MP systems vs IMP systems

[Gerben42]

Some systems seem to do better at MP and others seem to do better at IMPs, but I'm wondering what systems are esp. good for MP.

[helene_t]

I would expect intermediate 2-openings to do it well at MPs, at least if they are not mandatory with too wide a range of hands. This is because they make opps make the last guess on many partscore deals.

 

Weak two-openings would be better at IMPs because it's important to jam opps when they may have game or slam.

 

As for 4-card majors versus 5-card majors, Mike Lawrence writes in his workbook that 5-card majors is better for slam bidding, while in other respects the differences probably even out. So this might suggest that 5M is better at IMPs. I tend to think that is so.

 

As for strong club versus standard it's not clear to me if one would have more advantages at MPs than at IMPs. As for notrump range, it isn't clear to me either. Maybe strong notrump is better at MPs because it may be difficult to make competitive decisions after one opens 1m with a 15-17 bal.

[bhall]

The Walsh-Swanson design of 2/1 was explicitly aimed at MP - Reaching notrump as quickly as possible when no 8-card major fit is likely. Forget slams: make the game decision early and take maximum benefit from uninformed defense.

 

I lost count of how many times the group around Walsh and Swanson fumbled invitational-to-slam auctions, and even certain invitational-to-game auctions. A lot of the progress in 2/1 has come from applying "fixes" to the basic structure in these areas. Still, it remains a MP-oriented system, where 5 and 6 of a minor are rarely bid.

[pclayton]

I like a semi-forcing 1N response in MPs, but not as much in teams.

 

Weak NT's are a double-edged sword. You steal a lot of 1N's in MPs, but you also play against the field on many boards, where you opposite side the contract (different than wrong-siding). At IMPs, weak NT's can win many part score skirmishes, but do give up the occasional 800.

[Jboling]

The guys who designed Magic Diamond have after that designed a system called "Magic for teams", which could imply that they do think MD is better for matchpoints. They do have 1M openings in MD (that show 4 cards and are possibly canape, with hcp range 8-12), that might find 2M/3M/4M/3NT contracts faster than using some other system. On the other hand their 1♣ (13-16 hcp unbal or 15-17 bal) and 1♦ (17+) are of course slower than for instance natural openings.

 

Magic for teams is a natural system, with 15-17 NT and 4 card major openings.

 

It is my hunch as well that strong ♣ or strong ♦ systems with limited openings are slightly better at matchpoints than at IMPs. With wider openings you are forced to go slower, which also gives you more room for reevaluation along the way, so you can better find slams based on a good fit. On the other hand strong ♣ (and ♦) do have openings that are bad for matchpoints aswell, about all but 1M openings, so maybe it anyway evens out in the long run?

[awm]

Seems like a light opening style would help more at matchpoints. At MP competing for the partial is really important, since there's a big difference between +100 (setting opponents partial) and +110 (making our own partial) which is irrelevent at IMPs. Opening light saves you from a lot of tough partscore balancing decisions, and helps push the opponents partscore up. The problem with light openings is that it necessarily makes your opening structure wider ranging than it would otherwise be, which can make judging your game/no game type decisions harder. These tough decisions are less common, but at IMPs much more significant.

 

Methods like Gazilli are more suited to IMPs. Take the standard auction 1♠-1NT-2♥. If you are responder with some 8-count and four hearts, you probably don't have game. But opener could have 18 high and you could have game. At MP this is an easy pass, since game is quite rare and you have to play the odds (more likely 3♥ goes down than 4♥ makes). At IMPs, you have a real problem because game is weighted so much more heavily.

 

Complex slam bidding methods (relays etc) are more useful at IMPs. It won't necessarily hurt you to play these methods at MP, but if using them hurts other aspects of your system (like ability to find the best partial) the tradeoff may not be worthwhile. At IMPs, the high reward of successful slam bidding changes the tradeoff. For example, I'd say that Viking Club is definitely an IMP oriented system, since losing the normal 1NT response to 1M hurts your partial bidding substantially in exchange for letting you use relays (which help with slam bidding).

