[bluecalm]

There is some debate about BAM matches vs IMP matches. Main argument for BAM is that it supposedly reward better players and reduce variance which may be important these days with level of play increasing and evening out.
Main argument against BAM is that you often play for nothing. For example if you in partscore and other table is in game your play doesn't matter at all which may cause frustration when comparing scores.

Now, match points afterall are just specific very flat IMP scale with just two positions: 0 and 1.
Why not think about some middle ground between the two ?
For example 3 point scale like this:
0: 0-10
1: 20-120
2: 130-450
3: 460+

Or maybe some 4 points scale. I am sure the details could be worked out to make as many situations interesting and worth playing for something.
This way we could fix the biggest flaw of imps (a lot of hands with basically nothing to play for) and still have some "real bridge" when making games is important.

Thoughts ?

[ArtK78]

There is a BIG difference between BAM and IMPs.

BAM is matchpoints in a team setting. It is not just a shorter IMPs scale. The change in scoring completely changes the strategy.

Quite frankly, I never heard any debate about BAM matches vs. IMP matches, because they are so different.

[campboy]

I have played the occasional match with a 3- or 4-point IMP scale, and I think it works quite well.

In a multiple teams setting I have also played hybrid scoring (score using both IMPs->VPs and BAM, and add the two), which is fun and has a similar effect on strategy.

[mgoetze]

bluecalm, on 2012-February-07, 16:30, said:

This way we could fix the biggest flaw of imps (a lot of hands with basically nothing to play for) and still have some "real bridge" when making games is important.

Thoughts ?

I think what you are looking for already exists and is called "Patton".

[Siegmund]

I've never seen it tried (and a quick google search turned up no information on Patton scoring besides a one-liner on wikipedia with no details.)

Glad to see other people are thinking about it. I have been kicking around ideas for alternative IMP scales quite a bit lately for my own curiosity. Been aiming more at 6-, 8- or 10-point scales, because YES I want a 10-point difference to count, and want vulnerability to still count. Roughly, so that

10-point difference
overtricks
partscore swing / NV game vs partscore
NV game swing / V game vs partscore
V game swing / NV slam swing
V slam swing

each have their own rung. There is quite a lot to think about -- for instance, if a band breaks at exactly 450, then even on a hand where one table is in game and the other is in a partscore, an overtrick is worth an imp to one side or the other, and I don't really know which such situations I want to build in to the system and which to exclude.

I would like to see more ideas in this thread.

[mgoetze]

Siegmund, on 2012-February-07, 19:46, said:

I've never seen it tried (and a quick google search turned up no information on Patton scoring besides a one-liner on wikipedia with no details.)

I think there are various forms, here is the one I know for four-board rounds: Each board is either a win (2:0), loss (0:2) or tie (1:1). Further, compare the aggregate total points of each team. If the difference is 0-100, award each team 2 points. If the difference is 110-490, award the team with the higher aggregate 3 points and the team with the lower aggregate 1 point. If the difference is 500 or more, award the team with the higher aggregate 4 points. Thus, each 4-board round grants a total of 12 points, divided up between the teams according to their success.