Saturday, July 12, 2003 10:18 AM

Hand Evaluation – Tactics ( Match Point Experience )

 

PITBULLS:

 

            A good Edmonton Bridge player once told me that a person’s bidding system is just  a product of his/her experiences at the Bridge table over the years . If that is true for that person , it should not be for an expert playing high level IMPS . The fallacy in that way of thinking is that your Bridge experience can stem mainly from weak rubber Bridge games or local match point games. In fact , your particular Bridge experiences can be a deterrent to improving your bidding to play IMPS at the highest level. Your bidding system should be geared to play against “tough opponents” at a high level . Not too many baby seals to club at the Bermuda Bowl.

 

            If you are good player , a good strategy in local games is just sit there & wait for them to make mistakes & they will . This is wrong strategy at high level IMPS . You must earn IMPS by making appropriate gambles & psychological tactics on the terrorist vulnerability. “Sitting there” waiting for mistakes that will rarely happen , will just result in a losing set time after time. Your system must be sophisticated enough to win you IMPS if hands come up that “fit the system”. The opponents will have a finely tuned system so if your methods are archaic , you are at a disadvantage.

 

            Gearing your system to bad bidders is a losing strategy . An over dependence on “trump stack” penalty doubles is a good strategy in weak games but not at a high level . Good opponents play the vulnerability & put maximum pressure on you to take losing options. You double them at the expense of your vul games or slams so that is a disaster. Systemic bids should be geared to pulling doubles when appropriate & not just blindly leave doubles in . “Never pull my penalty doubles” is the worst strategy at high level IMPS that one could possibly conceive. You should know forcing pass theory forwards & backwards.

 

            “4NT is always Blackwood” is a horrible platitude to follow at high level IMPS . Bids should be employed based on their frequency of occurrence . If 4NT has a more frequent & useful role as a place to play , T/O or quantitative ,  then Blackwood should be thrown out for those situations . 6 hands losing 12 IMPS a piece could come up before a hand for which Blackwood could be suited. 4NT restricted to Blackwood in your system for these auctions could be very destructive.

 

            Most IMP players experiences stem from weak match point fields . Match points re-enforce the “plus” on any particular board. Get rid of that type of thinking at IMPS. IMPS by its very nature is accumulative scoring . Avoid disasters by “taking out cheap insurance” instead of going for a plus. In match points , a disaster is only one board. In IMPS it can be 17 IMPS & take a ˝ dozen boards to make up.

 

I was watching this hand in Penticton .

 

K

Q

x

K

Q

J

x

x

10

10

 

x

 

 

 

x

 

 

 

x

      In 3rd chair partner vul against not opens 4♠ . All pass & then a 5♦ bid from the last bidder so around to you . In Match points your action is clear. 5♠ has no guarantee to make , they are obviously “sacrificing” so you double. In IMPS , it is a different matter. Partner bid 4♠ vul without the KQ10 of spades. The spade suit is dead for defensive purposes . 5♦ might even make ! Given the spade suit , partner probably has outside cards for the 4♠ bid. These cards will defeat 5♦ might they might also make 5♠ ! When in doubt , bid one more in IMPS . In this particular hand 5♠x makes ( with a shot at 6 ) & 5♦ x nets you +100.

 

            You just do not rely on your experiences in high level IMPS because these experiences  are usually based on competing against  weaker players at a different form of Bridge . Think IMPS when you are playing that game & forget your match point experiences  !!