Is there one "correct" Chicago scoring system?
Jennifer Murphy
1. Each hand stands alone (no part scores or games are carried over
from previous hands.
2. The dealer and the vulnerability is preassigned according to some
pattern.
3. Standard duplicate scoring (50 for part score, 300 for
non-vulnerable game, etc.).
4. No points for "honors".
5. The score is just the total points (no above and below the line).
I've been playing with a group of players who insist on carrying part
scores from hand to hand and awarding points for honors.
The advice online is confusing.
1. The ACBL seems to agree with my version:
http://www.acbl.org/learn/scoreChicago.html
"Each hand is scored duplicate style (2 making 3 is 140, 4H vulnerable
is 620, etc.). There is no accumulation of part scores or games from
deal to deal. A multiple of four hands can be played, repeating the
sequence of vulnerabilities as often as necessary. The result is
simply the total score over the deals played."
2. The ACBL then refers to the a link for the Laws of Contract Bridge
(p58-61):
http://web2.acbl.org/laws/rlaws/lawofcontractbridgecombined_2004.pdf
Clause A (p58) says that all of the Laws of Contract Bridge are in
effect except the following.
Clause D (p59) calls for 300 or 500 points for games, but does not
mention part scores, slams, doubles, or set contracts.
Clause F (p60) states that part scores *may* be carried forward and
combined with the next hand. A part score in the fourth hand gets no
premium.
This seems confused and illogical to me.
3. Richard Pavlicek has another system:
http://www.rpbridge.net/1ub8.htm
His example seems to use a modified rubber bridge scoring method (with
under and over the line). I imagine this may easier if there is a
dispute. He does not award a premium for part scores not does he carry
them forward.
4. None of these mention honors.
Is there truly no one approved system?
For me, carrying over part scores makes no sense and awarding honor
points makes me crazy.
Kenny McCormack
Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>I have always scored "Chicago" bridge just like duplicate. That is,
>
>1. Each hand stands alone (no part scores or games are carried over
>from previous hands.
>
>2. The dealer and the vulnerability is preassigned according to some
>pattern.
>
>3. Standard duplicate scoring (50 for part score, 300 for
>non-vulnerable game, etc.).
>
>4. No points for "honors".
>
>5. The score is just the total points (no above and below the line).
>
>I've been playing with a group of players who insist on carrying part
>scores from hand to hand and awarding points for honors.
Short answer: I think your way (which is also my way) is better, but that
the other way is technically (read: historically) correct.
Longer answer: I think how you feel about this is largely a function of how
you feel about rubber bridge (and its somewhat different tactics) in general
vs. duplicate. Having not played much rubber bridge in my life (and almost
never for money), I am not comfortable with the ideas of carrying part
scores or honors. But since the original genesis of "Chicago" scoring was
by and for hard-core rubber players, well, that explains why it is the way
it is.
--
Just for a change of pace, this sig is *not* an obscure reference to
comp.lang.c...
Barry Margolin
gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
> In article <ctgd07ls9jhnqv3a4...@4ax.com>,
> Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> >I have always scored "Chicago" bridge just like duplicate. That is,
> >
> >1. Each hand stands alone (no part scores or games are carried over
> >from previous hands.
> >
> >2. The dealer and the vulnerability is preassigned according to some
> >pattern.
> >
> >3. Standard duplicate scoring (50 for part score, 300 for
> >non-vulnerable game, etc.).
> >
> >4. No points for "honors".
> >
> >5. The score is just the total points (no above and below the line).
If you're not carrying part scores, then the line is obviously
irrelevant.
> >
> >I've been playing with a group of players who insist on carrying part
> >scores from hand to hand and awarding points for honors.
>
> Short answer: I think your way (which is also my way) is better, but that
> the other way is technically (read: historically) correct.
>
> Longer answer: I think how you feel about this is largely a function of how
> you feel about rubber bridge (and its somewhat different tactics) in general
> vs. duplicate. Having not played much rubber bridge in my life (and almost
> never for money), I am not comfortable with the ideas of carrying part
> scores or honors. But since the original genesis of "Chicago" scoring was
> by and for hard-core rubber players, well, that explains why it is the way
> it is.
When I used to play Chicago rubber bridge for money (about 20 years
ago), we carried part scores and scored honors. Since part scores were
carried over, there was no part score bonus, except on the 4th hand,
which got 100 points.
Just like the difference between matchpoints and IMPs, carried partials
are just another variation that affects strategy. I thought they were
fun, and I've occasionally read proposals about adding them to duplicate
bridge.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
David Stevenson
>Is there truly no one approved system?
