[blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

Tony Musgrove wrote:
> Herman:
> 
> 
>> Well, the NS and EW IMPS do add up to zero, all together (of course),
>> so I don't see this particularly as a problem.
>> If one uses a movement like a Howell, this is no problem.
>> So it's a problem for movements, not Butler.
>> And besides, there is an equal chance that the random imp lands in NS
>> or EW, so what's the problem, really?
> 
> If you play a Butler, or Bastille with a Howell movement,
> it is possible for one pair to be the beneficiary of up
> to a couple of IMPs by this "non problem".  Why not
> just stick to cross imps
> 

For two reasons:
- people prefer a system they know and can judge. comparing your 
result to an average that is shown makes a lot more sense than simply 
seeing a number of imps appear;
- the "disadvantage" that you mention is not a disadvantage at all. 
The pairs are not the "beneficiary" of those imps, they have earned 
them from their actions at the table. They don't care how many imps 
are distributed in their direction or in the other one. They only 
watch their own result.

And besides, if you really believe that this is such an enourmous 
problem, then I can easily create a third "bastille" system in which 
the problem does not exist, by defining the average as that number for 
which the total imps becomes zero.

Which brings me to another difference between Bastille and Cross-IMPs. 
At Bastille, like in Butler, the average is calculated after dropping 
some scores at either end. This is of course the main reason why the 
total imps will not add to zero. If someone in your direction gets a 
windfall of +2800, this drags your score downwards, unless the Butler 
averaging is used. I think people like that.

> Tony (Sydney)
> 

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