Is matchpoints becoming obsolete?

[Stephen Tu]

One tactic that worked for us in the past was just to inflate your actual matchpoints. Add an extra 1 in front of your masterpoint total or something and you'll get to play against better players :rolleyes: Its something that in theory you are not supposed to do but a lot of people do and the directors don't really care.

 

Some of them do ... I've gotten some stern lectures from trying that sort of tactic in the past and being discovered. If they move you & others up, other teams get moved down & may be unhappy, plus the teams in the brackets below those teams pushed down may get unhappy also.

 

Now in local tourneys I can get accommodation sometimes (directors told me to ask to play up instead of putting fictitious attendance points down) but nationals is tough so I try to avoid bracketed events at the nationals.

[Mbodell]

One tactic that worked for us in the past was just to inflate your actual matchpoints. Add an extra 1 in front of your masterpoint total or something and you'll get to play against better players :rolleyes: Its something that in theory you are not supposed to do but a lot of people do and the directors don't really care.

 

Some of them do ... I've gotten some stern lectures from trying that sort of tactic in the past and being discovered. If they move you & others up, other teams get moved down & may be unhappy, plus the teams in the brackets below those teams pushed down may get unhappy also.

 

Now in local tourneys I can get accommodation sometimes (directors told me to ask to play up instead of putting fictitious attendance points down) but nationals is tough so I try to avoid bracketed events at the nationals.

Yeah, we play up sometimes in local sectional like tournaments, and asked about it in Vegas but were told it was a big no-no. We played one opponent who said they'd won their first match when their opponents were eliminated for being out of bracket even though they had only mis-estimated by like 500 or 600 points. I don't know if it was up or down.

 

Really the long term answer for us is to get better so we are competitive in the NABC events and earn the odd MP along the way so we can eventually make the higher brackets legitimately. :blink:

[Stephen Tu]

Yeah, we play up sometimes in local sectional like tournaments, and asked about it in Vegas but were told it was a big no-no.  We played one opponent who said they'd won their first match when their opponents were eliminated for being out of bracket even though they had only mis-estimated by like 500 or 600 points.  I don't know if it was up or down.

 

It had to be underestimating the points. They only kick you out if you put under your actual total for those amounts. If you overestimate by that much they definitely aren't going to care. If you overestimate by 5000-6000 then you get the lecture :rolleyes:, don't know if you get kicked out, I was allowed to play on and told very specifically not to do that anymore.

[paulg]

Matchpoints dominate the clubs in Scotland. However, unlike my experiences in England, many of the clubs will use aggregate scoring for at least one or two club competitions. At my local club, I reckon 20% of the evenings are scored using aggregate.

 

Paul

Yup. Don't know how far south you travel into Sassenach land, but I'm south of London and it is pretty much solid matchpoints here - I think about 3 team events during the year - and one of them is the random teams in the Christmas week. Given the prevalence of computer scoring these days it is perhaps surprising that people don't experiment with other forms of scoring at least once in a while.

 

Nick

 

P.S. Edit - I don't want to lose MP - it is a very good form of competition.

I think the aggregate is pretty unique to Scotland, I never encountered it when I lived west of London.

 

And ScoreBridge had to add aggregate scoring to be become a viable product up here.

 

p

[pigpenz]

Agree with the comments about KOs, mps and bracketing. When I was starting to play tournaments I could only play on the weekends, and I played a lot online. So I got good without accumulating the mps, basically locking myself out of KOs -- which is the route to even more mps. I'm not interested in going to a tournament to play random 1200 mp players for four sessions, nor am I interested in going to a tournament to play a 17-table Flight A pairs on Saturday. There probably aren't many people in my position though, so there's no pressure for the ACBL to change the status quo.

yes, I dont care to pay the travel expenses but would for sure be willing to play in an online sectional or regional 2 session event even if it cost $5-$10 per session. Granted there is always the talk about cheating etcetra but it has to be coming one of these days.(online full acbl tourneys).

 

question is what is stopping it from happening?

