[suokko]

MP and IMPs emphasize very different skill sets. Of course those same skills are required in both forms. If a player has some areas that clearly weaker it can make results quite different in MPs and IMPs.

Also cross IMPs is fun to play but a good biding decision by opponents can easily dominate the score in a specific board. In MPs good card player can often produce relatively large improvement to the score with a good defence.

In my experience it is clear that in MPs it is a lot easier to play stable good score (55+%) than in cross IMPs. Teams is completely different IMP scoring where good teams have a decisive advantage even in short matches.

[Cthulhu D]

 nige1, on 2014-December-15, 13:30, said:

MPs and imps require different skills but the skills seem to correlate. You would expect players who perform well at one form of the game to perform well at the other.

I'm not sure correlate is the correct term. The skills are not different between the two forms of the game. Fundamentally play skills boil down to 'what is the best line for X tricks with these cards on the bidding and play to date' and bidding is 'bidding to a contract that is Y% likely to make/not go off more than Z amount (for a balancing auction over 2M)'

The only skill difference between the two is correctly setting your X and Y for the form of the game and that is a comparably small thing.

The only reason I don't like match-points is because it encourages you to do things that you consider suboptimal (for example, Jeff Goldsmith on his website has a piece where he decides to open 1NT even when he'd prefer to open 1m because he knows that the field isn't doing it and the form of scoring stakes the entire board on your judgement) because the 'field protection' is worth it.

This seems silly, it's like having an electoral system that doesn't result in the concordat candidate.

[fromageGB]

 Cthulhu D, on 2014-December-16, 19:37, said:

The only reason I don't like match-points is because it encourages you to do things that you consider suboptimal (for example, Jeff Goldsmith on his website has a piece where he decides to open 1NT even when he'd prefer to open 1m because he knows that the field isn't doing it and the form of scoring stakes the entire board on your judgement) because the 'field protection' is worth it.

This seems silly, it's like having an electoral system that doesn't result in the concordat candidate.

This is no different to the idea playing IMPs that if you are winning the match you don't bid something that might be better but has the capability of a large negative swing, you just accept a possible smaller negative for the sake of the overall result. In MPs if you decide to follow what you perceive as the field, you are accepting what you expect to be a probably worse score for the sake of not getting a significantly worse one that will jeopardise your position. Same thing.

Not silly, just tactical. Like in a UK electoral method, voting for the loony liberals if that might keep out the even loonier left, in your constituency. Or apply your own adjectives and parties!

The UK electoral method is like playing IMPS. What you do on 80% of the boards/constituencies has little bearing on the result, it is only the 20% swing constituencies/game-slam hands where your vote/bidding-play has any impact. This is why I prefer MP scoring, where every vote counts.

[Cthulhu D]

Right, the UK electoral system doesn't always (or even often) elect the Condorect candidate - that was my point. The system is fundamentally flawed!

I think the two bridge situations are different. Bidding a thin slam at a teams match when you are behind is using your judgement effectively to maximise your win %. The parallels from other games is obvious - you take a big risk because the consequences of a loss are small. Similarly this is why you make a safety okay at IMPS but go for the maximum trick expectancy at MPs.

Compare to the NT judgement at match points issue - here you are specifically refusing to use your judgement, because the scoring system does not reward it.

This is flawed - a desirable attribute of a game is to maximise te opportunities to use your skills. Here one has been removed.

[rhm]

 Cthulhu D, on 2014-December-17, 09:29, said:

Right, the UK electoral system doesn't always (or even often) elect the Condorect candidate - that was my point. The system is fundamentally flawed!

I think the two bridge situations are different. Bidding a thin slam at a teams match when you are behind is using your judgement effectively to maximise your win %. The parallels from other games is obvious - you take a big risk because the consequences of a loss are small. Similarly this is why you make a safety okay at IMPS but go for the maximum trick expectancy at MPs.

Compare to the NT judgement at match points issue - here you are specifically refusing to use your judgement, because the scoring system does not reward it.

This is flawed - a desirable attribute of a game is to maximise te opportunities to use your skills. Here one has been removed.

It is your arguments, which look flawed to me. .
Contract Bridge is in itself a game where certain contracts are rewarded and others not, "because the scoring system does not reward it". A tautology.
Unforced by opponents 5♥,5♠,4♣,4♦,3♥,3♠,2NT are all examples of such unrewarding contracts.
Does this make the game flawed?
On the contrary.

These are just prejudices against some form of the game (in this case MP).

Rainer Herrmann

[nige1]

Stating the obvious:

At MPs, each board has equal weight, so most boards are important. Your action often requires calculations that depend on your guess at happenings at other tables. Rarely, can you relax. In general, a good MP player bids and plays as well as he can. Towards the end of a tournament that he thinks he's winning, he may "go with the field", to try to maintain his advantage. Otherwise, he "goes with the room" only when he judges that the popular action is likely to be best.

