[Flame]

kgr, on Aug 23 2005, 05:36 PM, said:

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]

Flame, on Aug 23 2005, 07:00 PM, said:

kgr, on Aug 23 2005, 05:36 PM, said:

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]

mike777, on Aug 24 2005, 12:29 AM, said:

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]

luis, on Aug 23 2005, 11:04 AM, said:

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

[FrancesHinden]

luis, on Aug 23 2005, 11:04 AM, said:

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.

[MickyB]

Unless you are one of the top pairs in the field, your chances of winning are improved by playing an anti-field system of equal merit to the field system. If you are one of the top pairs you might choose to stick closer to a slightly inferior field system, but if you are getting 75% using a mini NT then use it!

I'm surprised that your MP results after a mini have been better at favourable than at love all, I'd expect some poor results at favourable due to the occasional +120 when the field is +200 and +90 when the field is +100.

What systems are better at MPs? Playing 2M on a 4-3 fit for a trick more than the field's 1NT contract is worth little at IMPs and a lot at MPs, so I think strong NT 4 card suits is better at MPs than at IMPs, and weak NT 5 card majors is better at IMPs than at MPs.

[Echognome]

Hmm. I would have thought weak NT was better at MPs and strong NT at IMPs. Yes the weak NT can bury our best part-score fit, but it can also bury the opps. Who knows?

To me, the fun isn't just winning. I know of some fields (like some of the smaller clubs around) where I could probably win almost all the time by playing the same system as the field, but I wouldn't find that fun. In fact, we instead use those fields as places to practice for tougher fields.

Perhaps if you are a bridge pro, it is better to play with the field as your main objectives are to make your client happy and to help your client win. My main objectives are to enjoy playing and to improve my partnership and myself as a player.

That being said, I will sometimes rely on field protection for my decisions. For example, if I think we are defending a normal contract and a lead doesn't really stand out, I may just lead 4th from my longest and strongest if that is one of the options. Or, if I am in a contract that I don't think the field will be in, I will decide my line of play on how many tricks I need to take for a good score. But those are, perhaps, more tactical considerations.

As per systems good at matchpoints and those good at imps, my opinion is more (or more unsound) preemptive type systems would be more suited to MPs. Obviously your partner needs to be in on the joke. I know in my regular partnership, we vary the strength of our preempts quite a lot between MP and IMP play (and we already vary them by seat and vulnerability). E.g. one of my favourite hands was playing against a pro and a client. I held:

xx
xx
xxxxxx
xxx

I don't think it was a pure yarborough as I might have had one or two 10s, but we play 1st NV preempts as 0-5 hcp at MPs, so I happily opened 3♦. Bridge pro doubled, partner passed and client went into the tank and came out with a pass. We went for 1100, but it was an absolute top as 6S, 6NT, and 7C were all cold and they were vulnerable. (sorry I don't remember the exact hands). What else could the pro bid with his balanced 21 count? The client held a balanced 13 count without much in the majors. At imps, it wouldn't have cost them 'that much' (well at least compared to the small slams).

[glen]

An MP system should strive to arrive at the probable par spot as fast as possible. In particular the contracts of 1NT, 2M, 3NT, 4M, and 3 of a minor when the opponents have a major fit.

Some views:

10-12 1NTs not vulnerable - big winner.

Either 1M-3NT should be to play, or 1M-2NT should be natural, with opener usually raising to 3NT. Don't bid 2/1 and have a sequence to tell them what not to lead.

2M not vulnerable with good weak twos, five card suits. I believe that the Fantoni-Nunes 2M bid contributed to their 2002 World Pairs Championship (and also as a posting said above, that their 2m openings didn't help) - they are 9/10-13, but can also be played as 7/8-11 etc. - one key is for the range to be somewhat limited so responder knows when to move and when to stay there.

Promising values when vulnerable for three reasons:
- one avoids -200 and worse where bidding on air wins contract with no good fit and not enough values;
- partnership can double non-vulnerable active opponents, converting +50/+100 to +100/+300, and can double vulnerable opponents for that +200;
- in a strong field a light initial action that does not win the contract (as will happen more often vulnerable), results in the opponents being able to read the hand well gaining a trick sometimes for them; however this is not a consideration in non-strong fields, where light initial action often takes the opponents out of their "system" and into situations where they need to use judgement.

