Discussion:
tennis - what's new in terminology
(too old to reply)
Rich Ulrich
2019-10-29 06:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Sports terms are on-topic, right?

I started watching the tennis channel in the spring, and
it took me a while to catch up on the changes and
variations. Many have to do with shortening the longest
matches, for simple scheduling and for TV.

The biggest change in rules is "no-add" scoring. This is
common in doubles in the pro's and I saw it in singles'
championships for college play. What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.

The tie-breaker game, first to 7, is now universal for
all pro tournaments. Wimbledon gave in this year - they
had preserved "win-by-two" but finally reacted to this:

In 2010, America’s John Isner and France’s Nicolas Mahut played the
longest match in Grand Slam history. It lasted over the course of
three days.

Isner, 33, won with a final score of 6–4, 3–6, 6–7 (7–9), 7–6 (7–3),
70–68.

The final-set Wimbledon tiebreaker, unlike most tiebreakers,
is only invoked after the score reaches 12-12 instead of the
usual 6-6.

There is also another new version of tiebreaker, the "match
tiebreaker" or super tiebreaker. This is a game to 10 points
which is played in place of the third and final set. This is used
in pro doubles, and in exhibition matches. The final score is
written using parentheses or brackets, like 6-4, 5-7, (10-5).
On the Tennis Channel today, I saw a chyron which used
a longer form, e.g., 6-4, 5-7, 1-0 (10-5).

There is now a "service clock" at most pro tournaments, to
speed a few habitually slow players. The chair umpire starts
the clock after calling the score, and it counts down from
29 secocnds (or a bit less - tournament option). Violations
are handled about like foot-faults, from what I can tell.
It is only used for the first serve. Court-side interruptions
(crying children, etc.) don't invoke any penalty.

Another innovation - one which slows play - is the instant
replay, which the player can request. The earlier brand-names\
was Hawk Eye, and I have seen Real Bounce either along side
Hawk Eye or by itself.

The Real Bounce web site claims their superiority owing to
their use of 40 low-mounted cameras running at up to 2500
frames per second. They present a movie of the ball bouncing,
seen from some favorable angle.

Hawk Eye uses 10 cameras which are mounted higher, on the
stadium; needs calibration at installation; and uses extensive
computer processing of pictures at 150 frames per second (rate
according to Real Bounce). They "model" the path of the
ball for the inches between separate photos, and model the
bounce and the skid. They claim accuracy to 3 or so mm.,
but all of their validation is held as proprietary information,
so far as I could find from their web site.

Hawk Eye does provide a "definitive" answer - they can
zoom in to see if even a few pixels overlap between the
image they create of the ball's "footprint". I haven't seen
Real Bounce in use for one of the closest line calls, where
the margin is less than 2 mm., but I'm not sure that eyeball-
based opinions of the pictures would all agree.

[BTW, Hawk Eye was first developed for cricket.]

Oh - Tournaments vary in their rules about "coaching" -
either during the match or "from the sideline." There is
an important rule about coaching from the sideline, one
which got Serena angry a year ago. It now has been
made plain that it is a penalty based on the behavior
of the /coach/, not on the athlete. It can be called even
if the athlete never looks in that direction.

There are also rules about medical breaks, etc., specifying
when and how often and for how long.

And that's what I've learned about tennis this year.
--
Rich Ulrich
Rich Ulrich
2019-10-29 13:11:14 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 02:35:34 -0400, Rich Ulrich
<***@comcast.net> wrote:

me>
Post by Rich Ulrich
Another innovation - one which slows play - is the instant
replay, which the player can request. The earlier brand-names\
was Hawk Eye, and I have seen Real Bounce either along side
Hawk Eye or by itself.
I forgot to mention -

Clay court matches do not use the cameras.

All of the professional clay court matches still rely on the
mark on the court when a line-call is challenged.
--
Rich Ulrich
Mark Brader
2019-10-29 19:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
I forgot to mention -
Clay court matches do not use the cameras.
All of the professional clay court matches still rely on the
mark on the court when a line-call is challenged.
How, then, do they distinguish it from the mark left on a previous occasion?
--
Mark Brader | Does anybody seriously believe that if a bunch of horses
Toronto | saw a giant egg broken into pieces, their response would
***@vex.net | be: "Hey! Let's try to reassemble this!"? --Dave Barry
Paul
2019-10-29 19:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Rich Ulrich
I forgot to mention -
Clay court matches do not use the cameras.
All of the professional clay court matches still rely on the
mark on the court when a line-call is challenged.
How, then, do they distinguish it from the mark left on a previous occasion?
It's a completely unbelievable and absurd system. It really has to be
seen to be believed!
Suppose the ball is called in and a player disagrees. The player then
talks to the umpire and says: "It was out. I can show you the mark."
The other player then walks over and says "No, that's the wrong mark" and
indicates a mark on the line. Both players shout and yell at the umpire
like small children and the umpire ends up supporting the original decision.
No one knows at all where the ball really landed.

Paul
b***@aol.com
2019-10-29 20:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Rich Ulrich
I forgot to mention -
Clay court matches do not use the cameras.
All of the professional clay court matches still rely on the
mark on the court when a line-call is challenged.
How, then, do they distinguish it from the mark left on a previous occasion?
It's a completely unbelievable and absurd system. It really has to be
seen to be believed!
Suppose the ball is called in and a player disagrees. The player then
talks to the umpire and says: "It was out. I can show you the mark."
The other player then walks over and says "No, that's the wrong mark" and
indicates a mark on the line. Both players shout and yell at the umpire
like small children and the umpire ends up supporting the original decision.
No one knows at all where the ball really landed.
Except that, in practice, what you describe virtually never happens as all
have a pretty accurate idea of where the ball landed (in the order of a
square inch) and it's very rare that marks already exist in such a tiny
area.

Besides, Hawk-Eye has only been in use since 2001 and, before that, the
players could only rely on the umpire's calls on grass or hard courts
(which are much less reliable than marks on clay), and the system had
never been deemed "completely unbelievable and absurd".
Post by Paul
Paul
Paul
2019-10-30 11:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Rich Ulrich
I forgot to mention -
Clay court matches do not use the cameras.
All of the professional clay court matches still rely on the
mark on the court when a line-call is challenged.
How, then, do they distinguish it from the mark left on a previous occasion?
It's a completely unbelievable and absurd system. It really has to be
seen to be believed!
Suppose the ball is called in and a player disagrees. The player then
talks to the umpire and says: "It was out. I can show you the mark."
The other player then walks over and says "No, that's the wrong mark" and
indicates a mark on the line. Both players shout and yell at the umpire
like small children and the umpire ends up supporting the original decision.
No one knows at all where the ball really landed.
Except that, in practice, what you describe virtually never happens as all
have a pretty accurate idea of where the ball landed (in the order of a
square inch) and it's very rare that marks already exist in such a tiny
area.
Besides, Hawk-Eye has only been in use since 2001 and, before that, the
players could only rely on the umpire's calls on grass or hard courts
(which are much less reliable than marks on clay), and the system had
never been deemed "completely unbelievable and absurd".
The decision to abstain from Hawk-Eye in top-tier clay-court events is
the one that is completely unbelievable and absurd.
Looking at marks made perfect sense in the pre-Hawk-Eye era.

If I want to get to London quickly, riding a horse there would have
made perfect sense a few centuries ago. That doesn't mean it would be
a good plan now.

Paul
b***@aol.com
2019-10-30 14:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Rich Ulrich
I forgot to mention -
Clay court matches do not use the cameras.
All of the professional clay court matches still rely on the
mark on the court when a line-call is challenged.
How, then, do they distinguish it from the mark left on a previous occasion?
It's a completely unbelievable and absurd system. It really has to be
seen to be believed!
Suppose the ball is called in and a player disagrees. The player then
talks to the umpire and says: "It was out. I can show you the mark."
The other player then walks over and says "No, that's the wrong mark" and
indicates a mark on the line. Both players shout and yell at the umpire
like small children and the umpire ends up supporting the original decision.
No one knows at all where the ball really landed.
Except that, in practice, what you describe virtually never happens as all
have a pretty accurate idea of where the ball landed (in the order of a
square inch) and it's very rare that marks already exist in such a tiny
area.
Besides, Hawk-Eye has only been in use since 2001 and, before that, the
players could only rely on the umpire's calls on grass or hard courts
(which are much less reliable than marks on clay), and the system had
never been deemed "completely unbelievable and absurd".
The decision to abstain from Hawk-Eye in top-tier clay-court events is
the one that is completely unbelievable and absurd.
After 40+ years of watching Roland-Garros and other major clay court
tournaments, I haven't seen one incident that proves your statement
right.
Post by Paul
Looking at marks made perfect sense in the pre-Hawk-Eye era.
If I want to get to London quickly, riding a horse there would have
made perfect sense a few centuries ago. That doesn't mean it would be
a good plan now.
But would using a space shuttle to go from e.g. Windsor to London be a
good plan?
Post by Paul
Paul
Paul
2019-10-30 18:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Rich Ulrich
I forgot to mention -
Clay court matches do not use the cameras.
All of the professional clay court matches still rely on the
mark on the court when a line-call is challenged.
How, then, do they distinguish it from the mark left on a previous occasion?
It's a completely unbelievable and absurd system. It really has to be
seen to be believed!
Suppose the ball is called in and a player disagrees. The player then
talks to the umpire and says: "It was out. I can show you the mark."
The other player then walks over and says "No, that's the wrong mark" and
indicates a mark on the line. Both players shout and yell at the umpire
like small children and the umpire ends up supporting the original decision.
No one knows at all where the ball really landed.
Except that, in practice, what you describe virtually never happens as all
have a pretty accurate idea of where the ball landed (in the order of a
square inch) and it's very rare that marks already exist in such a tiny
area.
Besides, Hawk-Eye has only been in use since 2001 and, before that, the
players could only rely on the umpire's calls on grass or hard courts
(which are much less reliable than marks on clay), and the system had
never been deemed "completely unbelievable and absurd".
The decision to abstain from Hawk-Eye in top-tier clay-court events is
the one that is completely unbelievable and absurd.
After 40+ years of watching Roland-Garros and other major clay court
tournaments, I haven't seen one incident that proves your statement
right.
...

What such incident are you looking for?
I'm giving an example of the _type_ of thing that I occur.
There are disputes in pro-tennis on all surfaces about whether the
ball was in or out.
This even happens occasionally with Hawk-Eye matches.
(Players sometimes argue that Hawk-Eye is wrong and sometimes they
have to squabble the old-fashioned way because they've run out of
challenges.)

Of course, in clay-court matches, there are also plentiful ways to
argue whether the ball was in or out. The mark is not usually a clearly
defined concept, and whether part of the mark is on the line is very
vague and very often disputed.
Players can also argue about where the mark is.

