[pclayton]

mikeh, on Apr 17 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 17 2008, 09:06 AM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 16 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

I don't like the idea of 10 points becoming an imp.

That change will lessen the difference between mps and imps.. of course, the difference will still be significant, but it won't be the same as it is now.

Let's say that I get to 3♣ while you get to a slightly less safe 2N. As the game is currently scored, I have outbid you. If both contracts make, we push but your contract is more likely to fail, so I may win a modest pickup. Most importantly, I cannot lose by this choice and my bidding methods/style will be based, at least to some degree, on that reality

Isn't this an indictment against the scoring system itself, rather than the IMP scale?

While 3♣ may be 'safer' than 2N, NT still scores higher.

No.. it's no indictment of anything! I like it like this.. this difference in the importance of a very minor scoring differential has huge, altho subtle, impact on how we (should) play the game of bridge. It is the fact that at mps the riskier 2N partial will often be more attractive than the safe 3minor, while at imps, the reverse holds true that I find enjoyable.

I LIKE imps.. I sometimes enjoy matchpoints, but, as an example, I will sometimes play the GNTs and the CNTC's but I (almost) never enter the GNP or the COP.. even tho the COP national final pays cash and is always open to me at no expense if I have been knocked out of the CNTCs.. the COP is held opposite the knockout rounds of the CNTC.

I don't want imps to become even a bit more like mps or bam.

And I don't see any inconsistency with these points and the fact that 20 points = 1imp.

And if the opps go down 100 when our max was 90... if the fact that that is a push annoys you.. double! Now THAT shows better judgement than merely selling out

I'm pretty simple or at least would like to think of myself as such.

If I get a better score, then I want to get rewarded. At MPs and BAM, the reward is huge, but I want a little something if the margin is even small at IMPs. I know of no other game or sport where even a small measurable change is rounded to a tie.

I doubt this will change anyone's strategy if it were implemented. The same fundamental principles of IMPs will be there. Bid your vul games, compete for partscores safely, etc..

[barmar]

georgi, on Apr 17 2008, 04:31 AM, said:

unless WBF change this
http://www.worldbrid.../onlinelaws.pdf -pg61
why BBO should do it?

This is the General Bridge forum. He's asking about changing it in general, not just BBO.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Apr 17 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

I know of no other game or sport where even a small measurable change is rounded to a tie.

The reason I don't like that argument is the measure itself is artificial, which is unique and and of itself among 'sports'. Our founding fathers could just as easily have made 3♣= higher scoring than 2NT=.

The only other ones I can think of where that is the case are ones with judging, like boxing or figure skating, and those can indeed have ties for non-identical performances.

[EricK]

While not a change in the IMP scale itself, I would like to see the abolition of any score for undoubled overtricks.

A number of benefits (or what I see as benefits) in no particular order
1. It would speed up the game (If you are in 3NT and have 9 tricks on top you would claim at the outset rather than mess about looking for ten or eleven tricks)
2. It makes competitive part-score bidding more interesting (IMO) - eg opponents have stopped in 2♥, we compete and push them to 3♥. In the current system, we will do at least as well as if we hadn't competed. But in the new system, if 3♥ is on, then we have rescued them from an inferior scoring contract
3. With more bids needed as contracts, bidding would have to be more natural, but we would be achieving this without imposing arbitrary system restrictions.
4. It is more in line with the "spirit" of bridge i.e. we are rewarded for bidding and making contracts, not just for making as many tricks as we can.

[ArtK78]

I have absolutely no idea why anyone is complaining about the IMP scale or, as later discussion shows, the scoring of contract bridge in general.

I have lived through one change in the scoring system. There were a number of reasons for adopting those changes that had a great deal of merit, and everyone is used to the changes.

The reasons set forth in the various preceding posts don't impress me. But that is just my opinion.

If is ain't broke......

[Gerben42]

Yes, I would change the IMP scale according to Herman de Wael's continuous scale. In the current computer age, a score based on integer IMPs makes no sense and has some bad effects for Butler scores.

See this page: http://users.skynet....e/bastille.html

[skjaeran]

ArtK78, on Apr 18 2008, 07:10 PM, said:

I have absolutely no idea why anyone is complaining about the IMP scale or, as later discussion shows, the scoring of contract bridge in general.

I have lived through one change in the scoring system. There were a number of reasons for adopting those changes that had a great deal of merit, and everyone is used to the changes.

The reasons set forth in the various preceding posts don't impress me. But that is just my opinion.

If is ain't broke......

I totally agree.

[jtfanclub]

ArtK78, on Apr 18 2008, 12:10 PM, said:

I have absolutely no idea why anyone is complaining about the IMP scale or, as later discussion shows, the scoring of contract bridge in general.

Because it makes bridge impossible to follow for a layman.

Imagine bridge on TV. Now imagine trying to explain the score, then the difference score, then the IMPs conversion, and finally the VP conversion.

The ridiculous scoring of bridge is IMHO what makes it so difficult for it to catch on as a spectator sport. You can play bridge at a beginner level without understanding scoring, trying to watch it is far more difficult.