[Flame]

I need your advice regarding this issue, i am writing a system for a long mp tournament with a new partner, i was planing to use gazzili and new minor forcing by opener (1d-1s-2c is forcing). This will be not easy for me and especisally my partner to get used to but we might have done the effort, but now i was thinking are those even good for MP ? if not i obviously dont want them. They are design to support the high part of the opening bid, without them u have to lie with very strong hand like bidding 1D-1S-3C with a one suiter but too strong for 3D, but at mp im suppose to focus on partnersocres and not slams so maybe this is a waste of time ?

[FrancesHinden]

I'm not going to answer your question directly, but I would say that if you are playing in a long mp tournament with a new partner, play something not too complicated that you are both comfortable with. Long mp tournaments are extremely hard work, and the less you have to worry about system, the better.

[glen]

Agree with Frances - in a long MP tournament you do not want a lot of memory work (e.g. is partner showing 5-4-3-1 or 5-1-3-4, what was on page 143 of the system notes, I better bid soon as we will only have 2 minutes to play the contract...). Instead you want to stay fresh and have lots of time for all the card play battles you will have. Also you don't want to learn information about partner's hand that will likely not change the placement of the contract - this only helps the opponents. So fast sequences to the likely best spot works well.

[inquiry]

Flame,

New system? New partner? Common disaster. Do this instead. Ask your new partner about what he already plays frequently (if he has system notes with some other partner, great). Find where you are on common ground. He playse xyz? So do you? wonderful. HE likes lebehnshol and you rubenshol? Who needs to adapt.

If is best if you can get 90% agreement on the system. Is his choices inferior to yours? No bid deal, any agreement is better than no agreement. A new partnership does need a simple system, but they do need familar one. Don't try to convert each other to your methods at first. Find one or two things (At most) you need that he is missing. Let him find one or two things you might try to veto when you review his notes, and let him add that. No more. This works (assuming he has such notes with someone). If not share some of yours with him. If neither of you have notes, get someone elses notes who plays something similar ot what he (or you) plays, and ask him what if any of that he plays... then adjust that.

Later you can both try to add things after you are comfortable with it. Rather than starting with my own notes when partner lacks his own, I generally start with bridge world standard as a starting point. Most people I play with know that (or think they do). Then let partner say what he doesn't play. Then give him a chance to pick two additions he insist on. This way, both of you should be on comfortable grounds.

[luis]

inquiry, on Aug 24 2005, 03:08 PM, said:

Flame,

New system? New partner? Common disaster. Do this instead. Ask your new partner about what he already plays frequently (if he has system notes with some other partner, great). Find where you are on common ground. He playse xyz? So do you? wonderful. HE likes lebehnshol and you rubenshol? Who needs to adapt.

If is best if you can get 90% agreement on the system. Is his choices inferior to yours? No bid deal, any agreement is better than no agreement. A new partnership does need a simple system, but they do need familar one. Don't try to convert each other to your methods at first. Find one or two things (At most) you need that he is missing. Let him find one or two things you might try to veto when you review his notes, and let him add that. No more. This works (assuming he has such notes with someone). If not share some of yours with him. If neither of you have notes, get someone elses notes who plays something similar ot what he (or you) plays, and ask him what if any of that he plays... then adjust that.

Later you can both try to add things after you are comfortable with it. Rather than starting with my own notes when partner lacks his own, I generally start with bridge world standard as a starting point. Most people I play with know that (or think they do). Then let partner say what he doesn't play. Then give him a chance to pick two additions he insist on. This way, both of you should be on comfortable grounds.

If you are going to pay a MPs tournament with a new pd and you don't have enough time to discuss a system then you are in a very bad position respect the other pairs, so the recommended tactics is to try something very very unusual so your results will be completely random and your opponents will have the same problems agains your methods you are having dealing with them.
For example you can try "little d'houvre" (sp) a french system where you open your 2nd best suit (with 6331 you pick the best 3 card suit for example).

[Flame]

Thanks
I will take your advice, i will leave the complex stuff for later.

[Double !]

I believe that this discussion has, so far, omitted a very important issue, especially with regards to playing matchpoints: specifically, bidding methods / competitive bidding when the opps have opened the bidding. Do you favor sound competitive bidding, a "get-in-and-get-out-quick" approach, more pressurized (perhaps less disciplined: bid on "expletive-deleted") competitive bidding, or a more wait and see approach? Do you overcall on 4-card suits/ implement "the overcall structure", do you keep your suit qualities up to expectation (have you agreed on expectations), does your approach vary depending on vulnerability, does it depend on whether or not you have the spade suit, are you getting into the action early even with minimum balanced hands? Have you clarified the meanings of doubles in different situations and how you are going to handle pre-empts by the opps? Do you pre-empt freely (including 2-suiters), are your pre-empts descriptive as well as pre-emptive, etc. etc. etc. In pressured, competitive situations, the partnership will often need to make a determination about whether to bid further, double, or just sell out. Have you discussed expected ODR for various bids with partner. IMO, these are some of the many bidding-related areas where many matchpoints are lost.

anyway, just a few thoughts fwiw.

