Fish killing?

[Balrog]

I'm a decent player (Silver LM) and I've won some regionals, but I've
always found it difficult to do well in weak fields, particularly at
matchpoints. If you know of some ethical techniques that you use to take
advantage of weak players, I'd love to hear about them.

[Chris Pisarra]

Sit tight, have your bids, don't screw around.

Let them beat themselves.

If you try to get cute, it can well backfire.

Chris

"Balrog" wrote in message
news:MPG.2a0a2b474...@news.giganews.com...

[Herb]

"ethical techniques to ... take advantage of weak players."

Sounds unethical already.

But do not:

Bid low percentage games or slams that depend on their making
defensive mistakes.
Use complex bidding systems that you've never used before. You'll
louse yourselves up much more than the opposition.
Stop thinking because you think it's not needed.
Assume that they'll never falsecard

Do:
Play normally
Give explanations when asked instead of simply naming a convention
that they might not be familiar with

- Herb

[Andrew]

1. Put them in the position of defending without information.
1M -- 2M -- 4M
1NT -- 3NT
2NT -- 3NT
So open 1NT on some 14s and 2NT on some 19s to increase the frequency of those auctions.

2. Preempt them aggressively with WJOs when NV

3. Look for ways to give them a problem in the play. Suppose you are playing 3NT and it looks like 10 tricks all day. Do not stop thinking. Is there some deceptive position you could establish that might cause a bad player to go wrong?

4. Develop your table feel. Bad players give away a ton of information during the play. However, it is not as simple as they heistate when they hold an honor. You lead toward the KJx in dummy and you weak LHO fumbles before playing low. IME, that rarely shows the ace. it usually shows lefty wasn't sure whether or not to give count. However, there are many many situations where they will cue the location of honors during the play to help you.

[Andrew]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 6:17:58 PM UTC-7, Herb wrote:
> On 5/1/2012 3:18 PM, Balrog wrote:
> > I'm a decent player (Silver LM) and I've won some regionals, but I've
> > always found it difficult to do well in weak fields, particularly at
> > matchpoints. If you know of some ethical techniques that you use to take
> > advantage of weak players, I'd love to hear about them.
>
> "ethical techniques to ... take advantage of weak players."
>
> Sounds unethical already.

If you don't want to take advantage of people, you are playing the wrong game. The point of the game is to exploit the weakness of others (within the scope of the rules). There is nothing unethical about for example, setting up a pseudo endplay where your weak player might err, or leading an honor from dummy your weak opponent might erroneously cover, or about bidding unusually aggressively or conservatively to exploit their inexperience.

[Adam Beneschan]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 6:17:58 PM UTC-7, Herb wrote:

> On 5/1/2012 3:18 PM, Balrog wrote:
> > I'm a decent player (Silver LM) and I've won some regionals, but I've
> > always found it difficult to do well in weak fields, particularly at
> > matchpoints. If you know of some ethical techniques that you use to take
> > advantage of weak players, I'd love to hear about them.
>
> "ethical techniques to ... take advantage of weak players."
>
> Sounds unethical already.

Maybe you read something into this phrase that I didn't, but there's nothing unethical about changing some of your tactics against weak players--like, say, bidding a bit more aggressively, or playing your cards in a different order than you would against a stronger player, hoping that a weaker player might mess up a key defensive decision early. If the OP was thinking about something totally different, though, I'd like him to clarify; perhaps he was thinking about something that actually isn't ethical.

In the ACBL, you can't change your agreements from table to table based on your perception of the opponents' strength (that applies to agreements, not judgment). As far as I know, that's an ACBL rule and not a Law, so that kind of thing may be OK in other countries. You can certainly decide to play a different system for the entire session if you think everyone there is weak. I don't recommend it, though; we have enough trouble remembering one system, let alone two.

I'd probably save a little less against weaker players than against experts.

I might be more likely to make a 2C or 3C non-vulnerable overcall over 1D against weaker players, who might not be on solid ground about how to cope and are probably less likely to figure out how to make you play it doubled. That's just my hunch, and I'm sure there are those here who differ.

> But do not:
>
> Bid low percentage games or slams that depend on their making
> defensive mistakes.