[Al_U_Card]

Interesting idea. Televised money games, where it is for total points and the money is split according to the placements or the points won? (In golf, win by one or 12, same prize. etc.)

[kenrexford]

jtfanclub, on Apr 18 2008, 01:59 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Apr 18 2008, 12:10 PM, said:

I have absolutely no idea why anyone is complaining about the IMP scale or, as later discussion shows, the scoring of contract bridge in general.

Because it makes bridge impossible to follow for a layman.

Imagine bridge on TV. Now imagine trying to explain the score, then the difference score, then the IMPs conversion, and finally the VP conversion.

The ridiculous scoring of bridge is IMHO what makes it so difficult for it to catch on as a spectator sport. You can play bridge at a beginner level without understanding scoring, trying to watch it is far more difficult.

If you want bridge on TV, you do not start with IMP games. You televise money raw score games. That part is easy.

"Right now, Versace has an assured $4,500 in the bank if he passes."
"I know, Tom. But, he is assuredly going for that extra $5000 for the small slam with those cards!"
"No, Frank. I think he will cash in. Oops! There he goes!"
"It seems the champ will have to pay up big for that move. Instead of $4,500 in the bank, he will pay the opponents $1000 for his understandable enthusiasm."
"Wow!!! I cannot believe it, but George just put the diamond Queen on the table! If Declarer can work out the strip-squeeze, he will actually cash in $9800 for this indiscretion!"
"For the viewers, Versace will have to pull trumps and then..."

This works a little better than:

"Right now, Versace has an assured 450 if he passes. That will match what happened at the other table."
"I know, Tom. But, he is assuredly going for that extra 500 bonus for the small slam, so that he can win 11 IMP's on this board, which might help him in the victory point results, whether to make the likely loss in this match merely 14-6 rather than 18-2. Look at those cards!!!"
"No, Frank. I think he will play this safe, hoping that his partners reached the game on Board 11, which would make this match a 11-9 near draw rather than a 14-6 disaster, by his estimated scores so far. Oops! There he goes!"
"It seems that the champ will force his team to win the last round my a margin of at least 17-3 rather than to tie to advance to the next round. In understand his enthusiam, though."
"Wow!!! I cannot believe it, but George just put the diamond Queen on the table! If Declarer can work out the strip-squeeze, he will actually bring the Victory Point margin to a more respectable 11-9 loss that will help in the next round so that they do not need the same margin of victory to move forward!!!"
"For the viewers, Versace will have to pull trumps and then..."

[awm]

I don't really think the scoring is the main obstacle to televising bridge.

There are many other issues, for example:

(1) A lot of people have no idea how to play bridge. And you can't explain it in five minutes. Poker is both more widely known and easier to explain.

(2) The bidding in bridge is pretty mysterious. Even "standard" bidding involves a lot of calls that would seem weird to someone with no knowledge of the game (why open 1♣ with four cards in each major and only three clubs? why open more with weak hands and less with strong hands? why is double usually a request to bid rather than defend? and this is without even mentioning conventional calls like stayman or transfers).

(3) Really appreciating the play of the hand is tough too.

The fact is that televised bridge is unlikely to be accessible to people who don't know how to play bridge already. Learning bridge isn't something that can be done in a few minutes. The scoring is relatively less important -- it's pretty easy to understand that you get a plus score for making a contract or setting an opponent, and that certain contracts for large numbers of tricks are worth a lot more to make than contracts for smaller numbers of tricks. I don't think the inability to understand the exact relationship between the contract and score is really what makes bridge hard to watch (or to learn).

[Al_U_Card]

So maybe we would encourage the "bad boy" behavior at the table to make it more interesting?

Imagine the scathing rejoinders!

But Adam is right. Only 25 million or so in NA know the game and then only 250,000 or so its subtle vagairies exposed during competitive play.

Golf has....well substantially less numbers than that and it is full of "empty" space while the golfer is not "making" a shot...

Maybe if we put stacks of imp chips on the table? (We could even call them "ch-imps"

[TimG]

awm, on Apr 18 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

(why open 1♣ with four cards in each major and only three clubs?

Why, indeed!

[TimG]

Al_U_Card, on Apr 18 2008, 04:05 PM, said:

Golf has....well substantially less numbers than that and it is full of "empty" space while the golfer is not "making" a shot...

From a television point of view, there is more than one golfer on the course, playing more than one hole. That "empty" space is taken up by jumping from hole to hole, golfer to golfer.

Maybe the same thing could be done with bridge. At least in a MP event.

[Mbodell]

Actually a televised MP event would be very golf like in the interesting coverage. Just like how in golf some holes are more interesting/exciting than others in bridge some boards are more interesting/exciting than others. So if you were televising some MP event you might show how most of the pairs bid and played boards 14 and 23 while ignoring some of the flat boards. But then, also like golf, sometimes it is exciting to follow the leaders so you could sometimes show the leaders even if the board they are playing is less interesting overall.

