Contest scoring method

[JavaBean]

A source of confusion on several of the board-result threads was the scoring method. Perhaps 10/10 is a fine scoring method and we only had problems because we're used to CTC, but questions like "how can a contract everyone bids be worth 10?" and "5♣ is barely over 50% to make, why does it score a 10?" can be found all over the forum. (Here I'm ignoring the recent discussion of whether 5♣ is actually more like 40%)

 

Determining matchpoint expectancy can definitely be hard, as evidenced by the Bulletin's "Bidding Box", where Bobby Wolff often assigns scores that seem disastrously wrong to me. But it has a clear definition, making it easier to discuss and debate. "Top ten" scoring makes it very easy to score the best contract (assuming the best contract is clear), but very difficult to discuss other contracts. If 4♠ is worth 10, and 5♠ will fail 20% of the time, should it get an 8? Or should it get a 5 because it's a "terrible" contract to have reached with these cards, where ten tricks is "obviously" the limit? (not quoting anyone here, just emphasizing that these adjectives are subjective)

 

I would very much prefer if subsequent rounds were scored based on expected matchpoints, but I realize that there are advantages to top-ten as well. My feeling is that the majority of competitors agree with me, but rather than simply claim this, I propose a vote. So, vote here to make your voice heard and decide the scoring method of the upcoming round(s).

[gwnn]

I voted for the first one, but then again I did not participate in the first round (signed up but didn't bid), so you can delete one vote if I am ineligible.

[gnasher]

My vote would be

 

Like the first round, without accepting the premise that this means "Best contract scores a 10", and I feel strongly that you shouldn't change the rules part way through.

 

Which button is that?

[TimG]

My vote would be

 

Like the first round, without accepting the premise that this means "Best contract scores a 10", and I feel strongly that you shouldn't change the rules part way through.

 

Which button is that?

I think I agree with this. The best spot might be 9, 10 or 11, but will generally be 10.

 

The deal selectors should strive to select problems that won't be solved by everyone, but when a flat deal slips through, the top should still be about 10.

[Siegmund]

I feel strongly that you shouldn't change the rules part way through.

 

So do I. My only complaint with how the whole event has been run is that I haven't, at any time including right now, been able to tell what the format for this event was. The number of rounds, number of hands, bracket breakpoints, changed so many times it made my head spin.

 

In this particular case, we were clearly told it was going to be matchpoint-expectation-based scoring (though there was still no clarity how the field's results vs. the preset scores would interact) before we bid. And I wish that rule hadn't been changed after we had bid! (I voted to use CTC style scoring. That was what I believed was in effect when we bid the first round so in some sense feels like 'less of a change'.)

 

Pick a format. Stick to the announced format, good or bad. I am making lots of notes of things I need to pin down in advance when I run one of these :)

[Fluffy]

calculating MP expectancy is a tough job, I think whatever is easier for Ben its best. Even if its not perfect.

[NickRW]

calculating MP expectancy is a tough job, I think whatever is easier for Ben its best. Even if its not perfect.

Not a participant, but I agree with the above.

 

Perhaps I'd also go with gnasher's comment about 10 (nearly) always being the top is possibly not best - maybe vary the top between 7 and 12 depending on the % of the actual field that found the top spot. But that should be left for another contest I think - keep the rules this way for this contest.

 

Nick

[tgoodwinsr]

Whatever you do will be unsatisfactory to some contestants. I vote for whatever method doesn't knock my partnership out of an eleventh-place tie.

[peachy]

I didn't vote because what I prefer was not listed in the vote options.

Prefer the way it was 1st round, but if an "easy" hand was among the hands, the top score for that should be an 8 or 9 at most while for a hand that requires extremely good judgment or some perfect methods, the top score could be 11 or even 12.

 

For the rules, I would want to add that there must not be 1-3 minute tank between bids.

[bluecalm]

Prefer the way it was 1st round, but if an "easy" hand was among the hands, the top score for that should be an 8 or 9 at most while for a hand that requires extremely good judgment or some perfect methods, the top score could be 11 or even 12.

 

Why ? If it's that easy it won't change anything (as everybody is supposed to get it right) and misbidding simple hands should be penalized harshly. If anything I think it should be the other way around so bidding to some esoteric perfect contract shouldn't be scored that much higher than normal good contract but missing obvious games etc. should be near 0's.

 

For the rules, I would want to add that there must not be 1-3 minute tank between bids.

 

Why not ?

If you tank for like 10 seconds it's already obvious for partner that you have a problem so additional minute won't change that and some people need some time to make difficult decisions.

[Free]

I don't care, we're just bidding some hands for fun. :)

[hrothgar]

Agree with Free...

 

Not particularly interested in the contest aspect of things.

The chance to bid the hands and the follow-on discussion is much more interesting.

[Fluffy]

looking at how contested some hands are, wouldn't i t be easier if we just assumed the actual NS hand is the real hand and give scores accordingly?, not the most fair scoring methid, but easiest probably.

[awm]

The current scoring method seems fine to me. My one concern is that there seem to be several hands where it's far from clear what the right (single-dummy) contract is. Frequently there is some game contract which has some amount of play, and then there is a lot of discussion about exactly how often the game makes and what this should imply about the relative scoring of the game and various partials. Perhaps ideal would be if hands could be selected where the best (single-dummy) contract is relatively more clear, but I dunno how easy it is to do this.

 

Certainly I wouldn't like to see the actual opponent hands coming into this too much, such that bidding a percentage game could be the "wrong thing to do" because of a freak layout of the opponent hands.

[TimG]

Certainly I wouldn't like to see the actual opponent hands coming into this too much, such that bidding a percentage game could be the "wrong thing to do" because of a freak layout of the opponent hands.

Yeah, using a single set of opponents' hands must be wrong.

[cherdanno]

I liked that there were a lot of contested auctions, but maybe the opponent bidding could be made a bit more "normal" (rather than bidding to the 5-level with 9 trumps etc.), and less dependent on our own bids.

 

I think in abstract the CTC-like scoring (strict MP expectancy) is clearly best, but it's also not that important overall and also we shouldn't change too much midway. Maybe as a middle ground one would just not necessarily give a 10 to the best spot when it's actually not all that clear, or when it's a good but not great MP game

[Phil]

Not a participant (maybe next time).

 

CTC is best. Its a format good players are used to, and allows a little more flexibility in scoring. 12's are rare (like a national event), and Ben is sharp enough to be able to factor in an estimated frequency.

 

Why should you get a top board for reaching a normal contract, if everyone in a good field would bid to the same spot? This should not be on par with finding a great contract that the field rates not to bid. Not all boards in a bidding contest have the same 'degree of difficulty', and should not be scored as if they did.