[nullve]

Zelandakh, on 2016-January-02, 06:31, said:

GiB on the other hand would have managed it.

No.

trick 1: ♥3,♥,5♥9,♥K (won by NS)
trick 2: ♦K,♦A,♦2,♦T (won by EW)
trick 3: ♥8,♥T,♥J,♠K (won by EW)
trick 4: ♣K

This is the position manudude03 was talking about. (Yes, the ♠K is gone, so EW can defeat the contract directly once they get in again.)

[Zelandakh]

Your line was for 5 tricks, unblocking the jack makes one more. Please go to post #227 and use the GiB button - it will explain it to you.

[nullve]

Zelandakh, on 2016-January-02, 07:16, said:

Your line was for 5 tricks, unblocking the jack makes one more.

I'm glad you've changed your mind.

About unblocking the ♣J: I don't think you've spotted what I was trying to do when I discarded the ♠K. (Definitely not intended as a double dummy play, although it was one.)

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2015-December-27, 12:08, said:

I prefer a system where I am rewarded more for being the only one to bid and make slam

Do you prefer a system where you are penalised for happening to sit opposite?

Most of the major Friday evening games in London are IMP pairs. I guess it's fun when you are drinking or whatever, but when I play IMPs I very much prefer to be protected by my teammates at the other table.

[mgoetze]

Certain activities may be more satisfying without protection. IMP Pairs is not one of them.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2016-January-02, 11:31, said:

Do you prefer a system where you are penalised for happening to sit opposite?

To the best of my knowledge, every system penalizes you for happening to sit opposite; and yes, on defense I should get penalized more when I let slip a contract than when I let slip an overtrick.

In a large enough field, the level of field protection should be comparable in IMP pairs to MP pairs. (I must admit to having very little experience playing in fields of fewer than 10 tables.)

[gwnn]

Bbradley62, on 2016-January-02, 14:25, said:

To the best of my knowledge, every system penalizes you for happening to sit opposite; and yes, on defense I should get penalized more when I let slip a contract than when I let slip an overtrick.

In a large enough field, the level of field protection should be comparable in IMP pairs to MP pairs. (I must admit to having very little experience playing in fields of fewer than 10 tables.)

The easiest way to think about this (not invented by me) is that IMP pairs is the same as MP pairs were except if the TD chose 4 or 5 boards out of the 24 at random and gave them 3x the weight of the others (in IMP pairs these are the tricky slam hands or game hands that are very difficult to bid or make). If you happen to sit next to two total beginners at those 4-5 boards, you're in luck. If you don't then you're not. Of course in MP you can also have "boring" boards against bad players which will affect you negatively and boring boards against good players which will tend to help you, but this effect is more likely to even out because you have a larger sample.

edit: Woolsey credited Eddie Kantar for this image. http://bridgewinners...ame-3-5-tables/

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2016-January-02, 15:45

[Zelandakh]

nullve, on 2016-January-02, 07:55, said:

I'm glad you've changed your mind.

What makes you think I have changed my mind? I wrote that an unblocking play was missed and then the defence subsequently dropped 2 tricks and that this hand has little bearing on the discussion of the merits of MPs against IMPs. Both of these appear to be quite clear.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2016-January-03, 06:51, said:

What makes you think I have changed my mind? I wrote that an unblocking play was missed and then the defence subsequently dropped 2 tricks and that this hand has little bearing on the discussion of the merits of MPs against IMPs. Both of these appear to be quite clear.

It has even less bearing on the discussion of whether bridge is dying, but that would only matter if this were a moderated forum.

[nullve]

Zelandakh, on 2016-January-03, 06:51, said:

What makes you think I have changed my mind?

This:

manudude03, on 2016-January-01, 13:52, said:

At trick 4, you didn't unblock the jack of clubs. If West exited a diamond instead of leading a club then you will need to set up a club trick before cashing the diamonds or dummy gets squeezed. However, you also need to ensure you have an entry to your own hand to get the diamonds cashed and the only way you can do that is if the jack of clubs was already off the table

nullve, on 2016-January-01, 14:22, said:

There's no way I could have made 7 tricks legitimately at that point.

Zelandakh, on 2016-January-02, 06:31, said:

You are probably right - there was no way you could have. GiB on the other hand would have managed it.

nullve, on 2016-January-02, 07:08, said:

No.

trick 1: ♥3,♥,5♥9,♥K (won by NS)
trick 2: ♦K,♦A,♦2,♦T (won by EW)
trick 3: ♥8,♥T,♥J,♠K (won by EW)
trick 4: ♣K

This is the position manudude03 was talking about. (Yes, the ♠K is gone, so EW can defeat the contract directly once they get in again.)

Zelandakh, on 2016-January-02, 07:16, said:

Your line was for 5 tricks, unblocking the jack makes one more. Please go to post #227 and use the GiB button - it will explain it to you.

[Zelandakh]

So you made an apparent typo (or a mistake) and want to blame me for that? I made it quite clear what I meant in the first post of this subthread. But Michael is right, we are adding nothing to this discussion so I will probably ignore your final tilt in the air.