[Trinidad]

barmar, on Oct 16 2009, 09:37 PM, said:

iviehoff, on Oct 15 2009, 07:10 AM, said:

So I think it is very important in teams play that running scores are not revealed until they can be revealed for everyone equally, ie, end of the session or round or something.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested otherwise. Fairness is of course paramount.

This is going to be difficult to do in practice, but it can be done. It means that the players are not told the score at the same time. They are told the score at the same point in the match. Otherwise, the slow table has more boards to use the info than the fast table.

To clarify: At 9:00 table 1 has played boards 1-4. Table 2 has played boards 1-6. Now, you could (if you would want to) go to table 2 and tell them before they start on board 7 what the score was after the first 4 boards. Then, you will have to go to table 1 at 9:13 and tell them, before they start with board 7, what the score after the first 4 boards was.

One problem is that table 1 can infer that it took table 2 the same time for the first 6 boards as they took for the first 4 boards. Therefore, probably board 5 and 6 have been played pretty fast. This may indicate that on board 5 they didn't bid the club slam that can be made on an XYZ squeeze, but that they were in 3NT, which is a claimer for 11 tricks. This problem can be solved by delaying telling the score, but then what is the gain of all this?

Rik

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on Oct 19 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

We have a barometer at the club evenings in Lancaster. (Matchpointed pairs).

I don't care but if people think it adds to the entertainment then by all means let the barometer stay.

It is an interesting question, though, how to make a meaningful barometer for a paris event. Obvivously 100% on a board with a top of two MPs should not have the same weight as 100% of a top of say 14 MPs. I think the barometer of the bridgemate software does give it the same weight, though.

I don't really understand your post, Helene? Do you mean to say that you play a barometer without predealt hands? You announce scores after round 2, 3, etc.? I think that could work (not very well though), but that is not the way a barometer is set up.

In a barometer the whole room plays the boards simultaneously with predealt hands. Thus, after round 1, you will get the complete scores for board 1-3 and a ranking. And then boards 1-3 are finished.

Rik

[eyhung]

I am not a fan of barometer pairs as currently implemented, because it feels it adds yet another luck component to the equation. Let us say you are tied for the lead going into the final round and you are up against a pair who knows they need a good board to get into the overalls, a bad/average board is irrelevant to them. Meanwhile, your competitors are going up against a pair that is having their usual 40% game, so they have no incentive to do anything weird. Now say your final-round opponents reach 4S and need to guess a queen knowing that one of you holds 3 cards in the suit and the other holds two. Your opponents will be highly motivated to take the anti-percentage play, while your competitors' opponents will not, and you may gain a top or bottom simply because of their current standing, a factor which you have no control over. Granted, you cannot guarantee people playing normal bridge on every board, but I don't see why the conditions of contest have to encourage even more deviations.

From a game-balance perspective, I would have no objection to barometer scoring for KO TEAMS, if both tables play the boards in the same order and there was synchronization like "hand-for-hand" play in poker -- you can't go onto the next hand until the other table has finished the previous one and all sides know the current state of the match. But I suspect that would not be as fun to play with all the delays waiting for the "slow table" to catch up after every hand.

[nige1]

eyhung, on Oct 19 2009, 01:41 PM, said:

I am not a fan of barometer pairs as currently implemented, because it feels it adds yet another luck component to the equation.  Let us say you are tied for the lead going into the final round and you are up against a pair who knows they need a good board to get into the overalls, a bad/average board is irrelevant to them.  Meanwhile, your competitors are going up against a pair that is having their usual 40% game, so they have no incentive to do anything weird.  Now say your final-round opponents reach 4S and need to guess a queen knowing that one of you holds 3 cards in the suit and the other holds two.  Your opponents will be highly motivated to take the anti-percentage play, while your competitors' opponents will not, and you may gain a top or bottom simply because of their current standing, a factor which you have no control over.  Granted, you cannot guarantee people playing normal bridge on every board, but I don't see why the conditions of contest have to encourage even more deviations. 

From a game-balance perspective, I would have no objection to barometer scoring for KO TEAMS, if both tables play the boards in the same order and there was synchronization like "hand-for-hand" play in poker -- you can't go onto the next hand until the other table has finished the previous one and all sides know the current state of the match.  But I suspect that would not be as fun to play with all the delays waiting for the "slow table" to catch up after every hand.

IMO the scenarios that eyhung deplores are, in fact, examples of how barometer scoring increases the excitement of the game and enhances the skill-factor.

[mrdct]

helene_t, on Oct 19 2009, 06:22 AM, said:

Obvivously 100% on a board with a top of two MPs should not have the same weight as 100% of a top of say 14 MPs. I think the barometer of the bridgemate software does give it the same weight, though.

If top on a board is two MPs doesn't that mean that there are only two tables in play? A top is a top and is worth 100% no matter how many tables are in play. I don't quite understand your post.

[xcurt]

mrdct, on Oct 19 2009, 09:27 PM, said:

helene_t, on Oct 19 2009, 06:22 AM, said:

Obvivously 100% on a board with a top of two MPs should not have the same weight as 100% of a top of say 14 MPs. I think the barometer of the bridgemate software does give it the same weight, though.

