[Dragaera] I think I'll go re-read Orca...

[Joshua Kronengold]

On 12/18/2011 1:59 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> On 2011-12-15 18:27, Howard Brazee wrote:
>> Losing small should be considered as an option.
>
> In competitive bridge, that's less of an option. You're scored basically
> against the other players playing that hand that session, rather than
> against any absolute standards. Thus, if you arrive at the same contract
> as everybody else but fail to make it, while the other partnerships make
> the contract, you get the worst score for the hand. Regardless of
> whether you fail by one trick, or by five.
>
> There is still a certain amount of guessing what the right risk is; a
> completely insane wild-ass attempt at something stupid *does* sometimes
> work, but really not very often.
>
> The term is "playing for tops or bottoms" -- taking risks which other
> partnerships won't, so that if they work, you'll get the top score for
> the hand, but if you fail, you'll likely get the bottom. If you're
> behind and desperately need to catch up quickly, it's the only way to do
> it. Would you rather have a safe middle score for the session, or would
> you rather have some chance at a high score?
>
> Scoring low doesn't cost you master's points, but scoring high does earn
> them :-).

I don't play competitive bridge, but doesn't it depend on whether you're 
playing for IMPs or MPs?  If you're playing for IMPs (where your score 
is all about he difference between your score and other tables' scores), 
then failing a contract (just like everyone else did) for one fewer 
undertrick isn't going to get you much, whlie succeeding at that 
"impossible" make when everyone else failed is a huge win.

On the other hand, if you're playing for MPs (where score is entirely 
based on how many tables you beat, not the relative scores), then 
depending on the situation, it might be better to go for the hail mary 
or try to lose by one fewer undertrick than everyone else did.  After 
all, if every other table is stuck with the same dead-end contract that 
you are, recognizing this in a way that minimizes your losses might 
cause you to lose less badly than your opponents do -- and if that's the 
best result attained, you could end up getting maximum value from that 
board.