[RunemPard]

Personally I enjoy it a lot when play is going well. It is a nice rush going into the last few rounds when the top few are fighting for #1 like today at our club. Going into the final round, we had a 4 point lead over the #2 pair. Also, playing against the #3 pair (strongest pair of the tourney) who are close enough to snag a final round victory over us if we mess up.

It was a lot of fun, and wish our club would do them more often. Some clubs here have projector results up all the time, which I enjoy a lot as well.

Do you prefer standard pairs or barometer?

[ArtK78]

 RunemPard, on 2012-December-27, 11:43, said:

Personally I enjoy it a lot when play is going well. It is a nice rush going into the last few rounds when the top few are fighting for #1 like today at our club. Going into the final round, we had a 4 point lead over the #2 pair. Also, playing against the #3 pair (strongest pair of the tourney) who are close enough to snag a final round victory over us if we mess up.

It was a lot of fun, and wish our club would do them more often. Some clubs here have projector results up all the time, which I enjoy a lot as well.

Do you prefer standard pairs or barometer?

I very much enjoy barometer scoring in live events. I have participated in only a few of these, and there is excitement every round as players complete the play of their current boards and run up to the wall where the results and scores are posted for the previous round.

One of the last events that I played with Dave Treadwell was the Jerry Machlin Pairs in suburban Washington, DC. The event was two sessions, a qualifying session followed by a finals with barometer scoring. Dave and I barely qualified, but it was fun seeing the results of each round as we slowly climbed the leaderboard up to 7th place (unfortunately, not higher - but not bad after starting somewhere in the 50s). Every round we played in the finals was above average except for the round in which we played Steve Robinson and Peter Boyd.

[inquiry]

NO, Especially not for live games where people are playing different boards on the same round. Estmating how you are doing is a part of the game and a skill to be developed. In live games, knowing you need a swing on the last board favors those with hands that could possible create one (bid an iffy slam, don't bid an obvious slam and hope it goes down), while those with a bland partscore or cold 3NT have no real chance. This is true without barometer scoring, but it does require the people with the potentially swingy last hand to correctly estimate their standing.

In online games, at least everyone plays the same hands at the end of the event, so it is fairer I guess.

[RunemPard]

 inquiry, on 2012-December-27, 14:10, said:

In online games, at least everyone plays the same hands at the end of the event, so it is fairer I guess.

We were playing the boards in order from 1-26 if that is what you mean. So on the last round we were all playing 25/26 in some order.

[billw55]

 inquiry, on 2012-December-27, 14:10, said:

NO, Especially not for live games where people are playing different boards on the same round. Estmating how you are doing is a part of the game and a skill to be developed. In live games, knowing you need a swing on the last board favors those with hands that could possible create one (bid an iffy slam, don't bid an obvious slam and hope it goes down), while those with a bland partscore or cold 3NT have no real chance. This is true without barometer scoring, but it does require the people with the potentially swingy last hand to correctly estimate their standing.

In online games, at least everyone plays the same hands at the end of the event, so it is fairer I guess.

Well, this is matchpoints. Even in an obvious contract, you can often swing for extra tricks. A 30% line for an overtrick, that risks going down in a cold contract? Go for it.

Sure, on some boards even the trick total is set in stone, but I think those are a minority.

[FrancesHinden]

 inquiry, on 2012-December-27, 14:10, said:

NO, Especially not for live games where people are playing different boards on the same round. Estmating how you are doing is a part of the game and a skill to be developed. In live games, knowing you need a swing on the last board favors those with hands that could possible create one (bid an iffy slam, don't bid an obvious slam and hope it goes down), while those with a bland partscore or cold 3NT have no real chance. This is true without barometer scoring, but it does require the people with the potentially swingy last hand to correctly estimate their standing.

In online games, at least everyone plays the same hands at the end of the event, so it is fairer I guess.

Barometer scoring, by definition, means that everyone is playing the same boards at the same time.

[FrancesHinden]

 RunemPard, on 2012-December-27, 11:43, said:

Personally I enjoy it a lot when play is going well. It is a nice rush going into the last few rounds when the top few are fighting for #1 like today at our club. Going into the final round, we had a 4 point lead over the #2 pair. Also, playing against the #3 pair (strongest pair of the tourney) who are close enough to snag a final round victory over us if we mess up.

It was a lot of fun, and wish our club would do them more often. Some clubs here have projector results up all the time, which I enjoy a lot as well.

Do you prefer standard pairs or barometer?

I prefer standard pairs for the very practical reason that, in virtually all real life cases, barometer scoring takes longer because there are bigger pauses between rounds.
In the few events where that isn't the case (EBL open pairs, for example) there are enough boards that every table has its own set. Then I don't mind barometer scoring, but I also don't particularly see much advantage to it.

[dustinst22]

I too, like this format. Since we both come from Spades, it makes sense that we would enjoy this aspect (making EV state-of-the-match situational decisions).

It also makes sense that we enjoy MP coming from Spades.

[ggwhiz]

I enjoy barometer scoring and mp's as well. Not sure which I like better since barometer oppoortunities are few and far between.

One thing I've seen a few times over the years is a pro playing with a client going to the Directors table and getting a current standings update with 1 or 2 rounds to play. Nobody else gets that and it sucks.