1. jobs for acbl TD's

2. microeconomy built on tourneys-hotel etc

 

dont know maybe it would put alot of people out of work but does seem eventually it has to work and will come sometime.

[JoAnneM]

I know at least one flight A pair in my area who don't attend Regionals because the pairs events are not large enough, but they attend lots of Sectionals. Unfortunately those planning these events have to react to what the players want, and they want KO's. What I would like to see go away is all Senior events. It issilly to see 2 or 3 sections of open pairs and one section of Seniors with 8 tables.

 

And Open and Senior Swiss and the same time is really ridiculous. Almost everyone is senior, just have one event that pays more points!!

[Vilgan]

What I would like to see go away is all Senior events.

Yes, I am looking forward to playing the National KO event in Boston. OH WAIT, it excludes the 10% of us who are not over 55 yet.

 

Senior events are retarded. If they are going to have senior events, they should at least move the age up to like 75 and stop treating them like open national events.. with platinum and a win considered a qualifier for grand master. I think there are like 20 people out of 640 in our whole unit who would not qualify for a senior event. Even the "young working crowd" can still mostly play in "senior" events.

[blackshoe]

I'm a Senior, even (I think) by WBF rules (I'm 61). I don't see the attraction to Senior events. All they mean to me is that I won't be playing against (or with) the small percentage of players who don't qualify. Why would I care?

 

As for the more (or less) masterpoints aspect, masterpoints are a joke anyway.

[Winstonm]

Arguably, Matchpointed pairs is a completely different game from X-Imp or Butler Pairs; but I think MP is more fun and more skilful.

I am not convinced MP is the more skillful game unless concentration level is counted as a skill.

 

To me the scoring differences don't require higher skills but different skills.

[fred]

I personally think matchpoints is a much harder game than IMPs because a much higher % of the decisions you make turn out to be important.

 

Aside from that, to be really good at matchpoints you need to be good at figuring out what you expect will happen at other tables. IMO the situations in which such thinking is appropriate and relavent at IMPs are few and far between.

 

I believe that one of the main reasons why so many experts and near-experts are dismissive of matchpoints is because they do not play bridge well enough (or are too lazy) to be successful in pairs games.

 

IMO the most challenging bridge on planet earth is played in the finals of the Reisinger and the World Open Pairs. Just qualifying for the last stages of these events means that you are GOOD. If you are successful you are VERY GOOD.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Winstonm]

I personally think matchpoints is a much harder game than IMPs because a much higher % of the decisions you make turn out to be important.

 

Although each decision is crucial at MPs, it always seems, I am not so sure that by itself makes MP the more skillful game - I reflect that Bob Hamman has no great record in MP pairs. And I am reminded of the defense Hamman played by refusing to overruff when holding 3 small trumps that led to +800 that in his book Zia admitted "would never occured to him".

 

I would rather have Hamman as my partner than the late Barry Crane, even if Hamman didn't win so many matchpointed events.

[Guest Jlall]

I personally think matchpoints is a much harder game than IMPs because a much higher % of the decisions you make turn out to be important.

 

Aside from that, to be really good at matchpoints you need to be good at figuring out what you expect will happen at other tables. IMO the situations in which such thinking is appropriate and relavent at IMPs are few and far between.

 

I believe that one of the main reasons why so many experts and near-experts are dismissive of matchpoints is because they do not play bridge well enough (or are too lazy) to be successful in pairs games.

 

IMO the most challenging bridge on planet earth is played in the finals of the Reisinger and the World Open Pairs. Just qualifying for the last stages of these events means that you are GOOD. If you are successful you are VERY GOOD.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

The problem to me is that there is a higher luck factor in PAIRS than TEAMS (especially knockouts) by a lot. So while I would much prefer to play MP pairs to IMP pairs and BAM knockouts to IMP knockouts, if my options are IMP knockout teams or MP pairs as it usually is I would much prefer to play the knockout because of the lower amount of luck involved.

