[WellSpyder]

Apologies for raising a question that I'm sure this has been covered before, but I can't find clear guidance in the White Book. A ruling in a recent teams match resulted in an assigned score of 50% of +680 and 50% of +1430. I am clear that you cannot simply average these scores before imping. But the final result of the match is expressed in Victory Points. So should you:
a.) calculate the imp score for +680 and the imp score for +1430, then average these and see what VP score is implied; or
b.) calculate the imp score for +680 and the implied VP score, calculate the imp score for +1430 and the implied VP score, and then average the VP scores?

[axman]

WellSpyder, on Mar 29 2010, 06:40 AM, said:

Apologies for raising a question that I'm sure this has been covered before, but I can't find clear guidance in the White Book. A ruling in a recent teams match resulted in an assigned score of 50% of +680 and 50% of +1430. I am clear that you cannot simply average these scores before imping. But the final result of the match is expressed in Victory Points. So should you:
a.) calculate the imp score for +680 and the imp score for +1430, then average these and see what VP score is implied; or
b.) calculate the imp score for +680 and the implied VP score, calculate the imp score for +1430 and the implied VP score, and then average the VP scores?

c. imp[board score]= .5*[imp680]+ .5*[imp1430]

You get VP by summing the imps of all the board scores and using the VP table

[helene_t]

So a.) it is

[mjj29]

axman, on Mar 29 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

c.  imp[board score]= .5*[imp680]+ .5*[imp1430]

You get VP by summing the imps of all the board scores and using the VP table

Of course, a more interesting question is what happens when at the other table they get 25% 1660 + 25% 1430 + 50% 680

[campboy]

Yes, (a). The WB does not explicitly mention VP events in the section on weighted scores, but it does say:

Quote

Once such a ruling has been given it needs to be calculated. This is done by converting each score to matchpoints or imps and then applying the weighting.

So in the absence of any different regualtion for VP teams, we just do this. This approach has the advantage that neither weighted nor split scores will lead to fractional VPs (though procedural and disciplinary penalties may do).

[gordontd]

axman, on Mar 29 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

WellSpyder, on Mar 29 2010, 06:40 AM, said:

Apologies for raising a question that I'm sure this has been covered before, but I can't find clear guidance in the White Book.  A ruling in a recent teams match resulted in an assigned score of 50% of +680 and 50% of +1430.  I am clear that you cannot simply average these scores before imping.  But the final result of the match is expressed in Victory Points. So should you:
a.) calculate the imp score for +680 and the imp score for +1430, then average these and see what VP score is implied; or
b.) calculate the imp score for +680 and the implied VP score,  calculate the imp score for +1430 and the implied VP score, and then average the VP scores?

c. imp[board score]= .5*[imp680]+ .5*[imp1430]

You get VP by summing the imps of all the board scores and using the VP table

I'm not sure in what way c.) differs from a.).

[gordontd]

WellSpyder, on Mar 29 2010, 12:40 PM, said:

Apologies for raising a question that I'm sure this has been covered before, but I can't find clear guidance in the White Book.  A ruling in a recent teams match resulted in an assigned score of 50% of +680 and 50% of +1430.  I am clear that you cannot simply average these scores before imping.  But the final result of the match is expressed in Victory Points. So should you:
a.) calculate the imp score for +680 and the imp score for +1430, then average these and see what VP score is implied; or
b.) calculate the imp score for +680 and the implied VP score,  calculate the imp score for +1430 and the implied VP score, and then average the VP scores?

a.) is the accepted method, although at the EBL TD's course in San Remo, Maurizio di Sacco (one of the EBL Chief Tournament Directors) presented a seminar in which he argued for using b.) as the approach.

[WellSpyder]

Thanks, everyone. a.) is what we did, but then I found myself wondering whether I had seen something implying that b.) was correct.

[PeterE]

mjj29, on Mar 29 2010, 08:16 AM, said:

axman, on Mar 29 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

c.  imp[board score]= .5*[imp680]+ .5*[imp1430]

You get VP by summing the imps of all the board scores and using the VP table

Of course, a more interesting question is what happens when at the other table they get 25% 1660 + 25% 1430 + 50% 680

12,5% (-230) + 12,5% (0) + 25% (+750) + 12,5% (-980) + 12,5% (-750) + 25% (0) = -6/8 + 0 + 13/4 - 14/8 - 13/8 + 0 = -7/8
==> -1 IMP with VP conversion and -0,9 IMP in K.-O.