[Old York]

P-(P)-2N-(P)
?
Would you prefer to be in 3NT or 4♠?

---

3NT could (theoretically) fail if West leads ♦6 (MUD from 765), and continues the suit after winning ♣Ace..... but this distribution is unlikely
3NT and 4♠ probably make at least one overtrick
West should make the most passive lead possible with known strength on his right

So which contract would you prefer to play?
Would your decision be influenced by Imps or Matchpoints?

[Winstonm]

Quote

So which contract would you prefer to play?

3N by North.

[Old York]

Winstonm, on Jan 2 2010, 05:44 PM, said:

Quote

So which contract would you prefer to play?

3N by North.

Cute

....but 1♣-1NT-3NT seems to break every rule in the book, and still does not solve the problem of a passive lead at Matchpoints

Tony

[Fluffy]

at IMPs with overstrenght you are often better place in 3NT than 4M, and that without even taking the 4333 into account. So at IMPs North has a clear 3NT bid.

Match points its harder since partner0s doubleton can provide a trick or not and you never know. On this deal 4♠ is better only when you cannot make 2 diamond tricks in NT.

[pooltuna]

Old York, on Jan 2 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

P-(P)-2N-(P)
?
Would you prefer to be in 3NT or 4♠?

---

3NT could (theoretically) fail if West leads ♦6 (MUD from 765), and continues the suit after winning ♣Ace..... but this distribution is unlikely
3NT and 4♠ probably make at least one overtrick
West should make the most passive lead possible with known strength on his right

So which contract would you prefer to play?
Would your decision be influenced by Imps or Matchpoints?

I vote for 3NT

[aguahombre]

the 3NT people have two "rules" to rely on: the 29-31HCP rule, and the 4333 rule.

Puppet to check for a five card major might change our mind and change the odds.
If someone wants to double 3D to remind himself what to lead, that is ok, too.

[Old York]

Fluffy, on Jan 2 2010, 07:36 PM, said:

On this deal 4♠ is better only when you cannot make 2 diamond tricks in NT.

This is only true in part

By discarding a heart on the long club, declarer should be able to gain an extra ruffing trick by ruffing a heart. This should outscore 3NT at matchpoints

I posted a very similar hand recently, where 4♠ proved to be better at matchpoints.
The above hand turned out to be manipulated by bridge-gremlins so that 3NT gives better chances of 2 or 3 overtricks. East held 4 spades and singleton ♥Queen so only one overtrick was possible in the spade game, unless opponents shower you with exra tricks.

I am seriously considering avoiding all matchpoint tournaments in future, there are too many variables and random events which are beyond my control

Tony

[Siegmund]

It wouldn't occur to me to try anything other than 3NT at either form of scoring.

Quote

I am seriously considering avoiding all matchpoint tournaments in future, there are too many variables and random events which are beyond my control

I'm sure you realize that no matter what the form of scoring, you only get to control 1/4 of your result. Matchpoints just allows you the chance for skill on almost every deal rather than concentrating it on the swingy ones

[Old York]

Siegmund, on Jan 3 2010, 12:18 AM, said:

I'm sure you realize that no matter what the form of scoring, you only get to control 1/4 of your result. Matchpoints just allows you the chance for skill on almost every deal rather than concentrating it on the swingy ones

For most bridge players, the skill is in reaching the safest game contract, and not the highest scoring game contract
For most bridge players, the pleasure comes from guaranteeing the contract against adverse distribution and not from taking (or being given) as many tricks as possible
For most defenders, the skill is in attempting to defeat a seemingly impregnable contract, and not just avoiding giving overtricks

These, to me, seem to be the important differences between Imp and Matchpoint scoring
Who was it who said "Matchpoints is not Bridge, it is whist with bad bidding" ?

On the given hand at Imp scoring, I would expect a reasonably flat board, with +/- 1 Imp.
At Matchpoint scoring, the swings are totally random, with no skill needed by declarer. In fact, after opening 2NT, declarer is not in control of his own fate. The contract is decided by dummy. The opening lead is decided by LHO. 12 tricks are possible only if LHO leads a diamond from ♦Jxxx, and declarer then flukes 3 heart tricks by guessing that East has stiff queen, no skill required

Tony

[Mbodell]

Single dummy I'm certainly bidding 3nt with the N hand. And I'm sure there is a long thread on rgb talking about SST that would argue this point. double dummy my quick glance suggests that 4♠ is probably better at MP as I expect to make 11 tricks more often than not in ♠ but probably just 10 most often in nt.

