🚀 go-pugleaf

Many thanks!!

Is a decimal point so hard for ordinary people to follow?  I mean, most
pairs games have a decimal point, for scoring.  Presumably that is OK?

"Stephen Fischer" <stephendotfischer@unswpointedudotau> wrote in message
news:438f255d$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> FootballWeb wrote:
> > Hi All
> >
> > Is there somewhere on the net that I can find the Victory points
matrices?
> > I am trying to work out how many IMPs gives a victory point, say in a 32
> > board match.
>
> First site I turned up:
>
> http://www.bridgeguys.com/VGlossary/VictoryPointsConversion.html
>
> > Also I was wondering why competitions, such as the bermuda bowl, still
stick
> > to integer victory point values for their results.  Doesnt this mean,
for
> > example, in the round robin, that the best team might be robbed of their
> > place in the final, due to rounding error?
>
> IMO, the last thing this game needs is a scoring system that makes it
> *less* comprehensible to the average person, or even the people
> following the event on the Internet.

Dnia Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:19:17 +0100, FootballWeb napisa³(a):

> Hi All
>
> Is there somewhere on the net that I can find the Victory points matrices?
> I am trying to work out how many IMPs gives a victory point, say in a 32
> board match.
>
> Also I was wondering why competitions, such as the bermuda bowl, still stick
> to integer victory point values for their results.  Doesnt this mean, for
> example, in the round robin, that the best team might be robbed of their
> place in the final, due to rounding error?
>
> Thanks

http://bridge.freeownhost.com/teksty.php?plik=download.php

--
Lukasz Jasinski

Stephen Fischer wrote on "Victory points"
>Just my opinion,

  Not so sure about that ...

>which may be biased because I just taught two people how to play bridge
>this evening and had to gloss over the scoring almost entirely, but the
>scoring is unnecessarily arcane.

  Yes,
  we take a nice, simple integral number of tricks won or lost
  we convert that to points using 13 different methods (I ignore x, xx)
  we apply the same :) method at another table to give yet another scale
  we then ignore the hand and apply a 4th conversion method on the match

I'd say Byzantine rather than arcane. Please don't get me onto
carry-over scores ...
--
Chris Ryall Wirral UK <cjr2005@my.domain>

> > Is there somewhere on the net that I can find the Victory points matrices?
> > I am trying to work out how many IMPs gives a victory point, say in a 32
> > board match.

There is no standard VP scale; there are several different ones.

> > Also I was wondering why competitions, such as the bermuda bowl, still stick
> > to integer victory point values for their results.

Because it's considered good enough.  Why not ask why IMPs are integers?

> http://bridge.freeownhost.com/teksty.php?plik=download.php

bridge.freeownhost.com does not seem to exist at present.
--
Mark Brader                 "Men are animals."
Toronto                     "What are women?  Plants, birds, fish?"
msb@vex.net                         -- Spider Robinson, "Night of Power"

Hmm, that's odd.  Lukasz Jasinski posted:
> > http://bridge.freeownhost.com/teksty.php?plik=download.php

And I (Mark Brader) responded:
> bridge.freeownhost.com does not seem to exist at present.

If I try to access it from vex.net it doesn't seem to exist.
If I try to access it from my office computer, the site does exist,
so the failure was some DNS-related problem.  *But* the indicated page
on the site seems not to exist, unless it requires some browser option
that I have turned off.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "*Nature*, Mr. Allnutt, is what we are put in this
msb@vex.net          |  world *to rise above*."    -- The African Queen

>
> There is no standard VP scale; there are several different ones.

thanks!

>
> > > Also I was wondering why competitions, such as the bermuda bowl, still
stick
> > > to integer victory point values for their results.
>
> Because it's considered good enough.

good enough for what?  isnt there a significant chance that the wrong team
will be excluded due to rounding error?  how can that be good enough?  you
score your imps fair and square, than enter a lottery at the end and have a
random amount regarded as worthless.  great.

> Why not ask why IMPs are integers?

quite.  I can see laziness being the answer here, and find that more
acceptable over 20 boards.  at a stretch i can accept that it is time
saving - you have to accept that decimal scoring is a more accurate measure
of ability, though, right?

