[H_KARLUK]

Is it possible to create a new scoring format in live games so, for example :

4♠ 10, 3 NT 7, etc

Well if it would be possible for live then why not for online also.

[han]

It's possible.

[barmar]

Could you explain what you mean? Does "4♠ 10" mean you bid 4♠ and took 10 tricks, while "3NT 7" means you bid 3NT and took 7 tricks? What do you gain with this? Scoring is based on the odd tricks and undertricks, not the total number of tricks.

In the US, we commonly use "4♠ made 4" and "3NT down 2". In both cases, the part after the contract tells you how many tricks count towards the score.

In BBO and many other countries, they use <contract>[+-]<over/under-tricks>. For overtricks you need to add them to the contract to determine the score, but it's still pretty logical.

What's the benefit of your proposed format?

[H_KARLUK]

barmar, on Dec 12 2008, 09:35 AM, said:

Could you explain what you mean? Does "4♠ 10" mean you bid 4♠ and took 10 tricks, while "3NT 7" means you bid 3NT and took 7 tricks? What do you gain with this? Scoring is based on the odd tricks and undertricks, not the total number of tricks.

In the US, we commonly use "4♠ made 4" and "3NT down 2". In both cases, the part after the contract tells you how many tricks count towards the score.

In BBO and many other countries, they use <contract>[+-]<over/under-tricks>. For overtricks you need to add them to the contract to determine the score, but it's still pretty logical.

What's the benefit of your proposed format?

Hello, I will try to explain with your helps. Seems my language barrier.

Forget about contracts level and tricks gained/lost please.

Say 4 ♠ is most reasonable one and deserves to get 10 points
Then 5 minor/s 9 points - let's assume there were a sacrifice but hard to find
and other possible contracts follows 8,7,6,5 etc.

Frankly speaking, very good question of you : "What's the benefit of your proposed format?"

I posted it on Turkish Forums. Let me translate pls.

We were 4.5 tables IMPs. 4 tables reached pretty cold 7NT. One table stayed low. 4 tables declarers got 4. Opps at 5th table got 12. They did not need to defence well. Only their opps couldn't reach the correct game. I think it's unfair.

I tried to tell that a new scoring format indexed to best contracts with a sound scale possible or not.

Thanks
Hamdi

[barmar]

I think we do have a language problem. "Format" means the way that things are written, not what they mean. For instance, "XVI" and "16" are Roman and Arabic formats for the same number.

It sounds like you want to change the way the game is scored, because it doesn't seem fair that a pair should get a good score when they didn't do anything to earn it, their opponents simply screwed up. This is actually a pretty common idea. The problem is that it would be difficult to tell when they deserve a good score and when they don't. Maybe the reason that table stayed low was because the opponents interfered in the auction, making it harder for them to bid the slam.

This is really no different from most other games. If you're playing tennis and your opponent looks away while you're serving, you'll win the point even though you didn't do anything special to make him miss. All we can do is look at the final result, it's much harder to include subjective criteria about whose fault it was. Some games keep track of more detailed statistics (in tennis they report on "unforced errors"), but they aren't usually included in the score.

[H_KARLUK]

barmar, on Dec 12 2008, 10:37 AM, said:

Maybe the reason that table stayed low was because the opponents interfered in the auction, making it harder for them to bid the slam.

How please? I am talking about a pretty cold 7NT. I don't think opps can make life harder for declarer with their three knaves.

Finding 7NT in 4.5 tables gain 4 points. Well, i started to believe "I'd rather be lucky than good".

Only one table couldn't find GS and their opps got 12 without doing anything. So, in other words th room punished.

I think better to evaluate with a new scale. Such as best, 2nd best, 3rd best contracts. So maybe one day they decide to assign scores due to real success.

Let me amend, also sometimes you have nothing to do versus disadvantageous vulnerability with nice collections at your hand. You know if you even raise one level up it won't be good, on the other hand opposition is free to sacrifice down 3 or 4 in their suits with poor hands. Obviously impossible at equal vulnerability.

