[Stephen Tu]

luck factor MP < luck factor IMP, because all boards count equally, most every trick is important while at IMPs often the extra overtricks/undertricks inconsequential and different small plusses in partials don't matter either.

But pair luck factor >> teams since you don't control the field, a lot of your result depends on how many tops you get handed when facing the weak pairs.

So for test of skill most in the know would rank:
1. BAM teams
2. IMP teams
3. MP pairs
4. IMP pairs (whose popularity online completely confounds me, so few boards to begin with then you compress the results of the tourney even more, basically one big board against a bad pair determines the tournament)

But BAM has died totally in my district, I only ever get to play it at fall nationals. I think vast majority of players are unfamiliar with it so don't want to try something new, and I guess some percentage probably don't like it because of the diminished luck factor, the best teams would tend to win all the time.

Should the BBO main bridge club default be changed to MP instead of IMPs?

[han]

Winstonm, on Aug 2 2008, 12:21 PM, said:

I reflect that Bob Hamman has no great record in MP pairs.

Men's Pairs (1) 1986
Life Master Pairs (3) 1980, 1983, 1992
Blue Ribbon Pairs (4) 1964, 1986, 1991, 1993
Men's Board-a-Match Teams (1) 1988
Chicago (now Reisinger) (1) 1962
Reisinger Board-a-Match Teams (9) 1970, 1978, 1979, 1988, 1993, 1994, 1995, 2004, 2005
World Open Pairs (1) 1974

Barry Crane won 10 national matchpoint events, only half as much as Bob Hamman.

[han]

Sorry, I see that Fred already posted the same.

[Winstonm]

Quote

QUOTE (Winstonm @ Aug 2 2008, 12:21 PM)
I reflect that Bob Hamman has no great record in MP pairs. 

Quote

Men's Board-a-Match Teams (1) 1988
Chicago (now Reisinger) (1) 1962
Reisinger Board-a-Match Teams (9) 1970, 1978, 1979, 1988, 1993, 1994, 1995, 2004, 2005

Note I said pairs, not teams. This shows a 11-9 team to pairs lead, not counting all the imp world team titles.

Quote

Men's Pairs (1) 1986
Life Master Pairs (3) 1980, 1983, 1992
Blue Ribbon Pairs (4) 1964, 1986, 1991, 1993
World Open Pairs (1) 1974

[sathyab]

Stephen Tu, on Aug 2 2008, 01:39 PM, said:

But pair luck factor >> teams since you don't control the field, a lot of your result depends on how many tops you get handed when facing the weak pairs.

Yes, that's true especially on the opening day of LM pairs or Blue Ribbon pairs where the relatively weaker pairs play a huge role in determining the fate of good players who're having a bad day.

One way to minimize this luck factor is to be a little more generous in qualifying pairs on the opening day and be more stringent on the second day, the idea being that there's a lot less randomness on the second day compared to the first day. Having said that, I must observe that the 1st day field in LM pairs these days is quite strong, a good bit stronger than a few years ago thanks to limited editions of the same events being played concurrently.

[pigpenz]

one of the best articles covered in Bridge World is when they cover the Blue Ribbon Pairs. Follows the 2 boards around for 13 rounds....as Larry Cohen says sometimes only inches from good to bad result.

[Gerben42]

You know why IMP pairs is so popular online? Because anyone can win! It's like the lottery. You're having a solid game and opponents happen to misbid to a slam that happens to make? Tough luck! At MP it can be recovered, not now...

To win a 10-board IMP game you need opponents to be Santa and the Easter Bunny. But beware if you ask people for a 24-board BAM... The good players will massacre the field then.

[MFA]

Gerben42, on Aug 4 2008, 03:42 PM, said:

You know why IMP pairs is so popular online? Because anyone can win! It's like the lottery. You're having a solid game and opponents happen to misbid to a slam that happens to make? Tough luck! At MP it can be recovered, not now...

To win a 10-board IMP game you need opponents to be Santa and the Easter Bunny. But beware if you ask people for a 24-board BAM... The good players will massacre the field then.

Certainly, I don't think that is why imps are more popular on BBO.
Imps are generally used for HU confrontations while matchpoints are used in a big field. When one plays matchpoints HU, the percentage scoring is difficult to relate to and thus not so interesting.

Before we crucify the imp pair completely; I think that the imp scoring by itself favour the stronger pair. The bigger the swing, the more likely it will go to the better pair. This counterbalances the greater inherent statistical variance in imps.

In other words, greater variance at imp pairs: yes, but a greater edge over the bad pairs too.

[SoTired]

A winner of the National IMP pair event told me he thought MP was more skillful. The reason: To win a MP event, you need to play good bridge with few errors. To win an IMP event, you need to play good bridge with few errors and get lucky.

No matter how well you play, you can't win an IMP event without luck. Even a multi-session IMP event requires luck to win. And bad luck will kill you in an IMP event.

For example: A difficult to bid 80% slam may cost you 15-20 IMPS if it goes down. If you are playing well, it may take you 7-10 hands to make up for that bad luck.