If top on a board is two MPs doesn't that mean that there are only twothree tables in play? A top is a top and is worth 100% no matter how many tables are in play. I don't quite understand your post.

Because the other 12 tables who don't exist in your field are not always going to fall between the extreme results posted by the 3 tables that do exist in your field.

This is the same reason that (at least in ACBL events) when you go +1100 on a partscore hand and someone else gets AVG+/AVG-, you don't get 38/38, you get 37.9-something.

[mrdct]

It's been a long time since I've hand-scored a matchpoints pairs event, but iirc you get two matchpoints for each result you beat and one matchpoint for each result you equal. If a top on a board is two matchpoints, that means there are only two tables in the field; so I'm not sure why my quote was edited to three tables rather the correct two.

In your example where you thought you were booked for a top with your +1100 in a field of 20 tables, where ordinarily you would get 38 matchpints for beating 19 results, you would get something less than that due to an average being taken at one table. In my old hand-scoring days, the pairs getting the average would get 19 matchpoints (exactly 50%) by taking one matchpoint off each of the other tables, so you would get 37/38 (97.4%). With avg+/avg- I would assume those results would still reciprocate each other and the pair with the +1100 would still score 37/38.

[nige1]

helene_t, on Oct 19 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

We have a barometer at the club evenings in Lancaster. (Matchpointed pairs). I don't care but if people think it adds to the entertainment then by all means let the barometer stay. It is an interesting question, though, how to make a meaningful barometer for a paris event. Obvivously 100% on a board with a top of two MPs should not have the same weight as 100% of a top of say 14 MPs. I think the barometer of the bridgemate software does give it the same weight, though.

Trinidad, on Oct 19 2009, 06:49 AM, said:

I don't really understand your post, Helene? Do you mean to say that you play a barometer without predealt hands? You announce scores after round 2, 3, etc.? I think that could work (not very well though), but that is not the way a barometer is set up.
In a barometer the whole room plays the boards simultaneously with predealt hands. Thus, after round 1, you will get the complete scores for board 1-3 and a ranking. And then boards 1-3 are finished.

You can set bridgemates to display all the results so far on the board that you have just played and your percentage score so far. For boards on the first round, there are no other results, so the bridgemate displays 50%. For boards in subsequent rounds the percentages displayed become better and better estimates, as more tables complete them. For boards played on the last round the score it displays is final and correct.

[jdonn]

mrdct, on Oct 20 2009, 01:04 AM, said:

It's been a long time since I've hand-scored a matchpoints pairs event, but iirc you get two matchpoints for each result you beat and one matchpoint for each result you equal. If a top on a board is two matchpoints, that means there are only two tables in the field; so I'm not sure why my quote was edited to three tables rather the correct two.

You get 1 matchpoint for each result you beat and 1/2 matchpoint for each result you tie. Or is this some difference between countries I have forgotten about?

[gwnn]

Yes (nowhere in the 5 or 6 European countries where I've played have I seen half matchpoints awarded)

[jdonn]

Ok, I'll let them both go back to being completely dogmatic since they are both right then.

[barmar]

The two matchpointing methods are mathematically equivalent, the only difference is that all the scores in one form are double that of the other form.

I still don't understand mrdct's point about top of 2 vs top of 14. All board in the same game should have about the same top. In some movements, some boards may be played one time more than others, but that's only a difference of 1 in the matchpoints. I don't think there's any way that you can have 2 and 14 tops in the same event.

[xcurt]

barmar, on Oct 20 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

The two matchpointing methods are mathematically equivalent, the only difference is that all the scores in one form are double that of the other form.

I still don't understand mrdct's point about top of 2 vs top of 14. All board in the same game should have about the same top. In some movements, some boards may be played one time more than others, but that's only a difference of 1 in the matchpoints. I don't think there's any way that you can have 2 and 14 tops in the same event.

I think he is talking about some kind of simultaneous event using the same boards over multiple clubs.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on Oct 20 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

helene_t, on Oct 19 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

We have a barometer at the club evenings in Lancaster. (Matchpointed pairs). I don't care but if people think it adds to the entertainment then by all means let the barometer stay. It is an interesting question, though, how to make a meaningful barometer for a paris event. Obvivously 100% on a board with a top of two MPs should not have the same weight as 100% of a top of say 14 MPs. I think the barometer of the bridgemate software does give it the same weight, though.

Trinidad, on Oct 19 2009, 06:49 AM, said:

I don't really understand your post, Helene? Do you mean to say that you play a barometer without predealt hands? You announce scores after round 2, 3, etc.? I think that could work (not very well though), but that is not the way a barometer is set up.
In a barometer the whole room plays the boards simultaneously with predealt hands. Thus, after round 1, you will get the complete scores for board 1-3 and a ranking. And then boards 1-3 are finished.

