Thousand tournaments

One more thought from me. Today's system works like this: if the results of the same position are 165, 155, 150, 10 and 0, then they get tournament points of 100, 75, 50, 25 and 0 respectively. I want to change this, i.e. so that place points are not counted, but the percentage of the maximum result is still looked at. According to the new system, the percentages would be: 100, 93, 91, 6 and 0. Of course, the question arises about the result 150, 34, 20, 17 and 15. I.e. as you can see, the "normal" result was between 15-34. The fact that someone "played stupid" somewhere at the table (the opposite side was probably thrown away) should not affect the results of others that much. Maybe the ratio to the average should be taken into account. I did a similar calculation in the first version of the sasku tournament, I'll think of something. What do you think?

Gauss. I conveyed my thought a little incorrectly. I will try to convey my thought again. The idea was that when there are 4 tables playing in a tournament, all players in the same position received 0 tricks and the course of the game did not depend on them at all. In the tournament table, one of them received 100 tournament points and one player received 0 tournament points. The remaining 2 players also received different points. I repeat that all the players under observation played with the same cards. The question is why they should receive such a large difference in tournament points. I hope that now my logic is a little clearer.

From there, the idea goes: Apply the nomination/average of results only to the winner of the bid. This is necessary so that the winner of the bid does not throw away the trump card and is motivated to play well even after receiving the full bid. His goal is for others at the table to get as few points as possible. In the case of the defending side, we only compare the points received, we do not average them. This still motivates the defending side to get as many trick points as possible. And the result does not depend on how much the winner of the bid dared to bid. If everyone on the defending side gets 0 points in one position, everyone also gets 50%.

On the defender's side, just compare points. That's good.

Please give an example of how this actually works! Let's assume the results are: 95 21 0 -120 21 0 37 75 0 The dealer is the same on the first and second tables, and the other on the third table. What would be the tournament points of these 9 players?

I really liked the expression flop :) instead of oraste, borrowed from poker, in one of Gauss's posts. It seems that my idea of allowing the forced hand to make 1 more bid on a hand left at 60 (of course, you don't get full bid points) has not received any response. In real life, many different variants have been played, both with and without the allowed bluff, etc. One variant was that after watching the flop :D you could increase the bid. In that sense, it was good that it helped the skill of playing to the maximum. I wouldn't support that here, but there are still many problems in tournaments from being forced to stay at 60 when you have a good hand, because at some tables they offer and at others they don't! Yes, you could say that it's tactical, but the beauty of the game is lost....

Will there ever be a real thousand tournament? Where three people play to a thousand and the loser is eliminated and so on until the only winner is revealed. Because it's not a thousand. Then think of a suitable name for this game. (FORECASTER) Whoever guesses the other's offers better will have a better result.

I'm afraid that there will be few people interested in a tournament with this format - the tournament will drag on for hours.

I will write down some principles on which play in a thousand tournaments could be judged. Once these are clear, we can move on to bringing these principles into the tournament system. 1) The player's goal is to get as many points from the game as possible, while keeping the score of his tablemates as low as possible. 2) The tournament result of the declarer (the winner of the bid) depends on the size of the bid and how many points he gave up to his tablemates (the less the better). 3) The tournament result of the defending player depends on the points he received and the points he gave up to others. 4) The result of the defending player does not depend on how much the declarer at his table bid and how much the declarers at other tables dared to bid.

Here's another idea: Compare the score of your tablemates (the lower the better). The goal of the game is therefore to bid to win (not necessarily with the maximum bid) and thereby keep your tablemates' score low. This forced 60 bid problem would also disappear: If your bid is 60 and no one else at the table bids and you get good cards from the ground, you can keep your tablemates' score low, which also guarantees you good tournament points.