[blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Herman De Wael:

>The problem Richard describes has many solutions, but one of the
>main drawbacks I see is this one:
>
>Why stop there? Why not also create a difference between 0 points
>and 10 points difference (currently both 0IMP). And then, why not
>create a difference between 2S+1 and 3S= (currently both 140)?

Richard Hills:

Okay, let me see if I can follow Herman's objection.  He seems to be
suggesting that it is a "main drawback" to improve a _bad_ scoring
method to a _better_ scoring method because a _best_ scoring method
is not being adopted instead.  Ergo, Herman seems to be arguing that
zero improvement is preferable to partial improvement.

Well, at least I cannot answer this De Wael argument with my constant
cry of "petitio principii".  Perhaps "reductio ad absurdum"?

:-)

Herman De Wael:

>And why not give an extra point if you can make the 9th trick on an
>endplay rather than having it received through a favorable lead?

Richard Hills:

The reason I pay table money at my local bridge club is for the
psychological gratification of exercising my reasoning skills.  I
enjoy planning the gain of a 9th trick on an endplay even if the
actual lie of the cards means that the endplay fails.

:-)

Herman De Wael:

>One of the advantages of rounding is that some decisions do not
>matter all that much. An overtrick may not cost a championship.

Richard Hills:

A large number of championships have been decided by one overtrick,
one imp or one victory point.  The huge disadvantage of rounding is
that some overtrick decisions are _arbitrarily_ deemed to be
meaningless, while other overtrick decisions are _arbitrarily_
deemed to be meaningful.

Herman De Wael:

>And specifically, ruling becomes less of a problem. If you award
>4S+1, the players will not necessarily appeal and ask for 4S+2 if
>they know it won't bring them an extra VP.

Richard Hills:

Yes, of course players should be scored on a sloppy and inferior
Victory Point scale so that lazy Directors have more scope to award
sloppy and inferior adjusted scores.

:-)


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6223 9052

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm