Example hands to demonstrate IMPs strategy for matchpoint players

[zenbiddist]

Hi.

 

If you were going to teach newish matchpoints payers IMPs strategy, which demo hands would you use?

 

Thanks

[Kaitlyn S]

By which demo hands, what options are you choosing from?

 

I don't know of any set of hands offhand but there has been a fair amount of material created for this. Some of it is probably free and findable on the Internet. I have never looked for it because I create my own naterual.

 

However, there's a good chance that people that you might try to explain the difference between the strategies won't even realize what a good matchpoint strategy is. Simply telling someone that they shoukd take the safest route to make their contract, set the opponents' contract, to try to avoid giving up big numbers, be aggressive ìn bidding vulnerabie games, that our tricks and undoubted underpriced matter little, that should be enough to get a matchpoint player playing decent IMPS for his ability.

[paulg]

No hands, but I did write a guide for my club's members - http://berwickbridgeclub.co.uk/news/winning-tactics

[zenbiddist]

Thank you both. I can concoct examples to flesh out Paul's link if necessary, just hoping someone had gone to the trouble already because I'm currently busy. Thanks!

[ggwhiz]

Play a Swiss Teams of Four with Mike Lawrence

 

https://michaelslawrence.com/library/books/

 

This book is full of them but sadly I lent my copy and never got it back but if someone else out there has it........

[mycroft]

I agree with Kaitlyn; newish matchpoint players don't understand matchpoints. I'd rather teach them how to play bridge, then try to show them matchpoint strategy.

 

I think you need to show them how to score a match first; put in a game-not-bid and a 500-into-partscore in with a bunch of normal hands. After they see how "one board can swing the match", they'll understand the strategy as well as they can pretty quickly. The one point Paul made about "be *more* aggressive VUL" (well, he put it as "be less aggressive NV", but still) is critical, though, because newer players don't understand that.

 

While you're at it, show them a few hands "traveller" style, and show them some matchpoint strategy. I notice Paul did that.

[barmar]

I agree with Kaitlyn; newish matchpoint players don't understand matchpoints. I'd rather teach them how to play bridge, then try to show them matchpoint strategy.

Not even "newish" players. Most "life novices" have no idea of matchpoint strategy -- how many times have we seen LOLs who were just happy to make their contract, they made no effort to get overtricks? Or when the traveller is opened, they're surprised that our sacrifice gave us a good board.

 

IMO, the difficult strategy to teach is MP strategy. IMP strategy is relatively simple: bid game somewhat aggressively, just try to make your contracts, try to set the opponents. Unless the contract is doubled, an extra overtrick or undertrick is not very significant.

[mycroft]

Which is why I'm surprised that the I/N games are all MP Pairs. They're "comfortable" with it, sure. But they have no clue, and don't have enough bridge clue to use any clues people can give them.

 

I am not denigrating these players. Matchpoints is *hard*, and very difficult to understand at the table even for flight A players.

 

On a totally different topic, that's why I'd love to see the "Soloway KO" at the Fall Nationals be 30-board, *BAM-scored* matches. Possibly with the last half played in 5-board sets so we get Match Play type wins. I think the audience for this would be huge, as we don't have the current Reisinger problem of "different teams every 20 minutes".

[barmar]

Which is why I'm surprised that the I/N games are all MP Pairs.

It's just because traditionally, pairs games are usually MP.

 

This is probably due to historical technology. Before computers, IMP pairs was hard to score. On the rare occasions when it was played, they used the inferior Butler scoring, because it wasn't quite as hard for humans, but still harder than MP. So IMPs only became popular for team events, not pairs, and that's what we have these days.

 

Consider that in online play, IMPs is far more common. It's not stuck with historic biases.

[mycroft]

heh, but I am told that the reason our sectional Friday night is so bad (apart from it being a night game) is that "nobody understands IMP pairs, and those that do hate it, at least in B." And we don't do it in the 199er, even that time.

 

I actually believe that IMP pairs are so common on BBO because that is the default, and if MP Pairs was the default, that would be the most common.

[Kaitlyn S]

heh, but I am told that the reason our sectional Friday night is so bad (apart from it being a night game) is that "nobody understands IMP pairs, and those that do hate it, at least in B." And we don't do it in the 199er, even that time.

 

I actually believe that IMP pairs are so common on BBO because that is the default, and if MP Pairs was the default, that would be the most common.

I would think IMP pairs would be more loved by "life novices" than matchpoints, simply because they have more of a chance to win. In matchpoints, every decision can matter a lot, and they make a lot of bad ones. In IMP pairs, a bad pair can have a few really lucky results against other life novices and pick up +14 on four or so boards which will blow away the -1's and -2's they are frittering away which would give them a 35% matchpoint score but perhaps a winning or placing IMP score.

[Vampyr]

heh, but I am told that the reason our sectional Friday night is so bad (apart from it being a night game) is that "nobody understands IMP pairs, and those that do hate it, at least in B." And we don't do it in the 199er, even that time.

 

I actually believe that IMP pairs are so common on BBO because that is the default, and if MP Pairs was the default, that would be the most common.

 

Do you have more games in the daytime than at night? Don't the people where you live have jobs?

[helene_t]

Agree with Kaitlyn.

