The EBU defines "duplicate bridge"

[Vampyr]

So what would you do if you would have 27 tables? Put out 27 board sets on the tables and play 8 rounds of Mitchell?

 

Yeah, similarly for 100 tables or 1000. Or 1000000. This is silly.

 

What would be interesting, though, is to learn what requirements other federations have. Many years ago the ACBL allowed play of 24 out of 36 boards. Presumably this is no longer permitted?

[Trinidad]

So what would you do if you would have 27 tables? Put out 27 board sets on the tables and play 8 rounds of Mitchell?

 

 

Yeah, similarly for 100 tables or 1000. Or 1000000. This is silly.

It is not silly. It shows that there will be a point where you need to share boards or duplicate them to have a proper comparison within the field (or give up and play multiple fields). Once you realize that there is such a point, you need to decide where to put it. This is, of course, arbitrary. The EBU put it at "everybody plays 75% of the boards in play". That seems like a reasonable value to me.

 

Rik

[gordontd]

Yeah, similarly for 100 tables or 1000. Or 1000000. This is silly.

And yet there is at least one club that chooses to play movements where the percentage of boards played/boards in play is 50% - ie every pair has as least one other pair with whom they have no boards in common. Not very "duplicate".

 

I must say I'm surprised at your response to this whole question Stefanie: since you go on at every opportunity about the unfairness of single-winner IMP pairs games, I rather expected you to be on the other side of this one and like the idea of encouraging fairer movements.

[Vampyr]

And yet there is at least one club that chooses to play movements where the percentage of boards played/boards in play is 50% - ie every pair has as least one other pair with whom they have no boards in common. Not very "duplicate".

 

I agree that this is absurd, but...

 

I must say I'm surprised at your response to this whole question Stefanie: since you go on at every opportunity about the unfairness of single-winner IMP pairs games, I rather expected you to be on the other side of this one and like the idea of encouraging fairer movements.

 

A fair movement is very important to me personally, but I read a letter in Mr Bridge in which a person complained bitterly about the new policy. This got me thinking that there are probably quite a few clubs somewhere in the back of beyond where the concept of a fair movement is unknown and if it were known people wouldn't care. I think that the EBU need to recognise that not every place is London or similar, and that a one-size-fits-all approach may not, actually, fit all. Not all bridge players are keen competitors; in fact these are probably outnumbered by those who just want to spend a social afternoon or evening enjoying themselves. If these people are happy, I think that a better policy would be simply to let them be. They are not hurting anyone.

 

Now if a member of one of these clubs has complained, which I think is pretty likely considering that the issue has come up, then there is a bit more of a problem and maybe this policy, however heavy-handed it may seem, is the best solution, but perhaps it could be kept a bit quieter and not necessarily applied in places where no one has expressed dissatisfaction?

 

And now you mention it, should not a similar policy apply to one-winner IMP pair games? B-)

[helene_t]

Suppose you have two sections (players randomly assigned) and you for some reason decide to treat them as a single section although there was zero overlap between the boards played. Then the fraction of the boards which each pair played would drop form 100% to 50%. Would it make any difference to the interpretation of the results? Someone who was 3rd in his own section would now on average be shared 5th in the overall section. Of course if the two sections are not equally strong it does make a substantial difference.

[gordontd]

Suppose you have two sections (players randomly assigned) and you for some reason decide to treat them as a single section although there was zero overlap between the boards played. Then the fraction of the boards which each pair played would drop form 100% to 50%. Would it make any difference to the interpretation of the results? Someone who was 3rd in his own section would now on average be shared 5th in the overall section. Of course if the two sections are not equally strong it does make a substantial difference.

It would make a big difference to the master points.

[helene_t]

It would make a big difference to the master points.

So you get more masterpoints for ending shared 5th of 48 than for ending 3rd of 24? Or fewer?

[gordontd]

So you get more masterpoints for ending shared 5th of 48 than for ending 3rd of 24? Or fewer?

You would get twice as many for coming 5th out of 48 than for coming 3rd out of 24.

[WellSpyder]

You would get twice as many for coming 5th out of 48 than for coming 3rd out of 24.

Where were you when I was having this discussion about master points in 1 vs 2-winner movements?

[gordontd]

Where were you when I was having this discussion about master points in 1 vs 2-winner movements?

I saw it, but since campboy was replying I didn't need to add anything. But it's a different question than the one being addressed here.

[Trinidad]

A fair movement is very important to me personally, but I read a letter in Mr Bridge in which a person complained bitterly about the new policy. This got me thinking that there are probably quite a few clubs somewhere in the back of beyond where the concept of a fair movement is unknown and if it were known people wouldn't care. I think that the EBU need to recognise that not every place is London or similar, and that a one-size-fits-all approach may not, actually, fit all. Not all bridge players are keen competitors; in fact these are probably outnumbered by those who just want to spend a social afternoon or evening enjoying themselves. If these people are happy, I think that a better policy would be simply to let them be. They are not hurting anyone.

 

If I understand correctly, the EBU has basically said that, in order to be eligible for masterpoints, the competition needs to be fair. The EBU has not said that unfair competitions are banned or that -to take the unfair movement to the extreme- rubber bridge is forbidden.

 

If a bridge club wants to run an unfair movement, e.g. because the players would get really unhappy when they need to share some boards, they can still do that. But the players won't get EBU masterpoints.

 

I would expect that the masterpoints are not going to be a deal breaker for these players, since you describe them as "not keen competitors". Should it be a problem anyway, then I would suggest that the club calculates the masterpoints the old fashioned way and keeps a record of these points that are not recognized by EBU. Nothing stops them from recognizing these points at the local level (e.g. for the club's masterpoint race). However, if you want your masterpoints to be recognized in "London", you need to earn them in fair competitions. But I guess that these players never get to "London", at least not to play bridge.

 

Rik