Barometer?

[Guest Jlall]

I've noticed that barometer scoring in BBO team matches is very prevalent and popular. I'm curious why that is. It creates situations where wild swinging is the correct strategy which I would imagine lessens the fun for others. It also has little to do with "good" bridge. Even if you know you're down 1 imp, that can effect things. Once I was down one and got to a normal 3N. I had 9 toppers and wide open in the suit they led after they knocked out my stopper. I had Jxx opp Kxx in a side suit and led the J to the K and got my overtrick to tie the match. Had I not known the score, obviously I wouldn't do this. What is the fascination with barometer mode?

[Blofeld]

I think it's a matter of instant gratification. People don't always hang around after the match has finished to discuss scores or contracts (as one normally would playing face to face), so they'd rather hear the results (and blame their teammates!) as they go.

 

I agree that it changes the game, and tends to lower the quality of the bridge. On the other hand, I think on balance it tends to make things more exciting (more of the instant gratification here).

 

Edit: I've certainly made use of the information. About 8 behind going into the last board, I could see that the normal contract was 3NT, so bid to 6♦ via a lead-impeding cue in the suit I didn't have a control in. It worked, and we won the match, but it wasn't good bridge and [probably] not what I would have done without the barometer.

[pclayton]

Barometers do not mirror real games at all.

 

They DO make the game a little more fun for the participants as you get real-time comparisons.

[han]

I agree with you, barometer is bad for bridge. 8-board matches with 140 competiting pairs are bad for bridge (you know you have to bid that slam to win, even if you are missing two aces), but barometer makes it worse.

 

The only good thing that can be said about barometer is that it is nice to immediately see how you did on a board.

[Guest Jlall]

Interesting, many seem to think barometer increases excitement, but I think it decreases it. Live, I'm always very excited/nervous/anxious as I wait for my teammates to finish and see how we did in the match. Similarly, online without barometer I also get a bit of a rush after finishing and having no idea if we're winning or losing or not. To me that is exciting.

[shoeless]

Good question - one I thought about quite a bit one day a few months back. Not sure it is so much a fascination as it is just habitual or customary. Simply it is part for the BBO culture hence sort of automatic to set matches up with a barometer. I also think there is an element or issue of psychological power and control factoring in here. For the most part it is human nature for people to feel most comfortable when they have control (also read information) of things - not being in control or having information about what is going on moment by moment can be anxiety producing for many. Do you remember the relief when comparing scores in a swiss match when you dicovered that the opps also went down in that cold contract or the stress in discovering they had made it and you didn't. the barometer gives one instant relief - good or bad result - its public, its out there, I don't have to sweat this. Without the barometer I think as you imply it's a diferent game entirely and more consistent with the face to face bridge world. Justin, I think generally the masses are here for a good time not a long time and it is the purists (for lack of a better word) who enjoy a match not knowing the result of the last board from the other room. And shortly some is going to give a simple answer to this question that is so obviously right and I am going to feel idiotic. Gee I wish we could have a barometer on this forum to know what others were writing at the same time or thinking about writing in the future.

[shoeless]

But I guess I would trade a forum barometer for a grammar and spell checker any day.

[Guest Jlall]

Shoeless, I agree with your theory actually. It is customary to use barometer, so I think many do it without thinking about why. When I get back to BBO I will boycott barometer team games, maybe this will help change the custom in my social group anyways. I encourage those who dislike barometer to try the same.

[david_c]

I think generally the masses are here for a good time not a long time and it is the purists (for lack of a better word) who enjoy a match not knowing the result of the last board from the other room.

heh - I think you may be right.

 

I'm a purist :)

[shoeless]

I set up a match recently and being a bit of a klutz I missed the barometer and no one complained and two players send messages about how much they were enjoying the match because of the absense of the barometer.

[Echognome]

I think the two types of matches are different of course. I agree that no barometer scoring is more like f2f bridge if you are playing a normal set in a team's match. However, since team matches are often much shorter online than f2f, you don't have a reasonable comparison. If we played a match of say 2 sets of 12 boards or 3 sets of 8 boards comparing in between, then it would closer to a short match in f2f. You at least get some barometer of how you are doing along the way and that may indeed lead you to taking mild swings in the last set. How can we really compare to online where a team's match is often just 8 boards? Should we score up after 4?

 

More generally however, it's not clear whether no barometer is "pure" bridge or not. As many have said, it is customary online and not customary in f2f. We should expect that it is not customary in f2f, because it just isn't practical to score up after every board. Had it been easy to do so when team matches were invented, then perhaps our customs would be different. The question is whether "pure" bridge should be considering one board at a time or the whole match.