FootballWeb wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Is there somewhere on the net that I can find the Victory points matrices?
> I am trying to work out how many IMPs gives a victory point, say in a 32
> board match.
>
> Also I was wondering why competitions, such as the bermuda bowl, still stick
> to integer victory point values for their results.  Doesnt this mean, for
> example, in the round robin, that the best team might be robbed of their
> place in the final, due to rounding error?
>
> Thanks
>
>

Perhaps it is best to explain is to someone calling himself Football Web thus:

The small difference in bridge between winning 13 IMPs for a difference of 750
and winning 12 IMPs for a difference of 740 is similar to the small difference
in football between a shot that bounces off the goalpost back into the penalty
area, and one a millimeter to the left that bounces off the goalpost into the
goal.  In both cases a small difference amounts to one extra point in the score.

Nobody has ever advocated giving 0.5 goals for a post or crossbar.  :)

--
.-----------------------.----------------------------------.
|    Bruce  McIntyre    |      email:  ooga@shaw.ca        |
|  6636 Dow Ave., #203  |  "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca"  |
|   Burnaby BC CANADA   |     Editor, the Matchpointer     |
| V5H 3C9  604/438-9735 |(ACBL Unit 430 Bridge Publication)|
}-----------------------ˆ----------------------------------{
|     Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training     |
}----------------------------------------------------------{
|             http://www.unit430.com/IMPhome.htm           |
|               (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site)             |
}----------------------------------------------------------{
|       www.unit430.com         www.matchpointer.com       |
|           (Projects I'll be working on in 2005)          |
`----------------------------------------------------------´

FootballWeb wrote

>Is there somewhere on the net that I can find the Victory points matrices?
>I am trying to work out how many IMPs gives a victory point, say in a 32
>board match.

   There are six different VP scales that I know of, and no doubt many
more, so it depends which one you want.  The ones that come to mind are:

WBF/EBL which are used by many organisations.
WBF/EBL amended by the Irish for small numbers of boards
ACBL
EBU
Merseyside Bridge League
Manchester Bridge League

>Also I was wondering why competitions, such as the bermuda bowl, still stick
>to integer victory point values for their results.  Doesnt this mean, for
>example, in the round robin, that the best team might be robbed of their
>place in the final, due to rounding error?

   No, because that is the scoring system.  They are not robbed.  Compare
football: suppose three teams play each other to qualify for the
Honduras Ladies Cup Final.  The scores are:

Cute Chicks 13  Sexy Sue's XI  0
Karen's Crew 1  Cute Chicks    0
Karen's Crew 2  Sexy Sue's XI  0

   With the normal 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, the final table is:

                 W   D   L   GF  GA  Pts
Karen's Crew    2   0   0    3   0   6
Cute Chicks     1   0   1   13   1   3
Sexy Sue's XI   0   0   2    0  15   0

   So Karen's Crew qualify because they have more points.  By your logic
Cute Chicks were "robbed" because they did better on some other scoring
system, namely goals scored or goals difference.  But they were not
robbed - it is just the scoring system.

--
David Stevenson               Bridge   RTFLB   Cats  Railways    /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK        Fax: +44 870 055 7697               @ @
<bridge2@blakjak.com>         ICQ 20039682     bluejak on OKB   =( + )            Bridgepage:        http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm      ~

FootballWeb wrote
>>
>> There is no standard VP scale; there are several different ones.
>
>thanks!
>
>>
>> > > Also I was wondering why competitions, such as the bermuda bowl, still
>stick
>> > > to integer victory point values for their results.
>>
>> Because it's considered good enough.
>
>good enough for what?  isnt there a significant chance that the wrong team
>will be excluded due to rounding error?  how can that be good enough?  you
>score your imps fair and square, than enter a lottery at the end and have a
>random amount regarded as worthless.  great.
>
>> Why not ask why IMPs are integers?
>
>quite.  I can see laziness being the answer here, and find that more
>acceptable over 20 boards.  at a stretch i can accept that it is time
>saving - you have to accept that decimal scoring is a more accurate measure
>of ability, though, right?

   No.  I reckon the ability to win using the scoring system you are
playing a paramount test of skill.

