[smerriman]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-28, 18:12, said:

Board 24 I started by playing KQ hoping to run the suit but established their T as their 9th trick.

What holding can partner have where KQ will run the suit?

[johnu]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-29, 15:10, said:

Why did a switch on board 23 imply 5-1?

Think of it as a defender. Partner leads a low card in an unbid (?) suit, dummy has Jx, and you win the queen. Either partner has AK and may be able to run the suit, or declarer is holding up the ace, in which case a spade return will set up possibly several spade tricks, and knock out declarer's ace.

A heart return looks hopeless, and a minor suit is a desperate stab compared to a relatively sure thing in spades. So, if the defender doesn't return a spade, they don't have a spade

[mikl_plkcc]

Btw how does Young Chelsea get the reputation of not a "typical English club"? I have joined another club to play on some other days other than Friday evenings (which is the only session works for me at Young Chelsea) but they play matchpoints rather than IMPs, which is IMO a much harder game (as every overtrick counts and you have to chase for the 10 points in NT - I've seen people bidding 6NT over 6C there). Will it be even harder for me to break even (50%) as I may get loads of 0 when I get 3NT= when the field is in 3NT+1?

[awm]

Obviously IMPs and MP are different in many ways, but I don’t think one is necessarily harder than the other. They do reward somewhat different skill sets, but I tend to think MP is easier for less practiced partnerships (accurate slam bidding is big at IMPs and this is hard without solid methods).

The reason Young Chelsea is “not a typical English club” has more to do with the caliber of the players (atypically strong) than form of scoring I suspect. It will probably be easier to do well when the other players you are competing against are not as good.

[shyams]

Young Chelsea always had IMPs tournaments on Fridays and MPs tournaments on Mon-Thu as per their calendar.

I recall that the Tuesday & Thursday tournaments are aimed at improving players whereas those on Mon/Wed/Fri were for players of all levels.

[mikl_plkcc]

shyams, on 2025-March-31, 19:30, said:

Young Chelsea always had IMPs tournaments on Fridays and MPs tournaments on Mon-Thu as per their calendar.

I recall that the Tuesday & Thursday tournaments are aimed at improving players whereas those on Mon/Wed/Fri were for players of all levels.

Young Chelsea currently runs 3 tournaments per week. Tuesday lunchtime, Friday morning and Friday evening.

The Tuesday game is called Goldhawks Duplicate and is aimed at less experienced players, and this session plays 18 boards.
The Friday morning game is Relaxed Duplicate and plays 18 boards.
The Friday evening game is the main, open session, which uses IMP scoring (the other sessions use MP scoring) and plays 26 or 27 boards.

[mikl_plkcc]

I played a game at Wimbledon yesterday which was scored using matchpoints. I got more than 50% but still worse than NGS predicted. In particular, there were a lot of matchpoint swings just because of system differences.

https://www.bridgewe...&club=wimbledon

Board 22:
Everyone was in 3NT. 4 tables opened a weak NT and it resulted in more overtricks after the standard lead, which was non-optimal, but I used a strong NT so we got less tricks than those using weak NT. In IMPs this board would not contribute significantly to the result.

Board 13:
The 4 weak NT tables opened 1NT which became the final contract, and the other 3 strong and 5cM tables opened a minor, where the 4-4 major fit was subsequently found, which was 20 points more than playing in 1NT. In IMPs this board would, again, not contribute significantly to the result.

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-02, 04:59, said:

I played a game at Wimbledon yesterday which was scored using matchpoints. I got more than 50% but still worse than NGS predicted. In particular, there were a lot of matchpoint swings just because of system differences.

In an ideal world, your choice of system will help your score.
if not, consider choosing a different system...

In the short term, it probably doesn't make much sense to get hung up on these sorts of issues...

Back when I was playing more seriously, I used to keep fairly detailed records regarding the results that we score sorted by the opening bid.

And, low and behold some of our bids scored well (our constructive openings in the major and various preempts)
Some of our bids scored less well (our strong club openings)

And, a bunch of them we pretty neutral

And, it got to the point where I could have a pretty good idea how well a session we would have based on whether or not the card gods were smiling on us...

Its all part of the game

[awm]

To add to hrothgar’s comment, playing a different notrump range than the field is highly randomizing. You will likely play some hands from the opposite side of the table (either notrump or because of a stayman or transfer sequence), you’re more likely to find 4-4 major fits when you don’t open 1nt (or 5-3 major fits when you do), opponents have different information on lead, etc.

In general I suspect that there is not a huge difference on merit between strong and weak notrump but you will see a lot of random wins and losses like this. Just get used to it (or try to play the same system as “the field”).

[mikl_plkcc]

awm, on 2025-April-02, 08:01, said:

To add to hrothgar’s comment, playing a different notrump range than the field is highly randomizing. You will likely play some hands from the opposite side of the table (either notrump or because of a stayman or transfer sequence), you’re more likely to find 4-4 major fits when you don’t open 1nt (or 5-3 major fits when you do), opponents have different information on lead, etc.

In general I suspect that there is not a huge difference on merit between strong and weak notrump but you will see a lot of random wins and losses like this. Just get used to it (or try to play the same system as “the field”).