Reading the marks is far more problematic and that is why there are
massively more in-or-out arguments in clay-court matches than in
Hawk-Eye matches.

And that is why it Hawk-Eye is badly needed for clay court matches,
and it's utterly ridiculous to not use Hawk-Eye at Roland Garros.

Re "not one incident", what type of incident are you looking for?
You can use Google/ youtube to find:
1) Players arguing about whether a mark touched part of the line.
2) Players arguing about which is the relevant mark.
3) Players arguing because they disagree with the umpire's call and
there is no clear mark to appeal to.

No one can seriously suggest that these things don't happen, even if
my example was both fictional and exaggerated.

Paul
b***@aol.com
2019-10-30 19:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Rich Ulrich
I forgot to mention -
Clay court matches do not use the cameras.
All of the professional clay court matches still rely on the
mark on the court when a line-call is challenged.
How, then, do they distinguish it from the mark left on a previous occasion?
It's a completely unbelievable and absurd system. It really has to be
seen to be believed!
Suppose the ball is called in and a player disagrees. The player then
talks to the umpire and says: "It was out. I can show you the mark."
The other player then walks over and says "No, that's the wrong mark" and
indicates a mark on the line. Both players shout and yell at the umpire
like small children and the umpire ends up supporting the original decision.
No one knows at all where the ball really landed.
Except that, in practice, what you describe virtually never happens as all
have a pretty accurate idea of where the ball landed (in the order of a
square inch) and it's very rare that marks already exist in such a tiny
area.
Besides, Hawk-Eye has only been in use since 2001 and, before that, the
players could only rely on the umpire's calls on grass or hard courts
(which are much less reliable than marks on clay), and the system had
never been deemed "completely unbelievable and absurd".
The decision to abstain from Hawk-Eye in top-tier clay-court events is
the one that is completely unbelievable and absurd.
After 40+ years of watching Roland-Garros and other major clay court
tournaments, I haven't seen one incident that proves your statement
right.
...
What such incident are you looking for?
I'm giving an example of the _type_ of thing that I occur.
There are disputes in pro-tennis on all surfaces about whether the
ball was in or out.
This even happens occasionally with Hawk-Eye matches.
(Players sometimes argue that Hawk-Eye is wrong and sometimes they
have to squabble the old-fashioned way because they've run out of
challenges.)
Of course, in clay-court matches, there are also plentiful ways to
argue whether the ball was in or out. The mark is not usually a clearly
defined concept, and whether part of the mark is on the line is very
vague and very often disputed.
Players can also argue about where the mark is.
Reading the marks is far more problematic and that is why there are
massively more in-or-out arguments in clay-court matches than in
Hawk-Eye matches.
And that is why it Hawk-Eye is badly needed for clay court matches,
and it's utterly ridiculous to not use Hawk-Eye at Roland Garros.
Re "not one incident", what type of incident are you looking for?
1) Players arguing about whether a mark touched part of the line.
2) Players arguing about which is the relevant mark.
3) Players arguing because they disagree with the umpire's call and
there is no clear mark to appeal to.
No one can seriously suggest that these things don't happen, even if
my example was both fictional and exaggerated.
They do happen, but marginally enough for clay court tournaments to do
without Hawk-Eye.
Post by Paul
Paul
Paul
2019-10-30 21:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Rich Ulrich
I forgot to mention -
Clay court matches do not use the cameras.
All of the professional clay court matches still rely on the
mark on the court when a line-call is challenged.
How, then, do they distinguish it from the mark left on a previous occasion?
It's a completely unbelievable and absurd system. It really has to be
seen to be believed!
Suppose the ball is called in and a player disagrees. The player then
talks to the umpire and says: "It was out. I can show you the mark."
The other player then walks over and says "No, that's the wrong mark" and
indicates a mark on the line. Both players shout and yell at the umpire
like small children and the umpire ends up supporting the original decision.
No one knows at all where the ball really landed.
Except that, in practice, what you describe virtually never happens as all
have a pretty accurate idea of where the ball landed (in the order of a
square inch) and it's very rare that marks already exist in such a tiny
area.
Besides, Hawk-Eye has only been in use since 2001 and, before that, the
players could only rely on the umpire's calls on grass or hard courts
(which are much less reliable than marks on clay), and the system had
never been deemed "completely unbelievable and absurd".
The decision to abstain from Hawk-Eye in top-tier clay-court events is
the one that is completely unbelievable and absurd.
After 40+ years of watching Roland-Garros and other major clay court
tournaments, I haven't seen one incident that proves your statement
right.
...
What such incident are you looking for?
I'm giving an example of the _type_ of thing that I occur.
There are disputes in pro-tennis on all surfaces about whether the
ball was in or out.
This even happens occasionally with Hawk-Eye matches.
(Players sometimes argue that Hawk-Eye is wrong and sometimes they
have to squabble the old-fashioned way because they've run out of
challenges.)
Of course, in clay-court matches, there are also plentiful ways to
argue whether the ball was in or out. The mark is not usually a clearly
defined concept, and whether part of the mark is on the line is very
vague and very often disputed.
Players can also argue about where the mark is.
Reading the marks is far more problematic and that is why there are
massively more in-or-out arguments in clay-court matches than in
Hawk-Eye matches.
And that is why it Hawk-Eye is badly needed for clay court matches,
and it's utterly ridiculous to not use Hawk-Eye at Roland Garros.
Re "not one incident", what type of incident are you looking for?
1) Players arguing about whether a mark touched part of the line.
2) Players arguing about which is the relevant mark.
3) Players arguing because they disagree with the umpire's call and
there is no clear mark to appeal to.
No one can seriously suggest that these things don't happen, even if
my example was both fictional and exaggerated.
They do happen, but marginally enough for clay court tournaments to do
without Hawk-Eye.
It depends on what you mean by "do without".
The reality is that the non-use of Hawk-Eye doesn't result in a loss
of prestige for Roland Garros, but it does results in a mass of complaints
from the tennis world.
Very few people agree with you that it's ok to refrain from using Hawk-Eye
at Roland Garros.

Paul
Rich Ulrich
2019-10-30 00:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Rich Ulrich
I forgot to mention -
Clay court matches do not use the cameras.
All of the professional clay court matches still rely on the
mark on the court when a line-call is challenged.
How, then, do they distinguish it from the mark left on a previous occasion?
In addition to what has been posted - I think I have seen
them brush/sweep the court between matches, to remove
marks. I'm pretty sure that I have seen a player and umpire
disagree about "the right mark." The referee always wins.

I heard of a Hawk Eye error that occurred, and was
only figured out after the match -- the replay made use
of the second bounce. I think that was a drop shot, sliced
near the net and with high spin and very little bounce.

Another unexpected detail caught my attention when a
court was in the background view between matches.
I saw the net being taken down and replaced.

My first thought was that maybe these were being sold
for souveniers, for income. Then I realized that they use
different posts and a shorter net for singles than for
doubles. The posts for the singles matches are in the
middle of the "alley" of the doubles court. At least, for
that tournament.
--
Rich Ulrich
Paul
2019-10-29 13:28:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
Sports terms are on-topic, right?
I started watching the tennis channel in the spring, and
it took me a while to catch up on the changes and
variations. Many have to do with shortening the longest
matches, for simple scheduling and for TV.
The biggest change in rules is "no-add" scoring. This is
common in doubles in the pro's and I saw it in singles'
championships for college play. What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
The tie-breaker game, first to 7, is now universal for
all pro tournaments. Wimbledon gave in this year - they
In 2010, America’s John Isner and France’s Nicolas Mahut played the
longest match in Grand Slam history. It lasted over the course of
three days.
Isner, 33, won with a final score of 6–4, 3–6, 6–7 (7–9), 7–6 (7–3),
70–68.
The final-set Wimbledon tiebreaker, unlike most tiebreakers,
is only invoked after the score reaches 12-12 instead of the
usual 6-6.
There is also another new version of tiebreaker, the "match
tiebreaker" or super tiebreaker. This is a game to 10 points
which is played in place of the third and final set. This is used
in pro doubles, and in exhibition matches. The final score is
written using parentheses or brackets, like 6-4, 5-7, (10-5).
On the Tennis Channel today, I saw a chyron which used
a longer form, e.g., 6-4, 5-7, 1-0 (10-5).
There is now a "service clock" at most pro tournaments, to
speed a few habitually slow players. The chair umpire starts
the clock after calling the score, and it counts down from
29 secocnds (or a bit less - tournament option). Violations
are handled about like foot-faults, from what I can tell.
It is only used for the first serve. Court-side interruptions
(crying children, etc.) don't invoke any penalty.
Another innovation - one which slows play - is the instant
replay, which the player can request. The earlier brand-names\
was Hawk Eye, and I have seen Real Bounce either along side
Hawk Eye or by itself.
The Real Bounce web site claims their superiority owing to
their use of 40 low-mounted cameras running at up to 2500
frames per second. They present a movie of the ball bouncing,
seen from some favorable angle.
Hawk Eye uses 10 cameras which are mounted higher, on the
stadium; needs calibration at installation; and uses extensive
computer processing of pictures at 150 frames per second (rate
according to Real Bounce). They "model" the path of the
ball for the inches between separate photos, and model the
bounce and the skid. They claim accuracy to 3 or so mm.,
but all of their validation is held as proprietary information,
so far as I could find from their web site.
Hawk Eye does provide a "definitive" answer - they can
zoom in to see if even a few pixels overlap between the
image they create of the ball's "footprint". I haven't seen
Real Bounce in use for one of the closest line calls, where
the margin is less than 2 mm., but I'm not sure that eyeball-
based opinions of the pictures would all agree.
[BTW, Hawk Eye was first developed for cricket.]
Oh - Tournaments vary in their rules about "coaching" -
either during the match or "from the sideline." There is
an important rule about coaching from the sideline, one
which got Serena angry a year ago. It now has been
made plain that it is a penalty based on the behavior
of the /coach/, not on the athlete. It can be called even
if the athlete never looks in that direction.
There are also rules about medical breaks, etc., specifying
when and how often and for how long.
And that's what I've learned about tennis this year.
You're wrong to say that all tournaments use a final set tie-break.
The French Open (also called Roland Garros) doesn't and that tournament
is huge.

There seems to be a problem with the no-coaching rule.
I may well not understand this rule in full, but it seems to be possible
for someone who supports the opponent of a player to give instructions
to the opposite player in order to get that player a violation.
Warnings for coaching have been given for casual friends of players,
not just official coaches.