--
David Stevenson               Bridge   RTFLB   Cats  Railways    /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK        Fax: +44 870 055 7697               @ @
<bridge2@blakjak.com>         ICQ 20039682     bluejak on OKB   =( + )            Bridgepage:        http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm      ~

Look on the bright side

At least they give you master points when you win

:)

"Chris Ryall" <groups2@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:WCAhfJCHg0jDFwsW@[127.0.0.1]...
> Stephen Fischer wrote on "Victory points"
> >Just my opinion,
>
>   Not so sure about that ...
>
> >which may be biased because I just taught two people how to play bridge
> >this evening and had to gloss over the scoring almost entirely, but the
> >scoring is unnecessarily arcane.
>
>   Yes,
>   we take a nice, simple integral number of tricks won or lost
>   we convert that to points using 13 different methods (I ignore x, xx)
>   we apply the same :) method at another table to give yet another scale
>   we then ignore the hand and apply a 4th conversion method on the match
>
> I'd say Byzantine rather than arcane. Please don't get me onto
> carry-over scores ...
> --
> Chris Ryall Wirral UK <cjr2005@my.domain>
>

FootballWeb wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Is there somewhere on the net that I can find the Victory points matrices?
> I am trying to work out how many IMPs gives a victory point, say in a 32
> board match.

First site I turned up:

http://www.bridgeguys.com/VGlossary/VictoryPointsConversion.html

> Also I was wondering why competitions, such as the bermuda bowl, still stick
> to integer victory point values for their results.  Doesnt this mean, for
> example, in the round robin, that the best team might be robbed of their
> place in the final, due to rounding error?

IMO, the last thing this game needs is a scoring system that makes it
*less* comprehensible to the average person, or even the people
following the event on the Internet.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:24:53 -0000, msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

: > > Is there somewhere on the net that I can find the Victory points matrices?
: > > I am trying to work out how many IMPs gives a victory point, say in a 32
: > > board match.
:
: There is no standard VP scale; there are several different ones.


WBF version of VP scale:  http://www.elsid.co.za/bridge/templates.html
Incorporates shortboard scale.

Sid

FootballWeb wrote:
> Many thanks!!
>
> Is a decimal point so hard for ordinary people to follow?  I mean, most
> pairs games have a decimal point, for scoring.  Presumably that is OK?

By the time you explain:

- the score on the hand
- conversion to IMPs
- conversion to VPs

it's all a bit much for the casual observer to cope with.  Then try
explaining why these conversions are necessary and their eyes will glaze
over.

Matchpoint games are easier to explain because the percentage score has
some direct relevance to individual hands.

Just my opinion, which may be biased because I just taught two people
how to play bridge this evening and had to gloss over the scoring almost
entirely, but the scoring is unnecessarily arcane.

Bruce McIntyre writes:
> Nobody has ever advocated giving 0.5 goals for a post or crossbar.  :)

Except in horseshoes. :-)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto   |  "...everything else in [the] list is wrong;
msb@vex.net            |   why should [this] be correct?"  -- Rob Novak

errr thanks Bruce

how about this as a "Bridge" example

in the BB round robin you lose, say, 0-5 IMPs in each match due to rounding,
we could look at it as +- 2.5

over 21 games this will be 0-105, or +-52.5 IMPs in the contest

now i estimate that 52.5 IMPs is about 10VP, so your final score will be
+-10 VP

if we look at the positions 5-10 in the BB, two teams were tied, and the
others were in 5 or 6 VPs of the next team

this is WELL within our rounding error of +-10 IMPs to decide the rankings

what im saying is for a small effort we can allow the best team to go
through, randomly taking away IMPs has got to be bad for the game?

to put it in cricket terms, Im saying we need third umpire to see if a
player really has been run out or not, for the big competitions, rather than
relying on some imperfect and random lottery, that people just accept
because "its always been there", or "its part of the game"

