[blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

Harald Skjæran wrote:
> On 02/04/07, Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be> wrote:
>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
>>> 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"?
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>> Yes indeed. Getting changes like this adopted by committees who are
>> basically conservative is a lot of work. No need to do half jobs then.
>> The main point this is trying to "solve" is the rounding. There is
>> then no need to go to a system that just puts the rounding in another
>> place. First you need to see if rounding is really that bad, and if
>> you think it is, do away with it altogether!
>>
>> My main point of contention with the current system of counting is
>> that it is so terribly complicated! Try and explain this to any
>> non-bridge player and you'll get big eyes indeed. And the
>> complications are there to solve problems that existed in the past,
>> but no longer apply today. Why indeed do we want to have a 30-point
>> VP-scale? We clearly don't want to just tally wins and losses, that's
>> certain. But why limit a win to 25? In a good competition, everybody
>> plays everybody, and with the same boards! So why not do away with a
>> scale that is basically just a linear transformation from the
>> IMP-difference.
>>
>> And then to go one better - do we really need the IMP-transformations?
>> Yes, we do, because we feel that the scoring table overvalues games
>> and slams in realtion to overtricks. But could we not do the same by
>> altering the scoring table instead?
>>
>> I believe that for the sake of simplicity, a few small changes in the
>> scoring table should be accepted, making all further translations
>> (IMPs and VPs) unnecessary. You could come off the table, add all your
>> total points, and compare with the total points from the other table
>> and decide you've won the match by 370 points!
> 
> That's really going back to the stone age (1930's).

No that's not what I mean.

> If you don't make a major change in the scoring table, 

That' what I mean. IMPs were designed to change the weights of 
different factors in the scoring, rather than changing the scoring 
itself. This was done when duplicate was in its infancy and they did 
not want to change anything for the rubber players. Nowadays, 
duplicate is king - isn't it time we took control of the scoring table 
as well?

> this means that
> the big boards (slams and zip numbers from contract going several down
> doubled) will weigh far more than they do in todays IMP scale, where
> in fact overtricks and small differences are overvalued.
> 

Not overvalued - given a more representative value. I believe the IMP 
values of the different contracts have shaped the way bidding theory 
has progressed.

> IMO, todays IMP scale is rather OK when it comes to how the scores are
> differentiated. Using decimals is OK to me.
> 
> The main point in converting to VP's is to put a limit on how much you
> can score by trounching one opponent. The VP scale works fine in this
> regard, but there's a small problem with the steps (decimals would
> work better even here, I agree).
> 

Well, I for one don't see why one should not be able to reap the 
benefits from trouncing one opponent. Especially if everyone gets to 
play that opponent, and everyone gets to play the same boards. If you 
have two good boards in one match, chances are you score less VP from 
it than if those two boards were in different matches.

> I believe we'll always want to have different types of scoring
> (MP/IMP's/other). Thus I don't think it's a great idea to change the
> scoring table to avoid conversion to MP/IMP/other.
> 

My idea about changing the scoring table would include leaving the 
different contracts in the same order (more or less) so that pairs 
scoring would not be affected.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be