[kenrexford]

As I was sitting on the back porch, a strange thought occurred to me.

suppose, for the sake of argument, that a game of duplicate bridge was set up, just to throw another spin into things, where N-S was scored as matchpoints but E-W was scored as IMPs.

No reason it couldn't be done. Maybe this would be done to appease a club who was split 50-50 as to how they wanted to play. Maybe a new, fascinating event.

This would create intriguing new decisions in the bidding and play. You would have to account for your respective differences in goals and styles and scoring.

Play problems of a unique nature would emerge. Consider, for example, a weird problem. You end up in 5♦. This seems like the field contract regardless.

After the opening lead, you can count 11 tricks. However, you had to use all of your trumps to pull their trumps. You have, however, a finesse that you could take, into LHO's hand, for an overtrick, at the very end.

With two cards left, you have this decision. Does LHO have the stiff King left and a side winner in the suit of opening lead?

If the odds are remote that he bared down to the stiff King, or started with just Kx, you may at MP clearly want to finesse. However, at IMP scoring, you may want to simply play the Ace, as a safety play.

However, he is defending an IMP contract. Thus, his incetive is strong to save the setting trick and bare down to the stiff King. Of course, if you were also playing IMPs, that ploy makes no sense, as he knows that you will not jeopardize your contract for this finesse. However, because he knows that you are playing MP, you may well take this odds-on finesse. So, because the odds favor your finesse, his bearing down makes sense for him.

Of course, that changes your odds. Now, you in the MP contract simply count his odds of having Kx initially, as his play will always be to bear down to the stiff, as he is defending an IMP contract.

I'm sure there would be all sorts of effects like this.

I mean, if the "gee whiz" game exists (pairs MP, compared with teams BAM, for two ways to win), then why not the MP/IMP Pairs?

Just a strange thought for the evening.

[mtvesuvius]

I like it, in a sick and twisted but fun kind of way.

[benlessard]

Just play doop.

[EricK]

Most people are not capable of thinking in such convoluted ways, so it would just add a layer of confusion for no real benefit to the vast majority of players.

[gwnn]

why should you know how your opponents are scored? suppose you had 5 or 6 boards against the same opponents, you should realize how they're scored after 2 or 3 boards if you're good and they're good (if they're bad, it will probably not matter for your decisions anyway cos they're so bad.

so keep everyone's scoring secret. of course it could be argued likewise that you shouldn't know your own scoring either, at the end of each round you could see the partial results and you should guess if it's mp or imp. this could work but probably with more rounds than usual.

[Fluffy]

csaba there is no big point on scoring IMPs against people who score matpoints. for this to work all the scores on your side must score the same way.


I invented another twist long ago. It was vulnerable suit bridge. Where the suit where you played had the vulnerability attached. Aimed at IMPs mainly. where you could risk playing on a moisan fit in 4M to earn 5 or 6 IMPs against the non vulnerable 3NT for example. It woud make biddings such as 1♠-2♠-3♣ vulnerability dependant.

It was aiming at getting to play and defend those incredible contracts from the old books, where he bidding was very imprecise and some slams were made on a 4-2 fit or alike.

[bid_em_up]

kenrexford, on Sep 11 2009, 06:48 PM, said:

As I was sitting on the back porch, a strange thought occurred to me.
.

Somehow, this doesn't surprise me.

[Trinidad]

I actually think that this is a fun idea. It might be something to do for a serious bridge club on a non serious occasion.

Ideas like this can only come from Ken.

Rik

[aguahombre]

bid_em_up, on Sep 12 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Sep 11 2009, 06:48 PM, said:

As I was sitting on the back porch, a strange thought occurred to me. 
.

Somehow, this doesn't surprise me.

thoughts like that occur to me when sitting elsewhere.

[mtvesuvius]

aguahombre, on Sep 12 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Sep 12 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Sep 11 2009, 06:48 PM, said:

As I was sitting on the back porch, a strange thought occurred to me. 
.

Somehow, this doesn't surprise me.

thoughts like that occur to me when sitting elsewhere.

Same, but usually they involve absurd relays

[gwnn]

Fluffy, on Sep 12 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

csaba there is no big point on scoring IMPs against people who score matpoints. for this to work all the scores on your side must score the same way.

why? if you have 100 NS pairs, you can have 50 who score imps and 50 who score mp's.

[Fluffy]

well, maybe, And you can play individual where players from the same partnership play different scoring methods as well, but before messing the things too much you need to have to test the simple ones.

[aguahombre]

I think it would be fun to give the BridgeMate, and BridgePad programmers a headache, and then as director to tick off the pairs by changing their preference so we could have a half & half game.