Paul
Rich Ulrich
2019-10-30 00:21:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Rich Ulrich
The final-set Wimbledon tiebreaker, unlike most tiebreakers,
is only invoked after the score reaches 12-12 instead of the
usual 6-6.
There is also another new version of tiebreaker, the "match
tiebreaker" or super tiebreaker. This is a game to 10 points
which is played in place of the third and final set. This is used
in pro doubles, and in exhibition matches. The final score is
written using parentheses or brackets, like 6-4, 5-7, (10-5).
On the Tennis Channel today, I saw a chyron which used
a longer form, e.g., 6-4, 5-7, 1-0 (10-5).
...
Post by Paul
Post by Rich Ulrich
Oh - Tournaments vary in their rules about "coaching" -
either during the match or "from the sideline." There is
an important rule about coaching from the sideline, one
which got Serena angry a year ago. It now has been
made plain that it is a penalty based on the behavior
of the /coach/, not on the athlete. It can be called even
if the athlete never looks in that direction.
There are also rules about medical breaks, etc., specifying
when and how often and for how long.
And that's what I've learned about tennis this year.
You're wrong to say that all tournaments use a final set tie-break.
The French Open (also called Roland Garros) doesn't and that tournament
is huge.
[Google ...] Okay, I missed that detail about the French, and
the 10-point tiebreaker in Australian.

Jun 2, 2019 - The French Open uses the 'advantage set' when a player
must win by two clear games, the US Open has a usual tie-break
(first to seven points), the Australian Open a 'champions' tie-break
(first to 10 points), while at Wimbledon players will only play a
breaker if the deciding set reaches 12-12.
Post by Paul
There seems to be a problem with the no-coaching rule.
I may well not understand this rule in full, but it seems to be possible
for someone who supports the opponent of a player to give instructions
to the opposite player in order to get that player a violation.
Warnings for coaching have been given for casual friends of players,
not just official coaches.
Coaching? You are missing the fact that the call is on the COACH
(or someone in the player's box) and not on the player. Your
example would penalize the opponent. I don't know if anything
is said or done about people who are in the general seating area.

The chair umpire also (newly) is instructed to make sure that the
player recognizes exactly /what/ is being penalized.
--
Rich Ulrich
Paul
2019-10-30 11:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by Paul
Post by Rich Ulrich
The final-set Wimbledon tiebreaker, unlike most tiebreakers,
is only invoked after the score reaches 12-12 instead of the
usual 6-6.
There is also another new version of tiebreaker, the "match
tiebreaker" or super tiebreaker. This is a game to 10 points
which is played in place of the third and final set. This is used
in pro doubles, and in exhibition matches. The final score is
written using parentheses or brackets, like 6-4, 5-7, (10-5).
On the Tennis Channel today, I saw a chyron which used
a longer form, e.g., 6-4, 5-7, 1-0 (10-5).
...
Post by Paul
Post by Rich Ulrich
Oh - Tournaments vary in their rules about "coaching" -
either during the match or "from the sideline." There is
an important rule about coaching from the sideline, one
which got Serena angry a year ago. It now has been
made plain that it is a penalty based on the behavior
of the /coach/, not on the athlete. It can be called even
if the athlete never looks in that direction.
There are also rules about medical breaks, etc., specifying
when and how often and for how long.
And that's what I've learned about tennis this year.
You're wrong to say that all tournaments use a final set tie-break.
The French Open (also called Roland Garros) doesn't and that tournament
is huge.
[Google ...] Okay, I missed that detail about the French, and
the 10-point tiebreaker in Australian.
Jun 2, 2019 - The French Open uses the 'advantage set' when a player
must win by two clear games, the US Open has a usual tie-break
(first to seven points), the Australian Open a 'champions' tie-break
(first to 10 points), while at Wimbledon players will only play a
breaker if the deciding set reaches 12-12.
Post by Paul
There seems to be a problem with the no-coaching rule.
I may well not understand this rule in full, but it seems to be possible
for someone who supports the opponent of a player to give instructions
to the opposite player in order to get that player a violation.
Warnings for coaching have been given for casual friends of players,
not just official coaches.
Coaching? You are missing the fact that the call is on the COACH
(or someone in the player's box) and not on the player. Your
example would penalize the opponent. I don't know if anything
is said or done about people who are in the general seating area.
The chair umpire also (newly) is instructed to make sure that the
player recognizes exactly /what/ is being penalized.
At an event with player boxes, I think you're right that a player only
gets penalized if a box member is thought to be coaching.

Most pro events don't have such boxes. I was at an event where a
friend of a player was calling out advice between points.
An official told the guy to stop giving advice or the player would
receive a violation. So he stopped. But what if he was actually
colluding with the opponent?

Paul
b***@aol.com
2019-10-29 15:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
Sports terms are on-topic, right?
I started watching the tennis channel in the spring, and
it took me a while to catch up on the changes and
variations. Many have to do with shortening the longest
matches, for simple scheduling and for TV.
The biggest change in rules is "no-add" scoring. This is
common in doubles in the pro's and I saw it in singles'
championships for college play. What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
The tie-breaker game, first to 7, is now universal for
all pro tournaments. Wimbledon gave in this year - they
In 2010, America’s John Isner and France’s Nicolas Mahut played the
longest match in Grand Slam history. It lasted over the course of
three days.
Isner, 33, won with a final score of 6–4, 3–6, 6–7 (7–9), 7–6 (7–3),
70–68.
The final-set Wimbledon tiebreaker, unlike most tiebreakers,
is only invoked after the score reaches 12-12 instead of the
usual 6-6.
There is also another new version of tiebreaker, the "match
tiebreaker" or super tiebreaker. This is a game to 10 points
which is played in place of the third and final set. This is used
in pro doubles, and in exhibition matches. The final score is
written using parentheses or brackets, like 6-4, 5-7, (10-5).
On the Tennis Channel today, I saw a chyron which used
a longer form, e.g., 6-4, 5-7, 1-0 (10-5).
There is now a "service clock" at most pro tournaments, to
speed a few habitually slow players. The chair umpire starts
the clock after calling the score, and it counts down from
29 secocnds (or a bit less - tournament option). Violations
are handled about like foot-faults, from what I can tell.
It is only used for the first serve. Court-side interruptions
(crying children, etc.) don't invoke any penalty.
Another innovation - one which slows play - is the instant
replay, which the player can request. The earlier brand-names\
was Hawk Eye, and I have seen Real Bounce either along side
Hawk Eye or by itself.
The Real Bounce web site claims their superiority owing to
their use of 40 low-mounted cameras running at up to 2500
frames per second. They present a movie of the ball bouncing,
seen from some favorable angle.
Hawk Eye uses 10 cameras which are mounted higher, on the
stadium; needs calibration at installation; and uses extensive
computer processing of pictures at 150 frames per second (rate
according to Real Bounce). They "model" the path of the
ball for the inches between separate photos, and model the
bounce and the skid. They claim accuracy to 3 or so mm.,
but all of their validation is held as proprietary information,
so far as I could find from their web site.
Hawk Eye does provide a "definitive" answer - they can
zoom in to see if even a few pixels overlap between the
image they create of the ball's "footprint". I haven't seen
Real Bounce in use for one of the closest line calls, where
the margin is less than 2 mm., but I'm not sure that eyeball-
based opinions of the pictures would all agree.
[BTW, Hawk Eye was first developed for cricket.]
Oh - Tournaments vary in their rules about "coaching" -
either during the match or "from the sideline." There is
an important rule about coaching from the sideline, one
which got Serena angry a year ago. It now has been
made plain that it is a penalty based on the behavior
of the /coach/, not on the athlete. It can be called even
if the athlete never looks in that direction.
There are also rules about medical breaks, etc., specifying
when and how often and for how long.
And that's what I've learned about tennis this year.
Perhaps more striking is that, alongside the rules, the technique of
the game itself has evolved as new players have emerged, giving rise to
coinages for new shots you may have not heard about if you haven't watched
tennis in a long time, such as "skyhook", "backhand flick", "tweener" or
"buggy-whip/lasso/banana" forehand".
Post by Rich Ulrich
--
Rich Ulrich
Ken Blake
2019-10-29 15:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
Sports terms are on-topic, right?
I started watching the tennis channel in the spring, and
it took me a while to catch up on the changes and
variations. Many have to do with shortening the longest
matches, for simple scheduling and for TV.
The biggest change in rules is "no-add" scoring. This is
No-ad. Short for "advantage."
Post by Rich Ulrich
common in doubles in the pro's and I saw it in singles'
championships for college play. What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
I've never seen this in any of the tournaments I've watched on TV, but I
rarely watch doubles matches. How common is it? Is it (or will it soon
be?) common in pro singles.
--
Ken
Rich Ulrich
2019-10-30 00:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Rich Ulrich
Sports terms are on-topic, right?
I started watching the tennis channel in the spring, and
it took me a while to catch up on the changes and
variations. Many have to do with shortening the longest
matches, for simple scheduling and for TV.
The biggest change in rules is "no-add" scoring. This is
No-ad. Short for "advantage."
I knew that. I spelled it right, later, in "ad side".
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Rich Ulrich
common in doubles in the pro's and I saw it in singles'
championships for college play. What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
I've never seen this in any of the tournaments I've watched on TV, but I
rarely watch doubles matches. How common is it? Is it (or will it soon
be?) common in pro singles.
I'm less sure about prevalence of no-ad in the doubles than
the match tiebreaker in the doubles.

The Wiki article on tennis scoring says that no-ad scoring
is used in most matches in World Team Tennis. And in more
Mixed Doubles.
--
Rich Ulrich
Quinn C
2019-10-30 04:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Rich Ulrich
Sports terms are on-topic, right?
I started watching the tennis channel in the spring, and
it took me a while to catch up on the changes and
variations. Many have to do with shortening the longest
matches, for simple scheduling and for TV.
The biggest change in rules is "no-add" scoring. This is
No-ad. Short for "advantage."
I knew that. I spelled it right, later, in "ad side".
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Rich Ulrich
common in doubles in the pro's and I saw it in singles'
championships for college play. What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
I've never seen this in any of the tournaments I've watched on TV, but I
rarely watch doubles matches. How common is it? Is it (or will it soon
be?) common in pro singles.
I'm less sure about prevalence of no-ad in the doubles than
the match tiebreaker in the doubles.
The Wiki article on tennis scoring says that no-ad scoring
is used in most matches in World Team Tennis.
Which is another one of those US sports event with title inflation.
--
If Helen Keller is alone in the forest and falls down, does she
make a sound?
Jerry Friedman
2019-10-30 15:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
Sports terms are on-topic, right?
I started watching the tennis channel in the spring, and
it took me a while to catch up on the changes and
variations. Many have to do with shortening the longest
matches, for simple scheduling and for TV.
The biggest change in rules is "no-add" scoring. This is
common in doubles in the pro's and I saw it in singles'
championships for college play.
(I wouldn't have used either apostrophe.)
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
--
Jerry Friedman thinks not enough doubles is shown on TV.
Paul
2019-10-30 15:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
Sports terms are on-topic, right?
I started watching the tennis channel in the spring, and
it took me a while to catch up on the changes and
variations. Many have to do with shortening the longest
matches, for simple scheduling and for TV.
The biggest change in rules is "no-add" scoring. This is
common in doubles in the pro's and I saw it in singles'
championships for college play.
(I wouldn't have used either apostrophe.)
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.