[eyhung]

Quote

For most bridge players, the skill is in reaching the safest game contract, and not the highest scoring game contract.
For most bridge players, the pleasure comes from guaranteeing the contract against adverse distribution and not from taking (or being given) as many tricks as possible.
For most defenders, the skill is in attempting to defeat a seemingly impregnable contract, and not just avoiding giving overtricks.

You're projecting your attitudes towards bridge onto others. Speak for yourself. I for one, think there's a lot of skill in fishing out an overtrick in an otherwise-dull 3NT or judging how to go -100 vs. -110/-140 in a contested part-score auction, or making a momentous high-level decision on -500/-650, or judging between the safer 4/6M and the unsound 3/6NT. Even game vs. part-score decisions are usually harder at MP, it's not IMPs where it's "see red, bid game". And opposed to IMPs, more boards feature a significant decision that can greatly affect your score -- there are far more unmeaningful boards at IMP pairs than at MP.

Yes, IMPs rewards certain skill-sets (such as safety play technique, or defending for the perfect cards) much more frequently than MPs. But it's presumptuous of you to say that skill-sets such as avoiding overtricks are lacking in skill. If anything, matchpoints defense is often a lot harder than IMPs defense because of the overtrick factor, you have to cater to a lot more possibilities.

A few years ago, I was chatting with a star who frequently posts to these boards (name withheld if he does not want to be associated with these comments) and he told me he was disappointed whenever he scores less than 50% in a quality pairs event. At the time, I thought he was being arrogant -- from my perspective there was enough randomness in MP that could easily drop you below 50%. But lately, my opinion has changed to his. Playing with a competent partner, I am irritated when we score below 50% because usually to get below 50%, we have to make a significant # of errors -- there are so many meaningful decisions in a 24-26 board session that it's really hard to drop below 50% if you are consistently making percentage decisions. Of course, said star has now advanced to being disappointed scoring below 54% in NABC+ events, but hey, it gives me a target to shoot for.

Quote

At Matchpoint scoring, the swings are totally random, with no skill needed by declarer.

If that's the case, why do the same pairs (Berkohen, Gitelmoss, etc.) keep winning MP pairs events, while the national IMP pairs are practically random? (I believe only one player has ever won it twice.)

Quote

In fact, after opening 2NT, declarer is not in control of his own fate. The contract is decided by dummy.

Where does it say that declarer has the right to be in control of his fate? As long as one of the two partners (dummy and declarer) can make a decision that controls their fate, that is skill. True, declarer has more of an opportunity to control the partnership's fate on a board, but sometimes, the board is won in the bidding by the dummy (or the opponents, via a bidding/leading mistake). The more opportunity for a mistake to be punished / good decision to be rewarded, the more skill there is in the format, and for my money, the skill required to win a MP Pairs event > IMP Pairs; and the collective skill required to win a BAM event > KO event > Swiss event.

[Old York]

eyhung, on Jan 3 2010, 09:33 AM, said:

Yes, IMPs rewards certain skill-sets (such as safety play technique, or defending for the perfect cards) much more frequently than MPs.  But it's presumptuous of you to say that skill-sets such as avoiding overtricks are lacking in skill.  If anything, matchpoints defense is often a lot harder than IMPs defense because of the overtrick factor, you have to cater to a lot more possibilities.

Hi Eugene

Many thanks for your reply, very eloquent and thought provoking

My main purpose of posting on these forums is to trigger a sensible response.
I often play "devil's advocate" and deliberately make controvertial comments, in an effort to receive intelligent replies like yours.