 

I'm not fussed whether a match is barometer or not. I think it's good to have a choice and play some of each. If I were preparing for a f2f match or tournament, of course I would choose no barometer. If I was just planning on playing for fun or bragging rights among friends, I think barometer leads to more excitement.

[Blofeld]

The way the barometer is set up, though, is not equivalent to scoring up after every board (which is fair, even if a different game to 'normal' teams matches). Unless paces are remarkably well-matched, only the slower table has an up-to-date (for the board they are playing) record of the score so far. It's this asymmetry which I really think throws a spanner into the workings. If both tables could see that there was a 7-IMP gap going into the final board, then the players on the leading team could anticipate and perhaps try to replicate the swing-going actions of the trailing team. But as things are this is rarely the case, which I think is what causes the trouble (if the difference in table speed is more than a board by the end of the match, you rarely see such wild actions on the last board at the faster table).

[sceptic]

I dont run that many tourneys, but they are usually barometer, I must admit.

 

I seem to get disconnections further down the table and better connections up the table, this was something I had noticed and was considering stopping next time I run a tourney

[barmar]

I suspect the reason barometer is popular in online bridge is simply because it's feasible. While there are some barometer-style live tournaments, they're rare because it's hard to implement them and it slows things down. In pair games there's a delay between rounds while you wait for scores to be entered (this can be alleviated by having the running score be a round behind), and in team games you'd have to compare after each board. Consider that Swiss Team events are almost barometer -- you know your score every 6-8 boards.

 

I suspect that non-barometer scoring is not considered by most average players to be a feature of face-to-face bridge, it's an unfortunate consequence, which online bridge is able to correct. Bridge is pretty unusual among competitive events in the way that you don't really know how well you're doing, all you can do is estimate.

[Guest Jlall]

I don't really think the reason barometer is not used more in f2f is because its less feasible. Can you imagine, if completely feasible, the blue ribbons run as a barometer? The last round, a top pair playing against a pair in 16th. This pair decides they want to be in the top 10, so they swing wildly. The top pair either gets screwed and gets a zero to not win the event, or gets gifted 2 tops and wins the event easily. Or, a top pair is playing a pair thats out of it. Said pair doesn't like the other top pair, so decide to dump out of spite. What the hell, they're out of it anyways right? The event would not be decided on bridge, but on luck. I don't think this is a good thing. The same happens in BBO team matches with 1 or 2 boards to go. A team will bid a 10 % slam, and it will come in. They would never do this if they didn't know the exact score. Did this team win with skill or just luck?

[inquiry]

I, as we all have, manuvered on the last hand or two to gain imps (btw, in an 8 board match, often you will need to make your move on Board 7 were BOTH teams are vul rather than 8 were neither are).... in barometer matches. I also know (or at least suspect) pairs that intentionally play slow in Barometer matches so that they can see "what they need to win."

 

I greatly prefer non-barometer matches, but unlike justin, I don't plan to play in only them. But when I start, it is never barometer. And for the record, many people complain when they find out you are running it that way.

 

Ben

[nikos59]

Well, in my huimble opinion the fact that barometer is not a

part of f2f bridge is because until recently f2f bridge was conducted

manually and it was very tedious to organize barometers.

Same analogy is valid with matchpoints vs IMP pairs; until recently

matchpoints was the only option in f2f clubs, everyone played

matchpoints at their local club not because it is a superior form

compared to IMP pairs but because it was the only feasible form.

Due to inertia at local clubs, matchpoints is still prevalent but

here at BBO only 5-10% of tables are using it (and I am being

generous).

 

Same with barometer; here at BBO it is feasible and the

great majority is using it -I guess they find it is more

entertaining and/or exciting. Moreover, while dummy you

can perform post-mortems of the hands already played.

 

I would not be surprised if there is in the future

some form of barometer in big matches of f2f bridge.

 

n.

[tooncestdc]

I don't really think the reason barometer is not used more in f2f is because its less feasible. Can you imagine, if completely feasible, the blue ribbons run as a barometer? The last round, a top pair playing against a pair in 16th. This pair decides they want to be in the top 10, so they swing wildly. The top pair either gets screwed and gets a zero to not win the event, or gets gifted 2 tops and wins the event easily. Or, a top pair is playing a pair thats out of it. Said pair doesn't like the other top pair, so decide to dump out of spite. What the hell, they're out of it anyways right? The event would not be decided on bridge, but on luck. I don't think this is a good thing. The same happens in BBO team matches with 1 or 2 boards to go. A team will bid a 10 % slam, and it will come in. They would never do this if they didn't know the exact score. Did this team win with skill or just luck?

