[awm]

I'd like to present a contrasting view to Bob's, on the subject of matchpoints.

Matchpoints is in many ways the purest form of bridge. Every hand counts equally, and playing tight defense is much more valuable than having fancy slam bidding gadgets. I've never understood why so many people prefer IMPs, where a single lucky slam contract can be worth more than doing everything right on a series of partscore deals. There's ample evidence that matchpoints are much less random than the equivalent IMP events as well -- MP pairs are less random than IMP pairs and BAM is perhaps the least random form of bridge (to the degree that people stopped playing it at many local tournaments because the same people would always win).

It's a disservice to beginners, I think, to be taught to hold matchpoints in such disdain. Keep in mind that the vast majority of local club games are matchpoint games!

Anyways, for those interested in responsive doubles at matchpoints, a few suggestions.

(1) Competing for the partscore at matchpoints is really important, and it's still rarely right to double opponents at the two-level when they have a real fit. I suggest playing responsive doubles at the two-level exactly as Bob teaches them. Even when you do want to penalize, usually you have a huge trump stack and partner can be relied upon to double (for takeout) again.

(2) On the other hand, at the three-level things are different. It is rarely right to compete to the four-level on an 8-card fit. This is one of the guiding principles of the "law of total tricks" and is pretty much supported by other alternatives to that method. I suggest that after a one-level bid, a double from partner, and a raise to the three level, it is best to play doubles for penalty. This prevents people from pushing you around by competing to the three-level on only 8 cards, figuring that you have no way to penalize them and they will win the board by going for -100 when you can make something. Note that in these cases trumps are not breaking and you really need a five-card suit to want to compete (which you could've just bid since partner guaranteed support with the takeout double).

I'll note in passing that many expert pairs claim to play responsive doubles at the three-level or above, but that after 1♥-X-3♥-X these same experts will universally pass with most "normal" takeout double hands anyway, so the double by partner is more of a cooperative penalty regardless.

[bobh2]

I think I'll rebut this last post, and I guess I'll have to put a "Post no Bills" on the end of my posts for a while. This thread is simply for me to store stuff that I want my students to learn and so they can find it in a hurry. Find another place and I'll debate with you for as long as you choose.

1. Concerning matchpoints vs Imps.

Matchpoints have a definate allure. No arguement there. However, it's a different game than IMPs with a whole different set of priorities. The bread and butter of IMPs is bidding your games and slams, then making them. Not getting yourself into big minus positions. Going plus on partscore hands when you are due a plus (how much plus matters little). The bread and butter of matchpoints is the partscore battles. Not only defending to take all you have coming, but trying to get one more trick than the rest of the field.

What you don't understand is that these papers are not designed to work on intricate things like deciding to risk the contract by taking a finesse for an overtrick. I work on basics...stuff like trying to find a way to game when it's close and staying out of unmakeable games. My students need to get that stuff right, and then, if they are inclined, work on the intricacies of matchpoints.

What is really irritating about matchpoints is that when you play virtually perfect bridge, you can turn in a whopping 54% game, for several reasons. First, you can play the hard hands against the very good players and the nobrainers against the weaker players. Second, you can make the right percentage play or right tactical play, and your score doesn't depend on what you do but what the field does. That's because the fields with very rare exceptions are very weak. My students will be able to beat a lot of those fields when their "basics" are solid. So can I, but I get frustrated when how I play and how I score are not related. IMP pairs are about the same way, but note: Those are pair events. That is the reason I dislike pairs, and that's not to say I can't play them, the last Regional Event I won was a two session matchpoint pairs, about 8 months ago. I don't think I agree that IMP pairs are more random than matchpoints, but that may be just my observations.

I agree that BAM is a far better game than either matchpoint pairs or IMP pairs. BAM requires skill levels on par with long duration IMP team games, but different skills, and maybe even more varied skills than IMP team games. I agree that the reason that the local touraments quit them is because the same people kept winning them, but what I also know is that the good players won't play them unless they have a very strong pair at the other table. It's too much work and intense concentration unless you have high odds of winning, and usually, in a sectional, for example, there are 2, maybe 3 teams that can win and everybody else is playing for 4th place. That means virtually the whole field is cannon fodder and they know it...and that's no fun for them, either, so the BAM fields were lightly attended. When the main event is tiny, there will be another main event to take it's place. Want an example: Mens' Pairs. When I was coming up, the Men's Pairs was the hardest event to win in any tournament barring the big KO event. That was so tuff that it, too, was lightly attended and went the way of the buffalo.

