Why isn't 30-30 called "deuce"?

[John Doe]

The score 30-30 is no different 40-40...

[DavidW]

John Doe wrote:
> The score 30-30 is no different 40-40...

Exactly. I asked the same question about 5 years ago.

[Fednatic]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:22:12 +0000 (UTC), John Doe
<alway...@message.header> wrote:

>The score 30-30 is no different 40-40...

because there is no advantage point after 30-30.

or in other words its a point won outright where as with 40-40 if you
win the point you still have to win another one in a row to get 60.

[TennisGuy]

I used to wonder why too for a long time.

I think I got it figured out now.
It's really very simple.

When the score goes back and forth from 40-40 (deuce) to ad whoever, to
deuce, to ad whoever, to deuce, to ad whoever etc. and someone just
turns on the match or joins the crowd, they don't know how many deuces
there have been.

There's no way of knowing unless a friend/relative or announcer is
keeping track and tells you.

BUT.... because the umpire graciously calls 30-30 INSTEAD of deuce, you
know immediately where you stand in that game. You KNOW only FOUR points
could have been played in that game up until that point.



--
"I don't decide what's important, I merely reflect it." - Whisper

[DavidW]

Does it matter? At a call of deuce you don't know if it's been 6 points or 8
points or 10 points or more. You might as well add 4 points to the list.

[DavidW]

Fednatic wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:22:12 +0000 (UTC), John Doe
> <alway...@message.header> wrote:
>
>> The score 30-30 is no different 40-40...
>
>
> because there is no advantage point after 30-30.

Yes there is. 40-30 is game point, same as an advantage point.

> or in other words its a point won outright where as with 40-40 if you
> win the point you still have to win another one in a row to get 60.

From 30-30 whoever gets two points in front wins the game, same as at deuce.
There is no difference.

[Scott]

If you say that 30-30 is deuce, you lose 40-30 as a potential score. This means you don't know whether the game was still in "regulation" versus "overtime." So, a match that had its games won at 40-30 will seem to be as exciting as a match with its games won after 40-40, which we all know is not true.

[Whisper]

On 8/27/2014 3:11 PM, Fednatic wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:22:12 +0000 (UTC), John Doe
> <alway...@message.header> wrote:
>
>> The score 30-30 is no different 40-40...
>
>
> because there is no advantage point after 30-30.

There is a game point though, just like at 40-40. That's the issue dumkoff.

[Whisper]

That's not the reason though.

[DavidW]

I would say that a single deuce is not much more exciting than 30-30, but many
deuces are. The biggest problem is consistency: you can get to 40-30 from 40-15
but not from 30-30 if you call it deuce; same number of points but one is
called 40-30 and the other advantage. Anyway, I'm only saying that
mathematically the rest of the game from 30-30 is equivalent to deuce.

[Whisper]

On 8/27/2014 9:16 PM, Scott wrote:
> If you say that 30-30 is deuce, you lose 40-30 as a potential score. This means you don't know whether the game was still in "regulation" versus "overtime." So, a match that had its games won at 40-30 will seem to be as exciting as a match with its games won after 40-40, which we all know is not true.
>

Irrelevant.

[Fednatic]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 20:11:23 +1000, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided>
wrote:

>Fednatic wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:22:12 +0000 (UTC), John Doe
>> <alway...@message.header> wrote:
>>
>>> The score 30-30 is no different 40-40...
>>
>>
>> because there is no advantage point after 30-30.
>
>Yes there is. 40-30 is game point, same as an advantage point.

Not really because if the leading player loses the next point the
score does not go back to 30-30.

>
>> or in other words its a point won outright where as with 40-40 if you
>> win the point you still have to win another one in a row to get 60.
>
>From 30-30 whoever gets two points in front wins the game, same as at deuce.
>There is no difference.
>
>

Yes there is...if the leading player loses the next point the score
does not go back to 30-30.

[pltrgyst]

30-all has often been casually referred to as "thirty-deuce."

While thirty-all and deuce are functionally the same. as someone else
mentioned, thirty-all and deuce do convey differing information about
how many points have been played.