"Bruce McIntyre" <ac.wahs@agoo> wrote in message
news:gYLjf.6367$Eq5.5696@pd7tw1no...
> FootballWeb wrote:
> > Hi All
> >
> > Is there somewhere on the net that I can find the Victory points
matrices?
> > I am trying to work out how many IMPs gives a victory point, say in a 32
> > board match.
> >
> > Also I was wondering why competitions, such as the bermuda bowl, still
stick
> > to integer victory point values for their results.  Doesnt this mean,
for
> > example, in the round robin, that the best team might be robbed of their
> > place in the final, due to rounding error?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
>
> Perhaps it is best to explain is to someone calling himself Football Web
thus:
>
> The small difference in bridge between winning 13 IMPs for a difference of
750
> and winning 12 IMPs for a difference of 740 is similar to the small
difference
> in football between a shot that bounces off the goalpost back into the
penalty
> area, and one a millimeter to the left that bounces off the goalpost into
the
> goal.  In both cases a small difference amounts to one extra point in the
score.
>
> Nobody has ever advocated giving 0.5 goals for a post or crossbar.  :)
>
> --
> .-----------------------.----------------------------------.
> |    Bruce  McIntyre    |      email:  ooga@shaw.ca        |
> |  6636 Dow Ave., #203  |  "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca"  |
> |   Burnaby BC CANADA   |     Editor, the Matchpointer     |
> | V5H 3C9  604/438-9735 |(ACBL Unit 430 Bridge Publication)|
> }-----------------------ˆ----------------------------------{
> |     Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training     |
> }----------------------------------------------------------{
> |             http://www.unit430.com/IMPhome.htm           |
> |               (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site)             |
> }----------------------------------------------------------{
> |       www.unit430.com         www.matchpointer.com       |
> |           (Projects I'll be working on in 2005)          |
> `----------------------------------------------------------´

agree with this in a sense

but remember the scoring system IS the game, and therefore it is very
important to make a good onw

surely elements which are eiter random, or highly subjective, are bad for a
game, from the neutrals perspective?

>
>    No.  I reckon the ability to win using the scoring system you are
> playing a paramount test of skill.
>
> --
> David Stevenson               Bridge   RTFLB   Cats  Railways    /\ /\
> Liverpool, England, UK        Fax: +44 870 055 7697               @ @
> <bridge2@blakjak.com>         ICQ 20039682     bluejak on OKB   =( + )>             Bridgepage:        http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm      ~

FootballWeb wrote
>agree with this in a sense
>
>but remember the scoring system IS the game, and therefore it is very
>important to make a good onw
>
>surely elements which are eiter random, or highly subjective, are bad for a
>game, from the neutrals perspective?

   You mean like three points for a win, one for a draw in soccer?

   You mean like playing exactly nine innings in baseball, rather than
ten or eight, which might be better for teams with better/worse
bullpens?

   I could go on, but the means of deciding the winner is always like
that.  In fact, all you are suggesting is replacing one random scoring
system with another because it seems fairer to you personally [and
that's pretty subjective!] and because you think that total fairness is
better than usefulness and practicality [and that's not only subjective
but I think you are in a small minority!].

   Please do not top post: it makes the flow of argument difficult.

>>    No.  I reckon the ability to win using the scoring system you are
>> playing a paramount test of skill.

--
David Stevenson               Bridge   RTFLB   Cats  Railways    /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK        Fax: +44 870 055 7697               @ @
<bridge2@blakjak.com>         ICQ 20039682     bluejak on OKB   =( + )            Bridgepage:        http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm      ~

Mark Brader wrote
>Bruce McIntyre writes:
>> Nobody has ever advocated giving 0.5 goals for a post or crossbar.  :)
>
>Except in horseshoes. :-)

   What has this argument to do with horseshi...  Oh, sorry, you said
horseshoes.

--
David Stevenson               Bridge   RTFLB   Cats  Railways    /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK        Fax: +44 870 055 7697               @ @
<bridge2@blakjak.com>         ICQ 20039682     bluejak on OKB   =( + )            Bridgepage:        http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm      ~

FootballWeb wrote
>errr thanks Bruce
>
>how about this as a "Bridge" example
>
>in the BB round robin you lose, say, 0-5 IMPs in each match due to rounding,
>we could look at it as +- 2.5
>
>over 21 games this will be 0-105, or +-52.5 IMPs in the contest
>
>now i estimate that 52.5 IMPs is about 10VP, so your final score will be
>+-10 VP
>
>if we look at the positions 5-10 in the BB, two teams were tied, and the
>others were in 5 or 6 VPs of the next team
>
>this is WELL within our rounding error of +-10 IMPs to decide the rankings
>
>what im saying is for a small effort we can allow the best team to go
>through, randomly taking away IMPs has got to be bad for the game?

   How can you say we do not allow the best team ot go through?  They
scored more, did they not?