No.
>For me, carrying over part scores makes no sense and awarding honor
>points makes me crazy.
I would not want to play with you, then.
There are two main types of Chicago.
===
One is as a form of rubber bridge, but by playing four deals every
rubber you make it very suitable when there are six players, two always
waiting to cut in. I have sat watching a four hour rubber, waiting to
cut in, when i was young. Terrible.
The rules for this game are:
Part-scores are carried forward and game can be reached with a
part-score from an earlier hand plus the current hand. In such case the
vulnerability when game is reached counts.
Honours count.
If a side bids and makes a part-score on the fourth hand only [which
does not make game] then they get a 100 bonus.
===
===
The other is a sort of duplicate like game played when there are only
four of you.
The rules for this game are:
Part-scores are not carried forward but a bonus of 50 is given for
bidding and making one.
Honours do not count.
===
===
In both forms of the game the following rules apply:
Dealer is vulnerable on the second and third hand, both sides are
vulnerable on the fourth deal. Note that some places this is reversed:
non-dealer is vulnerable on the second and third hand.
You get 300 for bidding and making a non-vulnerable game, 500 for a
vulnerable game.
If a hand is passed out, the same dealer deals again and it does not
count as one of the four deals.
===
In my view the first game is an improvement on basic rubber: the
second game is not worth playing. Why not just find a duplicate?
Perhaps it has a use as a duplicate practice.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Jennifer Murphy
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Jennifer Murphy wrote
>>Is there truly no one approved system?
>
> No.
>
>>For me, carrying over part scores makes no sense and awarding honor
>>points makes me crazy.
>
> I would not want to play with you, then.
And I was so looking forward to that...
> There are two main types of Chicago.
>
>
>===
> One is as a form of rubber bridge, but by playing four deals every
>rubber you make it very suitable when there are six players, two always
>waiting to cut in. I have sat watching a four hour rubber, waiting to
>cut in, when i was young. Terrible.
>
> The rules for this game are:
>
>Part-scores are carried forward and game can be reached with a
>part-score from an earlier hand plus the current hand. In such case the
>vulnerability when game is reached counts.
I thought vulnerability was pre-determined by rotation.
>Honours count.
I've always thought awarding points for honors rather silly even in
rubber bridge. If a player can't get points for playing the honors,
they don't deserve the points.
>If a side bids and makes a part-score on the fourth hand only [which
>does not make game] then they get a 100 bonus.
>===
>
>
>
>===
> The other is a sort of duplicate like game played when there are only
>four of you.
>
> The rules for this game are:
>
>Part-scores are not carried forward but a bonus of 50 is given for
>bidding and making one.
>
>Honours do not count.
>===
>
>
>
>===
> In both forms of the game the following rules apply:
>
>Dealer is vulnerable on the second and third hand, both sides are
>vulnerable on the fourth deal. Note that some places this is reversed:
>non-dealer is vulnerable on the second and third hand.
>
>You get 300 for bidding and making a non-vulnerable game, 500 for a
>vulnerable game.
>
>If a hand is passed out, the same dealer deals again and it does not
>count as one of the four deals.
>===
>
> In my view the first game is an improvement on basic rubber:
But only marginally
>the second game is not worth playing. Why not just find a duplicate?
Because we just happen to have 4 players and want to play without
looking for a larger group. Duh.
>Perhaps it has a use as a duplicate practice.
That, too.
John Hall
Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> writes:
>On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:57:55 +0100, David Stevenson
><bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Part-scores are carried forward and game can be reached with a
>>part-score from an earlier hand plus the current hand. In such case the
>>vulnerability when game is reached counts.
>
>I thought vulnerability was pre-determined by rotation.
It is. David is just saying that whether you get a 300 or a 500 game
bonus is determined by the vulnerability on the deal when the part-score
is converted into game.
--
John Hall
"The covers of this book are too far apart."
Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)
Jennifer Murphy
<nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <jfkh07loh5502himc...@4ax.com>,
> Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> writes:
>>On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:57:55 +0100, David Stevenson
>><bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>Part-scores are carried forward and game can be reached with a
>>>part-score from an earlier hand plus the current hand. In such case the
>>>vulnerability when game is reached counts.
>>
>>I thought vulnerability was pre-determined by rotation.
>
>It is. David is just saying that whether you get a 300 or a 500 game
>bonus is determined by the vulnerability on the deal when the part-score
>is converted into game.
