Does anybody else feel that this is backwards?

[RunemPard]

1♣x+4 - 540/940

2♣x+3 - 480/780

3♣x+2 - 670/1070

4♣x+1 - 610/910

5♣x= - 550/750

 

 

The way the scoring is setup for doubles of 3C/4C seem to award players more than 5Cx=...

 

Even 3Cx+1 is worth 570 points...

 

To me this seems to award the players who get doubled at a cheap contract more than those who get doubled at game. Is there a reason for this other than just how the scoring is?

 

(Just looking at results of a hand we played where many got doubled in club contracts.)

[billw55]

I scored 3♣x+2 once in the worldwide pairs. I was pretty happy with that and it did not occur to me that it was an unfair or unbalanced score.

 

But seriously, I think them's just the rules.

[Stephen Tu]

Look at it this way:

 

The opponents who judged that they could successfully defeat 3♣ were far further off on their estimate of # of defensive tricks than the ones who thought they could defeat 5♣, and therefore deserve a worse score.

 

There's always some luck involved in getting opponents to do something worse at your table than the field, so if your opps only started doubling you at 5 rather than 3, that's just the normal luck of the game.

[Bbradley62]

If you double the opponents into game and they make it, you get a really bad score. Makes perfectly good sense to me.

[awm]

If opponents double me in 3c, doesn't it seem weird for me to raise myself to 5c? Yet awarding 5cX a higher score would give me reason to do it!

[barmar]

There's two things going on:

 

1. Doubled overtricks are worth a lot. This is the point Stephen Tu was making -- if you double someone, you get punished more depending on how wrong you were to double them at that level. And the way duplicate scoring works, any penalty for the opponents is an equal reward for you.

 

2. Game bonuses. When doubling, you have to be extra careful if the doubled contract is game, because you're giving them the bonus if you're wrong. So it's a little safer to double 1 Major, 1NT, and 1-2 minor than anything higher, because you're not doubling them into game.

 

#1 explains why the scores in the table generally decrease, and #2 explains why there's a sudden jump up at 3♣x+2.

[nigel_k]

The whole thing is a relic of rubber bridge that doesn't translate well to duplicate. +180 is not enough for 1NTx making, but +670 is too much for 2Hx making. +580 at matchpoints for 1NTx +2 is even worse. Doubling games that make is too cheap as well.

 

I would just have a flat +250 for any doubled contract that makes, or +500 with a redouble. And another +250 for each overtrick.

[EricK]

There's bound to be a few anomolies or things which aren't quite as good as they could be. Far too few variants have been tried out for long enough periods of time for the best version of the scoring rules to have evolved. Arguably the whole scoring table is too complicated and this dilutes the essence of bridge (in some vague, undefinable, way). Part-score, game or slam; making or defeating contracts: this, to me, is the essence. The somewhat arbitrary, fine gradations of scoring - 90 for that result, but 110 for that etc - seem more like a distraction.

[barmar]

All these details are part of what makes the game so hard, and hence so interesting. The differences in scoring between majors, minors, and notrumps informs the design of bidding systems, and forces players to use more judgement to decide when to bid 3NT, 4 Major, or 5 minor. Decisions about when to double must take account of whether they'll get the game bonus if they succeed.

 

None of these details existed in earlier forms of the game. When Harold Vanderbilt made these changes in the 1920's, the popularity of the game exploded.

[dwar0123]

If opponents double me in 3c, doesn't it seem weird for me to raise myself to 5c? Yet awarding 5cX a higher score would give me reason to do it!

Good way of putting it, except for one thing.

 

Redouble

[EricK]

All these details are part of what makes the game so hard, and hence so interesting. The differences in scoring between majors, minors, and notrumps informs the design of bidding systems, and forces players to use more judgement to decide when to bid 3NT, 4 Major, or 5 minor. Decisions about when to double must take account of whether they'll get the game bonus if they succeed.

 

None of these details existed in earlier forms of the game. When Harold Vanderbilt made these changes in the 1920's, the popularity of the game exploded.

I think the main change was that you had to bid game or slam to get the bonus - the petty differences in scores between the different denominations were a part of auction bridge. So maybe it is that fact alone which led to the explosion in popularity.

 

Every complication to the scoring table adds an element of skill (or luck!) and makes the game harder, but that doesn't mean that every complication makes the game better. Undertricks are the same score no matter what the denomination, whereas undoubled overtricks depend on the denomination. He could have added another layer of complication by making undertricks denomination-dependent, or he could have removed a level of complication by making overtricks denomination-independent. But I don't think it is necessarily the case that making undertricks denomination-dependent would make the game more interesting, nor that making overtricks denomination-independent would make it less interesting. Doubled overtricks, on the other hand, are not dependent on the denomination. So really, the whole thing is a mess, and I doubt this helped the popularity of bridge.

[mich-b]

(I know this is not going to happen but) I feel that the game would be slightly better if one could not get a game bonus , by being doubled in a partscore.

If making 2♦X is worth 180 , then making 3♦X can be worth 220. If one declares 3♦X and makes it , +220 is quite a good score anyway , and he can always redouble if he wants to. I don't see why logically declarer should be credited with game if he didn't bid it.