--
David Stevenson               Bridge   RTFLB   Cats  Railways    /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK        Fax: +44 870 055 7697               @ @
<bridge2@blakjak.com>         ICQ 20039682     bluejak on OKB   =( + )            Bridgepage:        http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm      ~

"David Stevenson" <bridge2@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EqBuY5OhHFkDFwkf@post.demon.co.uk...
> FootballWeb wrote
> >agree with this in a sense
> >
> >but remember the scoring system IS the game, and therefore it is very
> >important to make a good onw
> >
> >surely elements which are eiter random, or highly subjective, are bad for
a
> >game, from the neutrals perspective?
>
>    You mean like three points for a win, one for a draw in soccer?
>
>    You mean like playing exactly nine innings in baseball, rather than
> ten or eight, which might be better for teams with better/worse
> bullpens?
>
>    I could go on, but the means of deciding the winner is always like
> that.  In fact, all you are suggesting is replacing one random scoring
> system with another because it seems fairer to you personally [and
> that's pretty subjective!] and because you think that total fairness is
> better than usefulness and practicality [and that's not only subjective
> but I think you are in a small minority!].

im saying use the SAME scoring system, just use greater accuracy, its not
subjective, but it is fairer.  its like saying uses a better stopwatch to
measure times in the 100m at the olympics, the criteria is the same, but the
fairness is improves.

>
>    Please do not top post: it makes the flow of argument difficult.

sorry

>
> >>    No.  I reckon the ability to win using the scoring system you are
> >> playing a paramount test of skill.
>
> --
> David Stevenson               Bridge   RTFLB   Cats  Railways    /\ /\
> Liverpool, England, UK        Fax: +44 870 055 7697               @ @
> <bridge2@blakjak.com>         ICQ 20039682     bluejak on OKB   =( + )>             Bridgepage:        http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm      ~

"David Stevenson" <bridge2@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eKiogpPvJFkDFwkU@post.demon.co.uk...
> FootballWeb wrote
> >errr thanks Bruce
> >
> >how about this as a "Bridge" example
> >
> >in the BB round robin you lose, say, 0-5 IMPs in each match due to
rounding,
> >we could look at it as +- 2.5
> >
> >over 21 games this will be 0-105, or +-52.5 IMPs in the contest
> >
> >now i estimate that 52.5 IMPs is about 10VP, so your final score will be
> >+-10 VP
> >
> >if we look at the positions 5-10 in the BB, two teams were tied, and the
> >others were in 5 or 6 VPs of the next team
> >
> >this is WELL within our rounding error of +-10 IMPs to decide the
rankings
> >
> >what im saying is for a small effort we can allow the best team to go
> >through, randomly taking away IMPs has got to be bad for the game?
>
>    How can you say we do not allow the best team ot go through?  They
> scored more, did they not?

huh???  Imagine a scoring system where you score points in a leauge based
system.  THEN at the END you add a random number to every score.  This
random number is large relative to your score and very large relative to the
change to the difference in rankings.

In effect you have a league table and they perform a random shuffle.  Some
get placed higher, some lower.  Now, because of the shuffle one team now
becomes "better" than the other.  Is this reasonable?  Are you saying that
the ends justifies the means?

>
> --
> David Stevenson               Bridge   RTFLB   Cats  Railways    /\ /\
> Liverpool, England, UK        Fax: +44 870 055 7697               @ @
> <bridge2@blakjak.com>         ICQ 20039682     bluejak on OKB   =( + )>             Bridgepage:        http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm      ~

In article <EqBuY5OhHFkDFwkf@post.demon.co.uk>,
David Stevenson  <bnewsr@blakjak.com> wrote:
>FootballWeb wrote
>>agree with this in a sense
>>
>>but remember the scoring system IS the game, and therefore it is very
>>important to make a good onw
>>
>>surely elements which are eiter random, or highly subjective, are bad for a
>>game, from the neutrals perspective?
>
>   You mean like three points for a win, one for a draw in soccer?
>
>   You mean like playing exactly nine innings in baseball, rather than
>ten or eight, which might be better for teams with better/worse
>bullpens?

Those are arbitrary, not random or subjective. (Well, the soccer one
isn't even all that arbitrary.)

(The VP scales are also not random or subjective.)

>   I could go on, but the means of deciding the winner is always like
>that.  In fact, all you are suggesting is replacing one random scoring
>system with another because it seems fairer to you personally [and
>that's pretty subjective!] and because you think that total fairness is
>better than usefulness and practicality [and that's not only subjective
>but I think you are in a small minority!].