Huh?
Suppose the non-vulnerable pair bids and makes 2D with a 60 part
score. Do they get a 300 or 500 bonus?
Lorne
news:2frh071ufpct44ce8...@4ax.com...
Huh?
*************
If you look at the part of the post you clipped above you will see the
phrase "In such case the vulnerability when game is reached counts." which
answers your question.
David Stevenson
>On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:57:55 +0100, David Stevenson
>> The rules for this game are:
>>
>>Part-scores are carried forward and game can be reached with a
>>part-score from an earlier hand plus the current hand. In such case the
>>vulnerability when game is reached counts.
>
>I thought vulnerability was pre-determined by rotation.
It is: see below.
>>===
>> In both forms of the game the following rules apply:
>>
>>Dealer is vulnerable on the second and third hand, both sides are
>>vulnerable on the fourth deal. Note that some places this is reversed:
>>non-dealer is vulnerable on the second and third hand.
===============================================================
Jennifer Murphy wrote
>On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:31:39 +0100, John Hall
>>It is. David is just saying that whether you get a 300 or a 500 game
>>bonus is determined by the vulnerability on the deal when the part-score
>>is converted into game.
>
>Huh?
>
>Suppose the non-vulnerable pair bids and makes 2D with a 60 part
>score. Do they get a 300 or 500 bonus?
If they are vulnerable when they do so, 500: if not, 300.
Fred.
I learned to play Chicago bridge riding commuter trains in the Chicago
area in the 60's. Everybody I played with scored it your way. I also
recall some reference at the time specifying this scoring.
That doen't mean that the another form of 4 deal bridge is wrong, but
it might be convenient to name it after another, perhaps more
virtuous, city so that all the players know the rules at the start of
the game.
Fred.
Mark Brader
>> I have always scored "Chicago" bridge just like duplicate. That is,
>>
>> 1. Each hand stands alone (no part scores or games are carried over
>> from previous hands.
>>
>> 2. The dealer and the vulnerability is preassigned according to some
>> pattern.
>>
>> 3. Standard duplicate scoring (50 for part score, 300 for
>> non-vulnerable game, etc.).
>>
>> 4. No points for "honors".
>>
>> 5. The score is just the total points (no above and below the line).
>>
>> I've been playing with a group of players who insist on carrying part
>> scores from hand to hand and awarding points for honors.
> Short answer: I think your way (which is also my way) is better,
This, of course, is a matter of opinion.
> but that the other way is technically... correct.
Yes.
> (read: historically)
*Harrumph!*
The nearest thing to official laws of Chicago is an appendix to the Laws of
Contract Bridge, which you can find at
http://web2.acbl.org/laws/rlaws/lawofcontractbridgecombined_2004.pdf
The rubber-like way conforms to these rules, and the duplicate-like way
doesn't. Of course, if a group of people want to play it duplicate-liek,
that's entirely their business, but it's confusing to call the game Chicago
if you're going to change the whole basis of scoring.
I'll point out that there is another variation not mentioned here, namely the
reversal the vulnerability on deals 2 and 3 (compared to the official rules)
in order to encourage a lively auction. Again, this is obviously up to the
people involved. In a page elsewhere on its site, already mentioned in the
thread, the ACBL actually gives this rule, with duplicate-style scoring, as
the primary version of the game.
> Longer answer: I think how you feel about this is largely a function of how
> you feel about rubber bridge (and its somewhat different tactics) in general
> vs. duplicate...
Right. In particular, part-scores are a very important part of the game.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Ask not for whom the compiler waits;
m...@vex.net | it waits for thee." -- Henry Spencer
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Barry Margolin
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Of course, if a group of people want to play it duplicate-liek,
> that's entirely their business, but it's confusing to call the game Chicago
> if you're going to change the whole basis of scoring.
I think people use "Chicago" to mean any form of rubber bridge based
around 4-deal rotations.
Hank Youngerman
I used to play in a strong money game in Hartford, CT. We played
"duplicate" style (i.e. partscores do not carry) but we did score
honors. (I remember once holding a hand with AKQJxx of hearts, the
auction made it clear that 3NT was making and 4H likely, and I had to
decide if I would "settle" for +600 or if I wanted to go for honors in
a heart contract.) All the players in the game were duplicate
players, so familiarity might have had a big influence on the rules we
chose.
In fairness, we would often forget to score honors.
Althuogh I recall a couple of times they were claimed by the defense!
