[AAr]

In IMP Pair Tourneys, When should I:

A: Play it safe to make, give up overtricks in order to ensure a make?

B: Risk going down trying to make an overtrick?

C: Play safe for down one (or two or more in some instances) when there is still a slam chance to make it?

D: Play to make even if I have to risk extra undertricks?


And, one more question:

I do tend to play and defend better when just overtricks and extra undertricks are at stake than when the trick that makes/sets game contracts are at stake. Would such players generally do better at MPs than IMPs (Or, just generally do worse in bridge tourneys period)?

Like, for example: You bid a pushy non-vulnerable game. You can ensure +420 if you play for a 4-1 trump break. Or, you could try for a +450 if you play for a 3-2 trump break, but having to settle for -50 if you play for the 3-2 break and wrong. The cards, bidding, and early play give no real indication on how the trumps will break. In an IMP Pairs tourney, How should I play (according to the odds), and how should I expect the field to play?

It seems like going for overtricks, minimizing undertricks instead of going for makes, and trying for extra undertricks in defense at the risk of allowing a make, and trying to minimize overtricks instead of going for a set on defense is usually against the odds in IMPs. Is that true? Thanks!

PS: I'll never forgot that one incident where I went down in a vulnerable small slam trying for an overtrick in IMPs while most of the field was only in game (and the ones in slam did take the safety play), which turned out to have lost about 24 IMPs trying to gain about 0.3 IMPs! Talk about a disasterous play there! So, obviously, small slams pretty much are always "Play it safe to make!" times, appearantly.

[Free]

A: Play it safe to make, give up overtricks in order to ensure a make?
Close to always

B: Risk going down trying to make an overtrick?
Really NEVERRRR

C: Play safe for down one (or two or more in some instances) when there is still a slam chance to make it?
Depends on how many more you can go down. If it's between 50 and 100 down opposite +980, you should try to make. If however you can get a disaster if you make the wrong decision (like 5 down instead of 1) it depends on how good your chance of success is.

D: Play to make even if I have to risk extra undertricks?
See C

Your questions about overtricks, I can't say this enough: they don't matter much! If you play 11 vulnerable games +1 and you go down in 1 (trying to go for that overtrick again while your contract is laydown), you'll lose at least an imp in the long run against good opponents. The difference between gains and losses are just too big to risk your contract:
- Part scores are about 5 imps (vs 1 for your overtrick)
- NV games are about 10 imps
- V games are about 12 imps
- NV small slams are about 14 imps
- ...
Just make your contract, collect the occasional overtricks if opponents give them to you. You may lose 1 imp here or there, but if you go down in laydown contracts your chances to win will disappear very quickly.

[gwnn]

I think Frederick meant at point B "Really never".

[Free]

gwnn, on Jul 6 2007, 10:58 AM, said:

I think Frederick meant at point B "Really never".

woops, corrected that

[foo]

IMPs means Make your contract

Do not risk your contract for overtricks.

Do not even try for overtricks unless or until your contract is secure.

[gwnn]

And beware of DOUBLED undertricks. If they doubled you and your chance of making is really slim, it's probably a good idea to try for -1 or whatever is reasonable for the board, especially in the context of a sac.

Hunting for overtricks can work only if you're 100% and I mean 100% sure to make the contract even with trumps 5-0 etc etc. Also, in the context of a doubled game, it makes sense not to hunt for overtricks at all - just making will be a better score than most of the field's.

[bid_em_up]

AAr, on Jul 6 2007, 03:48 AM, said:

In IMP Pair Tourneys, When should I:

A: Play it safe to make, give up overtricks in order to ensure a make?

Always. The objective at imps is to make your contract.

Quote

B: Risk going down trying to make an overtrick?

Never. The objective at IMP's is to make your contract. Overtricks are secondary.

Quote

C: Play safe for down one (or two or more in some instances) when there is still a slim chance to make it?

Unless you are doubled, again, the objective at IMP's is to make your contract. It doesn't matter all that much if you are -1 or -5 undoubled. If you are doubled, you must weigh how much you will gain for making your doubled contract versus the severity of the losses if you go down. If you will only be down 1 (or two) then play to make.

Quote

D: Play to make even if I have to risk extra undertricks?

For the last time. The objective at IMP's is to make your contract. Stamp it on your forehead, tattoo it on your hand, whatever it takes to get you to remember this.

Quote

And, one more question:

I do tend to play and defend better when just overtricks and extra undertricks are at stake than when the trick that makes/sets game contracts are at stake. Would such players generally do better at MPs than IMPs (Or, just generally do worse in bridge tourneys period)?

Why is this any different? Sorry, this is simply bs rationalization on your part. If this is really the case, then simply play as if you are in one less level (ie, if you are in 4H, play as if you are trying to make an overtrick in 3H).

