Seating rights and team tactics
Rob Morris
overwhelming deciding factor in most matches, but I was wondering if
people might share some advice about the captaining of teams-of-four.
In many matches there will be the opportunity to select who sits where
against which opposition for at least part of the time, and in a
situation where one knows something about the opposing team, surely the
captain has some chance to affect the match.
In terms of general advice, I'm interested in mainly:
a) Difference in opponents' strength (a strong pair and a weak pair) and
playing style (down-the-line and off-centre) and how you might choose to
field your partnerships, who you presumably perceive as falling into
similar categories.
b) Tactics to play for the hope of a victory against much stronger
opposition, or to ensure one against weaker opposition.
c) Any advice you give to your team when playing a pair noticeably
stronger/swingier or playing a weird system.
d) Whether you think any of this matters at all or you should just tell
your team to go out and play bridge.
Or, if that's too general, here's a plausible enough (but entirely
hypothetical) scenario. You've reached Round 5 of the Wimblingshire
county knock-out, a teams-of-four KO competition scored by straight
Imps. Yourself and Sammy Stout (a decent partnership) have nursed
Walter Weakie and Futile Millie through four punishing rounds.
Now you have to face Eric and Jemima Tough, a rock-steady partnership,
and their team-mates, the wild and unpredictable Loopy Laura LaFievre
and 'Crazy Jim' Firehose, a talented partnership but capable of swinging
hundreds of Imps in either direction. You estimate the opposing team is
slightly stronger but you want to give yourselves every chance.
It's 32 boards and you have seating rights for half of them. Any ideas?
--
Rob Morris: arr emm four four five (at) cam dot ac dot uk
http://www.poorbridge.com
New Poor Bridge of the Week every Monday!
Henk Uijterwaal
> In many matches there will be the opportunity to select who sits where
> against which opposition for at least part of the time, and in a
> situation where one knows something about the opposing team, surely the
> captain has some chance to affect the match.
>
> In terms of general advice, I'm interested in mainly:
= If you are the stronger team, put pairs playing a similar system in
the same direction (and if you are the weaker, exactly the other way
around). This way, you avoid swings due to random system effects.
= Put your weaker pair against the more predictable and least aggressive
pair. It is much easier for a weak pair to do well if they can rely
on their opponents and don't constantly have to guess.
= If a pair plays a strange system, put your pair that is most familiar
with this system against them.
Henk
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--"
# Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment."
ted
As NPC I would pair you and Sammy against the Toughs and Walter &
Millie against Firehose & LeFievre. That gives the opps at the other
table a chance to have the wheels come off while you hold a steady
course. Your partnership is unlikely to extract sufficiently more IMPs
from the wild ones than you will give up by letting Walter & Millie
get beat up by the Toughs.
>
> --
> Rob Morris: arr emm four four five (at) cam dot ac dot ukhttp://www.poorbridge.com
Derek Broughton
> Obviously individual play and partnership understanding is the
> overwhelming deciding factor in most matches, but I was wondering if
> people might share some advice about the captaining of teams-of-four.
>
> In many matches there will be the opportunity to select who sits where
> against which opposition for at least part of the time, and in a
> situation where one knows something about the opposing team, surely the
> captain has some chance to affect the match.
This past weekend we played in a Swiss teams where one pair (us) had to be
non-Life Masters, and in our second round faced a team containing one of
the 3 or four best pairs in the area. The rules of contest said the lowest
ranked pair had choice of seating. Our captain naturally assumed we'd want
to play the other NLM pair, However, we've been _really_ lucky against
this pair (I have no idea why, but we all laugh about it) and I insisted
we'd play the experts. We came pretty close to blitzing them. Sometimes
it just seems to come down to the chemistry between the pairs.
--
derek
Gerben Dirksen
"Rob Morris" <rm...@cam.spam.ac.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:eub1ip$g68$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
If there are two segments, always choose seating rights for the 2nd half.
Then if you did well, play again against the same pairs. If not, switch.
Gerben
Michael Angelo Ravera
What has worked for me in the past is to put the pair from our side
with the Tutti Fruiti system against the pair from the other side with
the Neoplitan system and the French Vanilla against the Vanilla Bean.
The logic is that those who play a slightly non-standard system are
often more familiar with non-standard system aspects than those who
play nothing but standard.
