Matchpoint Strategy

[AAr]

Is playing safe for one down usually bad strategy in MPs just like it is in IMPs and TPs?

 

I know in IMPs and TPs, you should always try to make your contract even if it risks additional undertricks when unsucessful (especially at game or above). I also know that while you should never risk going down in a cold contract for overtricks in IMPs or TPs (especially at game or above). But, risking going down for overtricks can be importantly correct in Matchpoints.

 

However, my experience is this: Lately there have been several hands where I have played safely for one down (or minimizing undertricks for two down or whatever), giving up the unlikely chance to make the bid, expecting most of the field to get larger minuses and for me to still get a good board. After all, especially in Matchpoints, one down beats two down. HOWEVER, every time I use this strategy, even in MPs, I usually get very poor MP scores because most of the field are scoring pluses.

 

Now, obviously, even in MPs, if I expect most of the field to have plus scores, I should try to make my bid to try to beat/tie the Field (or at least as much of the field as possible). If I have the only minus score in the field, reguardless how small it is, I still get a Bottom. But, wouldn't giving up a slim chance to make my bid to minimize undertricks still be correct strategy if I expect most of the field to have minus scores. Or, should I be a better judge to determine whether the field is likely scoring pluses or minuses and play accordingly. Or, should I be a better judge on how likely the contract is to make and play accordingly.

 

And, perhaps most importantly, am I correct in thinking that if I blew a trick early (losing a 2-way finesse, forgetting an honor is still out, making the wrong decision as to whether to finesse or play for the Q-Drop, etc.), would playing for one down be bad strategy and I must now try to make thinking most of the Field in this contract will be making it?

[mtvesuvius]

I think the best way to determine whether to go for down one or making/down 2 or 3, is to consider what the par and likely field contracts are.

 

You have to decide after seeing dummy whether you think other people will be in this contract, and if not, where will they be? Obviously this will all be guesswork, however making educated guesses can help significantly here.

 

For example, let's say you open 1NT 15-17 on a balanced 16 without a 5cM, partner transfers and bids 3N, you pass (with a small doubleton heart), and you see dummy. Here this looks to be the normal contract, and so you can opt to take the 90% down one, instead of the 10% make.

 

Compare that situation to something like this, where you have a bidding mixup and wind up in a 6♣ contract that nobody else will be in. Here, you'll want to go for the make, since if you go down, chances are that you'll get a bad board anyway.

 

Another consideration when going for overtricks/least undertricks is considering if you've already been given a trick or two. I've made this mistake many times, and in fact did so last week... Once you've been given a trick or two in what seems to be a fairly normal contract, don't try to be a hero and take more. Accepting the gifted overtrick or two will get you a lot of extra MPs.

 

In summary:

When in "normal" contracts, taking a conservative down one instead of risking down 3 or making will pay off.

When in "unusual" contracts, often any minus score will be bad, so you have to go for the plus, since there probably won't be many MPs difference between down 1 and down 4.

[Free]

In any form of scoring, any strategy can work out from time to time. It's all about percentages and what you need at this moment.

 

For example, playing imps, if you have 5% chance of making your vulnerable game or go 2 off vs 100% to go -1, it's usually advisable play for -1 (long run result is a winner: 19*+3 against 1*-12 = +2.25 imps on average). If you desperately need a swing however you should play for the 5% line and hope it works.

 

In MP the percentages are completely different, but the principle is still the same.

[cherdano]

Another example: in a competitive auction, non vulnerable, you are playing in 3♣. Other pairs your direction may be defending 2♥ or 3♥. Then the difference between one down or two down probably is small, whereas the difference between one down or making is big (you beat everyone who is beating a heart contract one or two tricks). On the other hand, once you are doubled the difference between down one and down two will be great, and maybe you should play safely for down one.

[AAr]

Here is the situation I was thinking:

 

You are in 4S that you figure most of the Field will be in. You misguess a suit early, likely costing a trick, and now you will likely go down one, unless you try a risky play that could still let me make, but is unlikely to succeed, but will risk down two if it fails. Try to make here, or just play for down one?

 

BTW: I am referring to Matchpoints. Obviously, I should try to make in the above situation in IMPs (Am I correct about this?).

[655321]

Here is a r.g.b post from 10 years ago (one of a number of similar posts over the last 10 years):

 

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rec.games.bridge/dYVFlxd940w/discussion

 

We talk about risking cold contracts for overtricks in other threads (and it is

usually good advice to not do that), but I have another question.

 

When, in the differenent scoring systems (primarily MPs, IMPs, and Rubber), and

different contract types (Part score, Game, and Slam; Undoubled and Doubled),

and different vulnerability should I play it safe for Down One, and when should

I risk going Down Two to make the contract? Is it usually better to go for the

contract or play it safe for Down One?

 

Just wondering. Thanks!

 

 

Is AAR joking with us, well it doesn't seem that funny but maybe it is if you look at it the right way.

Or are all of these posts serious, that doesn't seem likely either!

 

I don't get it!

[mtvesuvius]

Now your goal is to get to par, so yes I'd risk it if it was more than like 15%... Funny find, 655321.

[fromageGB]

...HOWEVER, every time I use this strategy, even in MPs, I usually get very poor MP scores because most of the field are scoring pluses.

 

It sounds like you are in the wrong (and unusual) contract :P

 

You are in 4S that you figure most of the Field will be in. You misguess a suit early, likely costing a trick, and now you will likely go down one, unless you try a risky play that could still let me make, but is unlikely to succeed, but will risk down two if it fails. Try to make here, or just play for down one?

 

Mtvesuvius has essentially said it, but I would add that it depends on the type of misguess, and the risk involved in the risky play. If it really is a 50/50 guess (such as which of two finesses to take) then you can assume half the field will be with you. So if you take a 40% chance of making it with a risky play, 40% of the time you will equal the initially correct guessers and get 75%, 60% of the time you will get 0%. So your expectation is 30%. If on the other hand you continue to take normal action your expectation is 25%. So it's worth the risk.

 

But if the risky play has a 30% chance, then your expectation in taking the risk is 22%. So it's not worth it.

 

However, if on a club night with no knowledge of suit breaks you have a choice of finessing towards a KJx or finessing the other way towards ATx, and guess wrong by leading to the ten, then you will find that 90% of players take the finesse the other way because it "looks normal", and then the odds shift in favour of taking more risk to catch up. You do the sums.

[helene_t]

It can often be difficult to assess what is happening in the "field". Even if everybody is reasonably sane and sober and play the same methods as you do and your auctions seem normal (that was a lot of assumptions), you still don't know if the opponents' failure to bid, and their choice of opening lead, were normal actions.

 

So while it is true that at matchpoints the difference between (for example) -100 and -150 is likely to be larger than the difference between -50 and -100 (unless -90 is a plausible score), don't overdo it. Just playing normal bridge (i.e. as you would at w/w at IMPs) is not far off on most boards.

[Free]

The "field" can be very creative.