What systems are better at MPs vs IMPs

[ArcLight]

MPs are a different beast than IMPs.

Slams are more valuable in IMPS. Part score swings like -100 rather than opps making 110 in 2 hearts are huge in MPs and of almost no value in IMPs.

So it seems to me that different bidding systems would be better at one rather than the other.

 

My questions are:

 

1) Am I correct in that each bidding system is better at one and worse at the other?

 

2) What systems are especially good at MPs (regardless of their value in other competions)

 

3) What systems are especially good at IMPs (regardless of their value in MPs)

[luis]

At MPS you must copycat the field, play exactly what the majority of the field plays, do a poll if needed to find out.

The important thing at MPs is to take more tricks than they take and you don't need a system for that just play better than they do in the same contract that they are.

 

There're some good tweaks special for MPs like being able to offer a choice of 3NT or 4M when you open 1NT or 1M etc.

[tysen2k]

Super-light openings will do a lot better in MPs. The ability to compete and find a fit early on the partscore hands is a tremendous advantage.

[Guest Jlall]

good bridge does well at either form :)

[ArcLight]

>Super-light openings will do a lot better in MPs. The ability to compete and find a fit early on the partscore hands is a tremendous advantage.

 

I agree. What systems would that include? Exclude? I assume Roth-Stone would be less effective at MPs. Precision doesn't allow for light openings.

 

 

> good bridge does well at either form

 

This is very true, but it doesnt answer the question. What systems are better suited for each type of game?

 

 

> The important thing at MPs is to take more tricks than they take and you don't need a system for that just play better than they do in the same contract that they are.

 

This makes a lot of sense. But again, my question is, are some systems better suited than others?

 

 

For example, I think I read that Precision ws designed for IMP play. Maybe MOSCITO is optimized for MPs?

[Flame]

fantony nunes system is in my opinion better for imps then mp, since too many times you will open 2m and end up playing in minor suit when a little better major contract exists. 2/1 with no gaziili is better at mp since its doesnt define the strong hand too well but those are rare.

[Walddk]

1) Am I correct in that each bidding system is better at one and worse at the other?

1) I don't think so. Stick to your favourite system regardless of the scoring format. Be faithful to your agreements, improvise a little when necessary, but most importantly: play and defend better than your competitors!

 

Roland

[Elianna]

Precision doesn't allow for light openings.

Why do you say that?

 

I know several precision pairs (ok, some of them are Recursive Diamond pairs) that love precision BECAUSE they can open weak.

 

In fact, it has been the case that most of the time I've faced weak openings they were by a precision pair.

[mikestar]

1) Am I correct in that each bidding system is better at one and worse at the other?

 

In theory, yes. For some systems the difference may be fairly small.

 

2) What systems are especially good at MPs (regardless of their value in other competions)

 

Competitive partscore bidding is king. Slam bidding is fairly unimportant (low frequency). Light openings more valuable here than in IMPs. Relay systems are a bit of a waste unless they achieve another goal such as increased pressure on the enemy on non game hands.

 

3) What systems are especially good at IMPs (regardless of their value in MPs)

 

Slam bidding is important (large swings), but competitive partscore bidding is still very important. Light openings are still useful, but have more downside than at MP. Relay systems can be worthwhile in themselves as they are helpful in slam auctions.

 

I'd like to add another question:

 

4) What systems are reasonably good at both forms of scoring (not as good as the best system for each form, but still good).

[ArcLight]

>Precision doesn't allow for light openings.

 

>>Why do you say that?

 

 

Doesn't Precision have a very well defined definition of an opening bid? For example I think 1♠ = 11-15 HCP, and 5+ Spades. Or is this not coorect, is it 11-15 points including support points?

 

What I meant by allowing for light openings is other systems may be more geared towards showing shap as soon as possible. So maybe 1♥ = 5+ hearts and 8-13.

 

 

Certainly one can open light in Precision, as in any system. I didn't mean to imply thats not possible. I should have phrased my statement better.

[Rebound]

Guess I'm just old-fashioned. To me, opening with 10 or 11 HCP is opening light. :)

[pigpenz]

good bridge does well at either form :)

yes very true!

[ArcLight]

>Guess I'm just old-fashioned. To me, opening with 10 or 11 HCP is opening light.

 

♠ AKT984

♥ AT98

♦ xx

♣ x

 

11 HCP, but clearly a full opening bid. Id still call it a full opening bid with one less SPade and one more minor.

 

Light is more like

♠ A K T 9 x

♥ x x

♦ x x

♣ K x x x

[inquiry]

>Guess I'm just old-fashioned. To me, opening with 10 or 11 HCP is opening light.

