[AAr]

You make an unusual lead against their game which, on the lay of the cards, lets them make it, while most of the Field makes the normal lead which, as the cards lay, sets them. My partners don't like this and say this causes a bottom board. I say wait for the results to come in and maybe we should get average. The results do come in and we get... A NEAR BOTTOM.

Should I usually be surprised at this, or is my partner right?

This has been happening to me a lot, and I want to know is it common to usually get bad boards when you make abnormal leads that let them make while the normal defense sets?

Thanks!

[awm]

If you take an unusual action, you will frequently get an extreme score. This is because whatever happened at your table will not be what happens at most tables (where the unusual action was not taken). If your unusual action works well (you find the only lead to set) you'll get a good score. If it doesn't work you get a bad score.

The goal, at matchpoints, is to do whatever will work best "most of the time." Partners will be unhappy if you do something which seems like it will usually not work out. Some partner's "result" more than others (in that some partners will be upset if you do something that causes a bad board, even if it would be right more often than not) but most partners will be upset if you frequently take unlikely-to-succeed actions. This will also lead to a very bad score more often than not.

[Codo]

Funnily enough, the "usual leads" are often the best leads, else, why should they be usual? And the usual lead is - in my definition- the lead, most good players would choose after they listened to the bidding.

I think, you need a very good reason to use a "out of the blue" lead....

[kenberg]

AAr either has an unusual way of expressing himself or he has his tongue in his cheek. His question, "Is it common to usually get bad boards when you make unusual leads that let them make while the normal defense sets" invites an answer that you almost always get a bad board if the unusual lead lets them make. Whether the unusual lead was a good shot or not is one thing, but asking if it is surprising to get a bad result when the lead allows a beatable slam to be made is quite a different question. AAr posted a similar question on another thread. At the time I thought it was just bad phrasing and I didn't say anything, but I am coming to think he is having some fun with the responses. If I am wrong about this I apologize.

Ken

[luis]

If your pair is better than the average field do normal stuff and you will win, if you are worst do strange stuff to randomize the results otherwise you have no chance. Note that strange stuff is not "wrong" stuff. For example with 4-4 in the minors open 1♣ instead of 1♦ if most of the field will open 1♦ that can't be "bad" and will make your table different than the others.

Luis

[cherdano]

AAr, on Feb 21 2006, 04:20 AM, said:

This has been happening to me a lot, and I want to know is it common to usually get bad boards when you make abnormal leads that let them make while the normal defense sets?

If you make an unusual lead that lets them make, where the normal lead sets it, then yes, you get a bad board. Is that so surprising?

Maybe you should try normal leads in a while. I was told about a strong player (stronger than me, anyway) that he said his results improved a lot when he switched to "robot leads". I have one semi-regular partner, a fast-improving intermediate, whose fancy leads cost about 5% per session in my estimate...

Arend

(robot leads = pick the safest lead you have: 3-card sequence, then AK.. then KQ.. then QJ.. then 3 small then Qxx then Kxx etc. Don't remember where the singleton or doubleton apperas in this list)

[joshs]

There are reasons why certain leads are normal and certain leads aren't. This doesn't mean that the conventional wisdom is always correct or that it applies exactly to your current lead problem. You may have information from your opponents style, manner, auction or whatever that gives you a clue as to the best lead that differs from the std lead, but since opening leads are made with so little information, I really don't recommend attempting to hit lots of home runs on opening lead. Wait until you have more info to commit yourself.

In fact, the fundamental thing a defender should be thinking about whenever its his turn to lead is:
Do I need to take a chance and defend agressively now, or can I postpone the decision? Now might be as soon as the opening lead, but hopefully you have a good lead that combines safety with a good chance to set up tricks for the defense.

I highly recommend Mike Lawrence's book on Opening Leads.

[pclayton]

Occasionally you will be on lead against a contract that 'smells' funny, which means that it is a contract you don't expect the field to play in. In this case, an unusual lead doesn't rate to cost as much.

But these are the exceptions.

[pigpenz]

it comes with experience and knowing what card combinations can do for you. But generally if you are better than most of the people you are playing against then you dont need to do anything flashy....but if you are playing a 26 board KO against the World Champions then you need to take some risks.

[han]

The first bridge book I ever read was a book by Berry Westra on defense which has a large chapter on opening leads. It's main focus is trying to decide between an aggressive or defensive lead. I don't have the book but I thought it was quite good at the time (keep in mind that I read it before my first duplicate game, so I might think differently now). I don't know if the book has been translated to English.

The term Robot Leads was introduced by the Granovetters (as far as I know) in the book "switch in time". I googled "robot leads bridge" to find this website: http://northshorebridge.com/addn96.htm. Hmm, apperently they talked about it before switch in time appeared. Quote: This has two advantages: (1) partner will always know that you do not hold a card combination ranking higher on the priority list; and (2) you will not be tempted to make genius leads.

Notice that singletons appear quite high in the list, right after AK.

[joshs]

How about the "Wild and Crazy guy (aka lowenthal) leads":
In Priority order:
A high honor in suit with no other honors
Low from a suit with 3 or more honors
a trump, when you have a side singleton and want a ruff
a side singleton only with declarer's side suit under complete control (otherwise you would lead trumps)

[benlessard]

Save your genious leads for IMPs.

I think we make too much unusual lead at MP and not enough in IMPs.

[awm]

I'm with Granovetter here: passive leads are underrated.

