Tony Musgrove ardelm at optusnet.com.au
Fri Nov 22 05:35:24 CET 2013

In Oz, you need to win a match by 0.02 IMP/board to win 100% of the
master points available. Otherwise the masterpoints are shared.  I have
heard of teams who play for narrow wins to minimise the risk of
playing good teams but to maximise their haul of "points".  (Except
on the last round).  Someone who allocates these points via computer
is going to have to make some programming changes to accommodate
a new continuous VP scale.  Not me, so I don't care.  
I don't like the non linear IMP scale nor the calculation of a so called
datum (in so called "Butler Pairs") to the nearest multiple of 10.
Much more unfair.
Tony (Sydney) 
From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf
Of Jim Fox
Sent: Friday, 22 November 2013 9:43 AM
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [BLML] Nike [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
Yes, I think it was at least 20 if not 30 years ago that the ACBL scored
Swiss that way.  On the other hand, that was also about when Swiss
events were initially contested in ACBL, so maybe a little bit of time
should be given them to get it right.  Win by 1 imp or more was worth 1
point; tie 1/2 and loss zero.
After a fairly small number of years as I recall, wins of 1 or 2 imps
(or maybe 3) were scored as 3/4 - 1/4.  There were still many tied
positions most of the time.
From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf
Of Richard HILLS
Sent: 11/21/2013 5:10 PM
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] Nike [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>(2) maintain the current decimalised Victory Point scale, or
>(3) adopt a +50 / -50 Victory Point scale, where 1 imp = 1 VP up to a
>ceiling of plus or minus 50 imps. For psychological / euphemistic
>negative VPs will be avoided, thus a 100-0 Victory Point scale, so a
>ending in an exact tie will give each team 50 VPs.
The problem with traditional VP scales (for example, the former WBF 25-0
VP scale) is the issue of "breakage". That is, accruing a particular
extra imp
is usually worth zero extra VPs, but accruing a different extra imp is
one significant extra VP.
An extreme example of one imp being very privileged over other imps is a
VP scale formerly used in ACBL-land for some Swiss Teams events:
maximum VPs for winning a Swiss match by one imp (or by fifty imps);
minimum VPs for losing a Swiss match by one imp (or by fifty imps).
"Breakage" is not an issue in both options (2) and (3) above, as every
is sacred until their very high maximum VP ceilings are reached.
Monty Python (slightly modified):
Every imp is sacred
Every imp is great
If an imp is wasted
God gets quite irate.

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131122/a8bbe45f/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Blml mailing list