Quote

Like, for example: You bid a pushy non-vulnerable game. You can ensure +420 if you play for a 4-1 trump break. Or, you could try for a +450 if you play for a 3-2 trump break, but having to settle for -50 if you play for the 3-2 break and wrong. The cards, bidding, and early play give no real indication on how the trumps will break.  In an IMP Pairs tourney, How should I play (according to the odds), and how should I expect the field to play?

Ok, I lied, it was not the last time I say it. The objective at IMP's is to make your contract. You play to make your contract. Who cares what the field does?!?!? If you have a 100% line for +420 versus 3-2 and 4-1 splits, this is the line you choose.

Quote

It seems like going for overtricks, minimizing undertricks instead of going for makes, and trying for extra undertricks in defense at the risk of allowing a make, and trying to minimize overtricks instead of going for a set on defense is usually against the odds in IMPs. Is that true? Thanks!

PS: I'll never forgot that one incident where I went down in a vulnerable small slam trying for an overtrick in IMPs while most of the field was only in game (and the ones in slam did take the safety play), which turned out to have lost about 24 IMPs trying to gain about 0.3 IMPs! Talk about a disasterous play there! So, obviously, small slams pretty much are always "Play it safe to make!" times, appearantly.

Repeat after me.....The objective.......

[skjaeran]

[quote name='bid_em_up' date='Jul 6 2007, 03:51 PM'] A: Play it safe to make, give up overtricks in order to ensure a make?[/QUOTE]
Always. The objective at imps is to make your contract. [/quote]
Have you ever played Swiss Teams with short matches (7-10 boards), IMPs converted to VPs?

If you're in a normal contract (almost at whatever level), it's odds on to play for overtricks risking going down, since every 3rd IMP is worth a VP. I regularly employ such tactics, and see WC players like Helgemo doing the same. Of course this doesn't apply in longer matches or playing straight IMPs. Then your mantra obviously is correct.

[barmar]

[quote name='skaeran' date='Jul 6 2007, 09:14 AM'] [quote name='bid_em_up' date='Jul 6 2007, 03:51 PM'] A: Play it safe to make, give up overtricks in order to ensure a make?[/QUOTE]
Always. The objective at imps is to make your contract. [/QUOTE]
Have you ever played Swiss Teams with short matches (7-10 boards), IMPs converted to VPs?

If you're in a normal contract (almost at whatever level), it's odds on to play for overtricks risking going down, since every 3rd IMP is worth a VP. I regularly employ such tactics, and see WC players like Helgemo doing the same. Of course this doesn't apply in longer matches or playing straight IMPs. Then your mantra obviously is correct. [/quote]
But an overtrick is only going to get you 1 IMP, so you'll have to make several overtricks just to get that 1 VP.

Conversely, going down in a cold game will lose 10-12 IMPs. You'll need to make LOTS of overtricks on the other boards to make up for that. And if you're playing short matches, there won't be many opportunities to do that.

In fact, I think your logic about long versus short matches is backward. In a short match, one or two game or slam swings can decide the outcome of the entire match; overtricks are likely to come into play only if you have a couple of swings in each direction and they cancel each other out. But in a long match between evenly-matched teams (as you're likely to see in championship events) there's more opportunity for swings to cancel out, and the gradual accumulation of overtrick IMPs may decide things.

Things are a little different in IMP Pairs versus teams, though. If you're the only one pair that makes the overtrick, the IMP is multiplied by the size of the field. Also, since there's no VP conversion, every IMP carries full weight. But again, if you're the only pair that goes down, the 10 IMP penalty is also multiplied. But usually it's somewhere in between -- a few other pairs make the same decision you do, so you get a little field protection.

[bid_em_up]

skaeran, on Jul 6 2007, 09:14 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Jul 6 2007, 03:51 PM, said:

A: Play it safe to make, give up overtricks in order to ensure a make?

Quote

Always. The objective at imps is to make your contract. Have you ever played Swiss Teams with short matches (7-10 boards), IMPs converted to VPs?

If you're in a normal contract (almost at whatever level), it's odds on to play for overtricks risking going down, since every 3rd IMP is worth a VP. I regularly employ such tactics, and see WC players like Helgemo doing the same. Of course this doesn't apply in longer matches or playing straight IMPs. Then your mantra obviously is correct.

Sorry, but this is BS.

Of course I have played Swiss teams with short matches converted to VP's. Long ones too. Have won many of them as a matter of fact.

I repeat again, your objective at IMP's is to make the contract. Overtricks are secondary, even when playing at VP's.

It is simply foolish to risk going down 1 in a cold game for the off chance of gaining 1 vp for every 3 overtricks. So you win one VP every 3 overtricks, big deal. If just one of those risks loses, however you lose 6-12 IMPs. These odds do not pay off.