Of course, sometimes you can tell from the auction what to lead, and in this case by all means lead it. The more interesting situation is where the auction doesn't necessarily imply anything in particular.

The fact is, most people bid a lot of bad game contracts. Listening to some pretty good players on these forums, it seems clear that most would much rather bid a 25% game, than miss a 75% game. Some of this is the result of IMP scoring (where this strategy actually maximizes expectation) but I think you see the same biases applied to matchpoints. There are many explanations for this, including:

(1) Most good players are confident in their declarer play, and believe they will get a good result for declaring a normal contract, and will often find a way to make their games (if there is a way).
(2) Opening lead and defense are generally difficult. Even world-class players make bad leads and bad trick two decisions. Bidding the game gives your opponents a chance to go wrong.
(3) Bidding the pushy contract gives the feeling of control over the result during the play. Wimping out gives a feeling that the bidding pretty much determined the result. People like to feel as though the play matters.
(4) Good players play a lot of IMPs. Some of them start to become biased against matchpoints, and get into a track of automatically bidding low-percentage games...

Anyways, the net result is that people bid a lot of games they shouldn't really make. Against a passive defense, they will often just go down. Active defense is often right when you need to grab your tricks before they grab theirs, but a lot of the games you see people bid today just don't have enough tricks to make unless you give them one or two.

[joshs]

awm, on Feb 21 2006, 03:47 PM, said:

I'm with Granovetter here: passive leads are underrated.

Of course, sometimes you can tell from the auction what to lead, and in this case by all means lead it. The more interesting situation is where the auction doesn't necessarily imply anything in particular.

The fact is, most people bid a lot of bad game contracts. Listening to some pretty good players on these forums, it seems clear that most would much rather bid a 25% game, than miss a 75% game. Some of this is the result of IMP scoring (where this strategy actually maximizes expectation) but I think you see the same biases applied to matchpoints. There are many explanations for this, including:

(1) Most good players are confident in their declarer play, and believe they will get a good result for declaring a normal contract, and will often find a way to make their games (if there is a way).
(2) Opening lead and defense are generally difficult. Even world-class players make bad leads and bad trick two decisions. Bidding the game gives your opponents a chance to go wrong.
(3) Bidding the pushy contract gives the feeling of control over the result during the play. Wimping out gives a feeling that the bidding pretty much determined the result. People like to feel as though the play matters.
(4) Good players play a lot of IMPs. Some of them start to become biased against matchpoints, and get into a track of automatically bidding low-percentage games...

Anyways, the net result is that people bid a lot of games they shouldn't really make. Against a passive defense, they will often just go down. Active defense is often right when you need to grab your tricks before they grab theirs, but a lot of the games you see people bid today just don't have enough tricks to make unless you give them one or two.

I have one additional comment about passive vs active opening leads. When you opening leads are active, the rest of the defense is straightforward, assuming that it still matters. When you opening leads are passive, sometimes you were better off with an active lead, but get a second chance. This requires really good defense later on, which hopefully your partnership is up to it (with a weak partner passive opening leads are much less attractive, since you can't count on the killing defense later).

I think one of granovetter's points is not just "passive is better than active" but its to be consistant to your style. It really helps partnership defense if your partner knows when you are likely to make a passive opening lead and when you will make an active opening lead. Somehow, those tendancies is another thing thats doesn't really get disclosed to the opps....

[Al_U_Card]

In a parallel universe, some guy asked about getting bottoms from making anti-percentage plays when declaring. Do I sense a pattern developing in the multiverses?

[pigpenz]

I tend to agree with awm....some players dontnot tend to make any differentiation between imps and matchpoints. I tend to bid agressive at imps conservatitve at matchpoints and lead just the opposite at matchpoints.

Some players bid the same at both and lead way too convservative at imps Nothing worse than being there with a bunch of side qjx's when partner leads a trump at imps when you need to get your tricks going first

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

In a parallel universe, some guy asked about getting bottoms from making anti-percentage plays when declaring. Do I sense a pattern developing in the multiverses?

Quote

AAr either has an unusual way of expressing himself or he has his tongue in his cheek

He's got to be the king of strange questions here & on rec.games.bridge. He's been asking this same type of question for quite a few years now. "I did something that was (anti-field / anti-percentage / unusual / sub-optimal), and scored less on the board than I could have by doing something else. This resulted in a poor (matchpoint/IMP) score. Should I be surprised?"

I wonder how long it will take for him to figure out that the answer will always be "of course not". Maybe he's screwing with us.

[kenberg]

Stephen Tu, on Feb 21 2006, 05:29 PM, said:

Quote

In a parallel universe, some guy asked about getting bottoms from making anti-percentage plays when declaring. Do I sense a pattern developing in the multiverses?

Quote

AAr either has an unusual way of expressing himself or he has his tongue in his cheek

He's got to be the king of strange questions here & on rec.games.bridge. He's been asking this same type of question for quite a few years now. "I did something that was (anti-field / anti-percentage / unusual / sub-optimal), and scored less on the board than I could have by doing something else. This resulted in a poor (matchpoint/IMP) score. Should I be surprised?"

I wonder how long it will take for him to figure out that the answer will always be "of course not". Maybe he's screwing with us.

Even with the first post of his that I saw, it seemed likely he was screwing with us. The second almost makes it certain, your remarks completely confirm it.

Old Chicago saying
Once is an accident
Twice is a mistake
Three times is enemy action

Thanks
Ken