I think it's OK to push a little more on borderline hands--but you're right, not on low-percentage hands. At matchpoints, you don't even need to push a little more to bid game. If your superior skill and/or a defensive mistake helps you get the extra trick, you'll probably get a good score whether or not you bid the game. (Unless everyone else in the room is making the same defensive mistake, that is.)

> Use complex bidding systems that you've never used before. You'll
> louse yourselves up much more than the opposition.

Hear, hear.

> Stop thinking because you think it's not needed.
> Assume that they'll never falsecard
>
> Do:
> Play normally
> Give explanations when asked instead of simply naming a convention
> that they might not be familiar with

You shouldn't do that anyway, even against strong players. In the ACBL you're definitely not supposed to use a proper name when explaining a bid.

-- Adam

[Adam Beneschan]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 7:13:07 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:

> There is nothing unethical about for example ... leading an honor from dummy your weak opponent might erroneously cover, or about bidding unusually aggressively or conservatively to exploit their inexperience.

Heh... once I stretched to bid 3NT against a pair I thought was weak, and it turned out the only way to make was to pick up KT9xx in hand opposite Axx in dummy for five tricks, since they knocked out my only stopper in a side suit at trick one. So at trick two I led the ten, and sure enough LHO covered with Jx...

Yep, it happens.

-- Adam

[Chris xxxxx]

On May 1, 9:17 pm, Herb <H...@the.herb.garden> wrote:
> On 5/1/2012 3:18 PM, Balrog wrote:
>
> > I'm a decent player (Silver LM) and I've won some regionals, but I've
> > always found it difficult to do well in weak fields, particularly at
> > matchpoints. If you know of some ethical techniques that you use to take
> > advantage of weak players, I'd love to hear about them.
>
> "ethical techniques to ... take advantage of weak players."
>
> Sounds unethical already.
>
> But do not:
>
>    Bid low percentage games or slams that depend on their making
> defensive mistakes.

I agree you don't want to do this at matchpoints, since their
defensive mistakes rate to be valuable for you even if they are just
overtricks.

However, at IMPs, you can really take advantage of weaker opponents by
bidding light vulnerable games. Even against pro-client pairs,
especially if the client will be on lead.

I remember well one match from my early days of bridge tournaments. I
put down a light dummy in 3NT and partner made it anyway. Next hand,
as I put down dummy in 3NT again, I apologized that I had overbid even
more than on the previous hand. LHO must have known his client had
poor hearing, since he blurted out none too softly "You sure picked
your mark".

Conversely, one thing it can be helpful to do in matches against
weaker opponents is to be playing roughly the same system they are. I
remember losing 12 IMPs when we played 4-major from the opposite side
because our auction started with a weak NT and a Texas transfer. We
didn't scrap weak NT, but we did scrap immediate Gerber, so that 4C
and 4D would be the transfers, and we could bid 4H and 4S to play.
(Obviously, there are other advantages to playing this way over a weak
NT....a natural 4M is more preemptive when you want to keep them out
of the auction, and it's sometimes more important to conceal the
shapely hand than to have the lead coming up to the 12-14 hand.)

If you have seating rights at the start of a match against an inferior
team, you follow the same strategy you would if you were ahead at
halftime: If you each have a standard pair and a strong club pair, you
want the same systems in the same compass directions. (Conversely,
your opponents want the same system at the same table, if they have
seating rights.) One advantage of teams with multiple potential
lineups is that you can adjust the lineup to match the need--and also
the opponents will not be familiar with all the combinations and so
may not be able to gain any advantage from seating rights even when
they do have them. It's always fun when your partner opens 1C on the
5th hand of the second half, and the opponents ask you if you are
going to alert. (And, yes, proper convention cards were on the table;
they just didn't bother to look and thought we were playing Precision
because one of us had been playing it in the first half.)

Christopher Monsour

[Balrog]

I appreciate the suggestions that people have made and I'll try some of
them out.

>> "ethical techniques to ... take advantage of weak players."
> Sounds unethical already.

I'm already aware of unethical techniques but I wouldn't use them in a
million years. I'm very proud of the fact that I get asked to be on
conduct/ethics and adjudication committees at tournaments.