No matter what you or Helgemo may do.

I will allow for the distinction of playing at top level WC play, you can reasonably expect that the pair at the other table will be in game (or the same contract), and that in order to gain an IMP (or VP) you might need to squeak overtricks out on occasion so that every board is not a push. This is somewhat truer, imo, in a long match, where if playing for a overtricks in a long match were to fail, you have more time to make up the possible loss (but it could pay off as well in a shorter match where the overtrick(s) are the deciding IMP/VP's).

However, most people are not playing at that level of play, and for anyone else, it is simply idiotic to recommend trying to play for overtricks at any form of IMP/VP scoring. At any level of play other than top echelon, bidding and making your games is what wins IMPs, VP's and matches. Not making overtricks.

[skjaeran]

bid_em_up, on Jul 6 2007, 05:30 PM, said:

skaeran, on Jul 6 2007, 09:14 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Jul 6 2007, 03:51 PM, said:

A: Play it safe to make, give up overtricks in order to ensure a make?

Quote

Always. The objective at imps is to make your contract. Have you ever played Swiss Teams with short matches (7-10 boards), IMPs converted to VPs?

If you're in a normal contract (almost at whatever level), it's odds on to play for overtricks risking going down, since every 3rd IMP is worth a VP. I regularly employ such tactics, and see WC players like Helgemo doing the same. Of course this doesn't apply in longer matches or playing straight IMPs. Then your mantra obviously is correct.

Sorry, but this is BS.

Of course I have played Swiss teams with short matches converted to VP's. Long ones too. Have won many of them as a matter of fact.

I repeat again, your objective at IMP's is to make the contract. Overtricks are secondary, even when playing at VP's.

It is simply foolish to risk going down 1 in a cold game for the off chance of gaining 1 vp for every 3 overtricks. So you win one VP every 3 overtricks, big deal. If just one of those risks loses, however you lose 6-12 IMPs. These odds do not pay off.

No matter what you or Helgemo may do.

I will allow for the distinction of playing at top level WC play, you can reasonably expect that the pair at the other table will be in game (or the same contract), and that in order to gain an IMP (or VP) you might need to squeak overtricks out on occasion so that every board is not a push. This is somewhat truer, imo, in a long match, where if playing for a overtricks in a long match were to fail, you have more time to make up the possible loss (but it could pay off as well in a shorter match where the overtrick(s) are the deciding IMP/VP's).

However, most people are not playing at that level of play, and for anyone else, it is simply idiotic to recommend trying to play for overtricks at any form of IMP/VP scoring. At any level of play other than top echelon, bidding and making your games is what wins IMPs, VP's and matches. Not making overtricks.

You shouldn't just disregard this right off without doing the math.

Of course, since going down will always cost more IMPs than the one IMP won for the overtrick, you need heavy odds in favour of the play for the overtrick.

Suppose you play in 2♠ vulnerable. Going down will cost 6 IMPs comparing with 110 at the other table. Which converts to 2 VPs. One overtrick will earn on average .33 VPs, 1/6 of the 2 VPs lost when going down. So if there's at least 86% chance for making the overtrick, playing for the overtrick is winning in the long run.

For the same to be true for a non-vulnerable game, the odds for the overtrick must be 91%, and for a vulnerable game 92%.

The lenght of the match isn't important, it's the lenght of the tournament. (If you think in "short term".)

[bid_em_up]

skaeran, on Jul 6 2007, 11:10 AM, said:

You shouldn't just disregard this right off without doing the math.

Of course, since going down will always cost more IMPs than the one IMP won for the overtrick, you need heavy odds in favour of the play for the overtrick.

Harald,

While all you have to say is well and good, and it is great for you, or Helgemo, or (insert your favorite player here) to try for an overtrick at IMP play based on well calculated odds at the table, I still feel that you are missing my (or the) point.

A forum user who likely isn't the same caliber player as the ones mentioned asked a question regarding trying for overtricks at IMP. It is NOT in his best interest to be advised regarding what Helgemo might do for whatever reasons or odds in regards to trying for overtricks at IMP/VP play. In his case, he should forget about overtricks, and concentrate on making whatever contract he is in.

I seriously doubt Helgemo cares what I have to say on the subject anyway, but my advice isn't intended for him. It is addressed to the original poster of the question.

[skjaeran]

bid_em_up, on Jul 6 2007, 07:23 PM, said:

skaeran, on Jul 6 2007, 11:10 AM, said:

You shouldn't just disregard this right off without doing the math.

Of course, since going down will always cost more IMPs than the one IMP won for the overtrick, you need heavy odds in favour of the play for the overtrick.

Harald,

While all you have to say is well and good, and it is great for you, or Helgemo, or (insert your favorite player here) to try for an overtrick at IMP play based on well calculated odds at the table, I still feel that you are missing my (or the) point.

