What is my current score?

[YesHoney]

For some time now I've been wondering why when playing the most important team championships (and why not, pairs too) players have to wait until the match is over to know how they scored.

 

I can't think of many sports where players don't know their scores until the very end of the game. And the ones that come to my mind involve judges deciding how a competitor scored.

 

If players know board per board what their actual score is, they can adjust their style and strategy to the state of the match. Isn't that the way it works in sports?

 

I can also think of a good reason for not knowing in advance.

 

Today's technology makes delivering current scores a no-brainer, so that's not an issue.

 

These thoughts have already been submitted to the WBF but I'd like some feedback from players as well.

[awm]

There is a synchronization issue. Suppose that my room finishes a board before the other room. We would then have some interest in waiting for the other room to finish the same board so that we get the score comparison before we start bidding the next (as it might effect our actions). Of course, if one room is consistently faster then this might even be a good thing, but if it varies from hand to hand then the extra waiting time will slow things down substantially. This also requires both rooms to play the boards in the same order.

[Free]

Personally I don't want that to change. It's fun to come together with your teammates and see how things turned out.

 

Why should everything be like another sport? Only the unfair stuff should be compared and adjusted imo. It's something specific for bridge, and there's nothing unfair about it.

[jdonn]

Personally I don't want that to change. It's fun to come together with your teammates and see how things turned out.

 

Why should everything be like another sport? Only the unfair stuff should be compared and adjusted imo. It's something specific for bridge, and there's nothing unfair about it.

I agree with you, and would add that it's why I dislike the 30 victory point scale that places such a premium on winning the round, even by the narrowest of margins. That premium should only apply in sports or games where you know the score and can go to great lengths to do just what is needed to pull out the win.

[matmat]

I would have thought that the whole is a little bit more than the sum of the parts in this case.

 

good players try to estimate their scores in a long tournament/match to have an idea of how much they need to press -- it's another skill that one ought to develop as a bridge player (imo), and spoonfeeding scores every round or every board doesn't seem good. (skill that i am sorely lacking...)

[jeremy69]

In quite a few clubs in England you can get current scoring when you enter the scores into the bridgemates and there is a large monitor in the bar to tell you how you are getting along as you order your gin and tonic.

[Hanoi5]

I think it would be another type of bridge. It is similar to MPs with pick-up slips or travelers: it is usual to see crazier results at the end of the tourney when you use travelers, probably more normal results if you use pick-up slips.

 

I think current score is fine for some internet matches but in RL they would make for a very different kind of bridge.

[mrdct]

As this is the "offline bridge" discussion, I think live scoring in teams matches would have a few problems in face-to-face:

 

- it would probably increase the extent of port morteming and slow the game down even further;

- unauthorised information could potentially emerge from the tempo of play at the other table (I've seen this happen in BBO matches where you read in quite a bit from how long it's taking a score to emerge from the other room);

- tournament organisers would probably need to duplicate more boards to ensure that everyone is playing their boards in the same sequence at more or less the same time;

- it would take the fun out of the post-match score-up.

[barmar]

There are some bridge tournaments that are run with barometer scoring. I think the Cavendish does this, and so does the Reisinger. Players get the score after each round of 3 boards. And in Swiss Teams, you get your score after each round.

 

I don't know why they don't do any KO events like this. I guess they like the idea of players basing their play on their estimated running score rather than their actual score.

[Mbodell]

In a club game I quite prefer the barometer style for pairs. Here it is more the immediate feedback that I like, although knowing you are in contention can be fun too, although I haven't really changed my style based on where I am. (the generally fairer movements are nice too)

 

For teams the thing I'd prefer, over any "what is my score", is using prepared hands so that all the teams in an event play the same boards. And then I'd like to see butlers and hand records for post mortums. This also helps in something like a swiss team to keep the "swinginess" even.

 

But in a long important team match people do know the running score, by stanza, just not the running score by board. I think that is an appropriate trade off.

[Vampyr]

For teams the thing I'd prefer, over any "what is my score", is using prepared hands so that all the teams in an event play the same boards.  And then I'd like to see butlers and hand records for post mortums.  This also helps in something like a swiss team to keep the "swinginess" even.

Where do you come from? Team events in England are always played with duplicated hands and hand records. We don't usually have the Butler IMPs posted though; and I would prefer that we did.

[Mbodell]

For teams the thing I'd prefer, over any "what is my score", is using prepared hands so that all the teams in an event play the same boards.  And then I'd like to see butlers and hand records for post mortums.  This also helps in something like a swiss team to keep the "swinginess" even.