I think this scoring change would make a penalty double (of partscores) a more useful weapon. Currently this weapon is underused , because the scoring makes it bad odds - you lose too much if they happen to make.

[billw55]

The whole thing is a relic of rubber bridge that doesn't translate well to duplicate. +180 is not enough for 1NTx making, but +670 is too much for 2Hx making. +580 at matchpoints for 1NTx +2 is even worse. Doubling games that make is too cheap as well.

 

I would just have a flat +250 for any doubled contract that makes, or +500 with a redouble. And another +250 for each overtrick.

 

(I know this is not going to happen but) I feel that the game would be slightly better if one could not get a game bonus , by being doubled in a partscore.

If making 2♦X is worth 180 , then making 3♦X can be worth 220. If one declares 3♦X and makes it , +220 is quite a good score anyway , and he can always redouble if he wants to. I don't see why logically declarer should be credited with game if he didn't bid it.

I think this scoring change would make a penalty double (of partscores) a more useful weapon. Currently this weapon is underused , because the scoring makes it bad odds - you lose too much if they happen to make.

I find both these posts persuasive. Rebuilding the score tables form the ground up might be a good idea, but I don't think it can ever happen, there would be too much resistance among existing players.

[helene_t]

It is a shame we see so few stripe-tail ape doubles. Bridge would be more fun if doubled overtricks were less expensive.

[Zelandakh]

I would just have a flat +250 for any doubled contract that makes, or +500 with a redouble. And another +250 for each overtrick.

Am not sure if you thought this one through. If I read your proposal correctly it gives:

 

1♣X + 4 = 1350 (100 + 250 + 4*250)

2♣X + 3 = 1100 (100 + 250 + 3*250)

3♣X + 2 = 850 (100 + 250 + 2*250)

4♣X + 1 = 600 (100 + 250 + 250)

5♣X = = 650/850 (100 + 250 + 300/500)

 

Not exactly the fix to the "problem" that was being put forward. My view is simple - the scoring table provides a strong penalty/disinsentive for players making spurious doubles of part-scores that score as a full game. I do not see that this is a bad thing at all.

[RunemPard]

I do not think it is a bad thing that when a contact is doubled and made that a big bonus is given, but it seems to be too drastic and illogical to me at least. If it were up to me, making a doubled contract would always give the game bonus.

 

NT PARTSCORES

7 TRICKS - 340/540

8 TRICKS - 370/570

9 TRICKS - 400/600

10 TRICKS- 430/630

11 TRICKS- 460/660

12 TRICKS- 490/690

13 TRICKS- 520/720

 

NT GAMES (either +250 or +game bonus)(+450 seems a little much though RED)

9 TRICKS - 650/850 OR 1050

10 TRICKS- 680/880 OR 1080

11 TRICKS- 720/910 OR 1110

12 TRICKS- 750/940 OR 1140

13 TRICKS- 780/970 OR 1170

[han]

I think that this part of the rules is very neat. The fact that passing 2DX is completely different from passing 2HX or 3DX only adds to complexity of this wonderful game.

[Bbradley62]

I do not think it is a bad thing that when a contact is doubled and made that a big bonus is given, but it seems to be too drastic and illogical to me at least.

Sounds like you haven't played any rubber bridge, which would show you where the scores come from.

[RunemPard]

Sounds like you haven't played any rubber bridge, which would show you where the scores come from.

 

I started out playing rubber bridge.

[Vampyr]

I would just have a flat +250 for any doubled contract that makes, or +500 with a redouble. And another +250 for each overtrick.

 

Wow, then all slams and vulnerable games would be played doubled, and probably redoubled. Although I imagine you meant adding 250 or 500 to the value of the undoubled contract. Once consequence is that 1NT openers will become super-weak, since doubling them is such a risky proposition; other changes to competitive bidding would occur, and would, as far as I can tell, be mostly bad.

 

(I know this is not going to happen but) I feel that the game would be slightly better if one could not get a game bonus , by being doubled in a partscore.

If making 2♦X is worth 180 , then making 3♦X can be worth 220. If one declares 3♦X and makes it , +220 is quite a good score anyway , and he can always redouble if he wants to. I don't see why logically declarer should be credited with game if he didn't bid it.

I think this scoring change would make a penalty double (of partscores) a more useful weapon. Currently this weapon is underused , because the scoring makes it bad odds - you lose too much if they happen to make.

 

It would make a penalty double of partscores almost obligatory at teams.

 

The scoring table is one of the things that makes bridge as challenging and interesting as it is. There are various forms of whist and euchre available for people who don't like it.

 

But think about it; maybe there is a reason that bridge is more popular (at least on a serious level) than those games.

[Vampyr]

There is a bridge magazine in England called Mr Bridge, and the best part of the magazine is the readers' letters. Once in a while people come out of the woodwork with their suggestions for scoring changes. It is pretty clear that these scoring changes address the weakest part of the suggester's game.

[barmar]

http://xkcd.com/1112/

[aguahombre]

This should not be a great concern to BBF people. There are no penalty doubles.

[gwnn]

Yes this callous youth, they will never understand why expert standard from the 60's is superior to expert standard from 2012. *sigh*