As far as mannerism and approach are concerned: The crazy asses are
likely to give your lightweights almost as many IMPs as they give your
tough guys and their tough ones are likely to eat your lightweights
for lunch. So, if your lightweight teammates have enough experience so
that the crazies won't beat them just off of unfamiliarity, I say to
put your lightweights against the crazies and your toughs against
their toughs.
So, Basically, my approach is to try to beat them or play them even at
the "strong" table and let them hand you the match at the other table,
if they are going to do that. In otther words, let *THEM* gamble to
give away *their* advantage.
My answer might be a bit different for a short Swiss match than for a
32-board KO, but the logic is the same. You *might*, however, for a
short match be content to let your lightweights give the inevitable
four singles and a dime to their strong pair (from missed tricks,
overtricks, and a down one) in hopes that your strong pair will be in
the position to extract two dimes and a nickle from the crazies. In a
short match, you can never assume anything. That's one reason that
Swiss is popular.
Although Bill Root didn't advocate crazy bidding, he did give crazy
bidders their manta "Get opponents to bid too much, bid too little, or
play in the wrong strain".
Dave Flower
> New Poor Bridge of the Week every Monday!
What do your team-mates think ?
If Futile Millie is convinced that she will do badly against Jemima
Tough... she will!
Dave Flower
Richard Pavlicek
> Although Bill Root didn't advocate crazy bidding, he did give crazy
> bidders their manta...
Ah! So that's it. And all those years I thought he was sending
me something from Santa.
--
As to seating strategy, I think it's mostly a psychological issue.
In a match of four quarters (e.g., Vanderbilt KO) I prefer to have
"2nd and 3rd" seed. This avoids committal until you know the other
team's preference, and I've always felt the segment after a dinner
break is most important.
--
Richard Pavlicek
Web site: http://www.rpbridge.net
March contest: http://www.rpbridge.net/8y17.htm
raija d
"Rob Morris" <rm...@cam.spam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:eub1ip$g68$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
I would put our tough pair against the rock-steady opponents. The swinger
opponents - as you said - will be swinging anyway no matter who sits at the
table, eh? Or, if you have the option, choose seating rights for the second
half and decide seatings at that point, depending on how things went in
first half.
Michael Angelo Ravera
> Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
> > Although Bill Root didn't advocate crazy bidding, he did give crazy
> > bidders their manta...
>
> Ah! So that's it. And all those years I thought he was sending
> me something from Santa.
>
> --
>
> As to seating strategy, I think it's mostly a psychological issue.
> In a match of four quarters (e.g., Vanderbilt KO) I prefer to have
> "2nd and 3rd" seed. This avoids committal until you know the other
> team's preference, and I've always felt the segment after a dinner
> break is most important.
Reminds me of what my dad liked to do to my Brother's and my Bat
Shirts!
ted
> Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
> > Although Bill Root didn't advocate crazy bidding, he did give crazy
> > bidders their manta...
>
> Ah! So that's it. And all those years I thought he was sending
> me something from Santa.
>
> --
>
> As to seating strategy, I think it's mostly a psychological issue.
> In a match of four quarters (e.g., Vanderbilt KO) I prefer to have
> "2nd and 3rd" seed. This avoids committal until you know the other
> team's preference, and I've always felt the segment after a dinner
> break is most important.
As I understand it, your stomach requires some portion of the total
blood supply to digest the meal and if the blood is around your
stomach it ain't in your brain. So by all means treat you opps to an
all they can eat meal at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse. ;-))
pgmer6809
> New Poor Bridge of the Week every Monday!
I think the following piece of advice is in the Meckstroth book, Play
the Bermuda Bowl with Me.
It does not address pair=vs=pair, but does address INDIVIDUAL seating.
Put your strongest player of the pair, OVER their strongest player of
their pair.
pgmer6809
Dave Flower
> New Poor Bridge of the Week every Monday!
I think that there is a case for exercising seating rights on the
first half, and that is if members of your team tend to get despondent
if thay are down at the half.
Dave Flower
ewleo...@hotmail.com
> New Poor Bridge of the Week every Monday!