I am not switching systems in different clubs because their field uses a different system. Both 4cM weak NT and 5cM strong NT, and occasionally 5cM weak NT, are commonly seen in clubs here.

In the result I quoted above, among 7 tables, 4 used weak NT and 3 used strong NT, so it is an even split.

[pescetom]

OP, could you drum up a Social Science degree or equivalent?

This looks like money for old rope

[mikl_plkcc]

Another bad night for me again, -27.11 / 26 boards.

There was misunderstanding again, and it didn't happen at a convention, but a treatment instead.

Board 22, partner opened 1♣ at 1st seat, RHO passed, and I responded 2♠. I thought we had agreed that all jumps were weak (including jump raise, jump overcall and jump shift no matter in competition or not) but partner was confused by some prior discussion about jumps in certain situation as strong and forcing (e.g. 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♥) rather than invitational, and thought that I was talking to revert to using strong jump shift in the traditional way. He bid 3♥ and of course, as I made a preempt and passed, resulting in a disaster.

There were also a few competitive bidding hands went wrong.

Board 9, RHO opened 1♥, I had 15 HCP 3=2=5=3 with unstopped ♥ doubleton, so I overcalled 2♦ and ended up playing a 5-1 fit. Then board 17, again I got a 3=3=2=5 13 HCP and this time I dare not overcall 3♣ over 2♠, but this time we could make 5♣ because partner had 0=4=4=5 and never doubled, so we let them to play 2♠!

During the night, we only doubled them twice and these 2 were our best boards. Board 15, they preempted over our preempt (2♥ - (2♠) with 10 HCP 6 ♠ - 3♥ - (4♠) with 6 HCP 5 ♠) and got down 3 doubled, and we were white and they were red.

Board 11, LHO opened a 5-card major with 4=3=3=3 at the third seat, partner doubled, RHO jumped to 4♠ with 5-card support, I competed to 5♥, then RHO competed to 5♠!!! I held 3♠ so I put the double card (because I held 9 points, partner made a takeout double so we had a majority of points, and it was obvious that the spades were breaking badly because I held 3). When the dummy was put down, she said "I intended this to make" and we cashed the first 5 tricks immediately.

[blackshoe]

A story about "all jumps are weak". I played some years ago with a local player whose attitude towards bidding systems is basically "I bid what I want to bid". In discussing system, he insisted "all jumps are weak". Repeatedly. He continued to insist it throughout the session. So then on one hand he jumps to four clubs on his third bid. RHO passes. I pass. LHO passes. "WhyinHell did you pass?!" he explodes. "Because 'all jumps are weak'", says I. "Not that one!" he says. :-)

[jillybean]

4♣ is always Gerber

[akwoo]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-04, 17:03, said:

Another bad night for me again, -27.11 / 26 boards.

There was misunderstanding again, and it didn't happen at a convention, but a treatment instead.

Board 22, partner opened 1♣ at 1st seat, RHO passed, and I responded 2♠. I thought we had agreed that all jumps were weak (including jump raise, jump overcall and jump shift no matter in competition or not) but partner was confused by some prior discussion about jumps in certain situation as strong and forcing (e.g. 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♥) rather than invitational, and thought that I was talking to revert to using strong jump shift in the traditional way. He bid 3♥ and of course, as I made a preempt and passed, resulting in a disaster.

There were also a few competitive bidding hands went wrong.

Board 9, RHO opened 1♥, I had 15 HCP 3=2=5=3 with unstopped ♥ doubleton, so I overcalled 2♦ and ended up playing a 5-1 fit. Then board 17, again I got a 3=3=2=5 13 HCP and this time I dare not overcall 3♣ over 2♠, but this time we could make 5♣ because partner had 0=4=4=5 and never doubled, so we let them to play 2♠!

During the night, we only doubled them twice and these 2 were our best boards. Board 15, they preempted over our preempt (2♥ - (2♠) with 10 HCP 6 ♠ - 3♥ - (4♠) with 6 HCP 5 ♠) and got down 3 doubled, and we were white and they were red.

Board 11, LHO opened a 5-card major with 4=3=3=3 at the third seat, partner doubled, RHO jumped to 4♠ with 5-card support, I competed to 5♥, then RHO competed to 5♠!!! I held 3♠ so I put the double card (because I held 9 points, partner made a takeout double so we had a majority of points, and it was obvious that the spades were breaking badly because I held 3). When the dummy was put down, she said "I intended this to make" and we cashed the first 5 tricks immediately.

Board 22 - If you'd opened a weak 2♠, then partner's 3♥ would be forcing, right? So in this case it should still be forcing if you're playing 2♠ as weak. (Incidentally, you should clarify with your partner how weak is "weak".)

Board 9 - I haven't seen your hand, but my guess is that you should've made a takeout double instead. With 5332 shape, doubleton in the opponent's suit, 5 in a minor, it's usually right to double rather than making a 2 level overcall.

Board 17 - I'm guessing your LHO would've bid 4♠ if you'd acted. I think your pass is right, but probably partner should come back in with a double in balancing seat, even with only 8-9 hcp (given the void in their suit). This is both to cater to the possibility you have a trap pass and to possibly gain 6 IMPs for +110 instead of -110.

I think -27 is a fairly good result in that kind of field.