One thing that golf has as an advantage is that there is coverage on all the holes and you'd want to cover all the boards to some degree so you don't tip off the competitors that if the cameras are following board 14 then it must be interesting. Also golf has the leaders in the last pack of the day so you always know what they need to do to win at the end rather than the simultaneous play you have in bridge.

But if several thousand people watch vugraph on BBO I'd think there would be enough interest for a niche audience on something like the travel channel or game show network to pick two small networks that gave poker a shot.

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Apr 19 2008, 08:45 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Apr 18 2008, 01:59 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Apr 18 2008, 12:10 PM, said:

I have absolutely no idea why anyone is complaining about the IMP scale or, as later discussion shows, the scoring of contract bridge in general.

Because it makes bridge impossible to follow for a layman.

Imagine bridge on TV. Now imagine trying to explain the score, then the difference score, then the IMPs conversion, and finally the VP conversion.

The ridiculous scoring of bridge is IMHO what makes it so difficult for it to catch on as a spectator sport. You can play bridge at a beginner level without understanding scoring, trying to watch it is far more difficult.

If you want bridge on TV, you do not start with IMP games. You televise money raw score games. That part is easy.

"Right now, Versace has an assured $4,500 in the bank if he passes."
"I know, Tom. But, he is assuredly going for that extra $5000 for the small slam with those cards!"
"No, Frank. I think he will cash in. Oops! There he goes!"
"It seems the champ will have to pay up big for that move. Instead of $4,500 in the bank, he will pay the opponents $1000 for his understandable enthusiasm."
"Wow!!! I cannot believe it, but George just put the diamond Queen on the table! If Declarer can work out the strip-squeeze, he will actually cash in $9800 for this indiscretion!"
"For the viewers, Versace will have to pull trumps and then..."

This works a little better than:

"Right now, Versace has an assured 450 if he passes. That will match what happened at the other table."
"I know, Tom. But, he is assuredly going for that extra 500 bonus for the small slam, so that he can win 11 IMP's on this board, which might help him in the victory point results, whether to make the likely loss in this match merely 14-6 rather than 18-2. Look at those cards!!!"
"No, Frank. I think he will play this safe, hoping that his partners reached the game on Board 11, which would make this match a 11-9 near draw rather than a 14-6 disaster, by his estimated scores so far. Oops! There he goes!"
"It seems that the champ will force his team to win the last round my a margin of at least 17-3 rather than to tie to advance to the next round. In understand his enthusiam, though."
"Wow!!! I cannot believe it, but George just put the diamond Queen on the table! If Declarer can work out the strip-squeeze, he will actually bring the Victory Point margin to a more respectable 11-9 loss that will help in the next round so that they do not need the same margin of victory to move forward!!!"
"For the viewers, Versace will have to pull trumps and then..."

I am not convinced Ken.

Football in various guises have captivating commentary with very little mention of player bonuses etc

[TimG]

Mbodell, on Apr 18 2008, 05:55 PM, said:

One thing that golf has as an advantage is that there is coverage on all the holes and you'd want to cover all the boards to some degree so you don't tip off the competitors that if the cameras are following board 14 then it must be interesting. Also golf has the leaders in the last pack of the day so you always know what they need to do to win at the end rather than the simultaneous play you have in bridge.

But if several thousand people watch vugraph on BBO I'd think there would be enough interest for a niche audience on something like the travel channel or game show network to pick two small networks that gave poker a shot.

I think any televised event would likely have simultaneous play of the boards -- that is board 14 doesn't move around the room -- and barometer scoring.

It's rare that "several thousand" people tune in to watch a vugraph show and I suspect only a small percentage stay for the whole thing or are actively watching rather than having it on in the background.

[dicklont]

kenrexford, on Apr 18 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

If you want bridge on TV, you do not start with IMP games. You televise money raw score games. That part is easy.

"Right now, Versace has an assured $4,500 in the bank if he passes."
"I know, Tom. But, he is assuredly going for that extra $5000 for the small slam with those cards!"
"No, Frank. I think he will cash in. Oops! There he goes!"
"It seems the champ will have to pay up big for that move. Instead of $4,500 in the bank, he will pay the opponents $1000 for his understandable enthusiasm."
"Wow!!! I cannot believe it, but George just put the diamond Queen on the table! If Declarer can work out the strip-squeeze, he will actually cash in $9800 for this indiscretion!"
"For the viewers, Versace will have to pull trumps and then..."

I like it.
When is the broadcast scheduled?

[onoway]

The only thing I object to is the situation where a vulnerable pair has reached the optimum contract and the unvulnerable opps can overbid, knowing they are going down, and even if doubled they make a better score than the players who have maxed out their hands. It seems to negate the point of the whole exercise.

[ArtK78]

onoway, on Apr 19 2008, 12:28 PM, said:

The only thing I object to is the situation where a vulnerable pair has reached the optimum contract and the unvulnerable opps can overbid, knowing they are going down, and even if doubled they make a better score than the players who have maxed out their hands. It seems to negate the point of the whole exercise.

Why don't I feel any sympathy for this position?