Friends of Fred

[Winstonm]

I, too, have won and lost K.O. matches by a single imp...and I've tied as well and had a playoff. But a K.O. match is not imp pairs event. As you said, you had a pretty good idea of what was happening at the other table.

 

My point is that adjusting the scoring at imp pairs may remove some of the matchpoint-like rewards for overtricks and undertricks. A good example of what I mean is the safety play. A safety play may only work out well 5% of the time, and on those other 95% of the times you lose imps when most everyone else plays the hand like a matchpoint pairs event. Maybe at imp pairs that is the way you are supposed to play, but it goes against my nature to risk my contract for an extra 30 points. :blink: That's why I don't much care for matchpoints. And I only wondered how many others share this view that imp pairs could be improved with the suggested change.

 

 

WinstonM

[Stephen Tu]

I don't think it's an improvement. The imp swing for an overtrick in imp pairs is at the same ratio vs. the contract going down in team games. Do you think you shouldn't get an imp for an overtrick at teams? The reward one gets for the overtrick not found at other tables is already greatly reduced from the reward one would get at matchpoints. At MP you get a top, the next board can at worst get you back to 50%. At IMPs the next board could wipe out 10 or more boards of overtricks.

 

Grinding out an imp here or there is part of winning close matches. Absolutely superior play should be rewarded / inferior defense punished. 1 imp is not too much.

 

The problem with imp pairs is that the boards don't all count the same. Boards with possible game/slam swings benefit you greatly if you get to play them vs. bad opponents.

 

I don't know why imp pairs is so popular on BBO & other online sites ..., is it just that the members are more used to rubber bridge type tactics? Especially with the typically short tournaments, 12-14 board IMP pair tournaments easily swing almost completely on the results of 2 boards. Would one want to play a 2 board matchpoint tourney?

[Winstonm]

I don't really want to play in a 26-board matchpoint event, much less a 2-board affair. :)

 

In my opinion, the attraction of imp scoring is that it rewards games and slams and making or not-making your contract. A 12-14 board anything is not much of a test for any scoring form. It is not surprising that a board or two determines the match outcome. But I have played in many 26 board K.O. matches against superior opponents where the match turned on only a board or two.

[Free]

I like the current format of imp games and MP games. MP gives you action, making overtricks, risking your contract because you're in the wrong one and need too much tricks,... where imps lets you play a lot more relaxed, just make that damn contract and you're home (bidding systems however need to get you in a playable contract). I think it's an overreaction if you state that in imps overtricks are rewarded too much. I just disagree, but everyone has his opinion ofcourse :)

[arrows]

IMHO,

 

Bridge is doomed when some genius came up the idea that one must

provide defense against one's own methods...

 

To be honest, I was really shocked when I first appreciate the profound

absurdity of this idea... Amazingly brilliant.

[mike777]

Yes, there must be thousands and thousands of people who wish to pay money and travel to tourney after tourney who want to play 52 boards versus 52 home grown systems day after day. Do not see why everyone cannot play a different home grown system every board.

 

They have a minute or two to prepare a defense or they should know most conventions and systems used worldwide the past 80 years.

 

I do not see why the preferences of the vast majority of ACBL members should be catered to when it may hinder the development of bidding theory and pleasure of a few.

[luke warm]

I do not see why the preferences of the vast majority of ACBL members should be catered to when it may hinder the development of bidding theory and pleasure of a few.

 

i believe i detected a faint hint of sarcasm B)

 

i heard somewhere that there weren't more mp games on bbo cause the software had a glitch in it re: mp scoring (i also heard the same wasn't true of the tourneys, just the main room)... not sure if this is true or not, but i'd love to see more mp play in the main room

 

i agree there needs to be system regulation by ruling bodies, i just think that those bodies sometimes go too far in stifling innovation... those of you who know, or were around at the time, how did precision become accepted? it was artificial, it was relatively complicated, yet seems not to have been unduly vilified by the powers that be... i don't see how moscito, for example, is any more difficult to learn/defend against from that standpoint

[hrothgar]

those of you who know, or were around at the time, how did precision become accepted? it was artificial, it was relatively complicated, yet seems not to have been unduly vilified by the powers that be... i don't see how moscito, for example, is any more difficult to learn/defend against from that standpoint

There is an enormous difference between Precision and ROMEX and MOSCITO: Both Precision and Romex had very wealthy patrons.

