When to concede

[shevek]

Has this been dealt with in the forum?

 

What sort of deficit is regarded as virtually ungettable?

Is there a "recommended" formula based on margin & number of boards? 10 IMPs over 1 board is clearly worth a go, not 100 over 10, etc.

 

I've been in teams 90 IMPs down with 16 to go. The feeling is not good, with patronising looks from the other team.

 

Simple enough if it's a final but semis are different. Those in the other match may not take kindly to you giving your opponents the night off while they hack away. If you accept that, there is a case for never conceding, even if it means you get branded obstinate, mean, selfish.

[whereagles]

why would you want to concede? We fight to the last drop of blood. Always :blink:

[Rossoneri]

The last few times my team conceded, it was something like 50 imps with 8 boards left and it was getting late and we would rather go and have dinner...

[whereagles]

See, that's the problem. When people start to think of mundane things like eating, the game loses :blink:

[gnasher]

When you're sure that you aren't going to win, and you've had enough of playing. I think it's perfectly legitimate to play on because you're enjoying yourself, or for practice against a better team.

 

I'm sometimes unimpressed by people who play on, don't particularly seem to be enjoying themselses, and don't make any effort to win. But that's their choice: we contracted to play the entire match against them, not just part of it. I think patronising looks are completely out of order.

[CSGibson]

Play until you don't want to play anymore. You paid your entry fees, go play bridge as long as you are able, sir!

[aguahombre]

Simple enough if it's a final but semis are different. Those in the other match may not take kindly to you giving your opponents the night off while they hack away. If you accept that, there is a case for never conceding, even if it means you get branded obstinate, mean, selfish.

This final paragraph in the original post is what comes to mind when I see early "WD's".

 

The high-level teams certainly don't need practice against good teams; and they probably are not enjoying themselves when their deficit is unsurmountable. But maybe they owe it to the event, as good citizens.

 

Perhaps the conditions of contest should take care of this, and thus eliminate anyone being branded as anything --or being patronized. The only things left then would be for the losing team to put up a good front, chill, and play its best.

[aguahombre]

Has this been dealt with in the forum?

Yes. I remember a long time ago mentioning the fatigue factor, and favoritism issues which might affect a team's decision to withdraw.

 

I advocated fewer concessions. That view was dismissed by other posters at the time. Am seeing a different attitude here, and I like it.

[nigel_k]

I'd say there is no deficit where a team 'ought' to concede. It's fine if they decide to play on just because they want to. Conversely, there is no hint of an obligation to extend the match in order not to disadvantage the team that your opponents will play next time.

 

You can just concede or not according to your personal preferences.

[nige1]

Concede if you want to but, even if it is arithmetically impossible to win, unless the rules mandate concession, never feel obliged to concede.

:) It is psychologically better for the losing team to rub their noses in it :blink:

[gwnn]

Ronnie O'Sullivan sometimes concedes with 4 frames to go, sometimes fights when he needs 3 snookers.

[campboy]

True, but he was fined for the occasion when he conceded the match with frames left to play.

[Phil]

Play until you don't want to play anymore. You paid your entry fees, go play bridge as long as you are able, sir!

Yes, agree here. I've been on both sides of the big lead / big hole.

 

I would never suggest to a team that they shpould concede and I'm pretty sure the rules prohibit it anyway. Might have mentioned here that my opps in a match I played a few years ago didn't know they could concede and asked me if it was legal. I said we would prefer to play on but conceding was allowable.

[aguahombre]

the only diplomatic and gracious way to answer that.

[MarkDean]

I have never been in a match in which one side conceded. I guess that does not really add anything to the thread -- sorry.

[mrdct]

I think about 5-6 imps per remaining board is a reasonable threshold - somewhere around the 80 to 100 mark for a 16-board segment.

 

I've only ever conceded a KO match once when my team was down about 50 imps with 14 boards to play in a 42 board match (played in 3 segments) which was perhaps a tad defeatist, but it was against the number one seed and we had only just scrapped into the eight-team KO phase and it meant going home at 9:00pm instead of 11:00pm.

 

I would be supportive of some sort of mercy rule to be written into conditions of contests which mandates a concession going into the final segment if the margin is greater than x-imps per board.

[gwnn]

Why would you be supportive?

[655321]

Has this been dealt with in the forum?

Yes. I remember a long time ago mentioning the fatigue factor, and favoritism issues which might affect a team's decision to withdraw.

 

I advocated fewer concessions. That view was dismissed by other posters at the time. Am seeing a different attitude here, and I like it.

 

I tried to find this thread but couldn't, gwnn?

[mrdct]

Why would you be supportive?

For a few reasons:

 

1. The trailing team can concede "with honour" (i.e. not formally giving up).

 

2. The leading team is appropriately rewarded for outclassing their opponents by getting some extra rest or getting to catch an earlier flight home.

 

3. In some cases it could increase the interest in a blow-out match as the leading team strives to rack-up enough imps to invoke the mercy rule.

 

4. The concept has proven effective in other sports such as baseball.

 

5. Time and money saver for tournament convenors.

 

6. It could minimise unsporting concessions (i.e. concessions where there trailing team is in fact within striking distance but wants to confer some sort of advantage on their opponents because they are friends with them or other more sinister reasons).

[jeremy69]

I think a team is always allowed to play on. After all they paid their entry fee and any suggestion that they should give up if they don't want to is unacceptable. Equally I can see no point in someone playing on 97 down with 8 to play if they would rather go to the pub.

I think we should not try to regulate all this but allow it to take it's course. I've had a team concede when I thought they had a chance and another play on to punish my partner because they thought(correctly) he had been rude.

[gwnn]

gwnn?

Um found these:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=36353

and

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=27913

 

The first is about a team conceding after only 1 session, the second is about a team conceding mid-session in Beijing (Germany vs England in a result quite unlike the one from South Africa). Not sure if these are the ones aguahombre was talking about?

[campboy]

I would be supportive of some sort of mercy rule to be written into conditions of contests which mandates a concession going into the final segment if the margin is greater than x-imps per board.

I don't want to comment on the rights or wrongs of mandatory concessions, but basing it on IMPs-per-board is statistically unsound. 50 IMPs over 8 boards is way more likely to be overcome than 100 IMPs over 16. The formula should be something like an+bsqrt(n) for n boards, with a much smaller than b.

[gnasher]

A decision to concede isn't just a function of the number of IMPs down that you are. It depends upon how much you think you might be able to get back against these particular opponents on this particular day. 50-0 down is completely different from 100-50 down.

[aguahombre]

gwnn?

Um found these:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=36353

and

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=27913

 

The first is about a team conceding after only 1 session, the second is about a team conceding mid-session in Beijing (Germany vs England in a result quite unlike the one from South Africa). Not sure if these are the ones aguahombre was talking about?

I know there was another, somewhere. I might even have started it myself ---maybe early in '09.

 

Memory fades, but conceding was encouraged by notable responders. And there was a somewhat flippant dismissal of the getting-extra-rest idea, pointing out that it gives the winning team more idle time to party and get wiped :D

 

I know of instances at the National level where the leading team has suggested concession; and another instance where friends of the leading team have offered to suggest, but have been told politely to butt out.

[mycroft]

I have no sympathy whatever for a mercy rule. I've lost a match by 130, 140 - and enjoyed the game., and would have played another round if it were there to play. There are matches where, had I been down by 20 with 8 boards to play, I would have conceded - because the chance of catching up and beating them wasn't worth sitting at the table with them for another 8 boards.

 

Don't take pity on me; but allow me the opportunity to say "I'm done being beaten up".

 

Funny, that seems to be what we currently do.