MP verses IMPS

[Winstonm]

#1.

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skj943hj4d87432c9]133|100|Scoring: MP

1C-1S

2H-2S[/hv]

 

Forcing or not? Is there advantage to separation between MP and IMP scoring?

 

#2.

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skj943hj4d87432c9]133|100|Scoring: MP

1C-1S

2H-2S[/hv]

 

Forcing or not? Does form of scoring alter the meaning?

 

#3.

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skj943hj4d87432c9]133|100|Scoring: MP

1C-1S

2H-2S[/hv]

 

Bid 2C or pass? Same idea. Should form of scoring alter the bid or non bid?

[HeartA]

I would take #1 and #2 as passable (thus, not forcing)

 

As for #3, I would bid 2C (wtp?).

[mike777]

1) 100% forcing easy. 2s for me shows around 6-9 hcp and 5spades but reverse promises a rebid 100%.

2) toughest hand, but I will play 3s as forcing too hard to play otherwise.

3) Another easy hand 2nt(12-13) invite. Not strong enough to force to game.

[Winstonm]

1) 100% forcing easy.  2s for me shows around 6-9 hcp and 5spades but reverse promises a rebid 100%.

2) toughest hand, but I will play 3s as forcing too hard to play otherwise.

3) Another easy hand 2nt(12-13) invite. Not strong enough to force to game.

Mike, maybe you missed the gist of the post - should you use two different sets of definitions for the same sequences depending on the form of scoring?

 

And on #3, the opp open 1D - do you overcall 2C at imps and at MP or just at one or at neither?

[mike777]

1) 100% forcing easy.  2s for me shows around 6-9 hcp and 5spades but reverse promises a rebid 100%.

2) toughest hand, but I will play 3s as forcing too hard to play otherwise.

3) Another easy hand 2nt(12-13) invite. Not strong enough to force to game.

Mike, maybe you missed the gist of the post - should you use two different sets of definitions for the same sequences depending on the form of scoring?

 

And on #3, the opp open 1D - do you overcall 2C at imps and at MP or just at one or at neither?

1) ya very often I am not going to change my bid at imps or at MP. I guess if I have a close decision I pass at MP and bid game at IMP but I hardly think that is new thinking.

2) Ahhhh the opp opened 1d...may help to put their bid in () anyway...lets see playing Sabine style I want to bid 2 clubs very very often over 1d by opp....but my 3d stop me so I pass. :D

[mikeh]

No difference on the 1st two. Mps is often described as 'not bridge', but that is an overbid. And games score well in mps as they do in imps, as do slams. Furthermore, playing either rebid as non-forcing makes responder have to distort his hand in order to force, thus minimizing the chance of finding the correct spot. This is even worse at mps than at imps: if I play 5m making 11 tricks at imps while 3N makes 10, I don't care much... but at mps, it is a disaster.

 

While there are some situations where one might choose different meanings for bids (different conventional devices or different systems), the biggest difference in mps compared to imps is in degrees of aggression, not meanings of constructive sequences.

[pclayton]

I've toyed with the idea of having different meanings for having two sets of meaning depending the form of scoring. I think the best example is 5N in an ace-asking sequence. At IMPs it should definitely promise all the keys, but at MPs, there's a good argument that the 5N call doesn't promise all of the keys, but is shooting for 6N depending on the kings shown.

 

I see your point, but I wouldn't modify the meaning of the constructive auctions in 1 and 2.

 

3 is a style issue. I don't mind an overcall at MPs.

[Finch]

I agree with the concept that some aspects of system should/could change depending on the form of scoring, but I doubt it is a useful exercise for anyone to have two different systems other than really serious full-time partnerhips.

 

More to the point, style changes enormously. I don't like your examples, because I think it's correct to play your first two auctions as forcing whatever the method of scoring and I wouldn't overcall 2C on the last hand at any method of scoring. But the principle is correct.

 

The two biggest differences between IMPs and matchpoints are

- at MPs you over-compete partscores, particularly at love all, to a level that looks insane at imps.

- as a consequence of the above, you double at matchpoints much more often. This is the one area where my 'system' is slightly different although the book meaning is unchanged. Take an auction such as

 

1D 1H x 2H

P P x P

2S P P x

 

At IMPs, that double means "they have made a mistake"

At MPs that double means "I have a maximum with a trump trick"

[helene_t]

1: It could be that this should be forcing at IMPs and non-forcing at matchpoints but, like Frances, I wouldn't play different systems at MP and at IMPs.

2: Clearly forcing. There's concencus about this, not only among experts but also among those who teach bridge to beginners.

3: At favorable vulnerability, I would overcall at any scoring.

[Chamaco]

#1 and #2 : Forcing

 

#3 Pass at any vulnerability and form of scoring. Suit not good/long enough for an overcall, shape not good for a takeout double. Many quacks, defensive values.

I'd treat this as a weak notrump hand, with shape unsuitable for a takeout double.

Sometimes we'll be fixed at MP, oh well.

[Apollo81]

Bids should not change meaning based on form of scoring IMO.

Style can change of course.

 

#1 is probably a regional variant. My personal preference is NF and to use the cheaper of the 4th suit or 2NT as the forcing punt for bad hands. Im sure this has been mentioned on this board before.

 

#2 I'd expect most people to play this as forcing.

 

#3 I'd always bid 2♣ since I'm at favorable and the opening is 1♦.

[whereagles]

#1 & #2 depend more on systemic agreements, rather than scoring. Some play forcing, others NF. I like both forcing.

 

#3 is judgement dependant, and scoring does play a role. I'd try 2♣ more often at MP than at IMPS.

[kenrexford]

This is an interesting question. I have found that a lot of arguments about some sequences boil down to assumptions made by primarily IMP players and different assumptions made bny primarily MP players. Each has a plausible argument, with the "winner" usually being the person whose approach fits the contest actually relevant to the question.

 

It would seem, therefore, that the form of scoring should, in an ideal world, dictate the "best" approach. However, the reality is that most cannot handle the changes.

 

The same logic works for seat and vulnerability, for tailoring system to the system of the opponents, and for tailoring system to the level of the field.

 

I suppose, therefore, that I would echo the general input of others, that the only practical mobve is to agree system generally (perhaps with limited exceptions) and then tailor style to all of the above.