print out of content is recomended

  Precision Bridge
x A Brief history of bridge  and  aspects of future

x EDP and Bridge

x Fair scoring

x Bridge and Computer
 
 
 

Precision-Bridge
By Paul Hauff, Bad Nauheim
The old Greeks already knew it: „panta rei“, all is fluid, nothing remains as it is.
This goes as well for bridge:
 
The 1- table game  at home is quite different from the „rubber“. You play ten
boards from the NS side, and then agein but from EW. At the end you add the
scores made, or you give one point for each board won.
By this, you have a real competition,  you can compare results. Good luck
and bad luck is eliminated (fortuitousness).

Actually, in duplicate tournaments there is only o n e method to get a clean, true
ranking list: the Team of Four event.
Fortuitousness is eliminated, as both teams play the same deal from both sides
( the same as in the one table game cited above). Calculation is based
on „real“ scores (law 77). As these scores are true, there are no untrue factors.

All kinds of sport know the „ chance of opponent“or „randomness of opponent“.
This cannot be excluded in duplicate, because you can play a deal only once,
and not against all opponents.

TOURNAMENT BRIDGE & SOCIAL BRIDGE
In Matchpoint Pair-tournaments we actually know two types of preferred plays:
1: play where fortuitousness is eliminated, ( Mitchell/ two winners movement).
    I like to call this TOURNAMENT BRIDGE
and
2 : play where fortuitousness is permanent  („srambled Mitchell“ or „Howell“/
     one winner movement) namely PARTYBRIDGE .

In  Praxi nearly not existant is the „total point tournament“, where the ranking list
is a simple addition of the  scores conforme law 77, by the way the same method
as used in the one-table game.
The same goes for IMP pair tournaments
where several subspecies exist. They all have in common, that the original score(§77)
is transformed and lowered by the IMP table index ( butler & IMP across the field, )

The reason why  these ways are not used has yet not been discussed in public.
 

Why S O C I A L B R I D G E ?
To play genuine tournament-bridge is not always possible, as seven table are
necessary. The number of tables below seven is to small to have a solid base of
comparison, less might give a random effect. Remember, we must compare each
result to all other result in a given board.  In consequece, Howell  must be used
and you cannot avoid fortuitous-ness. To make  this even to a smal  extent, each
pair should  play against all other opponents( round robin).

Beyond six I call it simply “Socialbridge“.
Todays use is to play nearly any number of tables by a movement, where pairs
change from NS to EW during the session. If there are more then ten tables, a given
pair plays only against the half of opponents, and the „randomness of opponent“
increases the chance of good/bad luck.

This way to play is justified by the fact, that the participants like it, perhaps
because it gives  joy in addition to competition, esspecially when  very good
players compete against „not-so.good“ players.

It goes without saying that the  place of a pair in the ranking list is very random.
In general, the strong ones  show in the upper part of the ranking list, and the
weak ones at the end. But any pair has the chance to have a better result as
usualy, and the good ones have a excuse, if their performance is below their possibilities.

I would like to tell the innocent, that the task of running a „one-winner-movement“ is
easier for the TD than the full Mitchell two winner. This might be a reason for the
frequent use of partybridge movements.

It is true, that partybridge has  o n e winner only, but you are seldom told that
this is a random result.
 
PRECISION  - BRIDGE
Todays use is to apply an evaluation method wich has a certain deficiency.
We all known the effect of this deficieny: the so called „gifts“.
But there are  ways to eliminate them.
I call them P r e c i s i o n  B r i d g e.

These „gifts“ are the result of using  recriproc coscores.
C o s c o r e  is the value given to the non-scorer, at the same time when the
score is booked. Remember, law77 does not know such values, but they are
used worldwide in MP events ( to attribute the difference between the
Scorers MP and the Top-MP-value to the nonscorer is the same).
Coscores are not given in Team-of-four event nor in the one-table-game at home.

Reciprok is called the method to have the coscore as negative value of the score.
Exmple: the score is 120, then the coscore is minus 120.

Using coscores pleases the idea, that the nonscore should be given a value
for his performance, a quite natural thinking.
But why  not give a coscore in the  value of 10 (ten) for each trick won?

Yes, there are better ways to establish the coscore value.

If you play Social-bridge, „gifts“ increase the randomness, but it does not matter.
There is no difference between pregnat and very pregnat, as there is between between
„random“ and  „very random“. But  you may take „gifts“ as a positive value,
the same as winning money in roulette.

A fair result is possible only in Mitchell movements, if other methods
then reciprok are used.

Modern Computers are able to offer a „zero“ coscore method, and a „trick“ coscore
method in addition to the usual „reciprok“ coscore method, at the same time within the
same PC programm. And more, the result of total point scoring is there as well, as side effect.
So you have two genuine winner.