At imps, boards differ wildly in importance. Usually, grand-slam >> small-slam >> game >> part-score >> extra under-trick >> extra over-trick. Hence, at imps, part of the skill is to avoid wasting adrenalin on insignificant boards, so that you focus attention on boards that you judge might be decisive. Thus, for example, in a long match, good players claim when they might play on in the hope of an unlikely over-trick.

If you compete against the same number of equally skilled players in a teams-of-6/teams-of-4/ pairs/individual event, your chance of winning is in the ratio 6:4:2:1.

In most Bridge events, there is a further multiplier effect. Good players tend to gang-up. It's hardly surprising that a team consisting of the best 4 or 6 available players tends to dominate teams of lesser players. This effect is also noticeable (to a lesser extent) in pairs. Individual events test individual skills. Lacking the multiplier effect, however, individual results are less predictable.

If you are a professional, I guess that teams >> pairs and individuals come nowhere.

[helene_t]

I could also have made a comparison of chess versus sumo wrestling. Of course you could say that such a comparison is silly since different skills are required. However, it is still a meaningful question to ask how much luck in involved in a given chess tourney compared to a given sumo tourney. It would not be meaningful to ask whether say 60 minutues of head-to-head chess in general involves more luck than 60 minutes of head to head sumo wrestling because it will depend of the strength difference between the contestants, which can't be compared.

As for MP vs IMPs, we can compare the two things is we assume that the average total points that pair A will win over pair B per board is a universal measure of strength difference which can be applied to both IMPs and MP. In other words, I have assumed that there is such a thing as an objective strength difference between two pairs, and one can ask which tournament format, and which form of scoring, captures that strength difference best.

It may well be that for a particular pair of pairs, A>B for matchpoints while B>A for IMPs. That doesn't matter. The only crucial assumption is that the strength difference can be expressed on a common scale.

Suppose it is so that the total points swings are larger in IMPs than in MPs (for example because people bid more grands) while there are also more washes (for example because there are fewer contested auctions). In that case the total points would have a different distribution and the assumption become a bit dubious.

But if we had real data this might not be a problem. Suppose we have two pair we frequently meet each other, sometimes in XIMP tourneys and sometimes in MP tourneys. One of the two pairs will appear to be the stronger of the two in the sence that regardless of scoring, they tend to win if the tourneys are long enough. If the win probability converges faster for (say) MP than for XIMP, it would suggest that MP involves less luck, at least w.r.t. the kind of tourneys these two pair play in. Of course it could be that the stronger pair is especially better at MP. But if the pattern repeats itself when considering other pairs then it is a good case that (say) MP is less luck dependent.

Of course one could argue that it is just because the MP tourneys they meet each other in have a more homogenous field or a more balanced movement etc but it may be possible to take such factors into account.

[jogs]

Compare this to sports. mps is the regular season. It is about beating the pigeons. IMPs(knockouts) is the playoffs. It is the best vs the best. The winner is declared the champion for the year.

[nige1]

 helene_t, on 2014-December-17, 10:11, said:

As for MP vs IMPs, we can compare the two things is we assume that the average total points that pair A will win over pair B per board is a universal measure of strength difference which can be applied to both IMPs and MP. In other words, I have assumed that there is such a thing as an objective strength difference between two pairs, and one can ask which tournament format, and which form of scoring, captures that strength difference best.

I think that both forms of competition require similar skills but helene-T's allusion to total-point scoring highlights an important difference.

Total-points >> imps >> MPs when judging the significance of individual boards in deciding the overall result.

Some time ago, at an Edinburgh club, total-points was the normal pairs-scoring method. When doing uncharacteristically badly, towards the end of a tournament, regular winners sometimes rescued their fortunes by doubling wildly or bidding an odds-against slam. A single large score would sometimes be decisive.

Nowadays, In Scotland, team-of-eight leagues are scored total-points. The match-result can hinge on a single board e.g. where one pair bid a grand-slam. For a different match-result, you would have to change several other board-results.

[Cthulhu D]

 rhm, on 2014-December-17, 09:52, said:

It is your arguments, which look flawed to me. .
Contract Bridge is in itself a game where certain contracts are rewarded and others not, "because the scoring system does not reward it". A tautology.
Unforced by opponents 5♥,5♠,4♣,4♦,3♥,3♠,2NT are all examples of such unrewarding contracts.
Does this make the game flawed?
On the contrary.

These are just prejudices against some form of the game (in this case MP).

Rainer Herrmann

It seems fairly clear to me that the decision to bid past 4H and try for slam is a proactive use of judgement. I think that is very different than refusing to use judgement when opening 1NT?

[nige1]

 jogs, on 2014-December-17, 11:31, said:

Compare this to sports. mps is the regular season. It is about beating the pigeons. IMPs(knockouts) is the playoffs. It is the best vs the best. The winner is declared the champion for the year.