 

IMO people confuse the variables involved and associate imps with teams and MP with pairs and then think that MP has a higher luck factor, and thus think they prefer imps. Really I think knockouts are a much preferable form of scoring to pairs. I think the ACBL should start having some BAM knockouts.

[fred]

I personally think matchpoints is a much harder game than IMPs because a much higher % of the decisions you make turn out to be important.

 

Although each decision is crucial at MPs, it always seems, I am not so sure that by itself makes MP the more skillful game - I reflect that Bob Hamman has no great record in MP pairs. And I am reminded of the defense Hamman played by refusing to overruff when holding 3 small trumps that led to +800 that in his book Zia admitted "would never occured to him".

 

I would rather have Hamman as my partner than the late Barry Crane, even if Hamman didn't win so many matchpointed events.

Hamman doesn't play as many matchpoint events at the rest of us because he is invariably still playing in the team events when some of the big pairs events are taking place. When Hamman does play in pairs events he tends to do so with someone other than his regular partner.

 

But he has still done pretty well for himself. As of 1994 Hamman had won the Blue Ribbon Pairs 4 times, the Life Master Pairs 3 times, the Reisinger 6 times, and the World Open Pairs once.

 

I am not sure how well he has done since 1994, but I believe he has won the Reisinger at least a couple of times since then.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

I personally think matchpoints is a much harder game than IMPs because a much higher % of the decisions you make turn out to be important.

 

Aside from that, to be really good at matchpoints you need to be good at figuring out what you expect will happen at other tables. IMO the situations in which such thinking is appropriate and relavent at IMPs are few and far between.

 

I believe that one of the main reasons why so many experts and near-experts are dismissive of matchpoints is because they do not play bridge well enough (or are too lazy) to be successful in pairs games.

 

IMO the most challenging bridge on planet earth is played in the finals of the Reisinger and the World Open Pairs. Just qualifying for the last stages of these events means that you are GOOD. If you are successful you are VERY GOOD.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

The problem to me is that there is a higher luck factor in PAIRS than TEAMS (especially knockouts) by a lot. So while I would much prefer to play MP pairs to IMP pairs and BAM knockouts to IMP knockouts, if my options are IMP knockout teams or MP pairs as it usually is I would much prefer to play the knockout because of the lower amount of luck involved.

 

IMO people confuse the variables involved and associate imps with teams and MP with pairs and then think that MP has a higher luck factor, and thus think they prefer imps. Really I think knockouts are a much preferable form of scoring to pairs. I think the ACBL should start having some BAM knockouts.

Agree luck is much more important at pairs vs. teams, regardless of the form of scoring.

 

But I feel strongly that there is a lot less luck involved in matchpoint pairs than there is in IMP pairs. The reason is that top of a board is always the same at matchpoint pairs and this is not even close to being the case at IMP pairs.

 

If you start a petition urging the ACBL to run some BAM knockout events, I will be the first time sign it!

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Guest Jlall]

But I feel strongly that there is a lot less luck involved in matchpoint pairs than there is in IMP pairs.

Yes totally agree with this.

 

If you start a petition urging the ACBL to run some BAM knockout events, I will be the first time sign it!

 

In honor of this, I will be playing BAM team games on BBO for a while! :)

[Stephen Tu]

luck factor MP < luck factor IMP, because all boards count equally, most every trick is important while at IMPs often the extra overtricks/undertricks inconsequential and different small plusses in partials don't matter either.

 

But pair luck factor >> teams since you don't control the field, a lot of your result depends on how many tops you get handed when facing the weak pairs.

 

So for test of skill most in the know would rank:

1. BAM teams

2. IMP teams

3. MP pairs

4. IMP pairs (whose popularity online completely confounds me, so few boards to begin with then you compress the results of the tourney even more, basically one big board against a bad pair determines the tournament)

 

But BAM has died totally in my district, I only ever get to play it at fall nationals. I think vast majority of players are unfamiliar with it so don't want to try something new, and I guess some percentage probably don't like it because of the diminished luck factor, the best teams would tend to win all the time.

 

Should the BBO main bridge club default be changed to MP instead of IMPs?