That addresses your point, if your "that" and your "shocking" refer to
advantage not being used.
Though possibly you have a problem with the fact that the receiving side
gets to choose. The rationale for that might be as follows:
From a logical point of view, there's no preference between the serve
being on the left or the right. Whatever, the choice you get 3 on one
side, and 4 on the other, which is as evenly spread as possible.
Since serving gives you a big advantage in tennis (among good players),
giving the choice to the receivers has the effect of reducing the
serving advantage and making the games more evenly matched (assuming the
teams are equally strong).

Paul
Rich Ulrich
2019-10-30 16:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
Sports terms are on-topic, right?
I started watching the tennis channel in the spring, and
it took me a while to catch up on the changes and
variations. Many have to do with shortening the longest
matches, for simple scheduling and for TV.
The biggest change in rules is "no-add" scoring. This is
common in doubles in the pro's and I saw it in singles'
championships for college play.
(I wouldn't have used either apostrophe.)
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
I agree that "less interest in doubles" is the main reason.

I've wondered if doubles games typically have longer rallies -
and take more time for that reason; and if that contributed
to wanting to make games shorter. I read an analysis some
days ago that talked about how much shorter matches /should/
be when using no-ad scoring, but it did not mention singles
vs. doubles and how long matches actually took to play.
Post by Paul
That addresses your point, if your "that" and your "shocking" refer to
advantage not being used.
Though possibly you have a problem with the fact that the receiving side
From a logical point of view, there's no preference between the serve
being on the left or the right. Whatever, the choice you get 3 on one
side, and 4 on the other, which is as evenly spread as possible.
Since serving gives you a big advantage in tennis (among good players),
giving the choice to the receivers has the effect of reducing the
serving advantage and making the games more evenly matched (assuming the
teams are equally strong).
Paul
--
Rich Ulrich
Paul
2019-10-30 17:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
Sports terms are on-topic, right?
I started watching the tennis channel in the spring, and
it took me a while to catch up on the changes and
variations. Many have to do with shortening the longest
matches, for simple scheduling and for TV.
The biggest change in rules is "no-add" scoring. This is
common in doubles in the pro's and I saw it in singles'
championships for college play.
(I wouldn't have used either apostrophe.)
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
I agree that "less interest in doubles" is the main reason.
I've wondered if doubles games typically have longer rallies -
and take more time for that reason; and if that contributed
to wanting to make games shorter. I read an analysis some
days ago that talked about how much shorter matches /should/
be when using no-ad scoring, but it did not mention singles
vs. doubles and how long matches actually took to play.
...

I just googled it. According to my google search, doubles rallies
are actually significantly shorter on average. I would have guessed
exactly the opposite. Since a doubles court is only slightly larger
than a singles court but has two people defending instead of one,
a winning shot in doubles would seem much harder than in singles.
However, countering that, is the fact that, at all levels of tennis,
there's a very effective tactic of hitting for a region where the ball
could be hit by either player so the players collide into each other.
When the rackets clash, it can seem amateurish but in fact this happens
at all levels. There's no clear solution to this. If the Williams sisters
agree that Serena takes all the balls that are equidistant from her and
Venus, then the opposition can create the same down-the-middle effect
by hitting the ball so that it is six inches closer to Venus than to
Serena.

Paul
b***@aol.com
2019-10-30 17:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
Sports terms are on-topic, right?
I started watching the tennis channel in the spring, and
it took me a while to catch up on the changes and
variations. Many have to do with shortening the longest
matches, for simple scheduling and for TV.
The biggest change in rules is "no-add" scoring. This is
common in doubles in the pro's and I saw it in singles'
championships for college play.
(I wouldn't have used either apostrophe.)
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
I agree that "less interest in doubles" is the main reason.
I've wondered if doubles games typically have longer rallies -
and take more time for that reason; and if that contributed
to wanting to make games shorter. I read an analysis some
days ago that talked about how much shorter matches /should/
be when using no-ad scoring, but it did not mention singles
vs. doubles and how long matches actually took to play.
...
I just googled it. According to my google search, doubles rallies
are actually significantly shorter on average. I would have guessed
exactly the opposite. Since a doubles court is only slightly larger
than a singles court but has two people defending instead of one,
a winning shot in doubles would seem much harder than in singles.
However, countering that, is the fact that, at all levels of tennis,
there's a very effective tactic of hitting for a region where the ball
could be hit by either player so the players collide into each other.
When the rackets clash, it can seem amateurish but in fact this happens
at all levels. There's no clear solution to this. If the Williams sisters
agree that Serena takes all the balls that are equidistant from her and
Venus, then the opposition can create the same down-the-middle effect
by hitting the ball so that it is six inches closer to Venus than to
Serena.
The actual reason is that doubles are played with one player staying
at the net in either team, which makes for large numbers of volleys being
played and therefore shorter rallies. Doubles tennis in its form is
close to serve-and-volley game in singles tennis, where rallies are very
short too.
Post by Paul
Paul
Paul
2019-10-30 17:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
Sports terms are on-topic, right?
I started watching the tennis channel in the spring, and
it took me a while to catch up on the changes and
variations. Many have to do with shortening the longest
matches, for simple scheduling and for TV.
The biggest change in rules is "no-add" scoring. This is
common in doubles in the pro's and I saw it in singles'
championships for college play.
(I wouldn't have used either apostrophe.)
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
I agree that "less interest in doubles" is the main reason.
I've wondered if doubles games typically have longer rallies -
and take more time for that reason; and if that contributed
to wanting to make games shorter. I read an analysis some
days ago that talked about how much shorter matches /should/
be when using no-ad scoring, but it did not mention singles
vs. doubles and how long matches actually took to play.
...
I just googled it. According to my google search, doubles rallies
are actually significantly shorter on average. I would have guessed
exactly the opposite. Since a doubles court is only slightly larger
than a singles court but has two people defending instead of one,
a winning shot in doubles would seem much harder than in singles.
However, countering that, is the fact that, at all levels of tennis,
there's a very effective tactic of hitting for a region where the ball
could be hit by either player so the players collide into each other.
When the rackets clash, it can seem amateurish but in fact this happens
at all levels. There's no clear solution to this. If the Williams sisters
agree that Serena takes all the balls that are equidistant from her and
Venus, then the opposition can create the same down-the-middle effect
by hitting the ball so that it is six inches closer to Venus than to
Serena.
The actual reason is that doubles are played with one player staying
at the net in either team, which makes for large numbers of volleys being
played and therefore shorter rallies. Doubles tennis in its form is
close to serve-and-volley game in singles tennis, where rallies are very
short too.
I agree with this totally, now you say it.

Paul
Jerry Friedman
2019-10-30 17:08:37 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
Post by Paul
That addresses your point, if your "that" and your "shocking" refer to
advantage not being used.
They do.
Post by Paul
Though possibly you have a problem with the fact that the receiving side
From a logical point of view, there's no preference between the serve
being on the left or the right. Whatever, the choice you get 3 on one
side, and 4 on the other, which is as evenly spread as possible.
Since serving gives you a big advantage in tennis (among good players),
giving the choice to the receivers has the effect of reducing the
serving advantage and making the games more evenly matched (assuming the
teams are equally strong).
Not unreasonable.

Though recently I got into a brief discussion elsewhere about whether
typical male amateurs could win a point against Serena Williams, and it
occurred to me that she does double-fault once in a while. But that's
not "among good players".
--
Jerry Friedman
Paul
2019-10-30 17:31:38 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5:08:40 PM UTC, Jerry Friedman wrote:
...
recently I got into a brief discussion elsewhere about whether
Post by Jerry Friedman
typical male amateurs could win a point against Serena Williams, and it
occurred to me that she does double-fault once in a while. But that's
not "among good players".
I don't think the double-faults are relevant here. Against a massively
weaker opponent, where the aim is to avoid the loss of a point, she
would simply leave enough margin on the second serve to avoid
double-faulting.

I think that Serena Williams doesn't concentrate quite as well as the
other legendary womens No. 1's. In this challenge, I'd rather back
the former Navratilova or Graf than Serena Williams.

I think that, if you made sure that there was enough at stake
(a ten million dollar prize to the winner for example), then I'd expect
Serena Williams to have enough self-discipline to string together 48
consecutive points which is all that is needed.

However, in practice, I don't think such a generous funder could be
found. And for the purposes of pride and self-esteem, I think any
6-0 6-0 victory would work.

So, I back the male to win a point in general.

However, Graf would have avoided losing a point. I mean she
beat her own rivals with scores like 6-0 6-1.

This doesn't say that Graf was better than Serena Williams is.
(In fact, I don't believe that at all). I just think Graf was
better at chalking up 6-0-type sets.

The above assumes that "amateur" is quite a high form of
accomplishment. Let's assume that the male is at a peak tennis
age and is a member of a tennis club and plays every week and
has significant competitive experience.

If it's a random male among all men who say "I play tennis"
then Serena Williams won't lose a point.

