[nige1]

mgoetze, on 2012-February-08, 18:15, said:

Actually, nige1 normally operates on a scale where 10 is the highest score and 7 is the lowest. If we normalize this so that nige1's "7" is the same as a standard "1", then what nige1 actually meant was 1♠ = 10, 2♣ = -2, 4♠ = -5. As it happens, I disagree. I think 2♣ is worse than that.

I recommend

• Award marks to the calls that you consider.
• The call you judge to be best gets 10. You may think that is all that matters. Typically, however, the person asking is interested in another call that was chosen at the table, and wants to know how relatively good or bad you judge it to be. Hence...
• Give marks from 5-9 for other calls that may well work. Players' views on the desirability of calls are polarised. In a magazine bidding competition, a world-champion may claim there is only one sensible call. All other calls deserve zero. Although his long-term partner usually agrees in principle he has sometimes chosen a different call .
• Calls that, on reflection, you deem unlikely to work get 0-5. This can be a matter of fashion. Decades ago, Swinnerton-Dyer sometimes earned poor marks in bidding competitions. His answers would score much higher today
• It may be a good idea to state what is your bidding-system. Not everybody plays Benjaminised Acol. Some contributors are still slumming it with 2/1

[MrAce]

nige1, on 2012-February-08, 19:24, said:

Not everybody plays Benjaminised Acol. Some contributors are still slumming it with 2/1 [/list]