Who's to say what is and is not "bridge". Is it not really football when a team goes into a 2-minute drill or throws a Hail Mary in the last few seconds with only a 5% chance of winning? Is it not basketball when a team fouls the other player to get the ball back? Is it not baseball when the manager pulls the infield in in a close game to prevent the run, despit e the fact that it would be foolish to do in the 2nd inning? Is it not hockey when they pull the goalie for a 6th attacker?

 

In all these situations, the play in the final few minutes is dramatically different from play during the start and middle of the game, when the outcome is in doubt. Obviously, in a barometer situation, the last hand will not be good "neutral" bridge, but rather be good "situational" bridge. To not make it barometer is like playing basketball and having the score hidden from you until the buzzer sounds. Granted that the entire game will feel like the 1st quarter, but do people really watch basketball primarily to see what happens over the 1st half when neither team is "reaching"?

[Fluffy]

Barometer is good, it lets you do something while you are boring on the next deals: looking at how the hand was played at the other table, that way you won't lose your time at the end of the match trying to find out how could you lose 6 IMPs on the hand you thouh was your best result.

[barmar]

There are some major f2f tournaments that are run barometer style. In particular, the Cavendish International Pairs, which has big money prizes.

 

If the pairing is also swiss, I think there's less opportunity for swinging or dumping at the end, since the opponents usually have similar scores. If one is in contention, the other probably is as well, so their best chance is to play good bridge.

[Guest Jlall]

There are some major f2f tournaments that are run barometer style. In particular, the Cavendish International Pairs, which has big money prizes.

 

If the pairing is also swiss, I think there's less opportunity for swinging or dumping at the end, since the opponents usually have similar scores. If one is in contention, the other probably is as well, so their best chance is to play good bridge.

The Cavendish also offers some huge prize (thousands or tens of thousands) for the winner of the last session. There is a reason they do this.

[Clinch]

I don't really think the reason barometer is not used more in f2f is because its less feasible. Can you imagine, if completely feasible, the blue ribbons run as a barometer?

Actually, Justin, in the UK a couple of the larger pairs finals are played as barometer events in the final session. The fields have been narrowed by a qualifying and semi-final session, just like the Blue Ribbons. I'm thinking of the Autumn Two Stars and the EBU Spring Congress Pairs. The TDs drop small slips on each table showing where you stood at end of last round - usually takes about a board to get them ready. IIRC, this only happens in the second of the two sessions in the final.

 

It might lead to wild swinging, but in my experience it doesn't. It can lead to an added intangible to deal with as the slip gets dropped, though :ph34r:

 

 

Peter.

New York, NY.

[mycroft]

I don't know; it looks to me like Just Another Scoring Difference. Strategies and Tactics are different in:

 

- MP vs IMP vs Instant MP vs World-wide Pairs

- Stratified vs Qualifier/Consolation Pairs (especially if you're a bubble pair)

- 12 vs 26 vs 5x33 board events

- IMP vs BAM, 6 vs 12 vs 32 vs 128-board teams

- Random pairing vs Round-robin vs Swiss matching

- Barometer vs non-Barometer matches

 

After all, what is a two-session Swiss team event if not an 8-round Barometer? Okay, so the rounds are 7 boards long instead of 2 or 3 (or 1!), but still.

 

I don't like Instant MP events. I don't play in them. My choice. Ben turns Barometer off for the events he runs. Seems okay by me. No worries, though.

 

As for the Cavendish, yes, there's a reason for the big 5th round payoff, but it's also round-Barometer; if you know the leaderboard now and after four rounds, you can pretty much tell if you're in the running for day money, and whether you have to swing for the cash or not in the last two. Just a matter of degree between 20K and 400K. And if the "fight-for-first-overall" happen to hit the "out of the overalls, but in swing reach of big last day money" pairs on the last couple of rounds, well, that's the luck of the draw, too, isn't it?

 

Michael.

[AAr]

I also base my bids and plays because of the barometer (mainly in pay tourneys).

 

Say you need a huge swing to get in the Points in a BBO Pay Tourney. With the Barometer, you know you will need it. Without it, it's more of a guess (Maybe the entire Field also went down in the seemingly makable and tough-to-bid game, or also had the same disaster (Or worse) than you did.

 

If I know I need a big swing to get into the Points, of course I'm going to overbid and make anti-percentage plays in hopes that my actions work while the Field's doesn't. But, if I'm near the Top or otherwise high (or at the bottom after a few disasters and hopelessly out of it, out of fairness to partner and opponents), I make more normal actions.

 

I prefer Barometer. You want to know if you need a comeback and it creates an unpredictable element to the game as you also know that other tables late in tourneys may try for swings.