 

♠ AKT984

♥ AT98

♦ xx

♣ x

 

11 HCP, but clearly a full opening bid. Id still call it a full opening bid with one less SPade and one more minor.

 

Light is more like

♠ A K T 9 x

♥ x x

♦ x x

♣ K x x x

You are right I would open the first hand you showed even without any agreement to open light. The second one is a "sound" opener as well.. but lets go further,

 

Light opener is really more like this.

♠ A K T 9 x

♥ x x

♦ x

♣ J x x x x

[luis]

> The important thing at MPs is to take more tricks than they take and you don't need a system for that just play better than they do in the same contract that they are.

 

This makes a lot of sense. But again, my question is, are some systems better suited than others?

For example, I think I read that Precision ws designed for IMP play. Maybe MOSCITO is optimized for MPs?

What I said was precisely that the best MPs system is the system played by most of the field if you have a good pair. If your pair is not good compared to the others then play a system as weird as allowed to go "against" the field.

[mikeh]

I would shy away from complex methods at mps, for several reasons. When I was practicing my relay method in the late 90's, on OKbridge, we tried to play several matchpoint events. We never completed a round, because our methods were so complex that we were very slow (a problem compunded by the fact that my partner is deservedly regarded as a slow player... he prefers the word 'thoughtful').

 

You have more time per board at imps, and can 'carry forward' saved time from easy boards. Playing complex methods in a two or three board per table movement results in too many occasions where you cannot devote enough time to a proper play analysis.

 

Also, the frequency and relative size of reward from complex methods is much reduced in mps than in imps: the truly complex methods are usually aimed at game and slam decisions.

 

I think that, subject to those comments, system is not as important as attitude.

 

Obviously, as others have stated, card-play is huge. But attitude is, in my view, equally huge, and (I confess) a reason why I am not a good matchpoint player.

 

Imps rewards aggression in game bidding. It rewards good high-level judgment (my belief is that the success of the Italians is due not to their methods, excelllent tho they are, but to their incredible ability to 'go right' in high-level, competitive auctions.. they have phenomenal judgment).

 

Mps rewards aggression at the more frequent low-level level. Overcalls and doubles that would be unthinkable at imps are mandatory at mps.

 

Think also of card play technique. I love finding and executing safety plays at imps. That leads to bad scores at mps.

 

So my advice is stick with your system, unless it is especially complex, and just loosen up low-level bidding and doubling. Stop overbidding to marginal vulnerable games. Forget safety play technique, unless you judge that making your contract will get you a good board. Change your attitude, not your method.

[Al_U_Card]

Easy answer: YOUR system is better at IMPS and MP's etc. etc. :)

 

The system that you are most familiar and comfortable with can be adjusted according to the scoring method to suit the results required. :D

 

When first introduced to Swiss teams, I was given a list of 10 do's and don'ts that really helped me improve my MP (read theft and bluster) philosophy to get better results at short match IMP scoring. I would imagine that there are other equally reliable provisos for KO's and other types of contests. :)

[Fluffy]

1) Am I correct in that each bidding system is better at one and worse at the other?

1) I don't think so. Stick to your favourite system regardless of the scoring format. Be faithful to your agreements, improvise a little when necessary, but most importantly: play and defend better than your competitors!

 

Roland

I agree with roland, the only thing you might like to change is some competitive bids and requirements.

[Free]

I can give you one nice example of a system which isn't as good in MP's as it's in imps, at least theoretical: MOSCITO. It was designed for imps in the first place btw...

 

Games will be bid, only safe slams will be bid, but there's a tradeoff: partscores just need to be 'playable'. We'll sometimes play in a 4-3 Major fit at 2-level while we have a 5-4 minor fit or when 1NT is the best contract. We'll play against the field because of the transfer openings, the weak NT, the agressive 2-level preempts (2-suited with at least 4-4), the transfer and 1NT responses after a strong ♣,... 'wrongsiding' the contract.

 

But in practice, all these anti-field things have their advantages from time to time as well. In fact, sometimes playing 2M= in a 4-3 fit is better than 1NT= and the same as 3m=. Letting the unknown hand play also has it's advantages. So it doesn't really have big disadvantages after all playing MP's. Me and my f2f partner have had very nice results in MP events.

 

So imo, there aren't many systems which score better at one form of scoring than with another. All disadvantages aren't real advantages in many situations, or even become advantages in several cases.