Paul
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-30 17:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
recently I got into a brief discussion elsewhere about whether
Post by Jerry Friedman
typical male amateurs could win a point against Serena Williams, and it
occurred to me that she does double-fault once in a while. But that's
not "among good players".
I don't think the double-faults are relevant here. Against a massively
weaker opponent, where the aim is to avoid the loss of a point, she
would simply leave enough margin on the second serve to avoid
double-faulting.
I think that Serena Williams doesn't concentrate quite as well as the
other legendary womens No. 1's. In this challenge, I'd rather back
the former Navratilova or Graf than Serena Williams.
I think that, if you made sure that there was enough at stake
(a ten million dollar prize to the winner for example), then I'd expect
Serena Williams to have enough self-discipline to string together 48
consecutive points which is all that is needed.
However, in practice, I don't think such a generous funder could be
found. And for the purposes of pride and self-esteem, I think any
6-0 6-0 victory would work.
So, I back the male to win a point in general.
However, Graf would have avoided losing a point. I mean she
beat her own rivals with scores like 6-0 6-1.
This doesn't say that Graf was better than Serena Williams is.
(In fact, I don't believe that at all). I just think Graf was
better at chalking up 6-0-type sets.
The above assumes that "amateur" is quite a high form of
accomplishment. Let's assume that the male is at a peak tennis
age and is a member of a tennis club and plays every week and
has significant competitive experience.
If it's a random male among all men who say "I play tennis"
then Serena Williams won't lose a point.
The night before my university final examinations started I played
squash for the one and only time in my life. I didn't win a single
point. My opponent was not the squash equivalent to Serena Williams in
tennis. I decided that squash wasn't really my game. I wasn't quite
that bad at tennis, a game I only played against opponents as weak as I
was. Actually I was pretty incompetent at all games, apart from water
polo. I was in the college water polo team when we won the
inter-college championship. However, that wasn't all due to me, as we
had a South African Olympics swimmer in our team.
--
athel
Rich Ulrich
2019-10-31 14:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
recently I got into a brief discussion elsewhere about whether
Post by Jerry Friedman
typical male amateurs could win a point against Serena Williams, and it
occurred to me that she does double-fault once in a while. But that's
not "among good players".
I don't think the double-faults are relevant here. Against a massively
weaker opponent, where the aim is to avoid the loss of a point, she
would simply leave enough margin on the second serve to avoid
double-faulting.
I think that Serena Williams doesn't concentrate quite as well as the
other legendary womens No. 1's. In this challenge, I'd rather back
the former Navratilova or Graf than Serena Williams.
I think that, if you made sure that there was enough at stake
(a ten million dollar prize to the winner for example), then I'd expect
Serena Williams to have enough self-discipline to string together 48
consecutive points which is all that is needed.
However, in practice, I don't think such a generous funder could be
found. And for the purposes of pride and self-esteem, I think any
6-0 6-0 victory would work.
So, I back the male to win a point in general.
However, Graf would have avoided losing a point. I mean she
beat her own rivals with scores like 6-0 6-1.
This doesn't say that Graf was better than Serena Williams is.
(In fact, I don't believe that at all). I just think Graf was
better at chalking up 6-0-type sets.
The above assumes that "amateur" is quite a high form of
accomplishment. Let's assume that the male is at a peak tennis
age and is a member of a tennis club and plays every week and
has significant competitive experience.
If it's a random male among all men who say "I play tennis"
then Serena Williams won't lose a point.
The "Universal Tennis Rating" is based on tournament results.
It gives each player, any age or either sex, a score between 1
and 16.0. You can get an estimate of the chance of winning a
match by the difference between ratings.

Predicting a match is not the same as winning a single point,
given dozens of tries.

I don't know about the general, "I-play-tennis" adults, so
it may be that almost none of them can ever hit a corner
at over 100 mph (161 kph).

What't the chance of not getting aced every point? What is
the chance of returning into the top of the net and having it
trickle over?
--
Rich Ulrich
Jerry Friedman
2019-10-31 18:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
recently I got into a brief discussion elsewhere about whether
Post by Jerry Friedman
typical male amateurs could win a point against Serena Williams, and it
occurred to me that she does double-fault once in a while. But that's
not "among good players".
The context was this survey:

https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_1#/survey/344ce84b-a48d-11e9-8e40-79d1f09423a3/question/4d73bd62-a48f-11e9-aee6-6742cfe83f15/gender

https://bit.ly/2JEL9sB

"Do you think if you were playing your very best tennis, you could win
a point off Serena Williams?

"1732 GB adults were questioned on 12 Jul 2019.
Results are weighted to be representative of the GB population."

12% of men and 3% of women picked "I think I could". 14% of men and
10% of women picked "Don't know". The other answer was "I don't
think I could."


To be on-topic, but I promise it's only for a moment, "could" is an
extremely weak criterion. Serena /could/ double-fault. She /could/
blow a return of an easy serve. She /could/ get a sudden attack
of food poisoning. The survey may just show that more British men
than British women take things literally, or take advantage of a
literal reading to give a self-confident answer.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't think the double-faults are relevant here. Against a massively
weaker opponent, where the aim is to avoid the loss of a point, she
would simply leave enough margin on the second serve to avoid
double-faulting.
The opponent is not necessarily massively weaker.

Serena's average second serve is 91 mph.

https://www.dremio.com/serena/

(Search the page--you'll never find it by scrolling. Either I'm doing
something wrong, or the page is pushing back the frontiers of bad
design.)

That's apparently a reasonable first serve for a well-above-average male
club player (USTA rating 4.5).

If Serena took enough off to have no chance of a double-fault, she'd be
in the range where a lot of men could hit a good return, even try for a
risky winner.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I think that Serena Williams doesn't concentrate quite as well as the
other legendary womens No. 1's. In this challenge, I'd rather back
the former Navratilova or Graf than Serena Williams.
I think that, if you made sure that there was enough at stake
(a ten million dollar prize to the winner for example), then I'd expect
Serena Williams to have enough self-discipline to string together 48
consecutive points which is all that is needed.
You'll also notice that the question didn't give a limit on the
number of points--another opportunity for literalists.
Post by Jerry Friedman
However, in practice, I don't think such a generous funder could be
found. And for the purposes of pride and self-esteem, I think any
6-0 6-0 victory would work.
So, I back the male to win a point in general.
However, Graf would have avoided losing a point. I mean she
beat her own rivals with scores like 6-0 6-1.
This doesn't say that Graf was better than Serena Williams is.
(In fact, I don't believe that at all). I just think Graf was
better at chalking up 6-0-type sets.
The above assumes that "amateur" is quite a high form of
accomplishment. Let's assume that the male is at a peak tennis
age and is a member of a tennis club and plays every week and
has significant competitive experience.
The way I put it was misleading, as you've seen. Also it's quite
possible that many responders interpreted "your best tennis" as
"the best tennis of your life".
Post by Jerry Friedman
If it's a random male among all men who say "I play tennis"
then Serena Williams won't lose a point.
If it's a random male, it /could/ be a college varsity player
or a club pro, or Novak Djokovic.
--
Jerry Friedman
Rich Ulrich
2019-10-31 20:40:13 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 11:24:15 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
"Do you think if you were playing your very best tennis, you could win
a point off Serena Williams?
"1732 GB adults were questioned on 12 Jul 2019.
Results are weighted to be representative of the GB population."
12% of men and 3% of women picked "I think I could". 14% of men and
10% of women picked "Don't know". The other answer was "I don't
think I could."
To be on-topic, but I promise it's only for a moment, "could" is an
extremely weak criterion. Serena /could/ double-fault. She /could/
blow a return of an easy serve. She /could/ get a sudden attack
of food poisoning. The survey may just show that more British men
than British women take things literally, or take advantage of a
literal reading to give a self-confident answer.
Another literal approach would say that you have "been given"
a point but not actually "won" a point - by your playing -
when Serena double-faults.
--
Rich Ulrich
Paul
2019-10-31 20:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
recently I got into a brief discussion elsewhere about whether
Post by Jerry Friedman
typical male amateurs could win a point against Serena Williams, and it
occurred to me that she does double-fault once in a while. But that's
not "among good players".
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_1#/survey/344ce84b-a48d-11e9-8e40-79d1f09423a3/question/4d73bd62-a48f-11e9-aee6-6742cfe83f15/gender
https://bit.ly/2JEL9sB
"Do you think if you were playing your very best tennis, you could win
a point off Serena Williams?
"1732 GB adults were questioned on 12 Jul 2019.
Results are weighted to be representative of the GB population."
12% of men and 3% of women picked "I think I could". 14% of men and
10% of women picked "Don't know". The other answer was "I don't
think I could."
To be on-topic, but I promise it's only for a moment, "could" is an
extremely weak criterion. Serena /could/ double-fault. She /could/
blow a return of an easy serve. She /could/ get a sudden attack
of food poisoning. The survey may just show that more British men
than British women take things literally, or take advantage of a
literal reading to give a self-confident answer.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't think the double-faults are relevant here. Against a massively
weaker opponent, where the aim is to avoid the loss of a point, she
would simply leave enough margin on the second serve to avoid
double-faulting.
The opponent is not necessarily massively weaker.
Serena's average second serve is 91 mph.
https://www.dremio.com/serena/
(Search the page--you'll never find it by scrolling. Either I'm doing
something wrong, or the page is pushing back the frontiers of bad
design.)
That's apparently a reasonable first serve for a well-above-average male
club player (USTA rating 4.5).
If Serena took enough off to have no chance of a double-fault, she'd be
in the range where a lot of men could hit a good return, even try for a
risky winner.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I think that Serena Williams doesn't concentrate quite as well as the
other legendary womens No. 1's. In this challenge, I'd rather back
the former Navratilova or Graf than Serena Williams.
I think that, if you made sure that there was enough at stake
(a ten million dollar prize to the winner for example), then I'd expect
Serena Williams to have enough self-discipline to string together 48
consecutive points which is all that is needed.
You'll also notice that the question didn't give a limit on the
number of points--another opportunity for literalists.
Post by Jerry Friedman
However, in practice, I don't think such a generous funder could be
found. And for the purposes of pride and self-esteem, I think any
6-0 6-0 victory would work.
So, I back the male to win a point in general.
However, Graf would have avoided losing a point. I mean she
beat her own rivals with scores like 6-0 6-1.
This doesn't say that Graf was better than Serena Williams is.
(In fact, I don't believe that at all). I just think Graf was
better at chalking up 6-0-type sets.
The above assumes that "amateur" is quite a high form of
accomplishment. Let's assume that the male is at a peak tennis
age and is a member of a tennis club and plays every week and
has significant competitive experience.
The way I put it was misleading, as you've seen. Also it's quite
possible that many responders interpreted "your best tennis" as
"the best tennis of your life".
Post by Jerry Friedman
If it's a random male among all men who say "I play tennis"
then Serena Williams won't lose a point.
If it's a random male, it /could/ be a college varsity player
or a club pro, or Novak Djokovic.
If they were just random GB adults, the ones who said that they
could win a point off Serena Williams were probably ignorant.
Agreed that a 4.5 USTA player has a chance but the probability that
a random member of the public just happens to be that good at tennis
is infinitesimal.

To me the claim "I could do X" means you'd be confident in your
ability to do X if challenged.
So I interpret it differently to you.
If I say "I could win a point in a match against Serena Williams," then
I consider myself to have been proved wrong if she wins a match against
me without conceding a point.
It seems a very weak defence to say "I was right. I could win a point
in a match against Serena Williams if she happens to decide to keep
her eyes closed during the match."

