Thousand tournaments

The comparison with other tables should be different if I can't take a trick and the same goes for the other one, but then it will be decided how much the winner plays out -- that's how it is

Let's say that two tables offered 140, two tables offered 160, and two tables offered 180. A trump of clubs was made. In three cases, the defense got 51, in three cases, 62. The results are: 140, 51, 0 140, 62, 0 160, 51, 0 -160, 62, 0 -180, 51, 0 -180, 62, 0 Whether 62 or 51 was obtained depended mainly on the third player -- to whom he threw his ace. Let's look at the second player's points: in general, 62 should be better than 51 if the bid was the same -- this is true for 140 and 180. Unfortunately, the opposite is true for 160 -- 62 seems worse than 51. Whether 62 is better than 51 depends on the size of the bid. In other words: the defender's points depend on the size of the offer.

Error in previous post. It would be more correct: Let's look at the third player's points: in general, 62 should be worse than 51 if the bid was the same -- this is true for 140 and 180. Unfortunately, the opposite is true for 160 -- 62 seems better than 51.

/Whether 62 is better than 51 depends on the size of the bid. In other words: the defender's points depend on the size of the bid./ The most important point of comparison is whether the bid was played to the full or not. Figuratively, they threw away the ace 2 to the man in position, who also got good punts in addition to the ace area. There are many examples where you should calculate which is more useful: whether to help the other defender or let the bidder play to the full. In a regular thousand, it is easier in this regard; on the turn and in the middle of the hand, it is often not possible to calculate which is more useful. It is probably difficult to implement this programmatically, but there could be some bonuses for the defender when taking the 1st move in a crawl and additional punts for the so-called weaker defender if you can reduce the bid to the minus.

Yes, today the defender's points depend on the size of the offer, but is that correct?

Raba, we are talking past each other. I argue that 4) cannot be true. This example of 6 tables is given only to refute statement 4). Your argument is that 1) and 3) are more important than 4). On this point I agree with you. Meikop, in the current system, the defender's points depend *too much* on the size of the bid. This dependence can be reduced by using a different scoring system, but it cannot be reduced to zero (i.e. made independent). Example: 220 0 0 200 0 0 120 0 0 The tournament points are respectively: 100 0 0 50 50 50 0 100 100 It would be better if each table divided 150 points among themselves: 100 25 25 50 50 50 0 75 75 We see that the defender's points still depend on the bid, but half as much. You could also use a scoring system that doesn't convert the results into place points, but normalizes them by position/table: 40 -20 -20 20 -10 -10 60 30 30 We see that the defenders get -20..30 depending on how much was offered at their table. This may seem unfair, but in my opinion there is just a luck factor here. If we change the results a little: -220 1 0 200 1 0 120 1 0 Now the normalized points would be: -253 126 126 167 -83 -83 87 -43 -43 We see that the defender who previously received the biggest minus now receives the biggest plus (126 instead of -20). So the initial larger minus is justified, because if he plays well/luckily, he will be rewarded with a bigger plus.

all proposed versions are still too complicated

It's not important during the game.. :D We don't know how the calculator calculates the square root so quickly or multiplies-divides 6-digit numbers, the main thing is that the answer is correct; based on the discussion here, it's fair. The principles of the game are still the same, but in certain so-called critical choice situations, the average player should understand faster how to act more advantageously. In general, larger point conflicts arise in hands where two players have pairs before the "flop". In the current system, it seems that it is useful to remain in the role of defender if you see a potential trump card from your opponent based on your cards, you have a "taker" of this suit and your pair is more or less protected. It depends on many other circumstances, but if it is more or less certain that the winner of the bid will violate the contract, then there is no point in chasing the maximum of your hand. It's actually the same in regular thousand, it just depends on the standings and who's closer to 1000 or in boccia, etc. In tournament thousand, there are simply only 11 divisions and each part of the points played has a greater weight. 1 wrong decision may determine the fate of the entire game, while in regular thousand you can come from the wind and, for example, make up for the 900-point gap... The procedure for finding solutions doesn't have to be easy.

I will write down the principles that should be used to compile tournament scoring. 1. No table can play "better" than any other table. In other words, the 3 players at each table share a certain number of tournament points. 2. No set of cards is "better" than any other set of cards. In other words, if you add up the tournament points of the same distribution by position, the result is three equal amounts. 3. Every trick point counts. In other words, if the trick points of all the remaining (3*number of tables - 1) players remain the same, but I collect (for example) 120 instead of 100, then I get 20 tournament points more. Do these properties apply to sasku tournaments: 1. Yes, the 4 players at each table share 200 points 2. Yes (with rounding error) 3. No, place points are counted there. If everyone else gets E:2, then it doesn't matter if I get E:3 or E:4, both are still 100. Do these properties apply to chess tournaments: 1. Yes, the 2 players at each table share 2 points 2. No. It may happen that black wins in this round at all tables. There we assume that both have "the same good cards" (i.e. the starting position is equal). 3. You can't compare like this. Note: Point 3 can be replaced by point 3a as follows. 3a. Every point counts. If one table gets 100 AB and the other table gets 120 AB, then 120 gets 20 tournament points more than 100. Those who are not interested in arithmetic can verify that points 1, 2 and 3a apply in the examples in previous posts.

I support it.