[kfay]

I thought there was a really interesting article on a novel form of bridge scoring in the San Diego Bulletin today, page 6:

http://acbl.com/nabc...tins/2009/03/8/

What do you think?

[jjbrr]

That article is definitely a tl;dr. I guess if I could be pressed to read the whole thing, I might understand it better, but from just skimming that whole system is way too confusing. I'd have to relearn bridge just to figure out how the scoring works and what strategy to employ. Sometimes I get 40 for making 1NT, sometimes I get 90, and sometimes I make game!? WHAT? Try explaining that to beginners. We aren't all as smart as you are kfay

Also, shoutout to aclayton. Made the front page, front center obv. Her father must be proud.

Edit: Am I right that functionally you'd need like 8 completely different systems to cover all the possible scenarios where it can be beneficial to stay as low as possible, but the opponents know that you know that you need to stay low and thus they have a system devised to push you higher. And then there are the times where you need to stay low and the opponents can benefit from staying low also, so his example about what to do in 4th chair is unrealistic, because the opponents know that they can make game by bidding a low contract so obv they would try to buy it cheaply. But if you know that they're bidding light, you have to be extra aggressive, because their cheap contract can be very lucrative to them. So even though you want to stay low, you actually have to bid higher because you know the opponents are stretching in the hopes that you think they have more than they have so that they can buy the contract cheaply. So sometimes you have to employ a strategy where you purposely don't stretch because you know the opponents will stretch and when they do you can double them for penalties, unless they utilize the strategy like in the article where they both pass, even though they know a cheap contract will give them a game bonus.

headasplode.gif

[kenrexford]

Two thoughts.

First, as to duplicate scoring. Ugh! Sounds like a nightmare.

However, I did find the bidding theory issue very interesting. Bidding theory started out from a rubber bridge perspective. However, when duplicate is entered into the mix, a duplicate-oriented bidding style emerged. I wonder at how complicated and intriguing bidding conventions and styles and the like would be if a purely-rubber bidding "system" were developed, maximizing space and allowing for purpose-based bidding, and the like.

Having a partial would seem to create an incentive for blocking bids at the low end, as suggested, but would also create incentives for better management of interference. Conversely, slam bidding might be wildly different.

From a theory perspective, a change like this would shake up a lot and create opportunities.

[Fluffy]

the concept is pretty simple, you just pay hands against a field as if someone had made a partscore before. Adding the usual competition race for this kind of hands.

I like the idea since it forces you to destroy your system on certain circumstances (if playing 2♠ gives you game you ain't using jacoby 2NT)

The drawback: If you have partscore bonus before, it sounds ridicoulous to play a partscore again. Everybody is going tog ame since you don't carry another partscore further on. So it doesn't fully acomplish its objective.

[suokko]

I think scoring is already complex enough and doesn't have to be any more complex.

Also importance of part-scores is very high in MP scoring already. I see the extra biding twist but it is not exactly all for good. If you out of ideas how to make duplicate biding systems better then go for new scoring to add extra twists.
I don't think this kind of scoring would bring in new young players. It might bring in a few older people who have played rubber a lot.

Maybe this kind of duplicate would have place in midnight fun competitions and similar games.

PS. I like to play rubber bridge