[jtfanclub]

I think one of the problems with Duplicate Bridge is the scoring system. Too complex to start with, then you have to convert into IMPs. Tough for even bridge players to do without a chart.

I was thinking of something like this for team games:

Not Vulnerable, Undoubled:
Make a part score: 1
Make Game 3 (+2)
Make Small Slam 5 (+2)
Make Grand Slam 7 (+2)
Down 1-2 -1 (undoubled only)
Down 3+ -2 (undoubled only)

Vulnerable, Undoubled:
Make a part score: 1
Make Game 4 (+3)
Make Small Slam 7 (+3)
Make Grand Slam 10 (+3)
Down 1 -1 (undoubled only)
Down 2+ -2 (undoubled only)

Doubled:
Making- +2 Redoubled: +3
Each overtrick, NV: + 1/2
Each overtrick, V: +1
Each Undertrick, NV, tricks 1-3: -1
Each Undertrick, NV: tricks 4+: -2
Each Undertrick, V: -2

Redoubled: All scores for Doubled are doubled, except for making.

Tiebreak: If both teams are undoubled, and both get the identical score in the above chart, then the side that made more 'rubber bridge' points on the hand gets +1.

[helene_t]

Looks to me as if (extra) down/overtricks are not always credited for. If that is correct I would like to change that.

But basically, I like the idea.

[jtfanclub]

helene_t, on Aug 13 2008, 09:49 AM, said:

Looks to me as if (extra) down/overtricks are not always credited for. If that is correct I would like to change that.

But basically, I like the idea.

If I make 2 clubs exactly and you make 2 clubs with an overtrick, you'd get 1 extra point for the tiebreaker. If you made 2 clubs with 5 overtricks, you'd still only get one point.

[vang]

i agree that scoring is _very_ complicated at bridge, compared with any other game/sport. is anything remotely so complex?

on the other hand, scoring affects how you play. imho any big change has no chance to become popular since you'll have to adjust anything you've learn about this game. in other words, "Bridge scoring has problems but there isn't any solution" ;-)

[matmat]

i think this is bonkers.

you're substituting a fairly simple scoring system with something that requires a lot more memory load.
Imp tables are trivial to parse, even for a beginner -- two columns of numbers. these would be text tables, which take a lot longer.

your tiebreak rule is fuzzy. what happens if one team is doubled off and same team makes NV game on the other table (+2 tie).

just plain stupid.

[blackshoe]

It's a Hell of a leap from "bridge scoring has problems" to "there isn't any solution".

[brianshark]

Bridge scoring is fine the way it is. I wouldn't want to change it at all tbh.

[jonottawa]

I concur with the title of this thread.

[SoTired]

If you change the scoring, you will fundamentally change the game completely. All the bidding rules have to be completely redone. Even play of the hand might be affected.

we have spent 80+ years evolving bidding based on the current scoring.

So everybody's current bridge bidding knowledge will become worthless. This will work great for brilliant young minds who will come up with new stuff fast before anybody. For older less talented, you will destroy a game they have spent years learning and enjoying.

So ... My vote is "silly", even if you correct for some of the obvious errors.

[jtfanclub]

matmat, on Aug 13 2008, 10:55 AM, said:

i think this is bonkers.

you're substituting a fairly simple scoring system with something that requires a lot more memory load.
Imp tables are trivial to parse, even for a beginner -- two columns of numbers. these would be text tables, which take a lot longer.

your tiebreak rule is fuzzy. what happens if one team is doubled off and same team makes NV game on the other table (+2 tie).

just plain stupid.

If you can't handle (vulnerable), part score is 1, game is 4, small slam is 7, grand is 10, I can't help you.

Tiebreak is only for undoubled contracts. The doubled/redoubled results already factor in tiebreaks.

The system is based approximately on 150 old points per new point, with NV slam bonuses being 300 instead of 500 and V slam bonuses being 500 instead of 750.

We've made numerous changes to the scoring system in the past, such as the introduction of IMPs and changing doubles. I don't believe the fact that any change to the scoring system is going to add some new strategies should be a reason to keep the IMPs system the way it is. Certainly, any new system should take it into account.

[jdonn]

If the complaint is that the scoring is too complicated, I disagree. 90 year olds seem to do it, and 8 year olds seem to do it, and I've heard neither complain about having to convert results to points to imps to victory points. If they think it's too complicated they can play more BAM.

The scoring system has certainly been tweaked before, but as far as I know has never undergone a complete overhaul.

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Aug 13 2008, 09:05 PM, said:

If the complaint is that the scoring is too complicated, I disagree. 90 year olds seem to do it, and 8 year olds seem to do it, and I've heard neither complain about having to convert results to points to imps to victory points. If they think it's too complicated they can play more BAM.

The scoring system has certainly been tweaked before, but as far as I know has never undergone a complete overhaul.

One might claim that the scoring system is a complete overhaul of that used in Auction Bridge... Which doens't detract from the main point.

