[BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
rgtjbos at xs4all.nl
Wed Dec 2 11:32:23 CET 2009
Is it Belgium still custom to create a weighted score by averaging +620 and
+790? Even in a team-event this does not (always) produce the correct
figure. If the result at the other table is 100, then 705 produces +11, if
it is +120 705 becomes +12, whereas in both cases the score should be the
average of +11 (620) and +12 (790), i.e. 11.5 imps. To Ton: I assume that we
now will attribute half imps, as sometimes matches are decided on less than
1 VP as well?
From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
Herman De Wael
Sent: 02 December 2009 10:59
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
I have some understanding for Ton's sentiment.
David's suggestion seems quite sensible, not at all "stupid".
When my LHO decides to think for a long while before (penalty-)doubling
me, and RHO does not have a clear-cut take out, then the expected value
of my score goes up from +620 to +790. Why should that same expected
score go down again (to +705) when RHO illegally takes it out?
Was that what you were aiming for, David?
> Now, all of this is entirely consistent with both L12B1 and Reveley
> The notion is that cheats are no better off than they would have been
> the previous Laws, but non-offenders do not get a windfall just because
> happened to be playing against cheats - they get their expectation, or
> "equity", on the board had they been playing against honest people. It's
> still stupid, but it's not illegal.
> David Burn
> London, England
> Could you, David, tell what it is you consider to be 'still stupid'?
> You once in a while are worth listening to and I try to avoid stupid
> applying the laws.
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
Blml mailing list
Blml at rtflb.org
More information about the Blml