OldPalooka
It has been 30 years, but there was a form like you describe, maybe
just maybe called Cavendish. I started playing money bridge playing
Chicago where the vulnerability/dealer pattern was like the first four
duplicate boards. It was replaced in many, perhaps most, money games
by reverse Chicago where the dealer was at favorable vul on the second
and third deals, because winning tactics more closely aligned with
winning tactics at other forms of the game, and it was just plain more
fun [and raised the stakes] with wild preempts and psychs having more
place in the game.
Although you do not like honors or carrying part scores, they were
integral parts of bridge from about 1890 until gambling bridge
seriously declined when the ACBL managed to completely antagonize
almost everyone under age 70 so there was darn little new hot blood
except at the Hold'em table. Part score management is one of the hard
earned arcane skills of the money player, it will make you a handsome
living at pure rubber bridge and pay your bar tab at Chi. Honors do
not often enter into skill decisions, but remembering to collect them
will go a long way toward paying your fees.
Here is a money decision involving honors: On the fourth deal with no
partials and ahead by 220 points playing with the best player in the
region with 3 passes to your KQJTxx Axx xx xx, playing strong two's:
do you open or not? Partnering the best player in the region is worth
about 100 per hand on average, so here is a case where you should open
due to the honors and because bidding and making 2S will round up the
rubber score. If you open you should expect to score 260 or 290
(worth $30 at that point in my life) somewhat more than half the time,
and score zero (down 1 with 100) most of the rest. Without the honors
I believe you should throw it in and keep the good partner for another
deal.
-- Bill Shutts
David Goldfarb
OldPalooka <ashu...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>I started playing money bridge playing
>Chicago where the vulnerability/dealer pattern was like the first four
>duplicate boards. It was replaced in many, perhaps most, money games
>by reverse Chicago where the dealer was at favorable vul on the second
>and third deals
If North deals the first hand, and the deal rotates clockwise, then
isn't it the "reverse Chicago" that replicates the first four duplicate
boards? None on 1, N/S on 2, E/W on 3, both on 4.
--
David Goldfarb |From the fortune cookie file:
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |"Do not put so much sugar in your coffee, or
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | he will think you extravagant."
Fred.
I learned to play Chicago bridge in Chicago riding communter trains in
the 60's. The only scoring system I encountered was the one you first
mentioned.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with playing four deal bridge
carrying part scores and scoring honors, but maybe it would reduce
confusion to name that variation after a nicer city.
Fred..
sofos
equally to all participants they are fair. Why three strikes and four
balls in baseball rather than the other way around?
Also they are dictated by local custom.
So, if you don't like the "local" rules, your choices are limited to
play with them, try to change them, or look for another game.
Barry Margolin
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> In article
> <7f800a38-bf46-43ce...@h25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> OldPalooka <ashu...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >I started playing money bridge playing
> >Chicago where the vulnerability/dealer pattern was like the first four
> >duplicate boards. It was replaced in many, perhaps most, money games
> >by reverse Chicago where the dealer was at favorable vul on the second
> >and third deals
>
> If North deals the first hand, and the deal rotates clockwise, then
> isn't it the "reverse Chicago" that replicates the first four duplicate
> boards? None on 1, N/S on 2, E/W on 3, both on 4.
"favorable vul" means "not vulnerable versus vulnerable". Normal
Chicago has dealer vulnerable on boards 2 and 3, which is unfavorable.
Barry Margolin
<2c968c29-d840-4e88...@f39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
sofos <papak...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Well, often there are good reasons why the rules are one way or another.
For example, the score for doubled undertricks was changed a few decades
ago to solve the "problem" of sacrifices against grands with practically
nothing (at favorable vulnerability, down 11 was profitable, down 12 a
small loss -- now you can only afford to go down 8).
So if the "standard" rules say something different from what you play,
you may reasonably wonder why that's so and should consider following
them.
On the other hand, sometimes the de facto rules that many players go by
may be more popular than the official rules. For instance, the official
Monopoly rules don't mention players winning money for landing on Free
Parking, but every group I've ever played with has that as part of the
"house rules".
David Goldfarb
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <LnMDM...@kithrup.com>,
> gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <7f800a38-bf46-43ce...@h25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> OldPalooka <ashu...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>> >I started playing money bridge playing
>> >Chicago where the vulnerability/dealer pattern was like the first four
>> >duplicate boards. It was replaced in many, perhaps most, money games
>> >by reverse Chicago where the dealer was at favorable vul on the second
>> >and third deals
>>
>> If North deals the first hand, and the deal rotates clockwise, then
>> isn't it the "reverse Chicago" that replicates the first four duplicate
>> boards? None on 1, N/S on 2, E/W on 3, both on 4.