The first statement you made that is clearly untrue is that BAM is the least random game. It seems that the world of Bridge disagrees with you, as I do. The "real" World Championship is the Bermuda Bowl, and guess what? It is a long term IMP event.

The next thing you said is that playing 1?-x-3?-x for penalties is "best". You certainly have a right to your own opinion, but I don't think that's a real functional idea. Of course, maybe, as a matchpoint player you are used to making that responsive double on random 8-10 count hands but I don't. I play that as about a 12 count, hardly much less.

The last thing you said, you really just misstated was that experts will universally pass that double with a normal takeout double. I don't know who you consider experts but I have not see that double passed by a decent player for decades. In standard, the first doubler says he's short in the suit, and the second doubler says he has a couple of potential fits but is not clear on which to bid. That usually means he's not long in their suit, as well. Any expert I ever saw that made a takeout double and then passed a responsive double is on the road to a partnership change. I can hear it now, words like imbecile and moron being used. Maybe the "experts" you know are calm and collected and smile and say "Well, I intended..." when they take a bath at the table, but the ones I know squeal like stuck pigs. I can't believe you even said that. Geeze. I can see it, -530 on your +620 hand. Oh, my, volcano time.

If you have differences of opinion, please go voice them somewhere else. I need to keep this for information storage so my students have a chance of getting solid with their game. They can explore for intricacies and debate in other places.

Bob

******POST NO REPLIES, PLEASE....THIS IS NOT THE PLACE.....THIS IS FOR STUDENTS TO "QUICK READ" CONCEPTS....OR TO PICK UP NOTES FOR CLASSES/LECTURES....IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE...GRIN...ANY TIME! SEND ME AN EMAIL AT bob@spectrumpest.com OR FIND ME ON BBO...ALWAYS WILLING TO SET UP A CHAT ROOM, ROUND UP A GROUP OF STUDENTS AND GO AT IT! THE STUDENTS WILL PROFIT, REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING ELSE IF THEY LISTEN. IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, SEE ME ON BBO.**************************

[pbleighton]

"POST NO REPLIES, PLEASE....THIS IS NOT THE PLACE....."

Yes it is. These are the Bridge Base Forums.

It's also hypocritical of you to attempt to rebut, then to try to prohibit others from rebuttal.

If you just want to post your opinions without getting input, get yourself a web page.

Peter

[thn]

jillybean2, on Feb 8 2006, 01:42 AM, said:

Hi,

This is a new thread set up to accommodate Bobs comprehensive lesson notes (rambling was Bobs words, I would never say that).

This should make it easier for people who like to print and keep the notes, the lesson schedule thread will only be used for notification of upcoming lessons. You can subscribe to this thread for email notification as you did for the i-abc lesson and Bob will include a link here when he posts new lesson notifications.

Bob, thanks for all the time you are putting in to share your knowledge and experience with other BBO'ers.

jb

My first ever reply / post goes for U Jillybean...My utmost thanks goes to U and Bob for this marvelous lesson, not to mention the hours Bob has put into this...I took a brief summary on a cold cold winternight in Copenhagen, lol...I got a print now which will keep me busy for several hours...I dont mind as a retired old dude ..

Thanks again jb and bob

Thorben Nørgaard
thn@teliamai.dkl
bbo nick : thn

[thn]

My intentions was good ...my email was bad...sorry

thn@teliamail.dk

[jillybean]

It's sad to see this thread is also being sabotaged. It is being used for lesson notes and posted in an open forum, easy for BBO’ers to find, the information is available to anyone - take what you like and leave the rest.

I had hoped common sense would prevail and anyone wanting to debate the content would have done so by starting a new thread or better still by running some lessons themselves, let the students decide which approach works best for them.

=================================================

Thorben, thanks for your note and welcome to forum

[Gerben42]

Sounds like you are writing good and helpful stuff here, no doubt. But why not make a Blog instead?

[pbleighton]

"It's sad to see this thread is also being sabotaged. It is being used for lesson notes and posted in an open forum, easy for BBO’ers to find, the information is available to anyone - take what you like and leave the rest.

I had hoped common sense would prevail and anyone wanting to debate the content would have done so by starting a new thread or better still by running some lessons themselves, let the students decide which approach works best for them."

Snippy.

Peter

[awm]

Thank you for moving this to another thread.