Paul
Jerry Friedman
2019-10-31 21:21:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
recently I got into a brief discussion elsewhere about whether
Post by Jerry Friedman
typical male amateurs could win a point against Serena Williams, and it
occurred to me that she does double-fault once in a while. But that's
not "among good players".
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_1#/survey/344ce84b-a48d-11e9-8e40-79d1f09423a3/question/4d73bd62-a48f-11e9-aee6-6742cfe83f15/gender
https://bit.ly/2JEL9sB
"Do you think if you were playing your very best tennis, you could win
a point off Serena Williams?
"1732 GB adults were questioned on 12 Jul 2019.
Results are weighted to be representative of the GB population."
12% of men and 3% of women picked "I think I could". 14% of men and
10% of women picked "Don't know". The other answer was "I don't
think I could."
To be on-topic, but I promise it's only for a moment, "could" is an
extremely weak criterion. Serena /could/ double-fault. She /could/
blow a return of an easy serve. She /could/ get a sudden attack
of food poisoning. The survey may just show that more British men
than British women take things literally, or take advantage of a
literal reading to give a self-confident answer.
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Serena's average second serve is 91 mph.
https://www.dremio.com/serena/
(Search the page--you'll never find it by scrolling. Either I'm doing
something wrong, or the page is pushing back the frontiers of bad
design.)
That's apparently a reasonable first serve for a well-above-average male
club player (USTA rating 4.5).
If Serena took enough off to have no chance of a double-fault, she'd be
in the range where a lot of men could hit a good return, even try for a
risky winner.
...
Post by Paul
If they were just random GB adults, the ones who said that they
could win a point off Serena Williams were probably ignorant.
Agreed that a 4.5 USTA player has a chance but the probability that
a random member of the public just happens to be that good at tennis
is infinitesimal.
To me the claim "I could do X" means you'd be confident in your
ability to do X if challenged.
So I interpret it differently to you.
If I say "I could win a point in a match against Serena Williams," then
I consider myself to have been proved wrong if she wins a match against
me without conceding a point.
As I mentioned, "in a match" wasn't part of the question.

And I definitely disagree with your interpretation. *googles* If
Carla Suarez Navarro had said "I could win a game against Serena
Williams" before their match at the U.S. Open in 2012, would
Suarez Navarro's 6-0 6-0 loss have proven her wrong? Or would her
6-2 6-3 loss at the Madrid Masters in 2013 have proven her right?

"Could" suggests an "if", which I think you're taking as "If I played
Serena". So do you see a difference between these two sentences?

If I played Serena Williams, I could win a point.

If I played Serena Williams, I would win a point.
Post by Paul
It seems a very weak defence to say "I was right. I could win a point
in a match against Serena Williams if she happens to decide to keep
her eyes closed during the match."
How about "if a freak gust of wind turned one of my serves into a
winner"?
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-11-01 12:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
recently I got into a brief discussion elsewhere about whether
Post by Jerry Friedman
typical male amateurs could win a point against Serena Williams, and it
occurred to me that she does double-fault once in a while. But that's
not "among good players".
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_1#/survey/344ce84b-a48d-11e9-8e40-79d1f09423a3/question/4d73bd62-a48f-11e9-aee6-6742cfe83f15/gender
https://bit.ly/2JEL9sB
"Do you think if you were playing your very best tennis, you could win
a point off Serena Williams?
"1732 GB adults were questioned on 12 Jul 2019.
Results are weighted to be representative of the GB population."
12% of men and 3% of women picked "I think I could". 14% of men and
10% of women picked "Don't know". The other answer was "I don't
think I could."
To be on-topic, but I promise it's only for a moment, "could" is an
extremely weak criterion. Serena /could/ double-fault. She /could/
blow a return of an easy serve. She /could/ get a sudden attack
of food poisoning. The survey may just show that more British men
than British women take things literally, or take advantage of a
literal reading to give a self-confident answer.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't think the double-faults are relevant here. Against a massively
weaker opponent, where the aim is to avoid the loss of a point, she
would simply leave enough margin on the second serve to avoid
double-faulting.
The opponent is not necessarily massively weaker.
Serena's average second serve is 91 mph.
https://www.dremio.com/serena/
(Search the page--you'll never find it by scrolling. Either I'm doing
something wrong, or the page is pushing back the frontiers of bad
design.)
That's apparently a reasonable first serve for a well-above-average male
club player (USTA rating 4.5).
If Serena took enough off to have no chance of a double-fault, she'd be
in the range where a lot of men could hit a good return, even try for a
risky winner.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I think that Serena Williams doesn't concentrate quite as well as the
other legendary womens No. 1's. In this challenge, I'd rather back
the former Navratilova or Graf than Serena Williams.
I think that, if you made sure that there was enough at stake
(a ten million dollar prize to the winner for example), then I'd expect
Serena Williams to have enough self-discipline to string together 48
consecutive points which is all that is needed.
You'll also notice that the question didn't give a limit on the
number of points--another opportunity for literalists.
Post by Jerry Friedman
However, in practice, I don't think such a generous funder could be
found. And for the purposes of pride and self-esteem, I think any
6-0 6-0 victory would work.
So, I back the male to win a point in general.
However, Graf would have avoided losing a point. I mean she
beat her own rivals with scores like 6-0 6-1.
This doesn't say that Graf was better than Serena Williams is.
(In fact, I don't believe that at all). I just think Graf was
better at chalking up 6-0-type sets.
The above assumes that "amateur" is quite a high form of
accomplishment. Let's assume that the male is at a peak tennis
age and is a member of a tennis club and plays every week and
has significant competitive experience.
The way I put it was misleading, as you've seen. Also it's quite
possible that many responders interpreted "your best tennis" as
"the best tennis of your life".
Post by Jerry Friedman
If it's a random male among all men who say "I play tennis"
then Serena Williams won't lose a point.
If it's a random male, it /could/ be a college varsity player
or a club pro, or Novak Djokovic.
If they were just random GB adults, the ones who said that they
could win a point off Serena Williams were probably ignorant.
Agreed that a 4.5 USTA player has a chance but the probability that
a random member of the public just happens to be that good at tennis
is infinitesimal.
Asking the question "Do you think if you were playing your very best
tennis, you could win a point off Serena Williams?" of a
non-tennis-player is bizarre.

Many (the large majority?) of GB adults aren't tennis players and don't
know details of the game.

In effect the question is asking non-tennis players to fantasise rather
than make rational assessments.
Post by Paul
To me the claim "I could do X" means you'd be confident in your
ability to do X if challenged.
So I interpret it differently to you.
If I say "I could win a point in a match against Serena Williams," then
I consider myself to have been proved wrong if she wins a match against
me without conceding a point.
It seems a very weak defence to say "I was right. I could win a point
in a match against Serena Williams if she happens to decide to keep
her eyes closed during the match."
Paul
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-01 13:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
recently I got into a brief discussion elsewhere about whether
Post by Jerry Friedman
typical male amateurs could win a point against Serena Williams, and it
occurred to me that she does double-fault once in a while. But that's
not "among good players".
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_1#/survey/344ce84b-a48d-11e9-8e40-79d1f09423a3/question/4d73bd62-a48f-11e9-aee6-6742cfe83f15/gender
https://bit.ly/2JEL9sB
"Do you think if you were playing your very best tennis, you could win
a point off Serena Williams?
"1732 GB adults were questioned on 12 Jul 2019.
Results are weighted to be representative of the GB population."
12% of men and 3% of women picked "I think I could". 14% of men and
10% of women picked "Don't know". The other answer was "I don't
think I could."
To be on-topic, but I promise it's only for a moment, "could" is an
extremely weak criterion. Serena /could/ double-fault. She /could/
blow a return of an easy serve. She /could/ get a sudden attack
of food poisoning. The survey may just show that more British men
than British women take things literally, or take advantage of a
literal reading to give a self-confident answer.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't think the double-faults are relevant here. Against a massively
weaker opponent, where the aim is to avoid the loss of a point, she
would simply leave enough margin on the second serve to avoid
double-faulting.
The opponent is not necessarily massively weaker.
Serena's average second serve is 91 mph.
https://www.dremio.com/serena/
(Search the page--you'll never find it by scrolling. Either I'm doing
something wrong, or the page is pushing back the frontiers of bad
design.)
That's apparently a reasonable first serve for a well-above-average male
club player (USTA rating 4.5).
If Serena took enough off to have no chance of a double-fault, she'd be
in the range where a lot of men could hit a good return, even try for a
risky winner.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I think that Serena Williams doesn't concentrate quite as well as the
other legendary womens No. 1's. In this challenge, I'd rather back
the former Navratilova or Graf than Serena Williams.
I think that, if you made sure that there was enough at stake
(a ten million dollar prize to the winner for example), then I'd expect
Serena Williams to have enough self-discipline to string together 48
consecutive points which is all that is needed.
You'll also notice that the question didn't give a limit on the
number of points--another opportunity for literalists.
Post by Jerry Friedman
However, in practice, I don't think such a generous funder could be
found. And for the purposes of pride and self-esteem, I think any
6-0 6-0 victory would work.
So, I back the male to win a point in general.
However, Graf would have avoided losing a point. I mean she
beat her own rivals with scores like 6-0 6-1.
This doesn't say that Graf was better than Serena Williams is.
(In fact, I don't believe that at all). I just think Graf was
better at chalking up 6-0-type sets.
The above assumes that "amateur" is quite a high form of
accomplishment. Let's assume that the male is at a peak tennis
age and is a member of a tennis club and plays every week and
has significant competitive experience.
The way I put it was misleading, as you've seen. Also it's quite
possible that many responders interpreted "your best tennis" as
"the best tennis of your life".
Post by Jerry Friedman
If it's a random male among all men who say "I play tennis"
then Serena Williams won't lose a point.
If it's a random male, it /could/ be a college varsity player
or a club pro, or Novak Djokovic.
If they were just random GB adults, the ones who said that they
could win a point off Serena Williams were probably ignorant.
Agreed that a 4.5 USTA player has a chance but the probability that
a random member of the public just happens to be that good at tennis
is infinitesimal.
Asking the question "Do you think if you were playing your very best
tennis, you could win a point off Serena Williams?" of a
non-tennis-player is bizarre.
Many (the large majority?) of GB adults aren't tennis players and don't
know details of the game.
In effect the question is asking non-tennis players to fantasise rather
than make rational assessments.
A lot of people answered "I don't know." But I think it's rational to
answer "No" if you interpret the question something like the way Paul
does, or "Yes" if you interpret it to mean "Is it possible at all".
--
Jerry Friedman
Paul
2019-11-01 13:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
recently I got into a brief discussion elsewhere about whether
Post by Jerry Friedman
typical male amateurs could win a point against Serena Williams, and it
occurred to me that she does double-fault once in a while. But that's
not "among good players".
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_1#/survey/344ce84b-a48d-11e9-8e40-79d1f09423a3/question/4d73bd62-a48f-11e9-aee6-6742cfe83f15/gender
https://bit.ly/2JEL9sB
"Do you think if you were playing your very best tennis, you could win
a point off Serena Williams?
"1732 GB adults were questioned on 12 Jul 2019.
Results are weighted to be representative of the GB population."
12% of men and 3% of women picked "I think I could". 14% of men and
10% of women picked "Don't know". The other answer was "I don't
think I could."
To be on-topic, but I promise it's only for a moment, "could" is an
extremely weak criterion. Serena /could/ double-fault. She /could/
blow a return of an easy serve. She /could/ get a sudden attack
of food poisoning. The survey may just show that more British men
than British women take things literally, or take advantage of a
literal reading to give a self-confident answer.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't think the double-faults are relevant here. Against a massively
weaker opponent, where the aim is to avoid the loss of a point, she
would simply leave enough margin on the second serve to avoid
double-faulting.
The opponent is not necessarily massively weaker.
Serena's average second serve is 91 mph.
https://www.dremio.com/serena/
(Search the page--you'll never find it by scrolling. Either I'm doing
something wrong, or the page is pushing back the frontiers of bad
design.)
That's apparently a reasonable first serve for a well-above-average male
club player (USTA rating 4.5).
If Serena took enough off to have no chance of a double-fault, she'd be
in the range where a lot of men could hit a good return, even try for a
risky winner.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I think that Serena Williams doesn't concentrate quite as well as the
other legendary womens No. 1's. In this challenge, I'd rather back
the former Navratilova or Graf than Serena Williams.
I think that, if you made sure that there was enough at stake
(a ten million dollar prize to the winner for example), then I'd expect
Serena Williams to have enough self-discipline to string together 48
consecutive points which is all that is needed.
You'll also notice that the question didn't give a limit on the
number of points--another opportunity for literalists.
Post by Jerry Friedman
However, in practice, I don't think such a generous funder could be
found. And for the purposes of pride and self-esteem, I think any
6-0 6-0 victory would work.
So, I back the male to win a point in general.
However, Graf would have avoided losing a point. I mean she
beat her own rivals with scores like 6-0 6-1.
This doesn't say that Graf was better than Serena Williams is.
(In fact, I don't believe that at all). I just think Graf was
better at chalking up 6-0-type sets.
The above assumes that "amateur" is quite a high form of
accomplishment. Let's assume that the male is at a peak tennis
age and is a member of a tennis club and plays every week and
has significant competitive experience.
The way I put it was misleading, as you've seen. Also it's quite
possible that many responders interpreted "your best tennis" as
"the best tennis of your life".
Post by Jerry Friedman
If it's a random male among all men who say "I play tennis"
then Serena Williams won't lose a point.
If it's a random male, it /could/ be a college varsity player
or a club pro, or Novak Djokovic.
If they were just random GB adults, the ones who said that they
could win a point off Serena Williams were probably ignorant.
Agreed that a 4.5 USTA player has a chance but the probability that
a random member of the public just happens to be that good at tennis
is infinitesimal.
Asking the question "Do you think if you were playing your very best
tennis, you could win a point off Serena Williams?" of a
non-tennis-player is bizarre.
Many (the large majority?) of GB adults aren't tennis players and don't
know details of the game.
In effect the question is asking non-tennis players to fantasise rather
than make rational assessments.
A lot of people answered "I don't know." But I think it's rational to
answer "No" if you interpret the question something like the way Paul
does, or "Yes" if you interpret it to mean "Is it possible at all".
With no further information, a good tactic for Williams's opponent might
be to say "Let's keep playing until I win a point."
I think she'd be quite likely to agree.