Where do you come from? Team events in England are always played with duplicated hands and hand records. We don't usually have the Butler IMPs posted though; and I would prefer that we did.

It is extremely uncommon in the ACBL. For the later rounds of the biggest tournaments you may get prepared hands. But even for some national level events you may not get any. And for "normal" club/sectional/regional events it is extremely rare to have a swiss team event with prepared hands. They are almost all shuffle and deal.

 

You'll usually get hand records for pairs, but not for teams.

[A2003]

Announce the running score every 20 minutes for each team and the current standing.

The number of boards played will not have to be announced.

 

Team strategy will be different.

 

Barometer scoring is fun. Hiding the scores from the players is a handicap.

 

Tactical and situational bidding strategy will develop based on the current running scores. This is good.

[HeavyDluxe]

IMO, whether or not to reveal scores progressively depends on the type of match you want to create.

 

If you want to reward consistent, steady, top-notch play, then keeping with the current score reporting makes sense. We have mile-markers to know whether we're up or down, and can adjust our play (to some degree) accordingly.

 

If you want to create excitement and gambling, announce scores more frequently. We're able to tighten/loosen our play more dynamically based on the situation. And, when behind, we can start 'swinging for the fences'.

 

Personally, I think the 'low-variance' approach of less score updates is better. I would think it sad to a BB/VC/SB decided in the final few boards because one team took a handful of wild shots that, against the odds, happen to make.

 

I recognize, however, that I'm not a very good player... And so, my expectation of the risk/reward in that kinda scenario may be off. *shrug*

[MFA]

If one knew the match standings before the last 1 (or 2) boards of a knockout match, I would be nervous about what might happen.

 

There could easily be some crazy psyching, and I would fear about ethics. Consider someone winning by smelling out partner's bluff in the last hand. Who can blame him really, if we deliberately makes it a part of the game to gamble? But it would surely be so ugly to watch.

 

I'm very doubtful about this suggestion.

[iviehoff]

If you know the score as you go along, then you have an advantage, because now you can take probability decisions in relation to the match position (something backgammon players know a lot about). Need some IMPs, take a swingy action, especially if the margin of loss is not so important (knock-out play, trying to get into a qualifying position).

 

So if you are playing faster than the other table in the match, this suggests you should slow down to wait to get the score. Otherwise it just isn't fair. Why should the other table benefit from an up-to-date score when you haven't got it? We really don't want players hanging around to get a score update, especially if the reason they haven't got one is slow play in the other room.

 

So I think it is very important in teams play that running scores are not revealed until they can be revealed for everyone equally, ie, end of the session or round or something.

 

I think bicycle races would be more exciting if the peloton was unaware of how far ahead the breakaway cyclists were. As it is, they can usually time hunting them down to perfection, reducing the effectiveness of breakaway as a strategy, making for more boring races. But I suspect the reality is that it is difficult to keep the information reliably secure from them, so they go for the opposite position of free transfer of information.

[nige1]

In UK face-to-face Bridge, there is a trend towards Barometer pairs for important events. Everybody plays the same (duplicated) boards at the same time, so it is perfectly fair. Also Swiss teams and Swiss pairs provide you with frequent updates on your current standing. Bridge-mates can provide similar information. Feedback on your performance makes Bridge more interesting, more skilful, more exciting, and more fun. My on-line experience is similar.

[skjaeran]

There are some bridge tournaments that are run with barometer scoring. I think the Cavendish does this, and so does the Reisinger. Players get the score after each round of 3 boards. And in Swiss Teams, you get your score after each round.

In Norway, nearly all tournaments, and quite a lot of the clubs too, run barometer scoring. Most tournaments have done for more (probably a lot more) than 30 years.

[barmar]

So I think it is very important in teams play that running scores are not revealed until they can be revealed for everyone equally, ie, end of the session or round or something.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested otherwise. Fairness is of course paramount.

[helene_t]

We have a barometer at the club evenings in Lancaster. (Matchpointed pairs).

 

I don't care but if people think it adds to the entertainment then by all means let the barometer stay.

 

It is an interesting question, though, how to make a meaningful barometer for a paris event. Obvivously 100% on a board with a top of two MPs should not have the same weight as 100% of a top of say 14 MPs. I think the barometer of the bridgemate software does give it the same weight, though.

[Trinidad]

So I think it is very important in teams play that running scores are not revealed until they can be revealed for everyone equally, ie, end of the session or round or something.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested otherwise. Fairness is of course paramount.

