[jordymc]

Well, I just played the Friday "Just Declare", and again, I constantly marvel at the people who score those 80% games in this kind of event. Yesterday, of the 8 hands I played, I had a "top" on 7 of them, matching the best result achieved. The highest score to be had on any of those 7 hands was 70.89%. On the 8th hand, played 140 times, 13 players managed to go -1 in 4♠ , while i was amongst the 125 who went -2, for a normal result of 46%, for an overall score of 59.77%. Even if I'd managed to match the top score on the last hand, my overall score would have only been 65-66%--a rather humdrum result for the top score on all 8 hands. The randomness factor, of which set of 8 hands give some scope to play makes this a frustrating event; somewhat akin to the IMP game where you get 8 part score and routine game hands, and others get 6 slams out of 8 and manage to score 40+ IMPs.
Oh well, just my Saturday rant.

[Wiskundige]

jordymc, on 2020-August-22, 09:30, said:

Well, I just played the Friday "Just Declare", and again, I constantly marvel at the people who score those 80% games in this kind of event. Yesterday, of the 8 hands I played, I had a "top" on 7 of them, matching the best result achieved. The highest score to be had on any of those 7 hands was 70.89%. On the 8th hand, played 140 times, 13 players managed to go -1 in 4♠ , while i was amongst the 125 who went -2, for a normal result of 46%, for an overall score of 59.77%. Even if I'd managed to match the top score on the last hand, my overall score would have only been 65-66%--a rather humdrum result for the top score on all 8 hands. The randomness factor, of which set of 8 hands give some scope to play makes this a frustrating event; somewhat akin to the IMP game where you get 8 part score and routine game hands, and others get 6 slams out of 8 and manage to score 40+ IMPs.
Oh well, just my Saturday rant.

Yes, unfortunately it is often about what kind of 8 deals you get. I find that my results depend on how many 50% deals (i.e. the deals where everybody achieve exactly the same result) I've been dealt. If I get only 1 or 2 out of 8, I can score around 63-65%, the more 50% deals I've got the lower the average score would be.

[hrothgar]

Events with

1. Small numbers of pairs
2. Large numbers of entries

result in extreme scores

[sfi]

hrothgar, on 2020-August-22, 10:11, said:

1. Small numbers of pairs
2. Large numbers of entries

I presume you meant to say "Small numbers of boards"?

[Vampyr]

Wiskundige, on 2020-August-22, 10:03, said:

Yes, unfortunately it is often about what kind of 8 deals you get. I find that my results depend on how many 50% deals (i.e. the deals where everybody achieve exactly the same result) I've been dealt. If I get only 1 or 2 out of 8, I can score around 63-65%, the more 50% deals I've got the lower the average score would be.

The scores in events where everyone doesn’t play the same boards are truly random.

There is a tournament in Central Europe where until just a few years ago (IIRC fewer than 10!) they played Swiss Teams with hand-dealt boards and scored in Victory points! I remember many more years ago than that that the ACBL did the same, but at least they scored in w/l.

[hrothgar]

sfi, on 2020-August-22, 19:42, said:

I presume you meant to say "Small numbers of boards"?

yes

thank you

[akwoo]

Vampyr, on 2020-August-23, 06:11, said:

There is a tournament in Central Europe where until just a few years ago (IIRC fewer than 10!) they played Swiss Teams with hand-dealt boards and scored in Victory points! I remember many more years ago than that that the ACBL did the same, but at least they scored in w/l.

Hand-dealt Swiss scored in VPs is still common in ACBL-land. It's getting more common for the top third or half of the field to use pre-dealt boards for the last several rounds.

Around here, it's quite common for there to be a 6-round Swiss at a sectional tournament with something like 11 teams, with one of the teams so clearly better than everyone else that everyone in the room knows they're going to score more than 110 (out of 120) for the day. If you're aiming for 4th place (which will pay masterpoints), you're trying to avoid drawing this team.

[Vampyr]

akwoo, on 2020-August-23, 16:12, said:

Hand-dealt Swiss scored in VPs is still common in ACBL-land. It's getting more common for the top third or half of the field to use pre-dealt boards for the last several rounds.

Well, every NBO should do what the players like. Here, for example, we like to discuss the boards during the break and after the last round. For many i’m sure this is more important than playing a valid game of Duplicate Bridge.

Quote

Around here, it's quite common for there to be a 6-round Swiss at a sectional tournament with something like 11 teams, with one of the teams so clearly better than everyone else that everyone in the room knows they're going to score more than 110 (out of 120) for the day. If you're aiming for 4th place (which will pay masterpoints), you're trying to avoid drawing this team.

Ah, the age-old BW argument about “sportsmanlike dumping”. I wouldn’t worry about the masterpoints, but if I don’t win I like to be in the actual prizes, even if it just barely covers my entry and drink at the end.

Isn’t a 6-Round Swiss Teams with 11 teams significantly over-Swissed?

Our friends in the ACBL should try Swiss Pairs (matchpoints converted to VP) it is my favourite form of scoring.

[jeffford76]

Vampyr, on 2020-August-23, 20:25, said:

Our friends in the ACBL should try Swiss Pairs (matchpoints converted to VP) it is my favourite form of scoring.

This will never happen until ACBLScore supports it, and ACBLScore will not support it because it's not popular.

[Vampyr]

jeffford76, on 2020-August-24, 16:24, said:

This will never happen until ACBLScore supports it, and ACBLScore will not support it because it's not popular.

How do the ACBL know how popular it is if they haven’t tried it?

[cherdano]

Vampyr, on 2020-August-23, 06:11, said:

The scores in events where everyone doesn’t play the same boards are truly random.

True, daylong tournaments where everybody plays the exact same boards would have rather predictable results... (Until BBO investigates the winners, of course.)

[sfi]

cherdano, on 2020-August-25, 04:07, said:

True, daylong tournaments where everybody plays the exact same boards would have rather predictable results... (Until BBO investigates the winners, of course.)

On the bright side, the winning percentage score would drop quite a bit.

[mycroft]

It's not popular because it's not run.
It's not run because we can't score it.
We won't implement scoring it because it's not popular.

What don't you understand?

Truly have you been converted to a Britisher if you have forgotten how strong American NIH Syndrome is.

Spoiler

Not Invented Here