A forum user who likely isn't the same caliber player as the ones mentioned asked a question regarding trying for overtricks at IMP. It is NOT in his best interest to be advised regarding what Helgemo might do for whatever reasons or odds in regards to trying for overtricks at IMP/VP play. In his case, he should forget about overtricks, and concentrate on making whatever contract he is in.

I seriously doubt Helgemo cares what I have to say on the subject anyway, but my advice isn't intended for him. It is addressed to the original poster of the question.

Yeah, I appreciate that. And it's probably a good advice for the original poster... And maybe your sledge hammer was needed?

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

And maybe your sledge hammer was needed?

I think something much, much stronger than a sledge hammer is needed. Search for AAr's posts here and on rec.games.bridge ... he's been asking this same question basically for 6 years, and getting the same answers for 6 years. I don't know if he's trolling or if he really expects the answers to change all of a sudden despite the IMP table not ever changing & no scoring changes for over a decade.

[Trumpace]

bid_em_up, on Jul 6 2007, 12:23 PM, said:

skaeran, on Jul 6 2007, 11:10 AM, said:

You shouldn't just disregard this right off without doing the math.

Of course, since going down will always cost more IMPs than the one IMP won for the overtrick, you need heavy odds in favour of the play for the overtrick.

Harald,

While all you have to say is well and good, and it is great for you, or Helgemo, or (insert your favorite player here) to try for an overtrick at IMP play based on well calculated odds at the table, I still feel that you are missing my (or the) point.

A forum user who likely isn't the same caliber player as the ones mentioned asked a question regarding trying for overtricks at IMP. It is NOT in his best interest to be advised regarding what Helgemo might do for whatever reasons or odds in regards to trying for overtricks at IMP/VP play. In his case, he should forget about overtricks, and concentrate on making whatever contract he is in.

I seriously doubt Helgemo cares what I have to say on the subject anyway, but my advice isn't intended for him. It is addressed to the original poster of the question.

Does not matter who the advice is intended for. Wrong advice is wrong advice.

I find it condescending that you think the truth would not be understood by the original poster and only expert players are capable of understanding it.

btw, in many cases to calculate odds, you do not need to be an expert bridge player.

Having said that, your advice is good advice (even though not totally correct). If you also include the caveats, I think it would be excellent.

[skjaeran]

Stephen Tu, on Jul 6 2007, 08:53 PM, said:

Quote

And maybe your sledge hammer was needed?

I think something much, much stronger than a sledge hammer is needed. Search for AAr's posts here and on rec.games.bridge ... he's been asking this same question basically for 6 years, and getting the same answers for 6 years. I don't know if he's trolling or if he really expects the answers to change all of a sudden despite the IMP table not ever changing & no scoring changes for over a decade.

I can see you're right about that. I've only checked here at BBO, and AAr has indeed had several threads asking similar questions...

[barmar]

skaeran, on Jul 6 2007, 11:10 AM, said:

Suppose you play in 2♠ vulnerable. Going down will cost 6 IMPs comparing with 110 at the other table. Which converts to 2 VPs. One overtrick will earn on average .33 VPs, 1/6 of the 2 VPs lost when going down. So if there's at least 86% chance for making the overtrick, playing for the overtrick is winning in the long run.

For the same to be true for a non-vulnerable game, the odds for the overtrick must be 91%, and for a vulnerable game 92%.

Since it's relatively rare that the odds are so heavily skewed, most players can pretty safely ignore these cases.

I personally have enough trouble learning the ordinary safety plays needed just to guarantee the contract. I don't need the extra worry of comparing the odds of the overtrick with the odds of a bad break that sets the contract.

[Trumpace]

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=11666

the above thread might also help, but it is quite a long one.

[barmar]

Jlall, on Jul 9 2007, 02:06 PM, said:

People don't go for the overtrick risking their contract nearly enough. It infuriates me when partner says he is "99%" sure about something and then plays safe lol. If you are 99 % you should obviously go for it.

Whether they actually do or not, and the infuriatingness of it, tends to depend on the factors weighing into that 99%.

Sometimes it's full information available to them, such as whether a spot card is high or when a player's complete distribution is known. Then it's frustrating when partner plays wrong, saying "I was 99% sure that the 6 was good, but I didn't want to risk that I was mistaken."

Other cases are where the information is inferential. E.g. players almost never open lead away from an Ace against suit contracts, and weak 2 bidders usually have 6 cards in the suit. But it's scary to risk your contract on that assumption. At matchpoints it's almost certainly the right thing to do, but at IMPs? If you're in a cold contract, the only way the defenders can get a good score is by making you go down, so they have to do something tricky. Are you really 99% sure this opponent couldn't find that killing lead?