Changing the IMP scale

[Gerben42]

Yes, I would change the IMP scale according to Herman de Wael's continuous scale. In the current computer age, a score based on integer IMPs makes no sense and has some bad effects for Butler scores.

 

See this page: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/bastille.html

[skjaeran]

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......

I totally agree.

[jtfanclub]

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.

Because it makes bridge impossible to follow for a layman.

 

Imagine bridge on TV. Now imagine trying to explain the score, then the difference score, then the IMPs conversion, and finally the VP conversion.

 

The ridiculous scoring of bridge is IMHO what makes it so difficult for it to catch on as a spectator sport. You can play bridge at a beginner level without understanding scoring, trying to watch it is far more difficult.

[Al_U_Card]

Interesting idea. Televised money games, where it is for total points and the money is split according to the placements or the points won? (In golf, win by one or 12, same prize. etc.)

[kenrexford]

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.

Because it makes bridge impossible to follow for a layman.

 

Imagine bridge on TV. Now imagine trying to explain the score, then the difference score, then the IMPs conversion, and finally the VP conversion.

 

The ridiculous scoring of bridge is IMHO what makes it so difficult for it to catch on as a spectator sport. You can play bridge at a beginner level without understanding scoring, trying to watch it is far more difficult.

If you want bridge on TV, you do not start with IMP games. You televise money raw score games. That part is easy.

 

"Right now, Versace has an assured $4,500 in the bank if he passes."

"I know, Tom. But, he is assuredly going for that extra $5000 for the small slam with those cards!"

"No, Frank. I think he will cash in. Oops! There he goes!"

"It seems the champ will have to pay up big for that move. Instead of $4,500 in the bank, he will pay the opponents $1000 for his understandable enthusiasm."

"Wow!!! I cannot believe it, but George just put the diamond Queen on the table! If Declarer can work out the strip-squeeze, he will actually cash in $9800 for this indiscretion!"

"For the viewers, Versace will have to pull trumps and then..."

 

This works a little better than:

 

"Right now, Versace has an assured 450 if he passes. That will match what happened at the other table."

"I know, Tom. But, he is assuredly going for that extra 500 bonus for the small slam, so that he can win 11 IMP's on this board, which might help him in the victory point results, whether to make the likely loss in this match merely 14-6 rather than 18-2. Look at those cards!!!"

"No, Frank. I think he will play this safe, hoping that his partners reached the game on Board 11, which would make this match a 11-9 near draw rather than a 14-6 disaster, by his estimated scores so far. Oops! There he goes!"

"It seems that the champ will force his team to win the last round my a margin of at least 17-3 rather than to tie to advance to the next round. In understand his enthusiam, though."

"Wow!!! I cannot believe it, but George just put the diamond Queen on the table! If Declarer can work out the strip-squeeze, he will actually bring the Victory Point margin to a more respectable 11-9 loss that will help in the next round so that they do not need the same margin of victory to move forward!!!"

"For the viewers, Versace will have to pull trumps and then..."

[awm]

I don't really think the scoring is the main obstacle to televising bridge.

 

There are many other issues, for example:

 

(1) A lot of people have no idea how to play bridge. And you can't explain it in five minutes. Poker is both more widely known and easier to explain.

 

(2) The bidding in bridge is pretty mysterious. Even "standard" bidding involves a lot of calls that would seem weird to someone with no knowledge of the game (why open 1♣ with four cards in each major and only three clubs? why open more with weak hands and less with strong hands? why is double usually a request to bid rather than defend? and this is without even mentioning conventional calls like stayman or transfers).

 

(3) Really appreciating the play of the hand is tough too.

 

The fact is that televised bridge is unlikely to be accessible to people who don't know how to play bridge already. Learning bridge isn't something that can be done in a few minutes. The scoring is relatively less important -- it's pretty easy to understand that you get a plus score for making a contract or setting an opponent, and that certain contracts for large numbers of tricks are worth a lot more to make than contracts for smaller numbers of tricks. I don't think the inability to understand the exact relationship between the contract and score is really what makes bridge hard to watch (or to learn).

[Al_U_Card]

So maybe we would encourage the "bad boy" behavior at the table to make it more interesting? :lol:

 

Imagine the scathing rejoinders! :o

 

But Adam is right. Only 25 million or so in NA know the game and then only 250,000 or so its subtle vagairies exposed during competitive play.

 

Golf has....well substantially less numbers than that and it is full of "empty" space while the golfer is not "making" a shot...

 

Maybe if we put stacks of imp chips on the table? (We could even call them "ch-imps" :huh:

[TimG]

(why open 1♣ with four cards in each major and only three clubs?

Why, indeed!

[TimG]

Golf has....well substantially less numbers than that and it is full of "empty" space while the golfer is not "making" a shot...

From a television point of view, there is more than one golfer on the course, playing more than one hole. That "empty" space is taken up by jumping from hole to hole, golfer to golfer.

 

Maybe the same thing could be done with bridge. At least in a MP event.

[Mbodell]

Actually a televised MP event would be very golf like in the interesting coverage. Just like how in golf some holes are more interesting/exciting than others in bridge some boards are more interesting/exciting than others. So if you were televising some MP event you might show how most of the pairs bid and played boards 14 and 23 while ignoring some of the flat boards. But then, also like golf, sometimes it is exciting to follow the leaders so you could sometimes show the leaders even if the board they are playing is less interesting overall.

