[patroclo]

Looking on the team tournments score , i have seen that for winning is better gain many point guessing a slam or doubling a wrong contract by the opps in a few hands than winning many hands with little point.
So i think that a pair of players should learn a system of declaration aimed to these model of contract (slam and double) for winning tournment.
It would be useful to prize also the number of hands than one has played better of the opps for not making disparity.
Sorry for my english language

[mgoetze]

I think you should go play a real tournament rather than a BBO crapshoot.

[Zelandakh]

You might consider looking into a system like 2/1 that typically has an advantage over "Standard" on slam hands. It is also worth remembering that the opps can make their slams just as often as us and disrupting them now and then will also be worthwhile. There was a time when slam hands were nearly always the main difference in high level games but these days it is often winning the part-score deals that provides the vital edge. Nearly all systems have strong points and weaker ones - simply choose one with the characteristics you and your partner prefer.

[helene_t]

mgoetze, on 2015-August-13, 18:03, said:

I think you should go play a real tournament rather than a BBO crapshoot.

He doesn't mention BBO. I think it is more an IMP vs MP issue.

[diana_eva]

Sounds like he means team matches, and could well be those on BBO where it usually matters to bid games and slams every time you're 20+HCP combined, even if they're like 20% to make (defenders help way too often). These are typically short games, 8 boards.

[nullve]

patroclo, on 2015-August-13, 17:24, said:

It would be useful to prize also the number of hands than one has played better of the opps for not making disparity.

This is the essence of board-a-match (BAM) scoring.

[mgoetze]

helene_t, on 2015-August-14, 03:53, said:

He doesn't mention BBO. I think it is more an IMP vs MP issue.

Even at IMPs, more boards and better competition will help alleviate the OP's issues (e.g. there will be fewer "wrong contracts" by the opponents where doubling brings a substantial penalty).

[ggwhiz]

My partnership has quite a few bidding agreements to handle odd hands that rarely come up but when they do they can win double digit imps.

For example: after 1nt, 3♥ or 3♠ shows a stiff with 3 cards in the other major and game forcing values. We can avoid poor 3nt contracts, play in the 4-3 major suit fit or even find a magic minor suit slam.

Very rare for the bid to come up AND to matter (we most often get to the same 3nt as everyone else). Big strain on the memory but with a handful of such agreements sooner or later 1 pops up that is a match winner.

[GreenMan]

I wouldn't discount the value of smaller decisions. I played in a JEC v. BBF match some time back where nearly every swing in their direction was in single digits, and there were a lot of them. We got a couple of good scores our way but not nearly enough to be competitive. In looking at the results later I noticed the winning team was simply more active and made better competitive decisions, especially in partscore deals; game swings and phone-number penalties were not a factor.

It's rare for a long match to be decided entirely by small-ball results, but I'd be careful not to put too much emphasis on the big scores. +5, +6, -11 keeps you in contention.

[jogs]

italian translation to english


The internet translates many languages to English. Try to google it.