[kgr]

I would like to try 2/1, but play most of the time MP's. I don't like the idea that 1M-1NT is forcing at MP's.

[Flame]

I would like to try 2/1, but play most of the time MP's. I don't like the idea that 1M-1NT is forcing at MP's.

True but there are ways to make this 1NT non forcing or only semi forcing.

[mike777]

I would like to try 2/1, but play most of the time MP's. I don't like the idea that 1M-1NT is forcing at MP's.

True but there are ways to make this 1NT non forcing or only semi forcing.

As a side note Marshall Miles dislikes semi force nt. I play semiforce and like it but here is his argument in his new book.

 

1) you can bid 1nt forcing with some game forcing hands that you do not want to raise or bid 2/1 with, with follow ups of course.

2) you can make 2/1 bids promise 5 card suits 100%

3) too often want to play in long weak suit and do not want pard to pass you out in 1nt.

[cwiggins]

As a side note Marshall Miles dislikes semi force nt. I play semiforce and like it but here is his arguement in his new book.

 

1) you can bid 1nt forcing with some game forcing hands that you do not want to raise or bid 2/1 with, with follow ups of course.

2) you can make 2/1 bids promise 5 card suits 100%

3) too often want to play in long weak suit and do not want pard to pass you out in 1nt.

Full disclosure: I am also a fan of the semi-forcing NT.

 

Miles's #2 argument is wrong, no doubt because he didn't read Fred's articles about improving 2/1 GF. If 2NT is a natural, balanced GF, then a 2/1 shows a 5+ long suit (except for the very rare 1♠-2♣ with 1-4-4-4 which Miles would also bid 2♣ with).

 

Because of that blatant mistake, I viewed the rest of the discussion critically and was not impressed. For example, #3 is an unsupported assertion. One could just as easily say "you must play 1NT as not forcing because too often you want to play in 1NT when opener is 5332." Miles offers no evidence to support his claim. Given his one clear cut mistake, I am not willing to accept his claim without good evidence, preferably data from competition between competent or better players.

 

Also, a quick review of my data from the last month cast doubt on Miles's claims. My partner and I open 1NT with 5M332 hands and use a semi-forcing NT. As a result, 1M-1N; 2x shows at least a 4-card suit. We played six times over the course of the month. For auctions that started 1M-1N; 2m, we scored above average, and we've had zero auctions that went 1M-1NT-P. Admittedly, this wasn't from competition between competent players, but it's the best data I've got.

[Winstonm]

At MPS you must copycat the field, play exactly what the majority of the field plays, do a poll if needed to find out.

The important thing at MPs is to take more tricks than they take and you don't need a system for that just play better than they do in the same contract that they are.

 

There're some good tweaks special for MPs like being able to offer a choice of 3NT or 4M when you open 1NT or 1M etc.

And this is why Barry Crane dominated Matchpoints for 30 years.....LOLOLOLOL.

 

No one, but NO ONE played the Crane system but Crane. If there was ever a champion of in light and often it was Barry. I played against him once in Dallas and he opened in first seat a 4333 10-count with 1S. Kerry Shuman bid 3 forcing spades with her 18 count, Barry raised to game, and Kerry never made another move!! LOLOL. They even used Dury or some form of it after first and second seat openings.

 

My advice if you just have to play matchpoints is this - use a system that has a lot of non-forcing sequences in it, gets you to solid games only, and gets you to slams rarely.

 

Reverse this for imps - emphasize game and slam bidding and give up some accuracy on partscore hands.

 

Winston

[Finch]

At MPS you must copycat the field, play exactly what the majority of the field plays, do a poll if needed to find out.

The important thing at MPs is to take more tricks than they take and you don't need a system for that just play better than they do in the same contract that they are.

I've heard this stated frequently, and I don't believe it is true, for two reasons.

 

First, and simplest, I recently played in the European Open Pairs in Tenerife. There was no "field" system, and no field action. Significant numbers of pairs were playing US style 2/1, or Polish Club, or 4-card majors, or standard Italian, or strong club, plus a smaller number playing more unusual methods such as Magic Diamond. No Moscito pairs that I met, I imagine because Tenerife is a long way from Australia. But the wide range of contracts and results on each hand was notable.

 

Secondly, I've always thought that if my methods are better than "the field" then I should play my methods. I will gain matchpoints in the bidding as well as in the play. How can that be a bad thing? For example, the mini NT is (IMO) a rampantly successful pairs tactic NV, at least in a typical English field. We average about 75% on hands where we open a mini at favourable, and about 60% at love all. But it's not the field method.