About seventeen years ago in the Grand Nationals in the quarter finals
of our district, our team had to play a team consisting of
Mike Lawrence, Grant Bayes, Hugh Ross, and Bobby Crossley. All had won
at at least one national team event and some had won a world
championship so we didn't think our chances of winning a 56 board
match were good. However, one of our team mates whose name was
Marshall, asked to be seated on Lawrence's table. Some how he felt "he
owned Michael". Who were we to argue. At the end of the half or
afternoon, our team was up slightly. In the evening session, Marshall
again wanted to play on Lawrence's table. But when Marshall sat down
on the table, Mike Lawrence objected and wanted to play against my
partner and I instead. Normally, I wouldn't have minded except
Lawrence was still insisting on his seeding rights. And I thought if
Michael was getting agitated this could not be bad for us. :) So I
protested. To my understanding the top seed was supposed to exercise
their rights on the first session. We get the seating rights to the
second session. To my chagrin, the director after about 10 minutes
went along with Michael. But we still ended up winning the match.
Eric Leong
Keith Sheppard
once given the following advice...
If you are playing a team much better than you, shuffle the cards really
really well. If you get a succession of "bread and butter" hands then the
stronger team will slowly gain an IMP here and an IMP there and win. If you
get bizarre distributions, the strong team are almost as likely to make a
wrong decision or, even more likely, the theoretically correct decision
which just happens to be wrong on the distribution.
There is therefore a chance that a couple of freaky swings will go your way.
I guess the corrollary is that if you think you are the stronger team you
should shuffle less well to ensure boring hands.
It's a bit like the old "a high wind is a great leveller" adage in tennis.
Keith
John Hall
Keith Sheppard <keith.s...@tesco.net> writes:
>If you are playing a team much better than you, shuffle the cards really
>really well. If you get a succession of "bread and butter" hands then the
>stronger team will slowly gain an IMP here and an IMP there and win. If you
>get bizarre distributions, the strong team are almost as likely to make a
>wrong decision or, even more likely, the theoretically correct decision
>which just happens to be wrong on the distribution.
Doesn't shuffling really well actually make freakish hands _less_
likely? Which is why Goulashes are dealt the way tey are.
--
John Hall
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
Frances
> Probably not entirely on topic and I'm not sure how ethical it is, but I was
> once given the following advice...
>
> If you are playing a team much better than you, shuffle the cards really
> really well. If you get a succession of "bread and butter" hands then the
> stronger team will slowly gain an IMP here and an IMP there and win. If you
> get bizarre distributions, the strong team are almost as likely to make a
> wrong decision or, even more likely, the theoretically correct decision
> which just happens to be wrong on the distribution.
>
> There is therefore a chance that a couple of freaky swings will go your way.
>
> I guess the corrollary is that if you think you are the stronger team you
> should shuffle less well to ensure boring hands.
>
I've seen this advice before, indeed I used to follow it. Our team
have since changed our minds for two reasons:
1. We play bridge for pleasure. A succession of tedious balanced
hands isn't very pleasurable.
2. Even on the non-freaky hands there is the chance of an adverse
swing - we might play or bid better on a hand but still lose a game or
slam because of the lie of the cards. If we are a better team, then we
should expect to gain more overall on the freaky hands, because they
repay good judgement more than the non-balanced hands: anyone can bid
1NT - 3NT and cash their 10 top tricks. A double game swing is worth a
lot - a double slam swing worth even more - and we think we are more
likely to generate one of these on a freaky hand.
The advice does hold true going into the last set of a match when you
are already a lot up (or indeed a lot down).
Sven Pran
"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7jr$KdEpc4...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
> In article <xrLOh.18413$5c2....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> Keith Sheppard <keith.s...@tesco.net> writes:
>>If you are playing a team much better than you, shuffle the cards really
>>really well. If you get a succession of "bread and butter" hands then the
>>stronger team will slowly gain an IMP here and an IMP there and win. If
>>you
>>get bizarre distributions, the strong team are almost as likely to make a
>>wrong decision or, even more likely, the theoretically correct decision
>>which just happens to be wrong on the distribution.
>
> Doesn't shuffling really well actually make freakish hands _less_
> likely? Which is why Goulashes are dealt the way tey are.
Hand dealt hands with insufficient shuffling tends to be too "flat".
Goulash hands are AFAIK dealt with several consecutive cards
from the pack to the same hand.
Sven