Amerika

[pilowsky]

I really do understand what you are getting at. In fact my preference - hold your breath - would be for a scoring system that actually rewarded good bridge.

This is not what we have at the moment.

 

In this way, I think I am very much in support of Mikeh's perspective on Bridge. Mike says that he doesn't look at the traveller. I take this to mean that he sees the purity in each individual hand.

That each hand should be bid and then played so that it reaches its optimal conclusion.

 

I'm not sure how best to describe this philosophy, possibly it is how lawyers see the world. A space of equipoise where each side negotiates for a perfectly fair contract to the best of their abilities.

 

There is a considerable charm in this approach. It is the 'British way'. It is redolent of old wine and quiet days on the common with the slap of willow on the red leather ball until dusk.

I really like it. When I fail to make a contract or miss some tricks I should have made, those are the hands I savour and work over later.

 

Tragically the scoring system that Mr Vanderbilt and his buddies bequeathed us has none of the artfulness to reward all of the intricacies that the game provides.

 

Bid your way to exactly the 'right' contract played on exactly the 'right' side and you get no reward at all.

 

Play matchpoints and the IMP's people say you're a fool, play IMP's and the matchpoints people say that you can't make overtricks.

 

Pause to think for even a second, and West bellows for the Director.

We're a bit off-piste for this part of the Forum so I'll stop here, but you get the gist.

[AL78]

I really do understand what you are getting at. In fact my preference - hold your breath - would be for a scoring system that actually rewarded good bridge.

 

To do that, you'd need to analyse what the best possible score each side could obtain given the other side's actions and the rest of the field, and base a score comparing their actual result to the theoretical best possible result. Probably impossible to do, so we are stuck with the current system. The alternative is to take up chess where there is virtually no luck*, and if you lose, you either messed up or were outplayed by a superior opponent.

 

*Once I was in a rook and minor piece endgame with my rook positioned in the centre of the board. My opponent moved his king to attack my rook, hoping to drive it away. I resigned. He asked why. I said my rook has no safe square and is lost. He said he had no idea that was the case when he made the move, and said I was very unlucky.

[AL78]

In this way, I think I am very much in support of Mikeh's perspective on Bridge. Mike says that he doesn't look at the traveller. I take this to mean that he sees the purity in each individual hand.

That each hand should be bid and then played so that it reaches its optimal conclusion.

 

I enjoy bridge much more if I don't look at the traveller/bridgemate. It just stimulates frustration which can harm my play, which results in more frustration. It doesn't help to know at the time we got the only opponents to bid the game/slam on a hook. Far better to look at the hands after the session and note why we got terrible results on some boards. Problem is, other people like to look at the traveller and voice the result, so I can't always choose to live in blissful ignorance.

[pilowsky]

To do that, you'd need to analyse what the best possible score each side could obtain given the other side's actions and the rest of the field, and base a score comparing their actual result to the theoretical best possible result. Probably impossible to do, so we are stuck with the current system. The alternative is to take up chess where there is virtually no luck*, and if you lose, you either messed up or were outplayed by a superior opponent.

 

*Once I was in a rook and minor piece endgame with my rook positioned in the centre of the board. My opponent moved his king to attack my rook, hoping to drive it away. I resigned. He asked why. I said my rook has no safe square and is lost. He said he had no idea that was the case when he made the move, and said I was very unlucky.

 

Well, I agree with you there. chess is a much better game as far as scoring goes. It has three outcomes and a clock. Disputes are rare. It has other problems though.

[pilowsky]

I enjoy bridge much more if I don't look at the traveller/bridgemate. It just stimulates frustration which can harm my play, which results in more frustration. It doesn't help to know at the time we got the only opponents to bid the game/slam on a hook. Far better to look at the hands after the session and note why we got terrible results on some boards. Problem is, other people like to look at the traveller and voice the result, so I can't always choose to live in blissful ignorance.

 

The Traveller is not the Bridgemate. The Traveller that I am talking about is the complete list of outcomes. Perhaps Mike misunderstood me because although he has posted here more than anyone else, he has never played against robots in competition as far as I am aware. At least, he has no BBO masterpoints.

That's OK, there are many things that I don't do either. On BBO the term 'Traveller' doesn't refer to the bit of paper stuck under the plastic board or the Bridgemate, or anything else.

 

It means the final set of results on a server that you can see when I go to the myhands database.

 

People like me that enjoy using BBO to play Bridge use this facility all the time to see our results and improve our game. The data is only available 24 hours later when the hands have been played 16 times.

 

Strangely imo, although this Forum is called BBO, most of the stalwarts that populate it don't seem to like the platform much. I find that odd.