[luis]

Let's say you open a money bridge table, then another person joins to play 1 on 1. what about putting the players in the same position with a gib pd against gib robots to play exactly the same hand? Then you compute IMPs and pay based on $0.1 per imp to $2 per imp. In this way who gets the cards doesn't matter.

Luis

[chicken]

great idea,

and obviously easier to implement than russian scoring i assume.

[barmar]

This is essentially the same idea I suggested a couple of days ago in the Money bridge thread, except I think I made a mistake in suggesting that the players be in opposing seats (one South, one West) -- that would make you teammates rather than opponents.

[luis]

barmar, on May 24 2006, 05:42 PM, said:

This is essentially the same idea I suggested a couple of days ago in the Money bridge thread, except I think I made a mistake in suggesting that the players be in opposing seats (one South, one West) -- that would make you teammates rather than opponents.

Hi Barmar,

When the idea came to my mind I didn't check other threads so I won't claim this to be my original idea :-)

I think your idea (and later mine) would make money bridge more attractive to good players since as long as you use your cards more effectively than your opponent you rate to win. As it is a bad player can get a couple of cold vulnerable games and leave with some money for doing exactly nothing.

Luis

[barmar]

True, but the same thing can happen to his opponent.

Money bridge is not really intended to be like duplicate bridge. In the real world, the way most people play bridge for money is with rubber bridge (and variants like Chicago). There is indeed a gambling aspect, because it's hard to win a rubber if you don't get the right cards. But if you like that sort of f2f game, you should also like BBO's money bridge games for similar reasons.

On the other hand, you could say that the reason rubber bridge is played in f2f is because it's not technically feasible to use duplicate scoring. Since BBO makes this possible, we should take advantage of it rather than emulating the limitations of the real world.

We could, of course, have our cake and eat it, too. If Fred et al are willing to implement something like this, they don't need to throw out what we already have. Let the players choose rubber-style or duplicate-style. If one turns out to be extremely unpopular they could get rid of it.

[fred]

There are a bunch of things we would like to do with Money Bridge. Besides some new forms of scoring, the ability to claim, and an option so that the human can always declare are near the top of this list.

But there are some other lists too so it is hard to predict when you might see these new features appear in BBO.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[andych]

There is a Shanghai scoring (not sure if I get the correct name) which to me is an IMP version of Russian scoring.

As far as I understand,

Russian scoring operates on a pre-defined table expected total points gain vs HCP scale. e.g. you get 25 hcp and from pre-defined table you are expected to gain e.g. 500. When you get 600, you earn 100 total points.

Shanghai scoring is similar. The table is HCP vs (expected IMP gain = HCP - 20). So for same scenerio (i.e. hodling 25 HCP), expected IMP gain = 25-5 = 5 imp. If you score 600 (12 imp?), you win 12-5 = 7 imp.

Shanghai scoring would be more familiar to duplicate players. They dont need to check the table. But it operates on IMP scale which is not the existing way (total point) .....


P.S. I dont know if Shanghai scoring is the official name, I just happen to play it with my friends for some small stake, from unknown source it is termed as Shanghai scoring. Probably there is no such thing at all in Shanghai !!!!

[hotShot]

Can anybody tell me what the difference is between russian scoring and Mono-IMPs?

Quote

The Mono IMP system was described by Gary Greene in the May/June 1990 issue of Bridge Today.

    "Mono-IMP scoring is based on an average expected score for each side's high-card-point holding. The table below shows the average score that a given number of high-card points will produce in the long run. I have compiled statistics from over 10000 hands from a lunch-time game played over the last five years, and they indicate that these values are a realistic long-term average."

[chicken]

as far as i know it is the same