[Vampyr]

Hi.

I want to demonstrate to a local club that IMP pairs with an arrow-switch is completely bonkers. I cannot produce a mathematical argument, actually I would not know how to begin; but I am wondering if there is anyone who can.

(LOL please no questions about why I want to play IMP pairs at all -- that part of it, I unfortunately cannot affect!)

[PhilG007]

I would suggest that you do nothing and let them sort it out amongst themselves.
Let them see for themselves if it's 'bonkers'
As soon as it is seen it's an unworkable movement,it will be abandoned.


"A man convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still"

[Vampyr]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-14, 00:38, said:

I would suggest that you do nothing and let them sort it out amongst themselves.
Let them see for themselves if it's 'bonkers'
As soon as it is seen it's an unworkable movement,it will be abandoned.


"A man convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still"

The movement has been played for decades.

[gordontd]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-14, 00:38, said:

I would suggest that you do nothing and let them sort it out amongst themselves.
Let them see for themselves if it's 'bonkers'
As soon as it is seen it's an unworkable movement,it will be abandoned.

As Vampyr says, it's been played for decades: it's not unworkable.

Despite the fact that it is acknowledged to have a greater randomness than most other games, it has consistently attracted strong players who enjoy the format even though they understand its imperfections, yet Vampyr would like it to be changed. Furthermore, she concentrates on one aspect of it (the arrow-switch) without recognising that abandoning that would make little difference. I think she should just welcome that the format encourages more players to play on that day than on any other day of the week and after several years of going on about it, she should give up on trying to get her own way on this.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2016-May-14, 01:30, said:

As Vampyr says, it's been played for decades: it's not unworkable.

Despite the fact that it is acknowledged to have a greater randomness than most other games, it has consistently attracted strong players who enjoy the format even though they understand its imperfections, yet Vampyr would like it to be changed. Furthermore, she concentrates on one aspect of it (the arrow-switch) without recognising that abandoning that would make little difference. I think she should just welcome that the format encourages more players to play on that day than on any other day of the week and after several years of going on about it, she should give up on trying to get her own way on this.

Well, I really do think that a 2-winner movement would be an improvement and would not be unpopular. On the other hand, maybe you are right and since it is IMP pairs, changes in the details of the format would not make much of a difference.

[manudude03]

Isn't it just a case of since each N/S pair would be playing different boards as E/W (and vice versa), then you (or other pairs) may be denied the opportunity to earn a good board if for example there is a thin, but biddable game or slam. If you get arrow-switched at this point, then you are at the mercy of your opponents. Similarly if the opponents were originally going to get the opportunity to bid out that hand, then you are getting an opportunity to earn imps that no-one else playing in your direction.

Furthermore, if the boards were such that one side was more in control of the imps than the other side, then say N/S were holding the cards throughout, the N/S imps standings would be a lot more wide-ranging than the E/W pairs, as the latter would likely be balancing out the gifts from the poor players and the losses from the good players. This would mean that when it is turned to a 1-winner movement, the pairs originally sitting E/W would have little to no chance of catching the top N/S pairs. This same argument could also be applied to MPs however.

[Vampyr]

manudude03, on 2016-May-14, 04:59, said:

Isn't it just a case of since each N/S pair would be playing different boards as E/W (and vice versa), then you (or other pairs) may be denied the opportunity to earn a good board if for example there is a thin, but biddable game or slam. If you get arrow-switched at this point, then you are at the mercy of your opponents. Similarly if the opponents were originally going to get the opportunity to bid out that hand, then you are getting an opportunity to earn imps that no-one else playing in your direction.

Furthermore, if the boards were such that one side was more in control of the imps than the other side, then say N/S were holding the cards throughout, the N/S imps standings would be a lot more wide-ranging than the E/W pairs, as the latter would likely be balancing out the gifts from the poor players and the losses from the good players. This would mean that when it is turned to a 1-winner movement, the pairs originally sitting E/W would have little to no chance of catching the top N/S pairs. This same argument could also be applied to MPs however.

Yes, but I would need something more rigorous like a mathematical argument to,make a case.

Matchpoints is not quite e same. Yes, it is true that when you are holding bad cards all evening you will be largely at the mercy of your opponents. Still, since each board is worth the same, you may be able to make up for the tricky slam they bid and made on the first board by preventing an extra overtrick on the next. Arrow-switching doesn't have anything like the same impact; yes you may be unlucky with the arrow-switch, but it's just a board. One board can never comprise your entire score, as it can with IMP pairs. Also the lines may not be even, so the greater number of comparisons may reduce randomness, rather than increase it, as with IMP pairs.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-14, 03:02, said:

Well, I really do think that a 2-winner movement would be an improvement and would not be unpopular. On the other hand, maybe you are right and since it is IMP pairs, changes in the details of the format would not make much of a difference.

Let's imagine for a moment that the club ignores what the players are familiar with and the cost implications of doubling the number of winners to abandon the arrow-switch so as to keep you happy. 12 tables turn up to play. What would you do?

• Play only 24 boards instead of 26
  
• Play a Blackpool movement so that everyone plays one pair twice and misses playing one pair of boards
  
• Play a Hesitation Mitchell - oh no, we can't do that as it produces one winner

Which of those do you think would improve the game for the players?

Or 16 tables turn up to play. Even with a Web Mitchell to ensure everyone plays the same boards, there will be three opponents not met by each pair. How will you seed the field to make it fairer? And having seeded it, when a pair turns up at the last minute (or even just after the start), are you going to seed it again and move pairs around? Or maybe you would divide it into two fields and have four winners?

You might get really lucky and have the right number turn up - 13 tables for a Mitchell, 7 tables for a Howell. Now everything will be completely fair, won't it? But what about those who get the flat boards against weak opponents and the difficult ones against the strongest? Of course that happens in matchpointed pairs too, but there each board has equal value whereas in IMP pairs there's almost no limit to how much one board can damage or benefit you.

In the recent YC half-marathon, all-play-all scored as IMPs, in the first round we played against Brian Callaghan & Heather Dhondy who found a good 25-point slam only found by one other pair and then found a difficult defence (giving us an early ruff & discard) to beat our good game, which meant we were 13 IMPs out on two boards. That's just the nature of the format and if you don't like it, don't play in it.

[PhilG007]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-14, 01:15, said:

The movement has been played for decades.

OK try and convince them Good Luck

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2016-May-14, 06:12, said:

Let's imagine for a moment that the club ignores what the players are familiar with and the cost implications of doubling the number of winners to abandon the arrow-switch so as to keep you happy. 12 tables turn up to play. What would you do?

• Play only 24 boards instead of 26
  
• Play a Blackpool movement so that everyone plays one pair twice and misses playing one pair of boards
  
• Play a Hesitation Mitchell - oh no, we can't do that as it produces one winner

Which of those do you think would improve the game for the players?

Hmmm.... It hadn't occurred to me that with some numbers of tables it is not possible to produce a reasonable two-winner game. OK, then.