 

One thing that golf has as an advantage is that there is coverage on all the holes and you'd want to cover all the boards to some degree so you don't tip off the competitors that if the cameras are following board 14 then it must be interesting. Also golf has the leaders in the last pack of the day so you always know what they need to do to win at the end rather than the simultaneous play you have in bridge.

 

But if several thousand people watch vugraph on BBO I'd think there would be enough interest for a niche audience on something like the travel channel or game show network to pick two small networks that gave poker a shot.

[Cascade]

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.

Because it makes bridge impossible to follow for a layman.

 

Imagine bridge on TV. Now imagine trying to explain the score, then the difference score, then the IMPs conversion, and finally the VP conversion.

 

The ridiculous scoring of bridge is IMHO what makes it so difficult for it to catch on as a spectator sport. You can play bridge at a beginner level without understanding scoring, trying to watch it is far more difficult.

If you want bridge on TV, you do not start with IMP games. You televise money raw score games. That part is easy.

 

"Right now, Versace has an assured $4,500 in the bank if he passes."

"I know, Tom. But, he is assuredly going for that extra $5000 for the small slam with those cards!"

"No, Frank. I think he will cash in. Oops! There he goes!"

"It seems the champ will have to pay up big for that move. Instead of $4,500 in the bank, he will pay the opponents $1000 for his understandable enthusiasm."

"Wow!!! I cannot believe it, but George just put the diamond Queen on the table! If Declarer can work out the strip-squeeze, he will actually cash in $9800 for this indiscretion!"

"For the viewers, Versace will have to pull trumps and then..."

 

This works a little better than:

 

"Right now, Versace has an assured 450 if he passes. That will match what happened at the other table."

"I know, Tom. But, he is assuredly going for that extra 500 bonus for the small slam, so that he can win 11 IMP's on this board, which might help him in the victory point results, whether to make the likely loss in this match merely 14-6 rather than 18-2. Look at those cards!!!"

"No, Frank. I think he will play this safe, hoping that his partners reached the game on Board 11, which would make this match a 11-9 near draw rather than a 14-6 disaster, by his estimated scores so far. Oops! There he goes!"

"It seems that the champ will force his team to win the last round my a margin of at least 17-3 rather than to tie to advance to the next round. In understand his enthusiam, though."

"Wow!!! I cannot believe it, but George just put the diamond Queen on the table! If Declarer can work out the strip-squeeze, he will actually bring the Victory Point margin to a more respectable 11-9 loss that will help in the next round so that they do not need the same margin of victory to move forward!!!"

"For the viewers, Versace will have to pull trumps and then..."

I am not convinced Ken.

 

Football in various guises have captivating commentary with very little mention of player bonuses etc

[TimG]

One thing that golf has as an advantage is that there is coverage on all the holes and you'd want to cover all the boards to some degree so you don't tip off the competitors that if the cameras are following board 14 then it must be interesting. Also golf has the leaders in the last pack of the day so you always know what they need to do to win at the end rather than the simultaneous play you have in bridge.

 

But if several thousand people watch vugraph on BBO I'd think there would be enough interest for a niche audience on something like the travel channel or game show network to pick two small networks that gave poker a shot.

I think any televised event would likely have simultaneous play of the boards -- that is board 14 doesn't move around the room -- and barometer scoring.

 

It's rare that "several thousand" people tune in to watch a vugraph show and I suspect only a small percentage stay for the whole thing or are actively watching rather than having it on in the background.

[dicklont]

If you want bridge on TV, you do not start with IMP games. You televise money raw score games. That part is easy.

 

"Right now, Versace has an assured $4,500 in the bank if he passes."

"I know, Tom. But, he is assuredly going for that extra $5000 for the small slam with those cards!"

"No, Frank. I think he will cash in. Oops! There he goes!"

"It seems the champ will have to pay up big for that move. Instead of $4,500 in the bank, he will pay the opponents $1000 for his understandable enthusiasm."

"Wow!!! I cannot believe it, but George just put the diamond Queen on the table! If Declarer can work out the strip-squeeze, he will actually cash in $9800 for this indiscretion!"

"For the viewers, Versace will have to pull trumps and then..."

I like it.

When is the broadcast scheduled?

[onoway]

The only thing I object to is the situation where a vulnerable pair has reached the optimum contract and the unvulnerable opps can overbid, knowing they are going down, and even if doubled they make a better score than the players who have maxed out their hands. It seems to negate the point of the whole exercise.

[ArtK78]

The only thing I object to is the situation where a vulnerable pair has reached the optimum contract and the unvulnerable opps can overbid, knowing they are going down, and even if doubled they make a better score than the players who have maxed out their hands. It seems to negate the point of the whole exercise.

Why don't I feel any sympathy for this position?

[matmat]

The only thing I object to is the situation where a vulnerable pair has reached the optimum contract and the unvulnerable opps can overbid, knowing they are going down, and even if doubled they make a better score than the players who have maxed out their hands.  It seems to negate the point of the whole exercise.

Why don't I feel any sympathy for this position?

you don't play cash games? :P

[barmar]

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.

Also, consider that in rubber (money) bridge, the payouts are based on the hundreds.

[CSGibson]

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.

Also, consider that in rubber (money) bridge, the payouts are based on the hundreds.

Really? When I play rubber bridge for money, it's a penny a point, not a dollar per hundred. Those dimes add up in the long haul :)