Paul
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-01 18:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
recently I got into a brief discussion elsewhere about whether
Post by Jerry Friedman
typical male amateurs could win a point against Serena Williams, and it
occurred to me that she does double-fault once in a while. But that's
not "among good players".
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_1#/survey/344ce84b-a48d-11e9-8e40-79d1f09423a3/question/4d73bd62-a48f-11e9-aee6-6742cfe83f15/gender
https://bit.ly/2JEL9sB
"Do you think if you were playing your very best tennis, you could win
a point off Serena Williams?
"1732 GB adults were questioned on 12 Jul 2019.
Results are weighted to be representative of the GB population."
12% of men and 3% of women picked "I think I could". 14% of men and
10% of women picked "Don't know". The other answer was "I don't
think I could."
To be on-topic, but I promise it's only for a moment, "could" is an
extremely weak criterion. Serena /could/ double-fault. She /could/
blow a return of an easy serve. She /could/ get a sudden attack
of food poisoning. The survey may just show that more British men
than British women take things literally, or take advantage of a
literal reading to give a self-confident answer.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't think the double-faults are relevant here. Against a massively
weaker opponent, where the aim is to avoid the loss of a point, she
would simply leave enough margin on the second serve to avoid
double-faulting.
The opponent is not necessarily massively weaker.
Serena's average second serve is 91 mph.
https://www.dremio.com/serena/
(Search the page--you'll never find it by scrolling. Either I'm doing
something wrong, or the page is pushing back the frontiers of bad
design.)
That's apparently a reasonable first serve for a well-above-average male
club player (USTA rating 4.5).
If Serena took enough off to have no chance of a double-fault, she'd be
in the range where a lot of men could hit a good return, even try for a
risky winner.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I think that Serena Williams doesn't concentrate quite as well as the
other legendary womens No. 1's. In this challenge, I'd rather back
the former Navratilova or Graf than Serena Williams.
I think that, if you made sure that there was enough at stake
(a ten million dollar prize to the winner for example), then I'd expect
Serena Williams to have enough self-discipline to string together 48
consecutive points which is all that is needed.
You'll also notice that the question didn't give a limit on the
number of points--another opportunity for literalists.
Post by Jerry Friedman
However, in practice, I don't think such a generous funder could be
found. And for the purposes of pride and self-esteem, I think any
6-0 6-0 victory would work.
So, I back the male to win a point in general.
However, Graf would have avoided losing a point. I mean she
beat her own rivals with scores like 6-0 6-1.
This doesn't say that Graf was better than Serena Williams is.
(In fact, I don't believe that at all). I just think Graf was
better at chalking up 6-0-type sets.
The above assumes that "amateur" is quite a high form of
accomplishment. Let's assume that the male is at a peak tennis
age and is a member of a tennis club and plays every week and
has significant competitive experience.
The way I put it was misleading, as you've seen. Also it's quite
possible that many responders interpreted "your best tennis" as
"the best tennis of your life".
Post by Jerry Friedman
If it's a random male among all men who say "I play tennis"
then Serena Williams won't lose a point.
If it's a random male, it /could/ be a college varsity player
or a club pro, or Novak Djokovic.
If they were just random GB adults, the ones who said that they
could win a point off Serena Williams were probably ignorant.
Agreed that a 4.5 USTA player has a chance but the probability that
a random member of the public just happens to be that good at tennis
is infinitesimal.
Asking the question "Do you think if you were playing your very best
tennis, you could win a point off Serena Williams?" of a
non-tennis-player is bizarre.
Many (the large majority?) of GB adults aren't tennis players and don't
know details of the game.
In effect the question is asking non-tennis players to fantasise rather
than make rational assessments.
A lot of people answered "I don't know." But I think it's rational to
answer "No" if you interpret the question something like the way Paul
does, or "Yes" if you interpret it to mean "Is it possible at all".
With no further information, a good tactic for Williams's opponent might
be to say "Let's keep playing until I win a point."
I think she'd be quite likely to agree.
It might depend on what else she had to do that day, or that week...
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-11-01 23:27:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:36:13 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
recently I got into a brief discussion elsewhere about whether
Post by Jerry Friedman
typical male amateurs could win a point against Serena Williams, and it
occurred to me that she does double-fault once in a while. But that's
not "among good players".
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_1#/survey/344ce84b-a48d-11e9-8e40-79d1f09423a3/question/4d73bd62-a48f-11e9-aee6-6742cfe83f15/gender
https://bit.ly/2JEL9sB
"Do you think if you were playing your very best tennis, you could win
a point off Serena Williams?
"1732 GB adults were questioned on 12 Jul 2019.
Results are weighted to be representative of the GB population."
12% of men and 3% of women picked "I think I could". 14% of men and
10% of women picked "Don't know". The other answer was "I don't
think I could."
To be on-topic, but I promise it's only for a moment, "could" is an
extremely weak criterion. Serena /could/ double-fault. She /could/
blow a return of an easy serve. She /could/ get a sudden attack
of food poisoning. The survey may just show that more British men
than British women take things literally, or take advantage of a
literal reading to give a self-confident answer.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I don't think the double-faults are relevant here. Against a massively
weaker opponent, where the aim is to avoid the loss of a point, she
would simply leave enough margin on the second serve to avoid
double-faulting.
The opponent is not necessarily massively weaker.
Serena's average second serve is 91 mph.
https://www.dremio.com/serena/
(Search the page--you'll never find it by scrolling. Either I'm doing
something wrong, or the page is pushing back the frontiers of bad
design.)
That's apparently a reasonable first serve for a well-above-average male
club player (USTA rating 4.5).
If Serena took enough off to have no chance of a double-fault, she'd be
in the range where a lot of men could hit a good return, even try for a
risky winner.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I think that Serena Williams doesn't concentrate quite as well as the
other legendary womens No. 1's. In this challenge, I'd rather back
the former Navratilova or Graf than Serena Williams.
I think that, if you made sure that there was enough at stake
(a ten million dollar prize to the winner for example), then I'd expect
Serena Williams to have enough self-discipline to string together 48
consecutive points which is all that is needed.
You'll also notice that the question didn't give a limit on the
number of points--another opportunity for literalists.
Post by Jerry Friedman
However, in practice, I don't think such a generous funder could be
found. And for the purposes of pride and self-esteem, I think any
6-0 6-0 victory would work.
So, I back the male to win a point in general.
However, Graf would have avoided losing a point. I mean she
beat her own rivals with scores like 6-0 6-1.
This doesn't say that Graf was better than Serena Williams is.
(In fact, I don't believe that at all). I just think Graf was
better at chalking up 6-0-type sets.
The above assumes that "amateur" is quite a high form of
accomplishment. Let's assume that the male is at a peak tennis
age and is a member of a tennis club and plays every week and
has significant competitive experience.
The way I put it was misleading, as you've seen. Also it's quite
possible that many responders interpreted "your best tennis" as
"the best tennis of your life".
Post by Jerry Friedman
If it's a random male among all men who say "I play tennis"
then Serena Williams won't lose a point.
If it's a random male, it /could/ be a college varsity player
or a club pro, or Novak Djokovic.
If they were just random GB adults, the ones who said that they
could win a point off Serena Williams were probably ignorant.
Agreed that a 4.5 USTA player has a chance but the probability that
a random member of the public just happens to be that good at tennis
is infinitesimal.
Asking the question "Do you think if you were playing your very best
tennis, you could win a point off Serena Williams?" of a
non-tennis-player is bizarre.
Many (the large majority?) of GB adults aren't tennis players and don't
know details of the game.
In effect the question is asking non-tennis players to fantasise rather
than make rational assessments.
A lot of people answered "I don't know." But I think it's rational to
answer "No" if you interpret the question something like the way Paul
does, or "Yes" if you interpret it to mean "Is it possible at all".
With no further information, a good tactic for Williams's opponent might
be to say "Let's keep playing until I win a point."
I think she'd be quite likely to agree.
It might depend on what else she had to do that day, or that week...
Williams could allow the oppponent to score a point when it wass time
for her to leave.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Moylan
2019-11-01 14:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Asking the question "Do you think if you were playing your very
best tennis, you could win a point off Serena Williams?" of a
non-tennis-player is bizarre.
Many (the large majority?) of GB adults aren't tennis players and
don't know details of the game.
In effect the question is asking non-tennis players to fantasise
rather than make rational assessments.
A lot of people answered "I don't know." But I think it's rational
to answer "No" if you interpret the question something like the way
Paul does, or "Yes" if you interpret it to mean "Is it possible at
all".
I'm a very weak tennis player, but I still manage sometimes to win a
point against strong players, For example, by letting the ball just
dribble across the net, in a way that makes it impossible for anyone to
reach the ball before it has bounced. I believe I could use that move
against Serena. I'd lost the game, of course, but I'd get one point.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-01 17:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Asking the question "Do you think if you were playing your very
best tennis, you could win a point off Serena Williams?" of a
non-tennis-player is bizarre.
Many (the large majority?) of GB adults aren't tennis players and
don't know details of the game.
In effect the question is asking non-tennis players to fantasise
rather than make rational assessments.
A lot of people answered "I don't know." But I think it's rational
to answer "No" if you interpret the question something like the way
Paul does, or "Yes" if you interpret it to mean "Is it possible at
all".
I'm a very weak tennis player, but I still manage sometimes to win a
point against strong players, For example, by letting the ball just
dribble across the net, in a way that makes it impossible for anyone to
reach the ball before it has bounced. I believe I could use that move
against Serena. I'd lost the game, of course, but I'd get one point.
I sometimes used to win points like that, but the difficulty was in
doing it on purpose.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-01 15:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Asking the question "Do you think if you were playing your very best
tennis, you could win a point off Serena Williams?" of a
non-tennis-player is bizarre.
"Doc, will I be able to play the violin after my hand surgery?"
"I don't see why not."
"Great, I never could before!"
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-01 19:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Asking the question "Do you think if you were playing your very best
tennis, you could win a point off Serena Williams?" of a
non-tennis-player is bizarre.
Many (the large majority?) of GB adults aren't tennis players and don't
know details of the game.
In effect the question is asking non-tennis players to fantasise rather
than make rational assessments.
Quite. If you ask a silly question you should expect a silly answer.
--
Sam Plusnet
Quinn C
2019-10-30 22:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component. I wonder if this is less of a concern in
doubles.

