[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-July-31, 15:00, said:

I think what Sven is referring to here is the fact that the value of information on some boards is different from the value of information on others. If, on a late board, you learn that you earned a top or bottom, this fact may be useful in informing your actions on the rest of the boards. If the later boards you see are about average for you, you will in a sense have lower-quality information.

On the other hand, by the time you have lots of information about boards, you have less opportunity to do something, since you have fewer boards remaining to swing.

[mycroft]

If it turns out that my skill at guessing my results on the kinds of hands that come early in my game is much better than the ones that come later, then I am at an advantage to my clone sitting across the room from me who gets the hard-to-judge hands with fewer results on the traveller. If my confidence in my ability to matchpoint early boards is also very high, then that advantage is so much the greater.

A barometer is a different game; but there, still, everybody has the same information about the same boards.

barmar: true, but how often do columns start: "You feel that a good last round will get you in the overalls, and a great last round can win the event. You hold..."?

[mjj29]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-July-31, 08:32, said:

Everybody gets the same amount of information (plus/minus possibly one result depending where you are in the movement relative to the ghost pair).
In a normal pairs event with one section you will see two boards with no other results, two boards with one other result etc
It is completely fair to everyone.

It's true that different players will see a different number of results on one particular board, but everyone gets the same amount of information in total in the course of the event.

That may be true in movements with no relay (which, granted, is the case at EBU-run tournaments). When you're the feed-in from a 3-set relay, then it's much more asymmetric.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2012-July-30, 23:55, said:

And only because of history you find it unacceptable to remove this "service" which many players consider unfair (although interesting) as it gives different quality of information to different players?

Setting Bridgemate to hide this "service" puts all competitors on equal terms.

(And "nosing" all such extra information takes time that can better be used on playing bridge.)

The number of players who think it unfair is a small minority. I think it better to run bridge in the way that the customers want than to think about very very minor unfairnesses.

pran, on 2012-July-31, 03:44, said:

Because the amount of information you get depends on how many times the board has been played before you played it.

Sure, but this is balanced. With slight differences because of relays, during round three most players see the same number of results.

pran, on 2012-July-31, 03:55, said:

I am astonished on learning (if it really is true) that EBU has instructed (rather than recommended) their TDs like this?

(And I do indeed wonder if players would maintain their opinion to have travellers on if told the arguments pro and con?)

I think this has already been answered, but just in case it is not clear. Certainly the EBU tells EBU TDs what to do in EBU events.

pran, on 2012-July-31, 04:02, said:

If their decision applies only to EBU events, nothing.

I understood the post that it applied to all events (using Bridgemate) within EBU?

Yes, I see it has been answered. But do the Norwegian bridge authorities tell you how to run club events? I am very surprised.

gnasher, on 2012-July-31, 09:05, said:

I can understand the arguments for having the Bridgemates set like this in low-level events like club games. I even understand, without agreeing with, the EBU's reasons for doing the same in its events. It seems ridiculous, however, to do this in a World or European pairs event, where the emphasis should be on testing bridge skill.

Perhaps you over-rate the pairs in the European Mixed Pairs.

More seriously, while I think the overall approach is different, there is still the question of doing things the way the customers want so long as it does not lead to much unfairness - and I believe the alleged unfairness is trivial.

pran, on 2012-July-31, 15:20, said:

Now please consider the reasons why in competitions for teams of four no result on any board shall be made available to any pair or team (even when the board has been completed in both rooms) until all boards in the round have been completed?

I have still to meet anybody who thinks that results on completed boards should be disclosed to teams of four competitors during a round, so how come so many seem to consider it OK that intermediate results are disclosed to pairs during the round in competitons for pairs?

I have been involved in teams events with travelers and with earlier results being shown on BridgeMates. The customers like it so long as their own team's results are not identifiable.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-August-01, 08:56, said:

More seriously, while I think the overall approach is different, there is still the question of doing things the way the customers want so long as it does not lead to much unfairness - and I believe the alleged unfairness is trivial.

I agree that the unfairness is trivial, or non-existent in most movements. My main objections are that
- It makes the game less skillful. Estimating your score is a bridge skill.
- It penalises carelessness in entering the board number. Where possible, we should protect people from the consequences of their carelessness rather than penalising them for it.

