[gwnn]

655321, on Jun 30 2010, 03:43 AM, said:

gwnn?

Um found these:

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=36353
and
http://forums.bridge...showtopic=27913

The first is about a team conceding after only 1 session, the second is about a team conceding mid-session in Beijing (Germany vs England in a result quite unlike the one from South Africa). Not sure if these are the ones aguahombre was talking about?

[campboy]

mrdct, on Jun 30 2010, 04:05 AM, said:

I would be supportive of some sort of mercy rule to be written into conditions of contests which mandates a concession going into the final segment if the margin is greater than x-imps per board.

I don't want to comment on the rights or wrongs of mandatory concessions, but basing it on IMPs-per-board is statistically unsound. 50 IMPs over 8 boards is way more likely to be overcome than 100 IMPs over 16. The formula should be something like an+bsqrt(n) for n boards, with a much smaller than b.

[gnasher]

A decision to concede isn't just a function of the number of IMPs down that you are. It depends upon how much you think you might be able to get back against these particular opponents on this particular day. 50-0 down is completely different from 100-50 down.

[aguahombre]

gwnn, on Jun 30 2010, 06:03 AM, said:

655321, on Jun 30 2010, 03:43 AM, said:

gwnn?

Um found these:

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=36353
and
http://forums.bridge...showtopic=27913

The first is about a team conceding after only 1 session, the second is about a team conceding mid-session in Beijing (Germany vs England in a result quite unlike the one from South Africa). Not sure if these are the ones aguahombre was talking about?

I know there was another, somewhere. I might even have started it myself ---maybe early in '09.

Memory fades, but conceding was encouraged by notable responders. And there was a somewhat flippant dismissal of the getting-extra-rest idea, pointing out that it gives the winning team more idle time to party and get wiped

I know of instances at the National level where the leading team has suggested concession; and another instance where friends of the leading team have offered to suggest, but have been told politely to butt out.

[mycroft]

I have no sympathy whatever for a mercy rule. I've lost a match by 130, 140 - and enjoyed the game., and would have played another round if it were there to play. There are matches where, had I been down by 20 with 8 boards to play, I would have conceded - because the chance of catching up and beating them wasn't worth sitting at the table with them for another 8 boards.

Don't take pity on me; but allow me the opportunity to say "I'm done being beaten up".

Funny, that seems to be what we currently do.

[jdonn]

You should concede against me down 5 or more with a round to go.

[aguahombre]

jdonn, on Jun 30 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

You should concede against me down 5 or more with a round to go.

Or even if +.

[jdonn]

aguahombre, on Jun 30 2010, 02:57 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 30 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

You should concede against me down 5 or more with a round to go.

Or even if +.

How could you possibly be +?

[FrancesHinden]

I find the suggestions that a team should consider anyone else except themselves very strange. If I am a lot down, and I want to concede, I think I should be allowed to. If I am a lot down, and I don't want to concede, I think I should be allowed to play on. I really don't think all this discussion about being "unfair to the field" or "helping people by giving them a rest" is at all relevant. It's my team, my match and my decision. (OK, my team's decision. In a team of more than 4 we once got to the last set and 2 people wanted to concede but 4 didn't, so guess who played the last set...)

As for "how much" that depends on how many boards are left (obviously), but also on other things such as how well we are playing, how good we think we are relative to the opponents (there are people against whom I think 60 imps in 8 boards is possible and those against whom it isn't), what the event is, how late it is, whether I have to be up early the next morning....

Certainly I've played matches where opponents have said, roughly, " we know we're going to lose but we'd like to play on to get our money/journey's worth" which is fine by me (unless it's 1am).

English events tend to be in 8-board sets so I have most experience with these, and I think that with 8 boards to play

- anything up to 50 imps I am likely to play on, that sort of amount is possible even against a good team if you go all out to try and get it back (certainly I've had multiple sets of +/- 45 imps or so)

- anything above, say, 65 imps and I'm going to give in unless opponents are completely clueless (but why am I 65 down against clueless opponents?)

- at aggregate, the margin has to be enormous before I concede. One grand slam swing is 2310 points and that's only board.

Times concessions (or lack thereof) have surprised me:

- we were 120 up with 8 to play and about to miss the last train back home because oppo were so slow, but they still insisted on playing. We played speedball and just made it...

- opponents in the GC wanted to concede after 24 boards of a 48-board match at only about 50 down. OK, they were a very weak team and were obviously going to lose... but why had they bothered entering if they didn't actually want to play just for the fun of it?

- opponents in a league match, victory pointed, who wanted to concede half way through (we persuaded them not to)

[jjbrr]

Agree with everything Frances said.

[aguahombre]

jdonn, on Jun 30 2010, 03:49 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Jun 30 2010, 02:57 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 30 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

You should concede against me down 5 or more with a round to go.

Or even if +.

How could you possibly be +?

not likely, but maybe someone got confused in a redouble of a transfer and donated 19 IMPS.