[matmat]

ArtK78, on Apr 19 2008, 02:32 PM, said:

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?

you don't play cash games?

[barmar]

jdonn, on Apr 18 2008, 11:59 AM, said:

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.

Also, consider that in rubber (money) bridge, the payouts are based on the hundreds.

[CSGibson]

barmar, on Apr 20 2008, 11:11 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 18 2008, 11:59 AM, said:

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.

Also, consider that in rubber (money) bridge, the payouts are based on the hundreds.

Really? When I play rubber bridge for money, it's a penny a point, not a dollar per hundred. Those dimes add up in the long haul