's the double?" "Penalty." "What was the redouble?" "Penalty." (+1100 into partscore in 3♣X when the dust cleared), and another "boring K/S hand" that was a 10-IMP swing.

In answer to your conundrum, I'm not sure either. Here, the difference in weak NT styles (especially if it's my partnership - think "Keri and transfers vs 2-way Stayman") in the few who play weak NT is such that I don't think it would matter. But in a world like the EBU where it is about 50-50, I think that "sitting the same cards" would lead to "small wins for the better card players" and sitting opposite would lead to "swingy match, advantage to the better card players". So for KO, play the same way if you're the better team; for Victory-pointed Swiss where you want to *win the event*, play for the big win and hope to dodge the unlucky loss.

Here, of course, there's another consideration - which pair can *defend* a weak NT better? Usually it's the weak NT pair, as they've had lots of experience with "poor weak NT defence" and know what not to do; but if you know their strong NT pair is really good at defending the weak NT, maybe see if their weak NT pair can be rattled by their own medicine? Again, in the EBU I don't expect that to be much of a consideration.

[DavidKok]

I'm sorry, I don't understand at all and I think it might be best to leave it here.

[pigpenz]

 DJNeill, on 2022-December-08, 15:55, said:

I spoke with Kit Woolsey for an hour and I brought up the idea of field, and he simply said, "F*** the field".

My partner and I used to pay against Billy Miller and his clients. Billy is firm believer in going with the field.
The stronger your partnership why do you want to go against what everyone else is doing?

in 70's and 80's we used to play 10-13 NT and 5 card preempts in two bids. that puts you antifield from the start.
We used to do real well in regionals but everntually you learn to count and play and dont necessarily need to go anitfield.

use BBO Helper to look at hands in an acbl tournament and check par result vs the field, par doesnt seem to be par very often.
Its a good place to look since sometimes there are 200 plus tables.quite often par is 3♠= for 140, but one third of the field
is in game making.....3♠+1 for +170 is still a very good score.