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

[David Dyer-Bennet]

On 2011-12-19 01:48, Joshua Kronengold wrote:
> 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.

Yes.  Both situations can call forth similar tactics, but the details 
are certainly different.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info