I take your point about mixed pairs, but I suspect that in open pairs events at World and European level a majority would prefer not to have the scores displayed. I bet nobody has ever asked the players, anyway.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-August-01, 10:02

[pran]

bluejak, on 2012-August-01, 08:56, said:

But do the Norwegian bridge authorities tell you how to run club events? I am very surprised.

Of course they don't.

That is what I got so surprised when I (incorrectly as it turned out) understood that EBU issued instructions to all events within EBU and not only for EBU events. i have already apologised for that misunderstanding.

(But equally "of course" we sometimes receive recommendations.)

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-August-01, 09:59, said:

- It penalises carelessness in entering the board number. Where possible, we should protect people from the consequences of their carelessness rather than penalising them for it.

Not sure I understand this one. One of the advantages of travelers is that players often notice when a board has been misscored in an earlier round (e.g. giving the score to NS when it should be EW); they can bring it to the director's attention, and he can check with the pairs involved.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-August-01, 14:48, said:

Not sure I understand this one.

I was talking about having the Bridgemates show the other scores, though the same can happen with travellers. Suppose that you play board 5, carelessly enter the result as for board 6, read the other scores for board 6, and then realise your mistake. Board 6 is now unplayable. You are at fault, so you will get 40%.

[bluejak]

If [as I do] you think that it benefits the customers to show earlier scores then I am more worried about those customers than ones who lose a board through carelessness.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-August-02, 15:53, said:

If [as I do] you think that it benefits the customers to show earlier scores then I am more worried about those customers than ones who lose a board through carelessness.

I agree that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages at the lowest levels of the game, where people are not particularly good at predicting their scores, significant entertainment is derived from looking at the travellers, and the integrity of the competition is not of high importance to most of the contestants.

I don't think that applies in an open World Championship, where people are generally able to make good estimates of their scores, and the integrity of the competion is of high importance to almost everyone.

[bluejak]

Integrity? I do not agree that seeing previous scores affects the integrity of the competition in any way. Perhaps it is your use of buzz word, ie a word that gives an effect of itself and rather than a logical argument. There are arguments for not showing previous scores, of course, but not to do with the integrity of the competition.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-August-02, 16:58, said:

I don't think that applies in an open World Championship, where people are generally able to make good estimates of their scores, and the integrity of the competion is of high importance to almost everyone.

Unless anyone has heard rumors of such a movement, I think we can all safely assume that we're just talking about low level games.

But I was surprised at the mention above that EBU recommends making scores visible in their tournaments.

[mjj29]

barmar, on 2012-August-02, 20:51, said:

But I was surprised at the mention above that EBU recommends making scores visible in their tournaments.

I was surprised when they told us to start doing it

[gordontd]

mjj29, on 2012-August-03, 01:20, said:

I was surprised when they told us to start doing it

They got a lot of complaints from members who felt they were getting a lesser service by not being able to see the results when they could see them at their local club. This came with the introduction of Bridgemate IIs, which allow the scores to be listed in frequency format (rather than by individual result), and so take up less space (and time) on the screen than formerly.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-August-02, 20:51, said:

Unless anyone has heard rumors of such a movement, I think we can all safely assume that we're just talking about low level games.

I don't know why anyone would assume that. All four of my posts in this thread have been about World and European events. As I said in my first post, in WBF and EBL pairs events the bridgemates are normally set to show the scores after you have entered a result.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-August-02, 18:39, said:

Integrity? I do not agree that seeing previous scores affects the integrity of the competition in any way. Perhaps it is your use of buzz word, ie a word that gives an effect of itself and rather than a logical argument. There are arguments for not showing previous scores, of course, but not to do with the integrity of the competition.

"Integrity" may be a buzz-word when used by some people, but when I use it I intend the dictionary definition. In this case I meant "The condition of not being marred or violated, unimpaired or uncorrupted condition, original state, soundness" (NSOED).

You'll find my arguments, which I believe to be logical, in post 45.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-August-03, 02:49, said:

I don't know why anyone would assume that. All four of my posts in this thread have been about World and European events. As I said in my first post, in WBF and EBL pairs events the bridgemates are normally set to show the scores after you have entered a result.

Oops, missed that. Ridiculous, IMHO, except for barometer events.