 

Precision was paid for by C.C. Wei.

Romex was paid for by George Rosenkrantz

[uday]

i heard somewhere that there weren't more mp games on bbo cause the software had a glitch in it re: mp scoring

 

I don't know of any relevant bug. As long as I've been here, MP games have been far less popular (in the main bridge club) than IMP games.

[luke warm]

then i obviously heard wrong... it had something to do with the fact that because there are fewer mp games, this resulted in distorted scores... sounded as good as anything, but so does the fact that -8.5 imps looks better than 28% for a session

[Double !]

In response to the question about "how did Precision come to be accepted?"..."seems not to have been unduly vilified by the powers to be".....

 

I was around at the time. In fact, my regular FTF partner and I were playing Precision when the summer Nationals came to Boston in 1970. The system was not complicated at all: it was a fairly easy shift from what we had been playing. And, the original CC Wei book was not long (the last 3rd to 4th part of the book contained sample hands from the Chinese Dream team., and the book was easy to read. IMO, it was not "vilified by the powers to be" because there was little in the system that they could object to, or that wasn't already being played in one form or another. In its original format, Precision wasn't much more than a combination of limited opening bids (11-15), 5-card majors (with forcing 1NT response), a forcing (16+ hcp) 1 club opening (Schenken 17+ was not unheard of), mini-Roman 2D with the stiff specified, a natural 2C opening (legal) and a 13-15 weak NT (K-S was also played by many at the time). Weak 2's were the norm at the time. There were only 2 sets of asking bids in the original version, Gamma and a combination "support-control" asking bid that followed Gamma- again, not too hard on the impaired memory cells. (and, asking bids were legal) Interestingly, the only aspect of the system that I recall running into resistance from the "powers to be" was the "impossible negative" structure, and this became permitted within a relatively limited amount of time. How did it (Precision) "become accepted"? I don't know. Maybe because it was a vast improvement compared to what many (including the "establishment") were playing and it worked well?

[pbleighton]

"I don't know of any relevant bug. As long as I've been here, MP games have been far less popular (in the main bridge club) than IMP games."

 

IMP is the default.

 

Based on my experience as a programmer, this could be the entire reason.

 

Peter

[dogsbreath]

HI ALL

Fred .. i think yr methods are excellent and I am studying them in a desperate effort to improve... but no holy grail .. the fact that we cannot reach a concensus about methods is the only thing that makes continuing to play the game worth the trouble. Rgds all

Dog

[ArcLight]

>Yes, there must be thousands and thousands of people who wish to pay money and travel to tourney after tourney who want to play 52 boards versus 52 home grown systems day after day. Do not see why everyone cannot play a different home grown system every board.

 

>They have a minute or two to prepare a defense or they should know most conventions and systems used worldwide the past 80 years.

 

>I do not see why the preferences of the vast majority of ACBL members should be catered to when it may hinder the development of bidding theory and pleasure of a few.

 

:(

 

(dont forget all the different signaling either!)

 

 

As Bobby Hamman writes in his book "Bridge is becoming a game of Language rather than deductive reasoning". Im far more interested in deductive reasoning, and correct card play than bidding systems. (But I will admit some of these bidding systems are clever and even brilliant). At this point Im concentrating on card play technique and defense, rather than bidding. (I have a long, long way to go)

[TimG]

those of you who know, or were around at the time, how did precision become accepted? it was artificial, it was relatively complicated, yet seems not to have been unduly vilified by the powers that be... i don't see how moscito, for example, is any more difficult to learn/defend against from that standpoint

There is an enormous difference between Precision and ROMEX and MOSCITO: Both Precision and Romex had very wealthy patrons.

 

Precision was paid for by C.C. Wei.

Romex was paid for by George Rosenkrantz

Yes, Precision had a wealthy sponsor. But, Precision wasn't really anything new. Vanderbilt wrote about a strong club system in the 1920's. (I once looked through the book, it must be around here somewhere, I was struck that the scoring table listed the value of a trick at NT as 35. Once upon a time, not all scores ended with a zero.)

[doofik]

I've read posts here and then took a look at the voting pattern, without voting and I won't vote. The subject matter itself didn't surprise me but the votes in absolute terms did.

 

How do you know?

 

doofik