For example, it's easy to abuse weak players by psyching, but it causes
bad feelings because they think they're being cheated. It's also very
difficult to psych frequently without establishing a private
understanding. I can tell you some examples that would shock you.

What I'm looking for is why some strong players consistently cut a swath
through weak fields and others don't. There have to be reasons. Simply
playing better bridge than the opponents isn't enough. Bidding more
aggressively or less aggressively works sometimes but only if you get
the right set of boards.

Someone actually wrote a book on the topic of fish killing roughly 25
years ago. While he was researching it, the author traveled around to
lots of regionals and asked everyone he met for their favorite
techniques. He asked me but I had nothing to contribute. I didn't buy a
copy but now I wish I had.

[Chris xxxxx]

Oh, a few more things:

Make more penalty doubles. (Doubles that give away a trump stack
decrease your chances of setting the contract. Doubles that rattle
the opponents do the opposite.)

Strain not to pass out when you are in 4th chair. (Pun intended.)
You can't take advantage of their poor play if the deal is thrown in.

Worry even more than usual about being in the right strain rather than
tactical considerations or even the right level.

Example: Partner opens a weak NT at favorable, which is doubled, and
you hold xxxx x xxxx xxxx. You have the agreement that two level
runouts are natural or three-suited in the other three suits if you
subsequently redouble (or the next two higher suits if you
subsequently run to the next higher suit). Against good players, I'd
be less likely to bid 2H (or 2S with x xxxx xxxx xxxx) on a three-
suited hand. It's too likely I'll end up one level higher than I
would have, doubled, against good defense. I'd rather pick a minor to
bid and hope I guessed right (or occasionally just gut out a pass to
put the pressure on). I also don't want to give them a roadmap to the
play. I'd only bid 2H if I thought they were prone to letting me go
quietly when they both had length in my suit, and that realistically
won't happen much when I have a zero count.

Against fish, I bid 2H every time. They may not be able to handle
this auction, but the real reason is I'll be %^*&^ if I'm going to
lose an extra 400 or 500 or 600 because I'm playing a doubled contract
in the wrong strain. In the right suit, if it's spades, I'm way
ahead; if it's a minor, I only need them to kick one trick and we're
more than even against guessing the right minor at the two level.

Also, save your "funny" preempts for good opponents. Why? Because
preempts goad good opponents into bidding too much. Bad opponents
tend to go quietly. So xx xx KQ10xxxx xx is a 3D preempt against
anyone, but save -- Qxxx KQ10xxx xxx for good opponents. You do not
want to keep you weak opponents out of 4S; you want them them to have
to play 4S in an N-0 trump break. Your good opponents you want to
goad into bidding 4S (or 4H!) when they wouldn't otherwise have done
so, and they have to deal with not only the N-0 trump break (and
possibly trip opposite trip diamonds) but also subminimum high cards.

Christopher Monsour

[Henry Lockwood]

On May 2, 5:43 am, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Also, save your "funny" preempts for good opponents.  Why?  Because
> preempts goad good opponents into bidding too much.  Bad opponents
> tend to go quietly.  So xx xx KQ10xxxx xx is a 3D preempt against
> anyone, but save -- Qxxx KQ10xxx xxx for good opponents.  You do not
> want to keep you weak opponents out of 4S; you want them them to have
> to play 4S in an N-0 trump break.  Your good opponents you want to
> goad into bidding 4S (or 4H!) when they wouldn't otherwise have done
> so, and they have to deal with not only the N-0 trump break (and
> possibly trip opposite trip diamonds) but also subminimum high cards.
>
> Christopher Monsour

Related to this, overcalls serve a slightly different purpose. You
have to be wary of being left to play, undoubled - so only make short
overcalls when NV. However, if you have AKJx/xx/xxxx/xxx, and a weak
RHO opens 1C in 3rd seat, overcall 1S. There's good odds you'll gain
by the lead-direction.

HenryL

[Henry Lockwood]

One of the difficulties here is that it's difficult to predict a weak
field. If you're playing the only weak pair in a decent field, it's
quite easy: bid the normal contract, and let them misdefend;
conversely, let them bid something and let them misplay.