And if you refer to thirty-all as "deuce," then it must be followed by
either "ad-in" or "ad-out," with a similar loss of information.

Also, if you're playing no-ad and insist on using traditional point
scoring (as so many club players do), instead of "1 - 2 - 3 - game," you
can easily get lost.

-- Larry

[Patrick Kehoe]

As a kid, my mother (born in 1925) told me that it was common in the 1930s to call "fifteens" or "thrities" and at 40-40 it was called "duce" or "duces" and also "40s"... she told me HER mother mentioned to her that 30 years before, so around 1900-ish "duce" could be for any of them and that's why you always had "some one to call the scores"... which my mother told me sounded totally confusing and she always assumed that's why the "calling of the scores" began to change BECAUSE the players OFTEN DIDN'T KNOW THE SCORE of the match... which even as a kid in the 1930s my mother found just bizzare but that's how it was at clubs/causal play... I can remember a friend of mine and I playing around... ??? 1971 or so and him calling out "40s"...

P

[Scott]

Unconvincing reply.

[TennisGuy]

On 8/27/2014 7:48 AM, DavidW wrote:
> Anyway, I'm only saying that
> mathematically the rest of the game from 30-30 is equivalent to deuce.

No one here will argue with that.

However as I and a couple others mentioned, more *information* is
imparted by saying 30-30 and also 40-30 rather than deuce, and ad so-and-so.
If for no other reason, I'd stick with the tradition because of that.

The key is that 'deuce' arrives in a game after a specific number of
points have been played.
That's the way the scoring was designed.
A strange method of scoring indeed.

[TennisGuy]

If we strip down the scoring in tennis to its barest of essentials, we
can arrive at:

1-1 (15-15)
2-2 (30-30)
3-2 (40-30)
4-2 Game

An extended game might go something like:

1-1 (15-15)
2-2 (30-30)
3-2 (40-30)
3-3 (deuce)
4-3 (ad Joe)
4-4 (deuce)
4-5 (ad Moe)
5-5 (deuce)
6-5 (ad Joe)
7-5 Game

We could use the 'simple' scoring method on the left column and just
remember that you must win a game by at least two points and arrive at
four or more points.

One can easily see why the left column scoring method was ditched.
It would be too confusing to keep track of whether it's 7-6 or 8-9 etc.

*However*, just as 30-30 imparts way more information than 'deuce',
the left scoring method imparts
the maximum amount of information possible.

For if someone joined into watching a game at 9-8, they would know
instantly where they were in the game, rather than a score of ad Moe. :)

[Whisper]

semantics

[The Iceberg]

it must be just to signify that a game is at least 4 points long, as there's no real technical reason for it. Also the difference between 40-30 and an AD point is irrelevant technically, but we all know practically that's not the case.

[John Doe]

Give this troll a cookie...

--
"DavidW" <no email.provided> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: "DavidW" <no email.provided>
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
> Subject: Re: Why isn't 30-30 called "deuce"?
> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:24:54 +1000
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 6
> Message-ID: <ltjmjg$o9e$1 speranza.aioe.org>
> References: <ltjmdj$56e$1 dont-email.me>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 0DfSZbaQAMW8jxeSHVLSzQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
> X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> Xref: news.eternal-september.org rec.sport.tennis:494071

[DavidW]

John Doe wrote:
> Give this troll a cookie...

Not my fault it took you so long to twig to this.

[The Iceberg]

aha an proper answer at last!

[wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <edbc9e1a-ae40-407f...@googlegroups.com>,

iceber...@gmail.com (The Iceberg) wrote:

> > As a kid, my mother (born in 1925) told me that it was common in
> the 1930s to call "fifteens" or "thrities" and at 40-40 it was
> called "duce" or "duces" and also "40s"

There are still people at my local club who say "Fifteens" and "Thirties"
(though not "Forties").

There are also people who irritatingly seem to feel that an extra syllable
is too much like hard work and say "Five-three", which I loathe because
it's confusing.

wg