>
>"favorable vul" means "not vulnerable versus vulnerable". Normal
>Chicago has dealer vulnerable on boards 2 and 3, which is unfavorable.
Yes, I know that, and in standard duplicate play dealer is favorable
in boards 2 and 3. OldPalooka says above that in standard Chicago
the vul/dealer pattern is like the first four duplicate boards; so far
as I can tell he's wrong about that.
--
David Goldfarb |"I'm married to a woman I met through the computer
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | on the Internet."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | "How interesting! I'd love to meet her!"
|"So would I -- we're trying to arrange something
| now." -- Bizarro
Barry Margolin
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> In article <barmar-AF8981....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >In article <LnMDM...@kithrup.com>,
> > gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <7f800a38-bf46-43ce...@h25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> OldPalooka <ashu...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >I started playing money bridge playing
> >> >Chicago where the vulnerability/dealer pattern was like the first four
> >> >duplicate boards. It was replaced in many, perhaps most, money games
> >> >by reverse Chicago where the dealer was at favorable vul on the second
> >> >and third deals
> >>
> >> If North deals the first hand, and the deal rotates clockwise, then
> >> isn't it the "reverse Chicago" that replicates the first four duplicate
> >> boards? None on 1, N/S on 2, E/W on 3, both on 4.
> >
> >"favorable vul" means "not vulnerable versus vulnerable". Normal
> >Chicago has dealer vulnerable on boards 2 and 3, which is unfavorable.
>
> Yes, I know that, and in standard duplicate play dealer is favorable
> in boards 2 and 3. OldPalooka says above that in standard Chicago
> the vul/dealer pattern is like the first four duplicate boards; so far
> as I can tell he's wrong about that.
Oops, you're right and I'm wrong.
Mark Brader
>> Of course, if a group of people want to play it duplicate-liek,
>> that's entirely their business, but it's confusing to call the game Chicago
>> if you're going to change the whole basis of scoring.
> I think people use "Chicago" to mean any form of rubber bridge based
> around 4-deal rotations.
And the key word there, I think, is "rubber".
--
Mark Brader "HE'S the brains of the outfit."
Toronto "What does that make you?"
m...@vex.net "What else? An executive!"
-- the Rocky & Bullwinkle show
Barry Margolin
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Mark Brader:
> >> Of course, if a group of people want to play it duplicate-liek,
> >> that's entirely their business, but it's confusing to call the game Chicago
> >> if you're going to change the whole basis of scoring.
>
> Barry Margolin:
> > I think people use "Chicago" to mean any form of rubber bridge based
> > around 4-deal rotations.
>
> And the key word there, I think, is "rubber".
As opposed to duplicate.
Kenny McCormack
Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
...
>> Short answer: I think your way (which is also my way) is better,
>
>This, of course, is a matter of opinion.
No. It is a matter of cold, hard fact - that I think it is better.
This may sound like nit-picking (which is, in fact, what we do best, here on
the Usenet), but I point it out because whenever anyone attacks someone with
"That's just an opinion", what they are really saying is "You are passing
off your opinions as fact". Well, I anticipated your using that attack,
by carefully stating that it was my opinion (that's what "I think..."
means), but you chose to attack anyway...
--
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurus
Mark Brader
>>> Short answer: I think your way (which is also my way) is better,
Mark Brader:
>> This, of course, is a matter of opinion.
Kenny McCormack:
> No. It is a matter of cold, hard fact - that I think it is better.
By a literal reading that's true. But "this" was intended to refer to
"the question of which way is better", and I believe most people would
interpret it that way.
> but I point it out because whenever anyone attacks someone with
> "That's just an opinion", what they are really saying is "You are passing
> off your opinions as fact". Well, I anticipated your using that attack,
> by carefully stating that it was my opinion (that's what "I think..."
> means), but you chose to attack anyway...
If I had intended to make the attack Kenny imagines me making, I would
have said something like, "Of course, Kenny's opinions are irrelevant,
since what Jennifer was asking about a question of fact." What I intended
was to post the factual answer while acknowledging that opinions exist
that the "official" rules are not the best ones and discussing the
consequences.
ObBridge: 4NT.
--
Mark Brader | "[In a country with] the dream that... anyone can grow up
Toronto | to be President... there's also a nightmare where
m...@vex.net | *anyone* can grow up to be President." --Mark Steese