Changing the IMP scale

[pclayton]

Is there anything you'd change about the IMP scale? Personally, I think that 10 points should be enough for 1 IMP, not 20-40 as it currently is. +90 should beat your teammates -80.

 

Any other ideas?

[awm]

I like that 10 points is not a swing; one of the differences between IMPs and MPs is not needing to worry about +100 vs. +110 or (the one that I think is kind of ridiculous) +130 vs. +140. The latter often punishes people who select a superior contract (3m making an overtrick) while rewarding those who play an inferior major suit partial.

 

What I would like to see (and have previously commented on) is increased penalties for undoubled contracts which fail by a large number of tricks (say at least three down). I think this would eliminate some "shooting" tactics at IMPs where people bid contracts that either make or go down a zillion, as well as preventing some of the more disliked conventional methods (artificial preempts that aim to play in the opponents best fit undoubled, such as 2♥ multi) and some of the more annoying psychics. Really bidding should be about either finding making contracts or finding contracts that are good sacrifices, not so much about "tricking" the opponents by bidding ridiculous contracts that go down six and somehow produce a plus position* (i.e. -300 instead of -620).

 

*Obviously this is just my opinion, but I think it's a fairly commonly held one.

[mikeh]

I don't like the idea of 10 points becoming an imp.

 

That change will lessen the difference between mps and imps.. of course, the difference will still be significant, but it won't be the same as it is now.

 

Let's say that I get to 3♣ while you get to a slightly less safe 2N. As the game is currently scored, I have outbid you. If both contracts make, we push but your contract is more likely to fail, so I may win a modest pickup. Most importantly, I cannot lose by this choice and my bidding methods/style will be based, at least to some degree, on that reality

 

Make your change, and now there will be a reward to the 2N bidder.. yes, he stands the same risk of losing imps when 3♣ makes, but now that is offset by the chance of gaining an imp when both make. So all of us will be more prone to riskier notrump partscores, rather than minor partscores, just like mps.

 

Then look at it from the p.o.v. of the 3♣ bidder, during the play. If he fears that his counterpart will be in 2N, making, then it may be important for the 3C bidder to risk his contract, because making 4 will gain 2 imps... it wins one outright and avoids the loss of one when 2N makes 120.

 

Yes, these factors add complications to the player's thought processes.. but we cater to these particular concerns in MPs or BAM. Imps reward different thought processes. Not simpler, but different.

 

And making this change can impact in other ways. If the opps are in a partscore that scores 110, and I 'save', going for 100.. then it's a push. Implement your change and the opps on defence may play differently because they will try a little harder to get 150.. let's say they can cash out for 100 or take a chance for 150. The dynamics of the situation have changed: it is, again, more of a BAM or mp choice...

 

These points may seem like minor issues, but I really love the way the imps scale works.... I think whoever came up with it (and many people may not know that this is a far different imp scale than the first one introduced many decades ago) got it as close to perfectly right as anything in the game.

[mike777]

I do not have Wolff's new book in front of me but I seem to recall he wants to increase the penalty scoring for not making your contracts.

[cherdano]

I always found it a joke that you only get 3 tricks for beating a non-vulnerable contact at either table. (Well, when we were the defending team - obviously when I had overbid opponents just weren't playing the IMP odds well enough.)

[TimG]

Really bidding should be about either finding making contracts or finding contracts that are good sacrifices, not so much about "tricking" the opponents by bidding ridiculous contracts that go down six and somehow produce a plus position* (i.e. -300 instead of -620).

 

*Obviously this is just my opinion, but I think it's a fairly commonly held one.

What, no double cards?

[kenrexford]

I like the IMP scale, also.

 

If I could change anything about scoring, however, I'd want to be able to sacrifice at the eight-level.

[655321]

What I would like to see (and have previously commented on) is increased penalties for undoubled contracts which fail by a large number of tricks (say at least three down).

This sounds a horrible idea to me. Why should players who don't understand when to double for penalties be rewarded for their caution?

 

Really bidding should be about either finding making contracts or finding contracts that are good sacrifices, not so much about "tricking" the opponents by bidding ridiculous contracts that go down six and somehow produce a plus position* (i.e. -300 instead of -620).

 

*Obviously this is just my opinion, but I think it's a fairly commonly held one.

Wow

[Free]

If I would adjust the imp scale, I'd make it dependant of how high we're bidding.

 

For example, it's a great thing you only have to find a 'playable partscore' so I'd like to keep that. On the other hand, if one pair can bid 6NT and the other one bids 6M, I'd want to reward the 6NT bidders: they had plenty of room to investigate the best contract... Same goes for games (3NT+1 vs 4M), although I'm not sure what's best there.

 

Problem with this is you'd need to calculate your imps instead of reading a table.

[georgi]

unless WBF change this

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/onlinelaws.pdf -pg61

why BBO should do it?