[kenberg]

It doesn't much suit me. I like to sit down and play the hands as best I can. I rarely change my style based on how I think we are doing when there is no barometer, and even when there is I usually just do my best and let the cards fall as they may.
I have no big axe to grind here, but basically I find it a distraction. Don't count your money when you're sitting at the table? Something like that. In a f2f game today, the first few boards were awful. Not our fault, or mostly not our fault, just awful. It got better, we won. No one did any swinging, we just waited for the turnaround. I didn't need a barometer to tell me the first boards were bad. Or that the later boards were good.

[Antrax]

I prefer standard pairs. To me it means less running around and faster rounds. More importantly, my partner can't stop beating himself over his mistakes in the middle of the session, and the immediate feedback in barometer means he's much more likely to be distracted as the event progresses.

[JLOGIC]

Barometer means more correctly random play. To me this is less fun, but to each their own of course.

[Lurpoa]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-December-27, 23:29, said:

Barometer means more correctly random play. To me this is less fun, but to each their own of course.

I do not understand what you are trying to say.
Please elaborate.

[SteveMoe]

Sometime the random play happens in your own pair....
In the Finals of a 2-session barometer pair event at the Indianapolis Regional in March we jumped off to a 2 board lead.
I found myself not wanting to look at the scoreboard after that because I wanted to stay focused and continue playing at the edge, not beyond it.
Mid-round, we erred and the impact on our score caused 2 more in quick succession - we succumbed to the temptation to overcompensate (big error).
We got back on course and managed to finish second OA in a reasonable field, one board behind the leaders. Had we ignored the scoreboard - who knows.
I was surprised how the format became unappealing to me as our game strengthened. I did not enjoy the distraction that access to the scores caused me. I looked at the board the first round and not once after that, even with my partner pleading that I do so.
I was not surprised how most pairs could not keep their eyes off the scores posted after every round.
That said I think it's a great form of the game and it does induce unexpected variation - not all from the opponents!

[mgoetze]

Barometer swiss is fun. Barometer scoring with a predetermined movement is stupid.

[Vampyr]

 mgoetze, on 2012-December-28, 08:03, said:

Barometer swiss is fun. Barometer scoring with a predetermined movement is stupid.

In a sense Swiss movements are always barometer, since the same boards are played each round.

[Phil]

I don't like it, but it might be because I'm used to finding out after the session how I did. Unless all tables are playing the same boards at the same time, I don't think its fundamentally fair either.

There also seems to be more opportunity for collusion and dumping in this format as well - two pairs meet late that are friends - wouldn't you rather see your friends win the event? Wouldn't they have the opportunity to dump to you on another occasion?

Barometer team games are also bad. Because your table plays slower than mine, does that mean that you should have an inherent advantage by knwing the score along the way? Sure I know my teammates are there, but imagine two unbalanced teams with their strong pair at different tables.

[ArtK78]

As Frances already mentioned, in any pair event scored barometer style, all pairs play the same hands at the same time.

I don't see why a pair event scored barometer style should promote dumping any more than a normal pair event, except that you can do so without the knowledge of your friends. In a barometer pair event, all of the scores through the last round are posted, so you know with accuracy (other than the one round lag) and publicly how all of the pairs are doing. So you don't need your friends to tell you that they are having a good game. You KNOW they are having a good game. And you know how bad your game is. It is at least as wrong to dump in a barometer pair event as any other event. If anything, it is worse in a barometer pair event, because not only do you know with a great deal of accuracy how you and your friends are doing, you also know who you would be hurting by dumping.

As for "barometer teams," if there is such a thing, all swiss movements are barometer scored to an extent, and even KO matches are barometer scored to an extent. Everyone knows where they stood at the last comparison. If, by barometer teams, you mean that you know the score of the match board-by-board, that is something entirely different. It has been brought up in at least one other thread that bridge is one of the few games or sports where you do not know the score during most of the event. In sporting events, the score is known by everyone (golf is an exception to some extent). And there is an advantage to going last. In baseball, the home team has the advantage of batting last. In football, the team with the ball last knows exactly what it must do to win. Other sports are similar. Bridge is one of the very few games (perhaps the only one?) where the competitors do not know the score during the event. Barometer scoring changes that.

[Phil]

 ArtK78, on 2012-December-28, 13:47, said:

As Frances already mentioned, in any pair event scored barometer style, all pairs play the same hands at the same time.

I don't see why a pair event scored barometer style should promote dumping any more than a normal pair event, except that you can do so without the knowledge of your friends. In a barometer pair event, all of the scores through the last round are posted, so you know with accuracy (other than the one round lag) and publicly how all of the pairs are doing. So you don't need your friends to tell you that they are having a good game. You KNOW they are having a good game.

And YOU know how badly THEY are doing.

Hey buddy, spare a few matchpoints??

[Siegmund]

I haven't ever played in a live barometer -- my impression of online games scored that way is neutral to mildly negative. Part of why I play duplicate is for 'every hand to be equally important' and while barometer doesn't change how much the last rounds are worth it does change the way people play them.

I doubt it really matters... there is no chance of live barometer happening in my area anytime soon since it requires so many more sets of boards and so much predealing. (If nothing else I expect it would cause tournament entry fees to go way up to pay for the extra work involved and that alone would sink it here.)