This might seem rude, but if you can't figure out the existing scoring system you aren't going to last long playing the game

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Aug 13 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

This might seem rude, but if you can't figure out the existing scoring system you aren't going to last long playing the game

OK, let's see if you can figure it out. Teams, of course.

You're in 3♥, vulnerable, due to a bidding misunderstanding. You can make 5 100% of the time, or you can finesse for 6 which works N% of the time but if it fails you make 4.

Luckily, you can look at your hand and your partner's, and figure out where the opponents are likely to end up. Unless they also had a misunderstanding, either making 4 and making 5 will be the same IMPs, or making 5 and making 6 will be the same IMPs.

So, if you think you know what contract they would be in and the result for that contract, it is either 100% take making 5, or 100% try for 6. The value of N never matters, as long as it's more than 0 and less than 100.

So, without looking at an IMP chart or a scoring chart, what results can your opponents have where you should just take 11 tricks, and what results should you try for 12? You can limit it to game & slam contracts (including doubled into game/slam).


For example: Suppose you were certain that they'd be in 3NT.
Makes 3: Go for 12 tricks
Makes 4: Take 11
Makes 5: Doesn't matter
Makes 6: Go for 12 tricks
Down 1: Go for 12 tricks
Down 2: Go for 12 tricks
Down 3: Take 11 tricks

Of course, I cheated- I looked it up on the chart. I couldn't do it in my head.

But try, say, 6♦ and 4♥X. If you can tell how many tricks they're actually going to take, when should you go for the extra overtrick?

This isn't limited to hrothgar, of course. Might be interesting to see if you'll last long playing the game.

[pigpenz]

SoTired, on Aug 13 2008, 11:57 AM, said:

If you change the scoring, you will fundamentally change the game completely. All the bidding rules have to be completely redone. Even play of the hand might be affected.

we have spent 80+ years evolving bidding based on the current scoring.

So everybody's current bridge bidding knowledge will become worthless. This will work great for brilliant young minds who will come up with new stuff fast before anybody. For older less talented, you will destroy a game they have spent years learning and enjoying.

So ... My vote is "silly", even if you correct for some of the obvious errors.

maybe true but there was a time when it was more profitable to make sacrifices. when it used to be
-100
-300
-500
-700 not -800

but players learned to adapt to it

[cherdano]

How about a simpler change: You don't get points for overtricks when you have bid game. Would speed up the game a lot, as declarer's would just claim their 9 top tricks in 3N etc., and might well be a lot more fun to watch for that reason!

[kenrexford]

There is nothing radically weird about this idea. It is simply a manner of assessing some sort of graduated scale like is used with IMP, BAM, and the like. But, I don't like it.

I think the justification of scoring being too difficult is stupid.

FWIW, my wife learned the game with absolutely no discussion of what the scores are for various results. General principles of how the scoring works were discussed, but not the actual specifics. As a result, she probably still could not tell you what most of the normal scores are. I just asked her a series of scores, and the only ones she got right were major-suit partscores. However, she somehow knows that certain actions "do better" than others, such as the benefit of doubling a red contract for a one-trick set, the various advantages and disadvantages in partscore auctions, when to sac, etc., and in a competent manner. I have no idea how she knows this stuff without knowing the actual scores involved, but she just does. Weird.

[NickRW]

kenrexford, on Aug 13 2008, 11:25 PM, said:

I have no idea how she knows this stuff without knowing the actual scores involved, but she just does. Weird.

Men have no idea how women do arithmetic. Somehow it generally seems to work out ok though.

Nick

[brianshark]

I never learned the scores when I started playing bridge. I just understood the general principles of wanting to be in game, vul scores more, etc. Obviously, after a few thousand hands are under my belt, I pretty much know most of scores off the top of my head because of writing them down so often.

[JoAnneM]

Of all the gripes that have been piled on me as a director, club manager, bridge administrator, etc. the scoring system has never been one of them. I agree with Jonottawa.

[jtfanclub]

JoAnneM, on Aug 14 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

Of all the gripes that have been piled on me as a director, club manager, bridge administrator, etc. the scoring system has never been one of them. I agree with Jonottawa.

Because there's nothing you can do about it?

It was a silly system I was suggesting. But my point is that there's really nothing requiring Bridge to be you get a result, you look up what that your score is on a back of a card (which can easily be 4 digits), then at the end of the hand compare with your teamates, and subtract their 4 digit number, then look up this difference on a chart that it seems that nobody seems able to memorize....

Mathematically, this just seems like too many steps. You should be able to reduce the bonuses so that IMPs isn't necessary: Total Points will give you a nice balanced result instead of being so slam-heavy. Or at least have the IMPs chart make sense, instead of breaks made for certain common contracts but then are terrible for uncomon contracts.


Brianshark: I assume you mean for contracts. I can handle that, though the doubled stuff is too complicated. It's the subtraction and then conversion to IMPs that virtually everybody has to look up.