In a weak field, you can think you've done well when oppo stop in 5C,
when it's cold for 6 and on a finesse for 7; they play for the drop
instead on an 8-card fit and score 620. You see the traveler, and
you've got a bad board: one pair bid 3NT missing a heart stop; one
declarer compressed TWO tricks, and several pairs stopped in partscore
because "I didn't think it was forcing". This is a true story, and
I'm still bitter ;-)

HenryL

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Balrog skrev:

They do not exist. S. J. Simon writes in several places in his
book (Why You Lose at Bridge) about experts who set out to
slaughter newcomers and end up in a terrible row because they
outsmart themselves and lose to unpertubed opponents.

He even has a main character called "the unlucky expert" - where
"unlucky" is ironical.

Play safe against weak opponents. But if the whole field is weak,
there is no way to ensure a good result. Even if you do well at
the table, the other slips/bridgemates will return results that
will play havoc with the scoring.

--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/

[Thomas Dehn]

Make normal decisions during the auction.
When in doubt, in constructive bidding
try to reach the same final contract the field might reach,
then beat them in the card play.

Avoid 50% slams. The field will be in game. Some might
even fail to reach game. If you can make 12 tricks,
it will be a good score anyways, no need to bid that slam.
Bid 50% games, though, except if you are confident the field
will be in the same part score as you.

Hog hands more aggressively. That gives you two
defenders who can make mistakes, and defending is
more difficult than declaring anyways.

Double for penalties more often than you would normally do.
A weak declarer might drop a trick in the play,
and becomes more likely to do so when doubled.
A weak declarer also will not be able to come up
with a trump coup when your penalty double showed
that trumps split badly. [1]

When defending, signal more consistently than normal.
Your signals will be more valuable to your partner than to
a weak declarer.


[1] Example hand from ancient team play.
Playing a 32-board match against expert opposition,
we had two gigantic sessions at our table, but still
only won by a few IMPs, because of hands like the following.

At our table, declarer made an overtrick in 4H,
for -650. Trumps split 4-1, but it did not matter.
At the other table, the final contract was 4H redoubled.
Our weaker N player there did not want to risk
two down redoubled, he played the hand for
"safe one down". 14 IMPs down the drain.


Thomas

[Douglas Newlands]

Well, here's what not to do.
This was perpetrated by one of the operators, who's sure of his inherent
superiority, in our club playing in a teams event with
an inexperienced partner and trying to make up for his partner.

Board 21, teams, NS vul, Dealer N
A986
KQ3
Q843
Q8
KQJ104 753
A8654 J97
5 AKJ7
42 753
2
102
10962
AKJ1096

W N E S
1D P 1S*
P 2S P 5D
P 5S P 6C
P 6D P P
P

Psyching at unfavourable vul was crazy. He offset
the danger with his tempo but the lady sitting north
was oblivious to the UI.
I thought east might double but 6 down vul was worth
12imps anyway.

doug

[Barry Margolin]

In article <4fa0f28e$0$284$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,

Bertel Lund Hansen <kanon...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

> Play safe against weak opponents. But if the whole field is weak,
> there is no way to ensure a good result. Even if you do well at
> the table, the other slips/bridgemates will return results that
> will play havoc with the scoring.

Yeah, last night at the club, practically every time I opened the
traveler, I saw at least one other pair beating our normal score with
impossible overtricks. Even when I managed to get a gift, it seemed
like someone else got a BIGGER one.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[dak...@aol.com]

Should good players then make a concerted push
for more qualify-to-enter finals events.
That would tend to weed out the 'fish'
***
Two solutions in our club game is to put 'fish' against 'fish'
either bal E-W with N-S or all 'fish' N-S.
Fortunately some A players are 'fish' to
balance by masterpoints (ACBL).
***
Aside. What do you think populates our bridge community
if not "un-schooled schools" of 'fish'?
Their money allows supports some good events.

[OldPalooka]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:18:34 PM UTC-7, Balrog wrote:

Kaplan recommended adding 1 point to your hand if the player on your left was weak.

Play on instinct and play fast. Project confidence. I do not mean snap the card out in milliseconds when it is your turn unless that is your normal tempo, Grant Baze for one could do so against any opponent. I do mean play in a brisk tempo and do not spend time working out subtleties - make your mistakes quickly and confidently. Especially in competitive situations.

Lean toward shooting for extra uptricks and downtricks and turn the cube.