You can set bridgemates to display all the results so far on the board that you have just played and your percentage score so far. For boards on the first round, there are no other results, so the bridgemate displays 50%. For boards in subsequent rounds the percentages displayed become better and better estimates, as more tables complete them. For boards played on the last round the score it displays is final and correct.

Thanks for the clarification.

But basically all the bridgemate does is show you the the scores on that board that so far have been entered and convert your score into a percentage. Forty years ago, the travelling score sheets gave exactly the same information (except that you needed to calculate the percentage yourself). That is not a barometer.

In a barometer, you are playing the boards simultaneously. The whole room plays boards 1-3 in the first round. This is why you need a lot of preduplicated boards. The scores are entered and the ranking after round 1 is presented with modern (monitors / beamers) or less modern (overhead projectors / print outs) technology. Thus when you are playing board 4, you see how you did on boards 1-3. The scores on board 1-3 are the final scores (other than appeals, etc.), since all pairs have played these boards. They are finished and can go back into the box.

And in the last round, you know where you are standing with three boards to go. You know whether you need to consolidate or need to swing. This adds something to the dynamics of bridge. Some people like that. Others feel that it turns the last round into a gambling competition, which is why in some places they won't show the results for the penultimate round until the last board has been played.

In my opinion, you can show the results for the penultimate round, as long as things don't get out of hand. I have seen barometers where the pair in 4th position after the penultimate round went "all or nothing". Result: 3 fat bottoms and the opponents leap from 13th place to win the event. If that happens regularly, things are getting out of hand.

Rik

[gordontd]

jdonn, on Oct 20 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

You get 1 matchpoint for each result you beat and 1/2 matchpoint for each result you tie. Or is this some difference between countries I have forgotten about?

Yes, America does it one way, and most other places do it another.

[gordontd]

barmar, on Oct 20 2009, 09:01 PM, said:

I still don't understand mrdct's point about top of 2 vs top of 14.  All board in the same game should have about the same top.  In some movements, some boards may be played one time more than others, but that's only a difference of 1 in the matchpoints.  I don't think there's any way that you can have 2 and 14 tops in the same event.

If you have a fouled board, or if you have a two-section event with different sized sections, your initial match-pointing would give different tops which need to be factored up. This is usually done using the Neuberg formula.

[Vampyr]

skaeran, on Oct 16 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

In Norway, nearly all tournaments, and quite a lot of the clubs too, run barometer scoring. Most tournaments have done for more (probably a lot more) than 30 years.

How do the clubs manage this? In the UK board preparation is generally done by volunteers, so even if clubs had enough sets of boards duplicating so many sets is a lot to ask. And in this country there are even some small clubs which do not have Duplimates, so that if someone took on the mammoth task of duplicating the sets by hand, they wouldn't be able to play in the local weekly duplicate.

Do clubs in Norway generally hire someone to duplicate the boards?

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on Oct 21 2009, 07:11 PM, said:

skaeran, on Oct 16 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

In Norway, nearly all tournaments, and quite a lot of the clubs too, run barometer scoring. Most tournaments have done for more (probably a lot more) than 30 years.

How do the clubs manage this? In the UK board preparation is generally done by volunteers, so even if clubs had enough sets of boards duplicating so many sets is a lot to ask. And in this country there are even some small clubs which do not have Duplimates, so that if someone took on the mammoth task of duplicating the sets by hand, they wouldn't be able to play in the local weekly duplicate.

Do clubs in Norway generally hire someone to duplicate the boards?

There are people who invest in the cards and the equipment. They will duplicate the boards for a fee. Usually these are retired folks who like bridge and make some extra money by running the duplimates. They have their garage full of cases with boards.

I could imagine that I would invest in a Duplimate myself and let my kids earn some pocket money.

Rik

[mrdct]

In Australia whilst barometers in club games are fairly rare, the overwhelming majority of clubs would use predealt hands for their duplicates as the punters would simply go elsewhere if they weren't getting a hand-record at the end of each session. You don't need to be a bridge player to duplicate a board, particularly if done with a dealing machine, and I guess in a volunteer-run club the best bet would be to get someone's non-playing spouse or child to do it.

It only takes about 15 minutes to deal a set of boards with a machine, so it can be done quite efficiently if you are doing a few sets in one sitting. I really like the model that Trinidad described of retired folk running a board duplication machine in their garage; presumedly servicing a number of clubs and tournament convenors. In a market like the USA where a lot of bridge is still played with hand-dealt cards, I smell business opportunity!

I'm fairly sure I haven't played a hand dealt board since 1995 as I stopped playing between 1995 and 2000 for work and family reasons and by 2000 most clubs, and certainly all of the clubs I played in, used predealt boards.

[gnasher]

mrdct, on Oct 21 2009, 09:50 PM, said:

In Australia whilst barometers in club games are fairly rare, the overwhelming majority of clubs would use predealt hands for their duplicates as the punters would simply go elsewhere if they weren't getting a hand-record at the end of each session.

For a Barometer-scored event you need one set of boards per table (or perhaps per two tables if you share). Even in a small club, compared with a normal pairs that's an order-of-magnitude increase in the amount of preparation required.