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 .
Not too many baby seals to club at the Bermuda Bowl.
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 & 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 if hands come up that “fit the system”. The opponents will have a finely tuned system so if 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.
“4NT is always Blackwood” is a horrible platitude to follow at high level IMPS . Bids should be employed based on their frequency of occurrence . If 4NT has a more frequent & useful role as a place to play , T/O or quantitative , then 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 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 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 ,
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
!!