DHL

[helene_t]

luis, on Aug 23 2005, 06:04 PM, said:

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.

If you play an unusual system and/or style, you will have less opportunities to win by better play than the competition but also less opportunities to loose by bad play. So it depends: if you're among the best in field, bid with the field.

I think the difference between MP and IMP is too small to compensate for the burden of having to learn two different systems. It's not only a question of memorizing conventions. It's also about judgement and style. Suppose you play a weak 1NT at MPs and a strong 1NT at IMPs. It means that all the borderline cases (which lie is the smallest one?) will come in two fashions. So it takes twice as long to develop a consistent style and to get used to partner's style.

I've played Multi-Landy (~Woolsey) at IMPs and DONT at MPs for a while and I really don't like it. Multi-Landy is a rather complex convention, so it's hardly worth the effort to implement it if you play it only half the time.

[glen]

helene_t, on Aug 26 2005, 10:08 AM, said:

I think the difference between MP and IMP is too small to compensate for the burden of having to learn two different systems.

I think the difference between IMPs and MPs is huge. Sometimes partnerships have difficult switching gears between the transport trucks required for IMP delivery, and the rally cars required to gain top boards. Having distinct systems for the different forms of scoring can actually aid a partnership: they operate each differently to achieve the tactics necessary for that type of event. If the partnership keeps the same system for both types of scoring, as most do, there is a tendency to play in the most successful style of the partnership, and this will be oriented towards one of the forms of scoring.

[Jurek S]

QUOTE (helene_t @ Aug 26 2005, 10:08 AM)
I think the difference between MP and IMP is too small to compensate for the burden of having to learn two different systems.

It's surely right in constructing bidding (if you are not the true proffessional player) and what pays in MP it's obstructing methods, disturb opponents bidding as often as you can. So very light overcalls, 5/4 polish 1NT, two-suiter double or any device you know or heard about. It's good MP policy to give them some problems, sometime they will just have burdens.

[Double !]

officeglen, on Aug 26 2005, 08:36 AM, said:

helene_t, on Aug 26 2005, 10:08 AM, said:

I think the difference between MP and IMP is too small to compensate for the burden of having to learn two different systems.

I think the difference between IMPs and MPs is huge. Sometimes partnerships have difficult switching gears between the transport trucks required for IMP delivery, and the rally cars required to gain top boards. Having distinct systems for the different forms of scoring can actually aid a partnership: they operate each differently to achieve the tactics necessary for that type of event. If the partnership keeps the same system for both types of scoring, as most do, there is a tendency to play in the most successful style of the partnership, and this will be oriented towards one of the forms of scoring.

I agree. I think that there is a huge difference between matchpoints and imps. Just a few examples: At mp you need to be more conservative about bidding close games because the type of scoring favors plus scores in the long run. At imps, one usually bids game if there's a reasonable sniff of one, especially vul because of the loss/ gain ratio. At mp, you have to assess the opps contract in terms of 1) does it seem like a normal contract or not, and 2) should i be trying to defeat the contract or just reduce the overtricks. At imps the objective is to beat the contract. At mp you take risks that could send you for a telephone number (such as balancing) that you might never take playing imps.

I disagree with the premise that, at matchpoints, one should strive to keep one's bidding consistent or a little better than the field and then win on card play. You are going to get fixed or out-competed during the course of a session, perhaps more often than others playing in your direction. Trying to make up for it with card play will be asking a lot. Matchpoints is a bidder's game: the scoring actually favors being the declarer. I prefer a system that makes it more difficult for the opps to safely compete. Look at the beginning of the Kaplan-Sheinwold book written eons ago. Their purpose was to try to bid better than the other pairs. The logic is patent. Otherwise, why this plethora of new and/or different bidding aproaches and systems? Because the old mousetraps aren't catching the more modern and savvy mice as well as in the past.

[Winstonm]

I cannot remember ever at imps having one of these things occur:

1) Risking my contract for the sake of an overtrick.
2) Doubling the opponents' partscore for a 1-trick set.
3) Knowingly playing a risky 3N instead of a secure 5C/D.
4) Balancing with 50/50 chance of going for a number for the gain of +50.

All are a way of life at matchpoints. Similar? Not even the same game IMO.

Winston