 

I think IMP strategy is more natural so many will more or less follow it already. Missing an overtrick doesn't "feel" so terrible if it costs more MPs than missing a slam. Of course, they need to know that they should avoid going for 500 against a partscore but most will understand that already.

 

I often hear the weaker club players say things like "what the hell, we are not vulnerable" in situations where the vulnerability is irrelevant at matchpoints, such as when accepting partner's invite. Hear the matchpoints teacher has more work to do than the IMPs teacher.

 

That said, it may be worthwhile to teach them that being vulnerable actually makes it more attractive to bid a thin game. But don't overdo it. As mycroft says, we should teach them to play bridge. And specific IMP strategy is a very small part of it. You can do quite well without being aware how many % chance you need to accept a game try when vulnerable and when vulnerable - just going for 50% as at MP is not bad, and overdoing the vulnerability obsession may be worse.

[billw55]

Putting their overall skill level aside, the simplest example is probably AKQxx in dummy opposite xxx in hand, needing 4 tricks to make.

[mycroft]

Do you have more games in the daytime than at night? Don't the people where you live have jobs?

Yes, or at least the ones in the daytime are *much* bigger. There are two (three now I think, but that third one "used to be" a restricted game, and it's one of those "open games that I shouldn't be playing"); a reasonably big team game of 12-20 tables, and a Friday evening pair game with 6-9. There's a 25-table restricted team game Monday evening, too (that's the one that I don't see anyone play anywhere else). However, there is at least one game of 15-20 tables every afternoon; on Friday, there are *two* (a 0-1500 game and a women's game).

 

The average age of bridge players in my area is 63 (last I looked; at the time average age in the ACBL was 66.5); many players are the 1960's and 70's "stay-at-home mom" with Professional husbands and million-dollar houses (these are the "people who drive up in their Lexus, with their golf clubs in the trunk from their $90 round this morning, complaining that the game's gone up from $7 to $8" I have mentioned before), or, at least, said Professional husbands (realtors, doctors, consulting accountants) who can manoeuver their working days to have "time for golf" be "time for bridge".

 

All across North America, from what I have read, night games are struggling to survive - mostly *because* of the lack of "bridge players who have jobs" (both "there aren't as many as there used to be" and "the ones that do are the 'experts' we don't want to play against").

 

Our unit website, with all the club games, if you're interested.

[barmar]

I would think IMP pairs would be more loved by "life novices" than matchpoints, simply because they have more of a chance to win. In matchpoints, every decision can matter a lot, and they make a lot of bad ones. In IMP pairs, a bad pair can have a few really lucky results against other life novices and pick up +14 on four or so boards which will blow away the -1's and -2's they are frittering away which would give them a 35% matchpoint score but perhaps a winning or placing IMP score.

On the other hand, the impact of a disaster is somewhat limited in MP. If you the usual 24 boards, each board is only responsible for 4% of your score; a mistake that turns an average into a bottom only reduces your total by 2%. At IMPs, there are typically only a handful of boards that are likely to be very swingy, and if you blow a couple of them you may never be able to recover all those lost IMPs.

 

So it depends on the kinds of mistakes these players make. If they're just overtricks/undertricks, they should fair better at IMPs. If they have trouble making their contracts or setting the opponents when they should, IMPs can be a disaster.

[Kaitlyn S]

Putting their overall skill level aside, the simplest example is probably AKQxx in dummy opposite xxx in hand, needing 4 tricks to make.

 

Even that can be a problem at matchpoints

 

Bridge Movie AKQxx/xxx

 

If you think matchpoint players should play them from the top, try the movie :)

 

and yes, I know many on the forums have already seen it, but it seemed like such a perfect time to mention it.

[billw55]

Even that can be a problem at matchpoints

 

Bridge Movie AKQxx/xxx

 

If you think matchpoint players should play them from the top, try the movie :)

 

and yes, I know many on the forums have already seen it, but it seemed like such a perfect time to mention it.

Yes, as is often the case in bridge, it is more complicated than it looks at first!

 

 

 

[ahydra]

Thought of this thread when I went down in a cold 4S last night trying to get far too greedy at MPs:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saq8432h43dat5c32&n=sj65hdkq432cqj654]133|200[/hv]

 

(spots approximated where irrelevant)

 

I got a diamond lead which immediately picked up the DJ, and went full Barry Crane-mode by trying for 13 tricks: hope spades are 2-2, KS onside, diamonds 3-2. Ruff a heart, trump finesse, ruff a heart, diamond to ten, cash the SA and run the diamonds. This plan failed miserably when I lost to a singleton SK offside and they returned a second diamond (East ruffed the third round thus cutting me off from the diamonds).

 

Of course, at IMPs one would simply play SA and another and be happy with ten tricks the vast majority of the time. I often try way too hard for overtricks at MPs, but it still feels a bit of a silly form of scoring when you should sometimes legitimately jeopardize your contract for a chance at an extra 30 points!

 

ahydra

[gwnn]

Risking your contract for the sake of overtricks is not something you should do too much at MP anyways unless you know what you're doing (and you know that so does the field!). There's some peculiarities, such as taking the sure -100 lest you go for -200, but again most people (me squarely included) would do best to just try not to drop tricks left and right, hardly a bad strategy.

 

edit: posted this after reading just the opening post. I did not mean this as a criticism of any post in particular.