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 rather
than the opponents you have experienced over the years. Not too many baby seals to club at the Bermuda
Bowl. Poor bidding tactics will be destroyed by high level competition.
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 with
pot odds in your favour & 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 when hands come up that “fit the system”. The opponents
will have a finely tuned system so when 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. Competitive doubles are a nice
tool.
“4NT is always Blackwood” is a
horrible platitude to follow at high level IMPS . Bids
should be employed based on their frequency of occurrence . When 4NT has a more frequent & useful role as a place to play ,
T/O or quantitative , 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 well 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 or more 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, with huge fits , 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 in weak club games !!