Actually, the trick coscore method requires the input of the game data; and then the PC
calculates the score and the coscore by automatic. An experienced PC operator will need
about 50% additional time for the full input.
.
So players have to decide wether they want a rather fair, but radom result, or
a not so fast, but fully fair result. At least „big“ events –  i.e.the local mastership-  should
show a fair result.

The Scorer#1 version 99 is an experimental software to study effects of
different scoring and coscore methods. Test period for one year ( at 2003).

end
 
 
 

Do you drive a handicapped car ?
Fair scoring ? print out for reading

For the first time in history of bridge, a simple click
on your desktop, will show the effects of different
matchpointing methods. They offer more justice in
evaluation. They are based on interpretation of the
"LAW".

Published in “The Bridge world” Vol.72 Number 6 March 2001

Fair Scoring in Pair Tournaments
by Paul Hauff, Bad Nauheim,Germany
An editorial in “ the Bridge world” (USA) magazine propounds:
"There must be only the Laws, established, published,
 interpreted, clarified and ad-justed by one supreme legal
authority."   But interpretation may not be simple. In particular,
Duplicate Law 77,   which awards points to declarer's side
for fulfilled contracts and to declarer's opponents for
un-dertricks, does not specify how to treat the side not
awarded such points. Different interpretations lead to
alternative types of games, with varying tactics. For exarnple,
if all non-scorers are to be given the same  number of
matchpoints regardless of the award to their table opponents,
there would be no profit in a successful sacrifice nor loss in
one that pays too much;  one would re-ceive the same zero
raw score whether the opponents scored 300, 420 or 500.

U s i n g   N e g a t i v e s
The current, familiar extension of Duplicate Law 77 is to award
the non-scoring side the negative of the award to the scoring
side: If North-South get 300. East-West get minus 300, and
so forth. But the law does not establish that as correct.
Today's practice, perhaps no more than the consequence
of a simple way of thinking, has been added  to the original
Law: it is not an "interpretation."
The consequences of this  approach are well known.
The most disturbing is that "gifts" are
some-times  bestowed upon an undeserving opponent.
True, in the long run the stronger players as a group prevail
and the weaker are relegated to lesser positions, but
the distributed gifts affect everyone's standings. This can
be especially painful to those,  whose local clubs group
players according to average match-point performance;
it is not only the winners and the near-winners who
are affected.

Matchpointing in Howell and Mitchell tournaments
neglects the contract-bridge scoring relationships
established by Vanderbilt. Suppose that all North-South
pairs make three notrump minus one.  Whatever the cause
of the de-feat, the opponents of the downgoer get a top.
But in Vanderbilt's table, the score value of 50 or 100
is far away from the 400 or 600 of the other scorer
and certainly not a top.

D i f f e r e n t   I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
Alternative treatments of the side not awarded points under
Duplicate Law 77 can be used without incon-sistency.
For example:
(1) All opponents of scorers re-ceive zero. This is a
comrnon-sense approach where the Law does not fix a
value for scorers' opponents. Under such a rule, all
non-scorers would receive the same matchpoint
award.
(2) Opponents of scorers are di-vided into groups, perhaps:
 (a) sacrificers, reducing the opponentss score,
 (b) defenders of making con-tracts, (c) defeated declarers.
There is justice in scoring group (a) ahead of group (b),
and that in turn ahead of group (c).
(3) Opponents uf scorers are ranked by the number of
tricks taken. This technique avoids inap-propriate junction
between scorer and non-scorer.

B i l a t e r a l   vs.   U n i l a t e r a l   E v a l u a t i o n
One of the significant elernents of the current extension
of Law 77 is that North-South and East-West are always
evaluated separately. The Laws do not request this
bilateral approach, saying in this regard only that,
"each contestant is awarded. for scores made by different
contest-ants who have played the same board and whose
scores are com-pared with his . . . "  In particular. they
do not say, for example, "those who played the same
board and held the same cards“,- as they would if
bilateral scoring were to be man-dated. Evaluating all
scores on a board together would preserve Van-derbilt's
invention and have a sub-stantial effect on the impact
of "gifts" obtained through oppo-nents' blunders.

The effect of matchpointing across  a l l  scores made
on a board in both directions, when compared to today's
standard, is enormous. Would it be unfair because some
pairs would hold hands of lesser scoring potential than
others? Not necessarily. Consider a "perfect" Mitchell
movement (each pair, al-ways sitting in the same direction,
contests all the boards in play) in which all North-South
and all East-West pairs have exactly the same overall
potential at the outset of the tournament. Provided that
winners are to be selected in each direction (which is
the standard Mitchell practice), we are free to score
each individual board in the manner deemed fairest.

Did those who instituted bilateral evaluation do
so with full knowl-edge of the consequences? Our
best guess is that the labor-saving device of awarding
table companions the inverse matchpoint score
(e.g., if 30 is top and a particular North-South gets 18,
then a matching East-West gets 12-or) made this
approach to matchpoints very attractive.