Thanks.

[rogerclee]

H_KARLUK, on Dec 12 2008, 02:48 AM, said:

How please? I am talking about a pretty cold 7NT.

I would agree if it was extremely cold, but if it was, as you say, only pretty cold, I would say result stands.

[Sadie3]

If I am reading the question right, then bidding and making 7C, 7D 7H 7S or 7NT would give the same score. I think that this oversimplifies the game. Part of the challenge is to find the 'best' score and 'best' place to play.

[P_Marlowe]

H_KARLUK, on Dec 12 2008, 02:51 AM, said:

<snip>

I posted it on Turkish Forums. Let me translate pls.

We were 4.5 tables IMPs. 4 tables reached pretty cold 7NT. One table stayed low. 4 tables declarers got 4. Opps at 5th table got 12. They did not need to defence well. Only their opps couldn't reach the correct game. I think it's unfair.

I tried to tell that a new scoring format indexed to best contracts with a sound scale possible or not.

Thanks
Hamdi

Not possible.

How do you determine the best contract?

Assuming no interference it may well be possible,
and most likely partnerships playing relais precision
will win.
After interference of various kind, the best contract
will vary.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[cherdano]

rogerclee, on Dec 12 2008, 04:00 AM, said:

H_KARLUK, on Dec 12 2008, 02:48 AM, said:

How please? I am talking about a pretty cold 7NT.

I would agree if it was extremely cold, but if it was, as you say, only pretty cold, I would say result stands.

You live in Southern California and start lecturing us about the difference between pretty cold and extremely cold?

[ArtK78]

It appears to me that the original proposal is along the lines of the scoring of a par contest. One side has to bid to the right contract in order to achieve "par." If they fail, they do not achieve "par" on that hand, and earn some lesser award.

The other side, which has nothing to do with the result of the bidding side, earns a fixed award on that hand no matter what contract their opponents reach.

Scoring par contests can be difficult. For example, suppose "the other side" does have something to do with the bidding side not achieving "par." Are they not entitled to some award on the hand? In the original example, suppose the reason that the one pair failed to reach the "obvious" 7NT contract is that one of their opponents preempted or psyched. Obviously, whatever they did worked tremendously well. Should they not be awarded something for their achievement?

This would be a highly subjective scoring system and could not be easily achieved without an incredible amount of work. Is it any wonder why one does not see too many par contests?

[Free]

Not to mention the fact that sometimes you have 4♠ for EW and 4♥ for NS. So who's hand is it?

[H_KARLUK]

It was at least 15 years ago I played such a simultaneous event. Scores were determined and scaled by Omar Shariff and some International Bridge Masters of Europe. Sponsor was Parliament Tobacco Co.

There were also direction winners - near winner awards. I am told it's played in some Europe Countries at same moment. Unfortunately I am not able to find their booklet analysing deals.

Th idea was not to put the opponents in unusual situations or to enjoy with any system "bandwidth". Instead it was a constructive one. It helped me to understand the percentage of elements relative to win. We worked out with my partner many firm methods. Anyway I think they were vulnerable when there were real opponents at the table.

What I am surprised there were not any beauty awards.

Such as best declarer's play and best defence. The good old days. Sniff, i won't get surprised if someone says "who cares".

[barmar]

H_KARLUK, on Dec 13 2008, 05:26 AM, said:

It was at least 15 years ago I played such a simultaneous event. Scores were determined and scaled by Omar Shariff and some International Bridge Masters of Europe. Sponsor was Parliament Tobacco Co.

You're talking about "Instant Matchpoint" events. In most cases, I believe the boards are actually hands that were played in regular tournaments several years before, and the scores were taken from those tournaments, not determined by someone like Omar Sharif. Sharif's contribution was the discussion of the hands in the booklet that you received after the event.