MP's vs Imp's strategy

[Hanoi5]

What should the policy at each of these should be, regarding part-scores?

 

I guess I should play the safest at imp's but be a little bit bolder at MP's sometimes choosing NT or 7-card Major fit instead of a minor.

 

Am I right?

[ArtK78]

The simple answer is yes, but bridge is not a simple game.

 

Given the scoring table, making 8 tricks in a major suit is equal to making 9 tricks in a minor suit, and making 9 tricks in a major suit is better than making 10 tricks in a minor suit. So one goes out of one's way to play in a major suit rather than in a minor suit.

 

Of course, it may be that a hand will make 10 tricks in a 5-4 minor suit fit and only 8 tricks in a 4-3 major suit fit.

 

And we haven't even touched upon notrump, or the possibility that the minor suit fit will make while the major suit fit will not make.

 

At IMPs, one wants to play in the safest partscore. If you lose an IMP for 140 in a 4-3 major suit fit against 110 in a 5-4 minor suit fit, so what? But if the 4-3 major suit fit goes down, the difference is 4 or more IMPs, depending on vulnerability and the number of undertricks.

 

So, the simple answer is yes, but there are many qualifications.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

 

I guess I should play the safest at imp's but be a little bit bolder at MP's sometimes choosing NT or 7-card Major fit instead of a minor.

 

Am I right?

Sure, but keep in mind, that the 7-card mayor suit

fit only pays more MPs, if it makes.

 

This means that with nothing to spare with regards to

HCP power, it is not the worst MP idea to play your

minor suit fit instead of your 7 card mayor suit fit.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kenrexford]

Two things about IMP bidding that are invaluable.

 

1. Pressure.

 

2. Double.

[cherdano]

Two things about MP bidding that are invaluable:

 

1. Pressure.

 

2. Double.

 

(And I am not disagreeing with KR.)

[Mbodell]

I sometimes have conflicting thoughts about strategy here.

 

Why one should be more aggressive in competing for part scores in MPs instead of IMPs:

 

1. -1 v or -2 nv or -1X v are all worth 100 and that is better than -110. Therefore we should push them higher even if we might go down.

 

2. Small differences in scores make a big difference therefore we should X them in part scores a lot seeking a -200 or -300 win in case we had a making partscore they've taken out of the box. Especially since a -140 may be a pretty bad score in the type of hands where we could make 3♥ but they bid 3♠ since we might have had a better sack in 4♥ and they might not of bid 3♠ at other tables.

 

3. If you make a very wrong bid and get doubled and go for a phone number it is just one board.

 

4. If occasionally the opponents were happy in their part score but you push them to a thin making game, it is only one board.

 

Why one should be more aggressive in competing for part scores in IMPs instead of MPs:

 

1. It is often harder to double in IMPs since the fear of someone doubled into game can lead to a huge swing in IMPs so it is less likely you will be doubled in your aggressively bid part score.

 

2. Pushing them 1 level to high can be a very nice pickup since a +110 and a +100 for a vulnerable 2M= and 3M-1 is a good size swing.

 

3. If your competition places cards in your hands that helps the opponents make an overtrick, that is only 1 IMP instead of potentially a whole board.

 

Overall though I think it favors not competing as aggressively in partscores in IMPs. I know I'll often not balance at IMPs over some low level contracts (especially 1X-P-P-?) that at MPs I'd strain like mad to get involved.

 

I think part score judgment is a huge part of MP scoring whereas IMP scoring seems to be about slam and game judgments.