As an old fashioned rubber player, it is very difficult for me to see any real advantage in matchpoint scoring. Every hand seems like a tedious battle against random events, especially with computer dealt hands (but that's a completely different rant )
I frequently do well in Imp tournaments, especially in Individuals, but am often disappointed by my Matchpoint scores. After bidding and playing well on any given board, I am frequently given a bad score. This is soul-destroying.
On the posted hand, I got 54% which I consider to be a terrible score on a well played board. With every card wrong, I endplayed East for the overtrick
Declarers in 3NT were invariable handed overtricks by (terrible) leads from ♥Jxxxxx and ♦Jxxx

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...2475-1262399581

Matchpoints can be very cruel

Tony

[1eyedjack]

Old York, on Jan 3 2010, 03:54 PM, said:

Declarers in 3NT were invariable handed overtricks by (terrible) leads from ♥Jxxxxx and ♦Jxxx
Matchpoints can be very cruel

Opening leads are a randomising factor in the game at any form of scoring.

BTW I accept at face value your statement that the opening leads were "terrible". They certainly worked out badly, but that is not necessarily the same thing. Whether they were terrible in theory would of course depend on the auction and full hand on lead, but even then I rarely criticise a bad opening lead unless it is "in yer face".

[eyhung]

Old York, on Jan 3 2010, 07:54 AM, said:

After bidding and playing well on any given board, I am frequently given a bad score. This is soul-destroying.
On the posted hand, I got 54% which I consider to be a terrible score on a well played board. With every card wrong, I endplayed East for the overtrick
Declarers in 3NT were invariable handed overtricks by (terrible) leads from ♥Jxxxxx and ♦Jxxx

Tony --

Thanks for the compliments, it's nice to see someone who can take criticism well.

I also came to bridge through rubber and for a while, I, too, shared your views. But once I learned that IMP vs. MP are practically different games, and learned the techniques unique to each format, I realized that by applying winning matchpoint principles in MP events, one can win more consistently than by applying winning IMP principles in a similar IMP event.

To me, the most important decision on the board was not in your endplay technique or the opening lead, but in your partner's decision to use Stayman and play in the 4-4 major-suit fit rather than 3NT with two balanced hands with a combined 28 HCP. Partner is even 4333, making it even more of a no-brainer. I think all good matchpoint players would just raise to 3NT. (Heck, I would raise to 3NT at IMPs too, but I expect more dissent.) At MP, 3NT rates to be the percentage contract either by force or through the opening lead (people tend to lead more aggressively against 3NT, so it more frequently blows overtricks, which is well-rewarded by the scoring). Yes, there are hands where the percentage action is not correct -- usually when partner has a 5-card spade suit or a worthless doubleton in clubs -- but it's still the percentage action, just like bidding aggressive games vul at IMPs.

Having a board determined mostly by the bidding is not unique to matchpoints -- consider this recent thread about an IMP hand :

http://forums.bridge...topic=36139&hl=

In that thread, all the good players are bidding 3NT with an average 6-count because it's vul at IMPs. If your partner had made the elementary (to these players) IMP mistake of passing 2NT, it doesn't matter whether you could operate a three-loser triple squeeze to make 4NT -- you [as a partnership] lost the board in the bidding, and that error is so great any brilliancy or blunder in the play becomes practically irrelevant.

Now, maybe your skill at IMPs is such that you think 3NT is automatic, but it wasn't so for the original poster and at least one contributor to these forums. Similarly, on your matchpoint hand, I think 3NT is automatic by your partner. His Stayman decision was a major error given the scoring, almost on par with refusing to take a finesse with no other alternatives, and as such, "doomed" you to at best a 54%. And actually, if you think about it, 54% is not that bad, showing that even if partner makes a major bidding error, you can still recover a significant amount in the cardplay. If "your soul is destroyed" by a 54%, I think you need to adjust your expectations.

If anything, IMP scoring makes great cardplay skill irrelevant more frequently -- we've all played hands where declarer is always making 9-11 tricks in 3NT, or 8-9 tricks in a 2-level partial, and nobody really cares what happens after the auction. The skill at IMPs is that when great skill is required to bring home a contract, the reward is significantly greater than than the reward at matchpoints. Matchpoints is more democratic -- each major decision is worth roughly the same (half to a full board), and major decisions occur more frequently, so two great MP players will be hard-pressed to score below-average unless the field is full of great MP players.

[Siegmund]

Eugene said much more eloquently than I did what my opinion of the skill level was. (And I confess to a bias as to which type of skill I find more interesting, as I already exposed in the thread he linked.)