This is going to be difficult to do in practice, but it can be done. It means that the players are not told the score at the same time. They are told the score at the same point in the match. Otherwise, the slow table has more boards to use the info than the fast table.

 

To clarify: At 9:00 table 1 has played boards 1-4. Table 2 has played boards 1-6. Now, you could (if you would want to) go to table 2 and tell them before they start on board 7 what the score was after the first 4 boards. Then, you will have to go to table 1 at 9:13 and tell them, before they start with board 7, what the score after the first 4 boards was.

 

One problem is that table 1 can infer that it took table 2 the same time for the first 6 boards as they took for the first 4 boards. Therefore, probably board 5 and 6 have been played pretty fast. This may indicate that on board 5 they didn't bid the club slam that can be made on an XYZ squeeze, but that they were in 3NT, which is a claimer for 11 tricks. This problem can be solved by delaying telling the score, but then what is the gain of all this?

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

We have a barometer at the club evenings in Lancaster. (Matchpointed pairs).

 

I don't care but if people think it adds to the entertainment then by all means let the barometer stay.

 

It is an interesting question, though, how to make a meaningful barometer for a paris event. Obvivously 100% on a board with a top of two MPs should not have the same weight as 100% of a top of say 14 MPs. I think the barometer of the bridgemate software does give it the same weight, though.

I don't really understand your post, Helene? Do you mean to say that you play a barometer without predealt hands? You announce scores after round 2, 3, etc.? I think that could work (not very well though), but that is not the way a barometer is set up.

 

In a barometer the whole room plays the boards simultaneously with predealt hands. Thus, after round 1, you will get the complete scores for board 1-3 and a ranking. And then boards 1-3 are finished.

 

Rik

[eyhung]

I am not a fan of barometer pairs as currently implemented, because it feels it adds yet another luck component to the equation. Let us say you are tied for the lead going into the final round and you are up against a pair who knows they need a good board to get into the overalls, a bad/average board is irrelevant to them. Meanwhile, your competitors are going up against a pair that is having their usual 40% game, so they have no incentive to do anything weird. Now say your final-round opponents reach 4S and need to guess a queen knowing that one of you holds 3 cards in the suit and the other holds two. Your opponents will be highly motivated to take the anti-percentage play, while your competitors' opponents will not, and you may gain a top or bottom simply because of their current standing, a factor which you have no control over. Granted, you cannot guarantee people playing normal bridge on every board, but I don't see why the conditions of contest have to encourage even more deviations.

 

From a game-balance perspective, I would have no objection to barometer scoring for KO TEAMS, if both tables play the boards in the same order and there was synchronization like "hand-for-hand" play in poker -- you can't go onto the next hand until the other table has finished the previous one and all sides know the current state of the match. But I suspect that would not be as fun to play with all the delays waiting for the "slow table" to catch up after every hand.

[nige1]

I am not a fan of barometer pairs as currently implemented, because it feels it adds yet another luck component to the equation.  Let us say you are tied for the lead going into the final round and you are up against a pair who knows they need a good board to get into the overalls, a bad/average board is irrelevant to them.  Meanwhile, your competitors are going up against a pair that is having their usual 40% game, so they have no incentive to do anything weird.  Now say your final-round opponents reach 4S and need to guess a queen knowing that one of you holds 3 cards in the suit and the other holds two.  Your opponents will be highly motivated to take the anti-percentage play, while your competitors' opponents will not, and you may gain a top or bottom simply because of their current standing, a factor which you have no control over.  Granted, you cannot guarantee people playing normal bridge on every board, but I don't see why the conditions of contest have to encourage even more deviations. 

 

From a game-balance perspective, I would have no objection to barometer scoring for KO TEAMS, if both tables play the boards in the same order and there was synchronization like "hand-for-hand" play in poker -- you can't go onto the next hand until the other table has finished the previous one and all sides know the current state of the match.  But I suspect that would not be as fun to play with all the delays waiting for the "slow table" to catch up after every hand.

IMO the scenarios that eyhung deplores are, in fact, examples of how barometer scoring increases the excitement of the game and enhances the skill-factor.

[mrdct]

Obvivously 100% on a board with a top of two MPs should not have the same weight as 100% of a top of say 14 MPs. I think the barometer of the bridgemate software does give it the same weight, though.

If top on a board is two MPs doesn't that mean that there are only two tables in play? A top is a top and is worth 100% no matter how many tables are in play. I don't quite understand your post.