[yleexotee]

Would it be very difficult to add some other scoring methods for tables? I am particularly hopeful that a scoring method that drops the highest and lowest comparison board could be implemented. This would eliminate some of the problems in comparison boards where someone has thoughtlessly bid 7ntXX and left the table leaving the rest of us to compete with that side's score.

Board a Match? (of course, we could just count them too)

[mgoetze]

yleexotee, on 2014-October-09, 16:00, said:

Would it be very difficult to add some other scoring methods for tables? I am particularly hopeful that a scoring method that drops the highest and lowest comparison board could be implemented. This would eliminate some of the problems in comparison boards where someone has thoughtlessly bid 7ntXX and left the table leaving the rest of us to compete with that side's score.

Board a Match? (of course, we could just count them too)

Eh? Board a Match is available and has been since basically forever.

More scoring methods for the Main Bridge Club doesn't really make much sense because even for Matchpoints there are sometimes not enough comparisons. 99% of players play the default, and no scoring method is any fun if you are the only table using it.

[Bbradley62]

mgoetze, on 2014-October-09, 16:29, said:

Eh? Board a Match is available and has been since basically forever.

Maybe this is only in the download version? When I start a MBC table using the web version, I'm given a choice of IMP pairs, Match Points, Total Points, and VuGraph Game.

[mgoetze]

Bbradley62, on 2014-October-09, 17:44, said:

Maybe this is only in the download version? When I start a MBC table using the web version, I'm given a choice of IMP pairs, Match Points, Total Points, and VuGraph Game.

BAM is Match Points for teams. I'm not sure what you expect to get for a pairs game... only one comparison against a random other table? What would the point of that be?

(I haven't used the "download version" in ages.)

[gordontd]

yleexotee, on 2014-October-09, 16:00, said:

I am particularly hopeful that a scoring method that drops the highest and lowest comparison board could be implemented. This would eliminate some of the problems in comparison boards where someone has thoughtlessly bid 7ntXX and left the table leaving the rest of us to compete with that side's score.

This sounds like you are talking about Butler scoring, which is generally considered to be inferior to Cross-IMPs for reasons that will be explained if you search for threads on that subject in these forums.

[1eyedjack]

gordontd, on 2014-October-10, 01:44, said:

This sounds like you are talking about Butler scoring

Not necessarily. You could cross-imp against all bar the extreme score. No need to establish a datum to distort the log scale.

I don't personally regard this as elegant, as it means that the total imps issued would not add up to zero. Not that there is any particular reason why they need to, but it grates.

[barmar]

This has been suggested and discussed numerous times in the past. The arguments for and against haven't changed. It's useful when you have some a-hole that purposely makes a crazy 7NTXX bid, not helpful when all the scores come from normal auctions.

The thing to do about those 7NTXX bidders is report them to abuse, not change the scoring method to deal with them.

[1eyedjack]

barmar, on 2014-October-10, 08:35, said:

It's useful when you have some a-hole that purposely makes a crazy 7NTXX bid, not helpful when all the scores come from normal auctions.

But neither is it particularly harmful in that event.

barmar, on 2014-October-10, 08:35, said:

The thing to do about those 7NTXX bidders is report them to abuse, not change the scoring method to deal with them.

I may not be necessary to pursue one solution to the exclusion of the other. Particularly as neither solution in isolation is likely to be 100% effective.


Just playing devil's advocate, really. I am not particularly in favour of change

[mycroft]

The problem is that for every board where someone rage-redoubles 7NT, there are 10 where there may be a "ridiculous" -2000 that, in fact, wasn't ridiculous at all, just a "partner thought this was Michaels for reasons that elude me at the moment" issue, or a "I thought it was a crossruff hand, and unfortunately it was; just not for my side"; of course there are also the "I have the exact system to bid the grand on this hand; I get the plus, but you don't get the minus". Removing those boards from contention also biases the hand: average on the board is no longer zero, sort of randomly (watch what happens on the hand where everyone goes down in 4♠ except for the one that takes the same 9 tricks in NT, for instance).

[ArtK78]

I don't believe that the OP was implying that scores achieved by the competitors on the extreme results should not count - only that they should not be counted in determining the scores on the boards achieved by everyone else.

So, if you get +1700 when your opponents do something particularly weird (and I am not referring to the random 7NTxx atrocity), your (and their) results count - only it doesn't enter into the computation of how the board is scored. All but the highest and lowest scores count for purposes of determining the scores on the boards.

[gordontd]

ArtK78, on 2014-October-10, 13:07, said:

I don't believe that the OP was implying that scores achieved by the competitors on the extreme results should not count - only that they should not be counted in determining the scores on the boards achieved by everyone else.

So, if you get +1700 when your opponents do something particularly weird (and I am not referring to the random 7NTxx atrocity), your (and their) results count - only it doesn't enter into the computation of how the board is scored. All but the highest and lowest scores count for purposes of determining the scores on the boards.

I don't think anyone has misunderstood this.