IMP pairs technical advice and help needed

[Balrog49]

I need technical advice and help from someone who has experience running stratified IMP pairs games using predealt boards, ACBLScore and, if possible, Bridgemates. I'm not a certified director but I want to demonstrate that IMP pairs can run as smoothly as the local club's stratified 9-11 table matchpoint game using the same Mitchell movements that everyone is familiar with.

 

How the IMPs are computed isn't important at this point. I just want to prove that it can be done by both of our alternating directors and that everyone will get the masterbeans they're entitled to.

[gordontd]

Other than changing the scoring method in the program and telling the players of the different tactics needed, there aren't really any differences to running it. Switch off %s and ranking in the Bridgemates if you usually show them. Try to have a movement where everyone plays all the boards.

[Vampyr]

I say don't do it. Hopeless form of scoring.

[gordontd]

I say don't do it. Hopeless form of scoring.

I wondered how long it would take you!

[Vampyr]

I wondered how long it would take you!

:)

[Phil]

It works fine in ACBL score and the players won't even know the director is running an IMP pairs game.There's nothing to fear, however, you might want to set up a mock game and try it out if you aren't sure.

[Phil]

I say don't do it. Hopeless form of scoring.

 

And I say its fine to do and adds variety, but the poster didn't really ask for any opinions about the format did they?

[barmar]

The main thing you have to deal with is that there are several different IMP Pairs scoring methods in ACBLScore, and you have to pick one. The options are:

• IMPs against a datum
  
• average IMPs
  
• total IMPs
  

I recommend average IMPs. The datum method is a holdover from the days of manual scoring; it doesn't compare against a meaningful score, but it was much easier to calculate without a computer. Average and total IMPs are effectively equivalent, but average IMPs produces small numbers that are comparable to the scores you get in team games. This is the method BBO uses for IMP games.

[mycroft]

Agreeing with the above completely - except if you don't tell the punters they're playing IMP pairs, you will get many complaints from the players who think they're strong enough to play differently (oh, you'll get at least one of those anyway, because that level of players don't read or listen either).

 

You will also get questions for a week from players who had no clue what you *meant* when you said IMP pairs, and can't understand -12.4 ("Is that about a 45% game?", if you're lucky).

 

Yeah, it's a crapshoot, but it's a fun crapshoot - occasionally (our club used to hold it the last game of the month). Of course, since Matchpoints is a great game (but not Bridge ), I could say similar things about that format, too.

 

Yeah, it's trivial to set up (but make sure you double-check on the page that "Scoring: IMPs by average" after the game starts, and run a one-round-to-go leaderboard (you'll be surprised how many times that leaderboard says the leaders are at 63%, not +45 IMPs)).

 

When (not if) you forget to change the scoring, F9 and "scoring method" will walk you through changing it with a minimum of fuss. You can do it at any time prior to DBADD in case you forget.

 

I've never seen anyone turn off the end-of-game percentages on the bridgemates; people basically know, and it's not like they're accurate when there's multiple sections scored across either.

[barmar]

You will also get questions for a week from players who had no clue what you *meant* when you said IMP pairs, and can't understand -12.4 ("Is that about a 45% game?", if you're lucky).

Better than if you mistakely select total IMPs. The first and last place pairs have final scores in the triple digits, which no one really understands.

 

They used to do this in the NABC+ IMP Pairs games, and they scored across sections, so there were triple-digit scores on individual boards, and some pairs had totals in the thousands. Completely meaningless.

[mycroft]

Absolutely. They still do that in the Cavendish, though, and it's a little weird to get used to - never mind the fact that you have to know the size of the field to know whether +264 is a good score or just "above average".

 

(having said that, the world simultaneous pairs with a top of 79xx is pretty wild, too. Especially when you get a <100 - OTOH, got more than one 7000+ too).

 

From the NABC, IIRC, your statements are off by a zero. I remember scores of 15000 for a session, and over 1000 on some wild boards. But that's ancient history, and they didn't do it for more than 2 years. But yeah, don't.

[barmar]

(having said that, the world simultaneous pairs with a top of 79xx is pretty wild, too. Especially when you get a <100 - OTOH, got more than one 7000+ too).

I've long felt that reporting raw matchpoints is just as bad, since top on a board varies depending on the circumstances (section size, number of rounds, whether scoring across multiple sections). Percentages are so much more relatable. Luckily most recaps report them both.