[jdonn]

I have always hated the 30 victory point scale where you win 18-12 if you win by one imp. This premise that such a premium must be placed on all important 'winning' is really really dumb when applied this way, because you don't have any idea who is winning while you're playing. It's not like you pulled out all the stops and came through under pressure when you needed it most.

[Hanoi5]

I don't like the idea of changing the imp scale. I don't see any reason for that. A 10-point difference shouldn't matter, for then we'd be playing no trump instead of the Majors as in MP.

 

However, I do not like the VP scale where if you win TOO MUCH you still only get 25! What about 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30!

[georgi]

6M compared with 6NT and 7M compared with 7NT could be not so interesting as bonus.

imo, if you play on higher level you should win extra points, in example 3S to be better then 1S+2, 3NT +1 < 4NT=, etc.

[helene_t]

The IMP scale is too complicated. It's a pain in the butt to explain it to beginners.

 

I would prefer just to play total points and then make a more regressive scale to make total points more similar to IMPs. For example:

Notrump bonus: 1 point

Partscore bonus: 1 point

Game bonus: 6 points

Small slam bonus: 18 points (incl the game bonus)

Grand slam bonus: 43 points

Trick bonus: 1 point a piece

Downtricks: 1 point a piece

Doubled downtricks: 2-8-14-20-26

 

This would make the penalty for overbidding (e.g. 3NT-1) equal to the penalty for underbidding (2NT+1).

 

If this is too radical, at least get rid of the VPs. One could could flatten the IMP scale to achieve an effect similar to the VP scale.

[pclayton]

I don't like the idea of 10 points becoming an imp.

 

That change will lessen the difference between mps and imps.. of course, the difference will still be significant, but it won't be the same as it is now.

 

Let's say that I get to 3♣ while you get to a slightly less safe 2N. As the game is currently scored, I have outbid you. If both contracts make, we push but your contract is more likely to fail, so I may win a modest pickup. Most importantly, I cannot lose by this choice and my bidding methods/style will be based, at least to some degree, on that reality

Isn't this an indictment against the scoring system itself, rather than the IMP scale?

 

While 3♣ may be 'safer' than 2N, NT still scores higher. Why are we awarded an IMP for +420 in 4M versus +400 for 5m when we aren't rewarded an IMP for getting to a higher scoring partial like 2N instead of 3m?

 

Where I personally like it is when our undoubled opponents are down 2 for -100. I think our judgment should be rewarded when we don't compete higher and +90 in 1N or 2m is our maximum.

 

I just find it odd that IMPs is the only form of scoring where a 10 point difference doesn't matter. It matters in MPs, BAM and even Total Points and Rubber.

[ArtK78]

I just find it odd that IMPs is the only form of scoring where a 10 point difference doesn't matter. It matters in MPs, BAM and even Total Points and Rubber.

While it is technically true that a 10 point difference matters at Total Points and at Rubber Bridge, it matters so little as to be ignored for practical purposes.

[kfay]

I think if you bid a grand while the opps stop in game the difference should be larger than it is between if you'd just stopped in the small. What is is now, like 4 IMPs? I mean to me this is almost the same as both bidding the grand and one going down while the other is making in terms of morale devastation.

[Al_U_Card]

Perhaps the different philosophies (imps vs mp etc.) explain the need and utility of the particularities.

 

Since in imps you wish to reduce exposure, increase safety and reward accurate bidding, all these things should be rewarded, as they seem to be. Adjusting the "fudge factors" is mostly just petty niggling.

 

The imp scale seems to soften (enlarge?) the room for error if you consider that maximizing your plus scores (in magnitude and number) is at a premium as it would be if playing for money and therefore, total points.

 

Matchpoints being more a winner take all strategy (for each board) then relative to imps, this would explain the tendency to discount a "win" and reward the magnitude of victory.

[jtfanclub]

If this is too radical, at least get rid of the VPs. One could could flatten the IMP scale to achieve an effect similar to the VP scale.

Actually, I'd prefer going the other direction. Change the points won so that we don't need an IMP scale. Something like 150 points for a NV game, 300 for a V game, slam bonuses 200 each NV and 300 each V. Then doubled undertricks are just 100/200 apiece.

 

Here's what I hate....

 

Let's say we catch our opponents and double them at 4♥ doubled down 5, when at the other table they were at 2♥ undoubled down 3. And furthermore, they were vulnerable. Originally, that would have been a 700 point difference, with the change in the scale, it's now an 1100 point difference. Sounds great...

 

But then IMPS takes it right down to 15 IMPs, where the difference between making and being set in a part score is 5 IMPs. So they increased the difference in total points, while decreasing it in IMPs. Thanks guys.

 

You can't convince the that IMPs are necessary. There's only a few dozen net scores that are common in bridge. Just make adjustments so those net scores are at about the same ratio as IMPs.

[mikeh]

I don't like the idea of 10 points becoming an imp.

 

That change will lessen the difference between mps and imps.. of course, the difference will still be significant, but it won't be the same as it is now.