Practical Aspects
Decades ago, ease of calculating the results was a
meaningful consid-eration in determining tournament
mechanics. However, in the com-puter age,  virtually any
scoring method can be supported by a pro-gram that will
calculate the results effectively immediately. Indeed. those
who would like to see the re-sults of different approaches
to matchpointing can use soft-ware that permits the choice
of dif-ferent methods by mouse click.

Conclusion
Presently, the universe of bridge is far away from
implementing al-ternative methods for better scoring.
But we should start.

A  B R I E F H I S T O R Y  O F  B R I D G E

AND  ASPECTS  OF  FUTURE
back to top
 

(H100) At the end of the 14 century playing a game of card replaced playing at dice as the habitual form of hazard games. This new type of game turned to be attractive, because the  sole player knew only his own hand of cards. Another basic principle of this game turned to be the  hierarchical order of cards including different suits. As time went by, ''to follow suit '' came in from the orient, the ''trump''  then was an italian innovation and ''bidding'' a european invention. By the items, the experienced player may recognise the  fundamental base of todays bridge, which envolved from  the game of whist through the 16 century. Whist was a  very popular amusement for over three centuries. Its  rules were finally codified in 1742 by Edmond Hoyle. In France in the 1880's the older game evolved into  bridge-whist, introducing the element of having a dummy,  the declarers side nominating trump, and the rigth to double. Bridge-whist had a short life: in 1904 the auction principle  by bidding was introduced, reportedly by the British colonials in India. The result became known as ''auction Bridge". The  next major addition took place in France with each side  bidding, the result called ''plafonde''.   In 1925 Harold S. Vanderbilt married the main virtue of  plafonde - you could not score a game unless you bid it - with  the basic game of auction bridge. He increased the premium  and penalties to high numbers and rounded them off to the  decimal system for ease of scoring. Thus, he created the modern  game of contract bridge. Vanderbilt tested his new game on three friends during a 10-day  yacht-cruise from california to Havanna during which they  fine-tuned the scoring. Within to years of their return, the new  game of contract bridge swept the world and replaced the older  auction version. The first ''Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge were published  in 1928, being bridge played not only in private circles but  as competition between a greater number of pairs. There  have been several successive revisions up to 1975, but these  did not touch the basic principles. Since then, the rules remained  inaltered. Bridge was no more a hazard game; the fortuitousness  of having a strong hand was eliminated in the form of team-competition. From now on, players continued to aim at two topics: better  bidding and better play. General basis of successfull bidding is  the evaluation of a hand. Earlier methods of evaluation-counting  were 7.5.3.2.1 (Robertson) and 6.4.3.2.1 (Reith), but they did  not succeed. In the 50-60th the method of counting 4.3.2.1 honor-points, promoted by Charles Goren, was generally applied,  although this method was known since 1915 or earlier. William  Anderson invented the counting of distribution-points  ( 1=double; 2=single, 3=chicane). This method was taken over by Goren, slightly modified. In later years, ''loser-counting'' was invented, linking strenght  of honor-cards with strenght attached to distribution. But the question wether to start with four or five major cards has its  origin in earlier days, as Geoffrey Mott Smith published to this  point as far as 1927. In medieval and modern history, different methods of using  components of the Bridge-system gave way to the development  of complete and coherent bidding-systems. They are known as  Acol, Goren, Standard-American, Kaplan-Sheinwold,  Norman Squire, Better-Minor, Precison and others. All these  systems are modified by general known conventions and  personal partnership conventions.  (F200) In spite of all that, will Bridge remain a game in which you  need fortune? In a tournament, in which four players act as  a team against other teams, there are no elements of hazard. But fortune has some influence in a pair-tournament and other  forms of play. This is due due to several circumstances,  e.g. to minor deficiencys of the evaluation-system. Bridge without fortuitousness will be possible with the help of the possibilities given by the Electronic Data Processing.  EDV allows ultra-fast calculating of more complex  evaluation systems and produces organisational means for  the movement of tournaments within seconds. And this  even at the home of the very private home of the host for a  humble one-table game, as laptops will be commun like refrigerators . My preview of Bridge in 2050 finds a apparatus of shoe-box  size on each table of the Bridge-tournament, which will spit  out four dealt hands to each player, central-controled and  steered by the tournament director. Thus, all player play the  same deal. Results will be inputed to this apparatus, and even  the played card will be restored to it. No more hazard ! H.J.P.Hauff. 1996

back to top

EDP and BRIDGE

Nigel Lancaster gives a preview of possible evolution of apparatus for
managing tournaments in „English Brige“ ( the periodical of the EBU), Edition
August 99.

Topic: can the program accept its input directly from table top scoring devices ?

EBU Services: postmaster@ebu.co.uk

back to top

end  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------