[han]

I reflect that Bob Hamman has no great record in MP pairs.

Men's Pairs (1) 1986

Life Master Pairs (3) 1980, 1983, 1992

Blue Ribbon Pairs (4) 1964, 1986, 1991, 1993

Men's Board-a-Match Teams (1) 1988

Chicago (now Reisinger) (1) 1962

Reisinger Board-a-Match Teams (9) 1970, 1978, 1979, 1988, 1993, 1994, 1995, 2004, 2005

World Open Pairs (1) 1974

 

Barry Crane won 10 national matchpoint events, only half as much as Bob Hamman.

[han]

Sorry, I see that Fred already posted the same.

[Winstonm]

QUOTE (Winstonm @ Aug 2 2008, 12:21 PM)

I reflect that Bob Hamman has no great record in MP pairs. 

 

 

Men's Board-a-Match Teams (1) 1988

Chicago (now Reisinger) (1) 1962

Reisinger Board-a-Match Teams (9) 1970, 1978, 1979, 1988, 1993, 1994, 1995, 2004, 2005

 

Note I said pairs, not teams. This shows a 11-9 team to pairs lead, not counting all the imp world team titles.

 

Men's Pairs (1) 1986

Life Master Pairs (3) 1980, 1983, 1992

Blue Ribbon Pairs (4) 1964, 1986, 1991, 1993

World Open Pairs (1) 1974

[sathyab]

But pair luck factor >> teams since you don't control the field, a lot of your result depends on how many tops you get handed when facing the weak pairs.

 

Yes, that's true especially on the opening day of LM pairs or Blue Ribbon pairs where the relatively weaker pairs play a huge role in determining the fate of good players who're having a bad day.

 

One way to minimize this luck factor is to be a little more generous in qualifying pairs on the opening day and be more stringent on the second day, the idea being that there's a lot less randomness on the second day compared to the first day. Having said that, I must observe that the 1st day field in LM pairs these days is quite strong, a good bit stronger than a few years ago thanks to limited editions of the same events being played concurrently.

[pigpenz]

one of the best articles covered in Bridge World is when they cover the Blue Ribbon Pairs. Follows the 2 boards around for 13 rounds....as Larry Cohen says sometimes only inches from good to bad result.

[Gerben42]

You know why IMP pairs is so popular online? Because anyone can win! It's like the lottery. You're having a solid game and opponents happen to misbid to a slam that happens to make? Tough luck! At MP it can be recovered, not now...

 

To win a 10-board IMP game you need opponents to be Santa and the Easter Bunny. But beware if you ask people for a 24-board BAM... The good players will massacre the field then.

[MFA]

You know why IMP pairs is so popular online? Because anyone can win! It's like the lottery. You're having a solid game and opponents happen to misbid to a slam that happens to make? Tough luck! At MP it can be recovered, not now...

 

To win a 10-board IMP game you need opponents to be Santa and the Easter Bunny. But beware if you ask people for a 24-board BAM... The good players will massacre the field then.

Certainly, I don't think that is why imps are more popular on BBO. :D

Imps are generally used for HU confrontations while matchpoints are used in a big field. When one plays matchpoints HU, the percentage scoring is difficult to relate to and thus not so interesting.

 

Before we crucify the imp pair completely; I think that the imp scoring by itself favour the stronger pair. The bigger the swing, the more likely it will go to the better pair. This counterbalances the greater inherent statistical variance in imps.

 

In other words, greater variance at imp pairs: yes, but a greater edge over the bad pairs too.

[SoTired]

A winner of the National IMP pair event told me he thought MP was more skillful. The reason: To win a MP event, you need to play good bridge with few errors. To win an IMP event, you need to play good bridge with few errors and get lucky.

 

No matter how well you play, you can't win an IMP event without luck. Even a multi-session IMP event requires luck to win. And bad luck will kill you in an IMP event.

 

For example: A difficult to bid 80% slam may cost you 15-20 IMPS if it goes down. If you are playing well, it may take you 7-10 hands to make up for that bad luck.