[Adam Lea]

Lol, join the club!

To be honest, I get a couple of boards like that every session so you
have to learn to take it on the chin.

[Eric Leong]

On May 1, 4:57 pm, "Chris Pisarra" <Ch...@Pisarra.com> wrote:
> Sit tight, have your bids, don't screw around.
>
> Let them beat themselves.
>
> If you try to get cute, it can well backfire.
>
>             Chris

You should play with Mark Itabashi or Fred Hamiliton some time so you
can finally lose your bridge virginity.

Eric Leong

[Andrew B]

On 02/05/2012 09:39, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Balrog skrev:
>
>> I'm a decent player (Silver LM) and I've won some regionals, but I've
>> always found it difficult to do well in weak fields, particularly at
>> matchpoints. If you know of some ethical techniques that you use to take
>> advantage of weak players, I'd love to hear about them.
>
> They do not exist. S. J. Simon writes in several places in his
> book (Why You Lose at Bridge) about experts who set out to
> slaughter newcomers and end up in a terrible row because they
> outsmart themselves and lose to unpertubed opponents.

In particular the chapter "Fixed - By Palookas!" The main warning is
against trying to prevent the "palookas" *ever* making a contract (this
is at rubber bridge, of course).

> He even has a main character called "the unlucky expert" - where
> "unlucky" is ironical.

The Unlucky Expert is mainly "unlucky" because he doesn't adjust his
play with a weak *partner*, rather than because he does adjust his play
against weak opponents.

[Douglas Newlands]

On 3/05/12 2:23 AM, OldPalooka wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:18:34 PM UTC-7, Balrog wrote:
>> I'm a decent player (Silver LM) and I've won some regionals, but I've
>> always found it difficult to do well in weak fields, particularly at
>> matchpoints. If you know of some ethical techniques that you use to take
>> advantage of weak players, I'd love to hear about them.
>
> Kaplan recommended adding 1 point to your hand if the player on your left was weak.

Only 1 point?
There was a confident young player (CYP), playing in Melbourne with his
mum. They reached 3NT with CYP playing it and mum put down a patently
inadequate dummy for what she had said in the auction. CYP duly went
3 down and says to mum "why did you bid that, you don't have enough
values!". Mom replies "but you told me to add a king to my hand when you
were declarer!". CYP sheepishly responds "yes, but not against these guys".

> Play on instinct and play fast. Project confidence. I do not mean snap
>the card out in milliseconds when it is your turn unless that is your normal tempo,
>Grant Baze for one could do so against any opponent. I do mean play in a brisk
>tempo and do not spend time working out subtleties - make your mistakes quickly and confidently.
>Especially in competitive situations.

I'm not sure I agree with this at all and, although playing fast has
some advantages, it just makes tempo breaks more obvious and makes it
harder for you to get anything from the police.
Fish are fish for reasons including
1. they choose bad bids on this round
2. they do not think what the next round(s) of the auction might be
3. they do not make a plan when they are declarer. How often do you see
think, think, think at trick 1 and win it. Then another think and
they cash the ace of trumps and nobody shows out. Then think, think,
think. Well, you get the idea but they will swear they had a plan if
challenged!
4. defence: they have little to no visualisation of what is happening

Your advantage is that you can think a ply or 2 or 6 further ahead than
the fish.
Don't give it away.

> Lean toward shooting for extra uptricks and downtricks and turn the cube.

The cube certainly scares them.

doug

[Lorne]

"Balrog" wrote in message
news:MPG.2a0a2b474...@news.giganews.com...

..........

Read a book called 'why you lose at bridge' by S J Simon. The last chapter
in particular is excellent.

My personal strategy is:
1. do not master mind, so if you see 6D makes and 6N is a good bet play in
6D. It will still score 80% even if 6N makes as there will be many in 2D+4,
3N or 5D.
2. If 50:50 for game play the part score. Even if cold for 10 tricks you
will often make 11 and get 50% but if you bid the game and it has no play it
is a bottom.
3. Do not make off-centre pre-empts. Save those for the experts you would
normally lose out to.
4. If you see an opportunity to make some clever bid that may backfire, do
not do it. Play in the par contract and get your top from the extra trick
you make from superior play.