A higher-resolution VP scale would not be random, either.
--
Julian Lighton   jl8e@fragment.com
/* You are not expected to understand this. */

In article <dmp57g$v2f$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
 "FootballWeb" <footballweb@dodgeit.com> wrote:

> how about this as a "Bridge" example
>
> in the BB round robin you lose, say, 0-5 IMPs in each match due to rounding,
> we could look at it as +- 2.5
>
> over 21 games this will be 0-105, or +-52.5 IMPs in the contest
>
> now i estimate that 52.5 IMPs is about 10VP, so your final score will be
> +-10 VP
>
> if we look at the positions 5-10 in the BB, two teams were tied, and the
> others were in 5 or 6 VPs of the next team
>
> this is WELL within our rounding error of +-10 IMPs to decide the rankings

Sometimes the rounding errors will be up, sometimes they'll round down.
In the long run we expect these to cancel each other out, so the final
score is likely to be reasonably accurate.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA

In message <WCAhfJCHg0jDFwsW@[127.0.0.1]>, Chris Ryall
<groups2@[127.0.0.1]> writes
>Stephen Fischer wrote on "Victory points"
>>Just my opinion,
>
> Not so sure about that ...
>
>>which may be biased because I just taught two people how to play
>>bridge this evening and had to gloss over the scoring almost entirely,
>>but the scoring is unnecessarily arcane.
>
> Yes,
> we take a nice, simple integral number of tricks won or lost
> we convert that to points using 13 different methods (I ignore x, xx)
> we apply the same :) method at another table to give yet another scale
> we then ignore the hand and apply a 4th conversion method on the match
>
>I'd say Byzantine rather than arcane. Please don't get me onto
>carry-over scores ...

Let alone the adjustments for merging fields of different sizes :)

--
John (MadDog) Probst|      . !     -^-  |AIM GLChienFou
451 Mile End Road   |     /|__.    \:/  |BCLive ChienFou
London E3 4PA       |    / @ __)   -|-  |john:at:asimere:dot:com
+44-(0)20 8983 5818 |   /\   --^    |   |www.asimere.com/~john

In message <dmnng6$t0c$01$1@news.t-online.com>, FootballWeb
<footballweb@dodgeit.com> writes
>>
>> There is no standard VP scale; there are several different ones.
>
>thanks!
>
>>
>> > > Also I was wondering why competitions, such as the bermuda bowl, still
>stick
>> > > to integer victory point values for their results.
>>
>> Because it's considered good enough.
>
>good enough for what?  isnt there a significant chance that the wrong team
>will be excluded due to rounding error?  how can that be good enough?  you
>score your imps fair and square, than enter a lottery at the end and have a
>random amount regarded as worthless.  great.

There are certain well known positions where one takes a chance to earn
an extra imp. It's part of the game. Why don't you suggest that a
finesse should be counted as a half trick "we made 3.5 spades on the
hand"?  C'mon, the game is all about integers, right from tricks through
to VPs.
>
>> Why not ask why IMPs are integers?
>
>quite.  I can see laziness being the answer here, and find that more
>acceptable over 20 boards.  at a stretch i can accept that it is time
>saving - you have to accept that decimal scoring is a more accurate measure
>of ability, though, right?
>
>

--
John (MadDog) Probst|      . !     -^-  |AIM GLChienFou
451 Mile End Road   |     /|__.    \:/  |BCLive ChienFou
London E3 4PA       |    / @ __)   -|-  |john:at:asimere:dot:com
+44-(0)20 8983 5818 |   /\   --^    |   |www.asimere.com/~john

In message <11p1cj9fso1ioa5@corp.supernews.com>, Julian Lighton
<jl8e@fragment.com> writes
>In article <EqBuY5OhHFkDFwkf@post.demon.co.uk>,
>David Stevenson  <bnewsr@blakjak.com> wrote:
>>FootballWeb wrote
>>>agree with this in a sense
>>>
>>>but remember the scoring system IS the game, and therefore it is very
>>>important to make a good onw
>>>
>>>surely elements which are eiter random, or highly subjective, are bad for a
>>>game, from the neutrals perspective?
>>
>>   You mean like three points for a win, one for a draw in soccer?
>>
>>   You mean like playing exactly nine innings in baseball, rather than
>>ten or eight, which might be better for teams with better/worse
>>bullpens?
>
>Those are arbitrary, not random or subjective. (Well, the soccer one
>isn't even all that arbitrary.)
>
>(The VP scales are also not random or subjective.)
>
>>   I could go on, but the means of deciding the winner is always like
>>that.  In fact, all you are suggesting is replacing one random scoring
>>system with another because it seems fairer to you personally [and
>>that's pretty subjective!] and because you think that total fairness is
>>better than usefulness and practicality [and that's not only subjective
>>but I think you are in a small minority!].
>
>A higher-resolution VP scale would not be random, either.