[pbleighton]

Seems like a light opening style would help more at matchpoints. At MP competing for the partial is really important, since there's a big difference between +100 (setting opponents partial) and +110 (making our own partial) which is irrelevent at IMPs. Opening light saves you from a lot of tough partscore balancing decisions, and helps push the opponents partscore up. The problem with light openings is that it necessarily makes your opening structure wider ranging than it would otherwise be, which can make judging your game/no game type decisions harder. These tough decisions are less common, but at IMPs much more significant.

 

I agree, in the context of a natural system.

 

OTOH, in a strong club system, the big hands do pretty well (sometimes very well)at games and slams, but are sometimes at a disadvantage in part score auctions. In my experience, inteference over the strong club hurts more frequently in part score auctions than in game/slam auctions.

 

Peter

[Echognome]

I think EHAA is without a doubt a MP oriented system.

 

I have played various modifications of it with pretty good success at MPs. It eventually becomes more of a watered down Fantunes, except without forcing 1-bids. (Maybe "semi-forcing" though as you strain to respond in case partner has a monster.)

 

As to Phil's point about weak NT being against the field... he's forgetting that there are quite a few countries where it would be with the field.

 

My view is that at IMPs, you really have to have accurate slam bidding.

 

Of course, certain aspects are good for either form of scoring, like making the opponents guess a lot and having uniformative auctions to 3NT.

[helene_t]

As for bidding with or against the field: for the top players I can understand that they want to be in the field contracts and winn the tourney by better play, but for the mediocre ones the best chance of winning a tourney once in a blue moon is to bid against the field.

[pbleighton]

I think EHAA is without a doubt a MP oriented system.

 

I have played various modifications of it with pretty good success at MPs. It eventually becomes more of a watered down Fantunes, except without forcing 1-bids.

 

I agree. However, if you change the 2 bids from 6-12 to 9-12 (similar to Fantunes), it performs a lot better at imps, though it is still better at matchpoints than imps.

 

Peter

[foo]

MPs is about odds. IMPs is about odds*score.

 

Thus when playing MPs, it is worth sacrificing bidding accuracy for rare occurances like slams in favor of increased accuracy in more frequently occurring situations like partscores and games.

 

So if you truly want to optimize System for when playing MPs,

1= play lots of Light Initial Action stuff designed to accelerate the auction to your par or absolute par ASAP

a= A 2N opening should be a 2 suited preempt, not a big NT.

b= 2C should be a preempt or some other more normal strength hand. Don't bother with a way to show the super strong traditional 2C hand. It's too rare to be worth it.

c= Play every method that allows you to "get in the opponent's face" as often as possible. Yes, that means 1N=10-13, or any other methods that are as obstructive / destructive as your regulations allow.

 

2= Combine your Light Initial Action stuff with ways to increase the odds of penalizing opponents who have likely made a mistake in competive auctions. Especially in the partscore zone when they are White.

 

3= Play methods that allow for Drury like asking and semi-psychic controls to be used.

[Double !]

My objective when playing match points is to try to minimize artificiality, to have opening bids of one of a suit to actually show that suit (usually 5+ unless I have 4 spades) and to make it more difficult for the opps to compete by opening 1NT a lot, playing 13-16 1NT bid. This is complemented by an opening 2D bid that shows about 11+ to 15 with 4-4 in the majors (an attempt to reduce the frequency of missed 4-4 major fits that might occur with so many 1NT openers). There are some gaps in the structure, mostly the good 16-17 hcp hands, but this insane system seems to work pretty well in practice, especially with the addition of a gazilli-like structure to address those good 16+ hands. If not this, then I prefer a weak NT system or a modified version of Precision such as MatchPoint Precision.

SAYC and 2/1 are my least preferred matchpoint systems because of how much easier it is for the opps to start competing at the 1-level. But, then again, sometimes I march to the beat of my own drummer and try to be creative instead of doing what everybody else is doing. Boring..............

 

DHL

[keylime]

I think what Larry and I have currently, is better for IMPs versus MPs due to the ability to get into strain. However we have had MP success with it.

 

I also think that to succeed you must go against the grain and be just enough different to succeed.

[Flame]

I think strong club or diamond system might be better at mp since the most common hands have a better bid (i mean the non strong bids)

About fantunes they have a problem with thier 2 level opening in minor when they play in the wrogn partscore.

[cwiggins]

Here's some evidence in support of big club systems at matchpoints: Larry Cohen and David Berkowitz have more wins in the Blue Ribbon pairs than any other partnership.