[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.

[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]

ArcLight, on Aug 23 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

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]

ArcLight, on Aug 23 2005, 09:51 AM, said:

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]

Jlall, on Aug 23 2005, 11:46 AM, said:

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]

ArcLight, on Aug 23 2005, 01:42 PM, said:

>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]

ArcLight, on Aug 23 2005, 04:51 PM, said:

> 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.

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]

Walddk, on Aug 23 2005, 04:56 PM, said:

ArcLight, on Aug 23 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

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.