It'd be incredibly difficult to put more meaningful resolution into a VP
scale greater than 25-0 without playing 96 board matches. The VP scale
is pretty unpleasant even at 20-0 and if anything gets worse as you
refine it. The problem occurs because you need to keep the change in
intervals smooth. Take the simple example of an ebu 10-10 result for an
exact tie. That is a spread of one imp (-0.5 to +0.5). The correct [if
you follow equiprobability as being the goal] spread is 2.2 imps, but if
one were to award 10-10 to imp scores 0-1, (a real spread of 3 imps),
the rest of the scale falls apart. Cheers john

--
John (MadDog) Probst|      . !     -^-  |AIM GLChienFou
451 Mile End Road   |     /|__.    \:/  |BCLive ChienFou
London E3 4PA       |    / @ __)   -|-  |john:at:asimere:dot:com
+44-(0)20 8983 5818 |   /\   --^    |   |www.asimere.com/~john

In message <gYLjf.6367$Eq5.5696@pd7tw1no>, Bruce McIntyre
<ac.wahs@agoo.?.invalid> writes
>FootballWeb wrote:
>> Hi All
>>  Is there somewhere on the net that I can find the Victory points
>>matrices?
>> I am trying to work out how many IMPs gives a victory point, say in a 32
>> board match.
>>  Also I was wondering why competitions, such as the bermuda bowl,
>>still stick
>> to integer victory point values for their results.  Doesnt this mean, for
>> example, in the round robin, that the best team might be robbed of their
>> place in the final, due to rounding error?
>>  Thanks
>>
>
>Perhaps it is best to explain is to someone calling himself Football Web thus:
>
>The small difference in bridge between winning 13 IMPs for a difference
>of 750 and winning 12 IMPs for a difference of 740 is similar to the
>small difference in football between a shot that bounces off the
>goalpost back into the penalty area, and one a millimeter to the left
>that bounces off the goalpost into the goal.  In both cases a small
>difference amounts to one extra point in the score.
>
>Nobody has ever advocated giving 0.5 goals for a post or crossbar.  :)

But aussie rules gives a small bonus for "missing but close" :) It's not
usually enough to do anything but break the tie for proper goals.
>

--
John (MadDog) Probst|      . !     -^-  |AIM GLChienFou
451 Mile End Road   |     /|__.    \:/  |BCLive ChienFou
London E3 4PA       |    / @ __)   -|-  |john:at:asimere:dot:com
+44-(0)20 8983 5818 |   /\   --^    |   |www.asimere.com/~john

FootballWeb wrote:
> Look on the bright side
>
> At least they give you master points when you win
>
> :)
>

And does anyone really understand how those are worked out either? :)

John Probst wrote on "Victory points"
>It'd be incredibly difficult to put more meaningful resolution into a
>VP scale greater than 25-0 without playing 96 board matches. The VP
>scale is pretty unpleasant even at 20-0 and if anything gets worse as
>you refine it. The problem occurs because you need to keep the change
>in intervals smooth. Take the simple example of an ebu 10-10 result for
>an exact tie. That is a spread of one imp (-0.5 to +0.5). The correct
>[if you follow equiprobability as being the goal] spread is 2.2 imps,
>but if one were to award 10-10 to imp scores 0-1, (a real spread of 3
>imps), the rest of the scale falls apart. Cheers john

.. trivially sorted, simply by changing to a fractional IMP scale.

For example you rule a contested declaration of 4H {made/1off 50:50}

   That's 9.5 tricks "who's got the club scissors?"

   420-50 /2 on average => a table score of +165

   IMP against our teammates=-420:  -255 points => say -6.7 IMPs

This would make construction of even tempered VP scales *so* much
easier. Really John, surely this is a non problem?  ;))
--
Chris Ryall Wirral UK <cjr2005@my.domain>

In article <4390d8ff$1@duster.adelaide.on.net>,
Stephen Fischer  <stephendotfischer@unswpointedudotau> wrote:
>FootballWeb wrote:
>> Look on the bright side
>>
>> At least they give you master points when you win
>>
>> :)
>
>And does anyone really understand how those are worked out either? :)

If you don't have enough, they give you more.