Jogs is correct that If you're poor in bridge-skills but rich in money and you want to become a champion, then you have a better chance at IMPed teams than at BAM or at MP pairs.

[jogs]

Change the rules of knockouts to 8 16 board segments. First team to win 4 1/2 segments wins the match. Would put playing sponsors who can't play at a disadvantage.

[Vampyr]

IMPs and MPs are interesting and valid forms of scoring. The premise in the other thread was that IMP pairs is neither.

[rhm]

 Cthulhu D, on 2014-December-17, 16:48, said:

It seems fairly clear to me that the decision to bid past 4H and try for slam is a proactive use of judgement. I think that is very different than refusing to use judgement when opening 1NT?

I play a lot of MP and IMPs and I play long enough being exposed to money Bridge as well.
I have never found I should not use judgement when playing MP when to open 1NT or on any other Bridge decision.
The considerations are sometimes different at MP and I understand that some people have difficulties adjusting to different forms of the game, but it is plain wrong (in fact silly) to claim you will get good results by not using judgement at MP.
What people usually mean, who claim something like this, is that they are unable to cope with these different considerations and apply judgement suitable for MP.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cthulhu D]

 rhm, on 2014-December-18, 03:41, said:

I play a lot of MP and IMPs and I play long enough being exposed to money Bridge as well.
I have never found I should not use judgement when playing MP when to open 1NT or on any other Bridge decision.
The considerations are sometimes different at MP and I understand that some people have difficulties adjusting to different forms of the game, but it is plain wrong (in fact silly) to claim you will get good results by not using judgement at MP.
What people usually mean, who claim something like this, is that they are unable to cope with these different considerations and apply judgement suitable for MP.

Rainer Herrmann

I definitely play a lot better at IMPs, and that may be biasing me. It is reasonable to assume this is because the system I play with a regular partner (which is hugely anti-field for MP games, we are typically the only pair playing 14-16 NT, the only pair playing assumed fit openers, the only pair without a 2H weak 2 opening, the only pair with 1C = clubs or balanced, etc, etc you get the idea), is more effective at swiss pairs and teams against opponents of my (intermediate at best) skill level. But I'm not saying you'll get good results by not using judgement at MPs, that is obviously dumb and a total straw man of my argument. I'm saying that match-points occasionally creates an incentive for you to make decisions that, based on your judgement, you think are inferior.

Here is a little thing by a better player than me discussing illustrating issue: http://www.jeff-gold...hardtoplan.html (paragraph one)

Of course, this is a minor detail and is obviously swamped by the other decisions that you have to make (e.g. see, the next 4 paragraphs of the column!) but it's a very interesting feature of that form of the game.

[nige1]

 Cthulhu D, on 2014-December-18, 07:36, said:

I'm saying that match-points occasionally creates an incentive for you to make decisions that, based on your judgement, you think are inferior. Here is a little thing by a better player than me discussing illustrating issue:
http://www.jeff-gold...hardtoplan.html (paragraph one)

Cthulhu D's quotation doesn't seem to support his contention...

Jeff Goldsmith (paragraph 1 of Hard to Plan) said:

At IMPs, one usually knows the target number of tricks one wants to take; it is often worth taking big chances to make a contract. At matchpoints, however, sometimes one's trick goal is less clear.

[Cthulhu D]

Sorry, O meant paragraph one of his description of the hand, which is as follows

Quote

I have found that downgrading 15-counts, even the really crappy one here, is losing matchpoints. Most of the field is going to open 1NT; to be the one pair who doesn't is to bet a full board on that one judgment. Since at best such a judgment can only provide a tiny edge, such a call is tantamount to rolling dice for the board. Oddly, it's not usually the constructive nature of the 1NT opening which is key in cases like this, but the preemptive effect.

[nige1]

Jeff Goldsmith said:

I have found that downgrading 15-counts, even the really crappy one here, is losing matchpoints. Most of the field is going to open 1NT; to be the one pair who doesn't is to bet a full board on that one judgment. Since at best such a judgment can only provide a tiny edge, such a call is tantamount to rolling dice for the board. Oddly, it's not usually the constructive nature of the 1NT opening which is key in cases like this, but the preemptive effect.

On the featured deal, Jeff Goldsmith demonstrates bridge skill and good MP judgement. Crowhurst also recommends the 1N opening at MPs. When non-vulnerable, the first side to bid 1N often makes an MP profit, whether the contract makes 5, 6, 7, or more tricks.

[awm]

Since the decision of whether to open 1nt is pretty likely to effect whether game is reached, it seems like Jeff Goldsmith's point could also be applied to IMPs?

[Cthulhu D]

In other articles he opens broadly comparable hands 1m so given he specifically referenced Matchpoints I am going to assume he specifically makes this decision at MPs.

@nige1: yes, that is precisely my point. That is a weird/intresting artifact of the scoring system. He's overriding his judgement to open 1suit because of the way to the scoring works.