Bob teaches a lot of beginners to play and that's a great service to the bridge community. I was just concerned by the level of vitriol against matchpoints in his original post. Of course he's free to prefer IMP teams to matchpoints; I just believe there's a difference between saying "I prefer IMPs and will teach a style of bridge geared towards IMPs" and telling your students "matchpoints is not real bridge." I thought it might be of value to present a contrasting opinion. Bob has posted many lessons to these forums and while some of them are excellent, others present viewpoints that are quite unusual and not held by a majority of players (and these are often presented in such a way as to seem equally authoritative). I assumed that by posting his lessons to these forums he was inviting comments, but apparently this was not the case.

As I stated, everything in my post is my own opinion. I seem to recall a great number of bridge world hands where you have something like 2434 distribution and the auction goes 1♠-X-3♠-X-Pass (you are the takeout doubler), and the field is virtually unanimous in saying "don't compete to four over three in a 4-4 fit, take the money and pass." Perhaps these hands were just my imagination.

[JohnnyH7]

As for BAM vs IMPs, the comparison you need to be making is BAM knockouts vs IMP knockouts. BAM knockouts are certainly the least random form of the game, I don't think people would argue with this. In a BAM knockout every board matters equally, in an IMP knockout the bigger boards are what is important.

[Badmonster]

" 'It's sad to see this thread is also being sabotaged. It is being used for lesson notes and posted in an open forum, easy for BBO’ers to find, the information is available to anyone - take what you like and leave the rest.

I had hoped common sense would prevail and anyone wanting to debate the content would have done so by starting a new thread or better still by running some lessons themselves, let the students decide which approach works best for them. '

Snippy.

Peter "

Hostile.

Deborah

[pbleighton]

"Hostile.

Deborah"

Wrong.

Disgusted.

Peter

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Mar 27 2006, 01:50 PM, said:

"Hostile.

Deborah"

Wrong.

Disgusted.

Peter

unimpressed

we had a discussion like this before, when claus started a thread hoping to help those who asked, about the FD application... that too was "sabotaged" and resulted in no one benefitting from his knowledge

it is not hard starting a new thread to criticize anything one wants... it does no harm to honor the bob's wishes to have an open discussion in another thread, saving his, uncluttered, for those who might wish to read it

[pbleighton]

" that too was "sabotaged" and resulted in no one benefitting from his knowledge"

A very loose definition of "sabotage", IMO.

In addition to that, the tone bobh took was unfortunate, to put it mildly.

Peter

[Badmonster]

pbleighton, on Mar 27 2006, 01:50 PM, said:

"Hostile.

Deborah"

Wrong.

Disgusted.

Peter

There are more worthwhile things to be disgusted about than the fact that you don't agree with Bob, or that you don't like that he has a thread for his students. Like poverty hunger disasters oppression crime misery suffering and bad movies.

Maybe you'd like a thread. I bet if you spent 30 hours a week giving free lessons you could have one. And you could post anything you'd like in it, and if Bob disagrees he'll make a new thread to do it in.

[pbleighton]

"There are more worthwhile things to be disgusted about than the fact that you don't agree with Bob, or that you don't like that he has a thread for his students. Like poverty hunger disasters oppression crime misery suffering and bad movies."

ROFL.

Peter

[hrothgar]

Bob's request that folks refrain from commenting on his threads is looking more and more reasonable

[han]

I'm glad to see that this got moved here. I've made it clear in the past that I have some problems with the style that Bob uses in his lessons, but it is equally clear to me that these lesson notes are a great service to his students and anybody else who would like to read them.

It is true that the forum was perhaps not intended for this purpose, but I don't see any reason why it should bother anybody that the notes are posted here. Surely it was not Adam's intention to "sabotage" this (what a big word, but I don't know a better word) and I think we should just leave the notes there for those who enjoy them.

I'm not particularly interested in discussing Bob's lesson notes, but I do like MPs.

[pclayton]

I used to play MPs with Bob over at OKB. As a matter of fact, I can't ever remember us ever playing IMPs. Great defender, sound bidder, imagination....? Well, you can't have everything

On his player info, he had the quote, "Matchpoints is a knife fight in a dark room".

[MickyB]

Teams is much better at working out which is the best team than pairs is at working out which is the best pair. However, I'm not quite sure why people would rather work out which is the best team, unless they think that being able to get good teammates is a skill worth measuring (I guess it is when there are sponsors around). The exception is a tournament based on regions or organisations.

I'm not quite sure about IMPs vs MPs/BAM, I just instinctively prefer IMPs - that may be related to the connection between IMPs and teams, which makes IMPs feel less random.