[BLML] scoring question

Herman De Wael hermandw at skynet.be
Thu May 28 10:32:02 CEST 2015


Tony Musgrove schreef:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf
>> Of Herman De Wael
>> Sent: Thursday, 28 May 2015 4:33 PM
>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [BLML] scoring question
>>
>> The idea of a two-winner movement is flawed as it is, so why bother with
>> two extra fields?
>> Herman.
>
> Thems fighting words Herman,
>

Allow me to explain.

If you are going to play pairs, your "team" cannot play all the hands 
since there are only two of you. So you're going to be compared on 
different hands anyhow.

The only way out of this is to play a full Mitchell, non-scrambled. Then 
you can really compare with the whole part of the field. You have the 
same opponents and have played the same hands.

Anything less than that is unfair.

So why should you compound this unfairness by having two winners? 
Second-placed NS at 65% is better than first-placed EW at 55%, so why 
not give them second place?

I think all tournaments should be scrambled and one-winner.

BTW, even the example, which featured a non-scrambled, possibly full, 
Mitchell, has been flawed because one of the NS pairs did not play one 
of the NS hands. The tournament is flawed as a result. Why flaw it even 
worse by not awarding the EW top to the NS pair that happened to play it?

(fighting) Herman.



More information about the Blml mailing list