 

Let's say that I get to 3♣ while you get to a slightly less safe 2N. As the game is currently scored, I have outbid you. If both contracts make, we push but your contract is more likely to fail, so I may win a modest pickup. Most importantly, I cannot lose by this choice and my bidding methods/style will be based, at least to some degree, on that reality

Isn't this an indictment against the scoring system itself, rather than the IMP scale?

 

While 3♣ may be 'safer' than 2N, NT still scores higher.

No.. it's no indictment of anything! I like it like this.. this difference in the importance of a very minor scoring differential has huge, altho subtle, impact on how we (should) play the game of bridge. It is the fact that at mps the riskier 2N partial will often be more attractive than the safe 3minor, while at imps, the reverse holds true that I find enjoyable.

 

I LIKE imps.. I sometimes enjoy matchpoints, but, as an example, I will sometimes play the GNTs and the CNTC's but I (almost) never enter the GNP or the COP.. even tho the COP national final pays cash and is always open to me at no expense if I have been knocked out of the CNTCs.. the COP is held opposite the knockout rounds of the CNTC.

 

I don't want imps to become even a bit more like mps or bam.

 

And I don't see any inconsistency with these points and the fact that 20 points = 1imp.

 

And if the opps go down 100 when our max was 90... if the fact that that is a push annoys you.. double! Now THAT shows better judgement than merely selling out :(

[pclayton]

I don't like the idea of 10 points becoming an imp.

 

That change will lessen the difference between mps and imps.. of course, the difference will still be significant, but it won't be the same as it is now.

 

Let's say that I get to 3♣ while you get to a slightly less safe 2N. As the game is currently scored, I have outbid you. If both contracts make, we push but your contract is more likely to fail, so I may win a modest pickup. Most importantly, I cannot lose by this choice and my bidding methods/style will be based, at least to some degree, on that reality

Isn't this an indictment against the scoring system itself, rather than the IMP scale?

 

While 3♣ may be 'safer' than 2N, NT still scores higher.

No.. it's no indictment of anything! I like it like this.. this difference in the importance of a very minor scoring differential has huge, altho subtle, impact on how we (should) play the game of bridge. It is the fact that at mps the riskier 2N partial will often be more attractive than the safe 3minor, while at imps, the reverse holds true that I find enjoyable.

 

I LIKE imps.. I sometimes enjoy matchpoints, but, as an example, I will sometimes play the GNTs and the CNTC's but I (almost) never enter the GNP or the COP.. even tho the COP national final pays cash and is always open to me at no expense if I have been knocked out of the CNTCs.. the COP is held opposite the knockout rounds of the CNTC.

 

I don't want imps to become even a bit more like mps or bam.

 

And I don't see any inconsistency with these points and the fact that 20 points = 1imp.

 

And if the opps go down 100 when our max was 90... if the fact that that is a push annoys you.. double! Now THAT shows better judgement than merely selling out :(

I'm pretty simple or at least would like to think of myself as such.

 

If I get a better score, then I want to get rewarded. At MPs and BAM, the reward is huge, but I want a little something if the margin is even small at IMPs. I know of no other game or sport where even a small measurable change is rounded to a tie.

 

I doubt this will change anyone's strategy if it were implemented. The same fundamental principles of IMPs will be there. Bid your vul games, compete for partscores safely, etc..

[barmar]

unless WBF change this

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/onlinelaws.pdf -pg61

why BBO should do it?

This is the General Bridge forum. He's asking about changing it in general, not just BBO.

[jdonn]

I know of no other game or sport where even a small measurable change is rounded to a tie.

The reason I don't like that argument is the measure itself is artificial, which is unique and and of itself among 'sports'. Our founding fathers could just as easily have made 3♣= higher scoring than 2NT=.

 

The only other ones I can think of where that is the case are ones with judging, like boxing or figure skating, and those can indeed have ties for non-identical performances.

[EricK]

While not a change in the IMP scale itself, I would like to see the abolition of any score for undoubled overtricks.

 

A number of benefits (or what I see as benefits) in no particular order

1. It would speed up the game (If you are in 3NT and have 9 tricks on top you would claim at the outset rather than mess about looking for ten or eleven tricks)

2. It makes competitive part-score bidding more interesting (IMO) - eg opponents have stopped in 2♥, we compete and push them to 3♥. In the current system, we will do at least as well as if we hadn't competed. But in the new system, if 3♥ is on, then we have rescued them from an inferior scoring contract

3. With more bids needed as contracts, bidding would have to be more natural, but we would be achieving this without imposing arbitrary system restrictions.

4. It is more in line with the "spirit" of bridge i.e. we are rewarded for bidding and making contracts, not just for making as many tricks as we can.

[ArtK78]

I have absolutely no idea why anyone is complaining about the IMP scale or, as later discussion shows, the scoring of contract bridge in general.

 

I have lived through one change in the scoring system. There were a number of reasons for adopting those changes that had a great deal of merit, and everyone is used to the changes.

 

The reasons set forth in the various preceding posts don't impress me. But that is just my opinion.

 

If is ain't broke......