Hello fellow bridge players. This is my first post of what I hope will be a regular feature. I play regularly in the Monday evening bridge game at the Anchorage Bridge Center. I've found that there are almost always a few points of interest that turn up during an evening of bridge.
While my skill level is far from a level which would allow me to properly analyze the most interesting hands, I thought I would start documenting some of my post game thoughts, and hopefully initiate a conversation about the game of bridge.
General Thoughts on the Night
As always, it was a fun night. I had missed the prior week's game. Playing regularly is the best way to solidify bridge skills, and it's challenging to return after a bit of time off, even just a week. This is especially true with the new bidding system my regular Monday partner, Terry, has suggested we use. As a result, I'd say my proudest acheivement of the night was succesfully using a Bergen raise. There's nothing like that tense moment after your opponents have asked your partner to explain one of your alerted bids . . .
To the hands!
Results from the 11/12/12 game can be viewed here and complete hand records found here.
We had the last sit out of this game, and so I left early. This meant that I didn't engage in my usual post-mortem activity of alternating between pestering some of the club's better player's with questions about various hands, and eavesdropping on their conversations about the hands they found interesting or challenging.
On another Monday this might mean I wouldn't have much to say, as these conversations often provide many potential angles for a potential post here. Fortunately, I had a special bidding "issue" which caused me to completely ignore any heart fits my partner and I might have, and to force us into notrump games despite an eight card fit in hearts. So this gives me some hands to look at and discuss (see how I turned my bidding errors into a positive there? I will call that newly discovered bridge power the Blogger's Perogative).
But, before discussing the hands, we shall first consider the distinction between IMP and Matchpoint scoring.
Almost all duplicate bridge players are aware that there are different systems of scoring. Rubber, board-a-match, matchpoints and IMPs are the methods of which I am aware (please add others in the comments). For now, I will only consider matchpoints and IMPs (mostly because these are the only two I really know anything about).
For most of us the distinction between these scoring methods can be summarized by stating that in IMP scoring 'margin matters,' whereas with matchpoints it does not. Let's consider a simplified example with two hands of bridge and the hypothetical scores of two pairs of players:
Both Pair A and Pair B 'won' a hand. In matchpoints the result is a tie, as each pair has one 'top' and one 'bottom.' However, in IMP scoring the margin between the scores matters. Pair A won hand 1 by 20 points, which converts to 1 IMP. However, Pair B won hand 2 by 250 points, which converts to 6 IMPs. Therefore, under IMP scoring Pair B is winning by 5 IMPs.
This distinction results in tactical differences in the play of the play of the game. The bottom line is that the bonus points for making game or slam are more important in IMP scoring, and overtricks and part-scores are less important. Recently, I have been intrigued by the merits of IMP over matchpoint scoring due to one strategic feature of IMP games: the safety play. The safety play is the name for a strategy where declarer must play "safe" to guard against a bad break or lay of the cards. Often this safe play sacrifices a chance at an overtrick. A common scenario would be a contract which makes an overtrick if the opponents cards in your 8 card fit split 3-2, but which requires careful play if the suit splits 4-1 or 5-0. If the declarer fails to make the safety play he or she will go down, but if the safety play proves to be unecessary then declarer has given up the potential overtrick.
The safety play is a common feature of the bridge column in the newspaper, or 'puzzle' hands found in bridge magazines. These features generally assume IMP scoring, as it is the scoring system used for team games, and therefore for the highest level of bridge competition around the world. The notion of the safety play takes on an entirely different feel at matchpoints, where the difference between 450 and 420 can have a significant impact on a pair's final score. As a result, sacrificing a chance for an overtrick is generally not the best strategy under matchpoint scoring.
Of course match point scoring has advantages over IMPs. Most obviously it is the fact that every hand has equal importance, and a part-score in a diamond contract commands just as much attention as making that no-trump slam. In IMP scoring a single play on a hand with slam potential can overwhelm the play of several hands which may contain more challenging and nuanced play.
This is all a very long and rambling introduction to the hands I wanted to talk about. You see, another side effect (and arguable downside) of matchpoint scoring is that 3NT making 4 for 430 points can be significantly better than 4 of a major making four for 420. Even where a pair has a major suit fit, there will be times when being in no trump will result in a better board. It may be tempting to attempt to find ways to find these 3NT contracts. Maybe some experts try to find these contracts intentionally, but for those of us who are far from the expert category can rely on my favorite of all bridge assets: luck.
So on to the hands of the night I'm highlighting here.
My partner and I reached two 3NT contracts when we had a 5-3 fit in hearts. Both of the contracts were the result of my bidding errors. One was a mid board, but the other resulted in the covetted 3NT making four, for a shared top, where virtually all other pairs were in 4H making four. I'll also note that as a result we didn't play in 4H once during this game. I'm thinking of making my seemingly pathological aversion to 4H's a new lucky tradition (don't tell my partners). Let's take a look at the hands:
| ||||||||||||
732
T43
KT93
652
I was sitting West. With a five card major and a solid four card minor I got bidding tunnel vision on this hand. After Terry opened 1H as East, I completely failed to register our heart fit. I bid 1S, and then 2C after his 1NT response. He very reasonably jumped to 3NT and I passed, failing to correct to the much better 4H contract. With a singleton diamond in my hand the heart contract is significantly better. However, lady luck shined and we escaped with a mid board.
Next time was even luckier . . .
BOARD 11
| ||||||||||||
Another missed fit and an even luckier result. As West I opened one spade and Terry responded 2H as east. This bid promises 5 hearts. With only four hearts east can bid a minor, and allow me, the opener, to bid a four card heart suit if I have one. This way you can find a potential 5-3 fit immediately, without risking missing a 4-4 fit. Of course this all makes sense now, at the time I never registered our 5-3 heart fit and responded with 3 clubs. When Terry showed his diamond stoppers by bidding 3NT, I left him there.
EW are cold for 4 tricks in either hearts or no trump, even with the K of hearts off side and the 4-1 heart split. Note that E-W appear to have eleven tricks (two spades, four hearts, two diamonds, three clubs), but have to lose three tricks before they are fully set-up.
So our 3NT making four was a shared top board.
So that's two boards with heart fits where I bumbled our way to 3NT instead of 4H's. In IMP scoring it would have made a 1 point difference at most, and been quickly forgotten. But at Matchpoints the result was a mid and a top. It's almost enough to make one consider looking for these elusive 3NT making 4 contracts. Enter Board #14, to remind us all never to try to outsmart contract bridge:
| ||||||||||||
We reached a fairly straightforward 4S contract on this hand. The bidding sequence was 1S by East - Pass - 3D by me as East (Bergen raise! Yay!) - Pass - 4S by East. But, as I put down the dummy I couldn't help but feel we had missed one of those elusive 3NT making four contracts.
Take a look at the West hand to see why. Sure, there is the fourth spade, to make a nine card trump fit, but the hand is completely flat, with 4-3-3-3 shape. There are no roughing values, and as it turns out, my partner has AKJ in clubs, the suit that looks like the largest concern from my perspective.
Is there a bidding sequence, or a way I can psych, to get us to 3NT? It seems that such a path would be likely to lead to a top board. Then I looked again. 4 Spades makes four, but 3NT doesn't even make three, going down one after a diamond lead.
Matchpoint and IMP scoring are critically different, and they can influence strategic decisions during both bidding and play of the cards. Even though that's the case (certainly when it comes to overtricks and doubling), as I learned on Monday, it's best not to over think it, and stick to just playing bridge. Of course, the most important lesson, as always, is that it's better to be lucky than good.