--
Julian Lighton   jl8e@fragment.com
/* You are not expected to understand this. */

Dnia Thu, 1 Dec 2005 18:05:39 +0100, £ukasz Jasiñski napisa³(a):

> Dnia Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:19:17 +0100, FootballWeb napisa³(a):
>
>> Hi All
>>
>> Is there somewhere on the net that I can find the Victory points matrices?
>> I am trying to work out how many IMPs gives a victory point, say in a 32
>> board match.
>>
>> Also I was wondering why competitions, such as the bermuda bowl, still stick
>> to integer victory point values for their results.  Doesnt this mean, for
>> example, in the round robin, that the best team might be robbed of their
>> place in the final, due to rounding error?
>>
>> Thanks

sorry for mistake. url to site:
http://bridge.freeownhost.com/teksty.php?plik=i_download.php

FootballWeb wrote
>
>"David Stevenson" <bridge2@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:EqBuY5OhHFkDFwkf@post.demon.co.uk...
>> FootballWeb wrote
>> >agree with this in a sense
>> >
>> >but remember the scoring system IS the game, and therefore it is very
>> >important to make a good onw
>> >
>> >surely elements which are eiter random, or highly subjective, are bad for
>a
>> >game, from the neutrals perspective?
>>
>>    You mean like three points for a win, one for a draw in soccer?
>>
>>    You mean like playing exactly nine innings in baseball, rather than
>> ten or eight, which might be better for teams with better/worse
>> bullpens?
>>
>>    I could go on, but the means of deciding the winner is always like
>> that.  In fact, all you are suggesting is replacing one random scoring
>> system with another because it seems fairer to you personally [and
>> that's pretty subjective!] and because you think that total fairness is
>> better than usefulness and practicality [and that's not only subjective
>> but I think you are in a small minority!].
>
>im saying use the SAME scoring system, just use greater accuracy, its not
>subjective, but it is fairer.  its like saying uses a better stopwatch to
>measure times in the 100m at the olympics, the criteria is the same, but the
>fairness is improves.

   No, you are suggesting a different scoring system, that is no more
fair, just more confusing and unhelpful.

--
David Stevenson               Bridge   RTFLB   Cats  Railways    /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK        Fax: +44 870 055 7697               @ @
<bridge2@blakjak.com>         ICQ 20039682     bluejak on OKB   =( + )            Bridgepage:        http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm      ~

FootballWeb wrote
>
>"David Stevenson" <bridge2@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:eKiogpPvJFkDFwkU@post.demon.co.uk...
>> FootballWeb wrote
>> >errr thanks Bruce
>> >
>> >how about this as a "Bridge" example
>> >
>> >in the BB round robin you lose, say, 0-5 IMPs in each match due to
>rounding,
>> >we could look at it as +- 2.5
>> >
>> >over 21 games this will be 0-105, or +-52.5 IMPs in the contest
>> >
>> >now i estimate that 52.5 IMPs is about 10VP, so your final score will be
>> >+-10 VP
>> >
>> >if we look at the positions 5-10 in the BB, two teams were tied, and the
>> >others were in 5 or 6 VPs of the next team
>> >
>> >this is WELL within our rounding error of +-10 IMPs to decide the
>rankings
>> >
>> >what im saying is for a small effort we can allow the best team to go
>> >through, randomly taking away IMPs has got to be bad for the game?
>>
>>    How can you say we do not allow the best team ot go through?  They
>> scored more, did they not?
>
>huh???  Imagine a scoring system where you score points in a leauge based
>system.  THEN at the END you add a random number to every score.  This
>random number is large relative to your score and very large relative to the
>change to the difference in rankings.
>
>In effect you have a league table and they perform a random shuffle.  Some
>get placed higher, some lower.  Now, because of the shuffle one team now
>becomes "better" than the other.  Is this reasonable?  Are you saying that
>the ends justifies the means?

   No, I am saying you are talking rubbish, because that is not what
happens.

--
David Stevenson               Bridge   RTFLB   Cats  Railways    /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK        Fax: +44 870 055 7697               @ @
<bridge2@blakjak.com>         ICQ 20039682     bluejak on OKB   =( + )            Bridgepage:        http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm      ~