They didn't discuss at all that it gives chance a greater share of the
result, as my intuition says. Although I can't say how much difference
it makes. I may have to run some simulations if I want to find out.
--
It was frequently the fastest way to find what he was looking
for, provided that he was looking for trouble.
-- L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen
b***@aol.com
2019-10-31 05:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
Post by Quinn C
I wonder if this is less of a concern in
doubles.
They didn't discuss at all that it gives chance a greater share of the
result, as my intuition says. Although I can't say how much difference
it makes. I may have to run some simulations if I want to find out.
My intuition says it favours the returner, as, statistically, the chance
of winning a point as a server is greater than of losing it by a factor
of at least 1.2 (combining first and second serves), i.e. the chance of
losing a point on service is of 1/1.2 = 0.83, whereas the chance of losing
two consecutive points on service is of 0.83² = 0.68. The chance for a
server to lose a service game that's reached a score of 40-all with the
no-ad rule is therefore 1.22 (i.e. 0.83/0.68) times greater than with the classical advantage rule. (But I may be wrong as I'm no good at math.)
Post by Quinn C
--
It was frequently the fastest way to find what he was looking
for, provided that he was looking for trouble.
-- L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen
Paul
2019-10-31 11:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
I wonder if this is less of a concern in
doubles.
They didn't discuss at all that it gives chance a greater share of the
result, as my intuition says. Although I can't say how much difference
it makes. I may have to run some simulations if I want to find out.
My intuition says it favours the returner, as, statistically, the chance
of winning a point as a server is greater than of losing it by a factor
of at least 1.2 (combining first and second serves), i.e. the chance of
losing a point on service is of 1/1.2 = 0.83, whereas the chance of losing
two consecutive points on service is of 0.83² = 0.68. The chance for a
server to lose a service game that's reached a score of 40-all with the
no-ad rule is therefore 1.22 (i.e. 0.83/0.68) times greater than with the classical advantage rule. (But I may be wrong as I'm no good at math.)
The maths is wrong -- it's more complicated than you make it seem.
But the intuition that it favours the returner is correct, assuming
the server has the advantage.
If one side has the advantage in any contest, the weaker side has maximal
chances when the contest is as short as possible.
The returner is more likely to win in a shorter game, and the underdog
is more likely to win a one-set contest than a full match.

Paul
Rich Ulrich
2019-10-31 14:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
My intuition says it favours the returner, as, statistically, the chance
of winning a point as a server is greater than of losing it by a factor
of at least 1.2 (combining first and second serves), i.e. the chance of
losing a point on service is of 1/1.2 = 0.83, whereas the chance of losing
two consecutive points on service is of 0.83² = 0.68. The chance for a
server to lose a service game that's reached a score of 40-all with the
no-ad rule is therefore 1.22 (i.e. 0.83/0.68) times greater than with the classical advantage rule. (But I may be wrong as I'm no good at math.)
The maths is wrong -- it's more complicated than you make it seem.
But the intuition that it favours the returner is correct, assuming
the server has the advantage.
If one side has the advantage in any contest, the weaker side has maximal
chances when the contest is as short as possible.
The returner is more likely to win in a shorter game, and the underdog
is more likely to win a one-set contest than a full match.
If you are weaker, shorter is better.

Here is something else that favors the receiver -

I've noticed enough examples this year that I'm sure that
the likeliest time for a pro to double-fault is on the break-point
when it will lose the whole match or the set. At least part of
that owes to strategy: That is the likeliest time to see a risky
attempt at a second-serve ace.

Of course, folding under extra pressure is the conventional
explanation, and that could contribute.

I don't know how strongly the end-of-set experience
generalizes to 40-40 in a no-ad game, but I would expect
at least a small effect.
--
Rich Ulrich
b***@aol.com
2019-10-31 15:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
The first claim is true as it seems to be based on players' statements.
The second one can be true in tight matches where the players are of about
equal value and many games go to 40-all. What is dubious is the reasoning
that superior players would be penalized by the ad-rule as they couldn't
rely on the stamina factor - because, precisely, the stamina factor would
be of little relevance with very few games going to 40-all against weaker
opponents as I said earlier.
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
I wonder if this is less of a concern in
doubles.
They didn't discuss at all that it gives chance a greater share of the
result, as my intuition says. Although I can't say how much difference
it makes. I may have to run some simulations if I want to find out.
My intuition says it favours the returner, as, statistically, the chance
of winning a point as a server is greater than of losing it by a factor
of at least 1.2 (combining first and second serves), i.e. the chance of
losing a point on service is of 1/1.2 = 0.83, whereas the chance of losing
two consecutive points on service is of 0.83² = 0.68. The chance for a
server to lose a service game that's reached a score of 40-all with the
no-ad rule is therefore 1.22 (i.e. 0.83/0.68) times greater than with the
classical advantage rule. (But I may be wrong as I'm no good at math.)
The maths is wrong
I feared so. Where does the shoe pinch?
Post by Paul
-- it's more complicated than you make it seem.
What else should be factored in?
Post by Paul
But the intuition that it favours the returner is correct, assuming
the server has the advantage.
If one side has the advantage in any contest, the weaker side has maximal
chances when the contest is as short as possible.
The returner is more likely to win in a shorter game, and the underdog
is more likely to win a one-set contest than a full match.
Paul
Quinn C
2019-10-31 16:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
The first claim is true as it seems to be based on players' statements.
The second one can be true in tight matches where the players are of about
equal value and many games go to 40-all. What is dubious is the reasoning
that superior players would be penalized by the ad-rule as they couldn't
rely on the stamina factor - because, precisely, the stamina factor would
be of little relevance with very few games going to 40-all against weaker
opponents as I said earlier.
It is intuitively obvious to me that the difference between traditional
and no-ad scoring is only relevant when the two players are very close
in overall ability.

In that case, a longer game obviously favors the person with more
stamina. But I wonder how large this component is, anyway. Is it at
least bigger than chance? People are prone to underestimate chance.
--
Trans people are scapegoated for the impossibilities of this two-box
system, but the system harms all of us. Most people have felt ashamed
of the ways we don't conform to whatever narrow idea of man or woman
has been prescribed onto our bodies -- H.P.Keenan in Slate
b***@aol.com
2019-10-31 17:17:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
The first claim is true as it seems to be based on players' statements.
The second one can be true in tight matches where the players are of about
equal value and many games go to 40-all. What is dubious is the reasoning
that superior players would be penalized by the ad-rule as they couldn't
rely on the stamina factor - because, precisely, the stamina factor would
be of little relevance with very few games going to 40-all against weaker
opponents as I said earlier.
It is intuitively obvious to me that the difference between traditional
and no-ad scoring is only relevant when the two players are very close
in overall ability.
? But the players' claim is precisely about their superiority, as partly
based on their stamina, being mitigated by the new rule.
Post by Quinn C
In that case, a longer game obviously favors the person with more
stamina. But I wonder how large this component is, anyway. Is it at
least bigger than chance? People are prone to underestimate chance.
The main factor is that a smaller number of points played statistically
favours the returner, as has been noted.
Post by Quinn C
--
Trans people are scapegoated for the impossibilities of this two-box
system, but the system harms all of us. Most people have felt ashamed
of the ways we don't conform to whatever narrow idea of man or woman
has been prescribed onto our bodies -- H.P.Keenan in Slate
Tak To
2019-11-02 18:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
The first claim is true as it seems to be based on players' statements.
The second one can be true in tight matches where the players are of about
equal value and many games go to 40-all. What is dubious is the reasoning
that superior players would be penalized by the ad-rule as they couldn't
rely on the stamina factor - because, precisely, the stamina factor would
be of little relevance with very few games going to 40-all against weaker
opponents as I said earlier.
It is intuitively obvious to me that the difference between traditional
and no-ad scoring is only relevant when the two players are very close
in overall ability.
? But the players' claim is precisely about their superiority, as partly
based on their stamina, being mitigated by the new rule.
Post by Quinn C
In that case, a longer game obviously favors the person with more
stamina. But I wonder how large this component is, anyway. Is it at
least bigger than chance? People are prone to underestimate chance.
The main factor is that a smaller number of points played statistically
favours the returner, as has been noted.
Do you really mean that, or do you mean that the smaller the
number of points, the lesser the advantage a server may have
over the returner? (The difference is that in latter case,
the server would still have an advantage even if it is down
to one point.)

If you mean the former, please give some supporting evidence.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
b***@aol.com
2019-11-02 18:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
The first claim is true as it seems to be based on players' statements.
The second one can be true in tight matches where the players are of about
equal value and many games go to 40-all. What is dubious is the reasoning
that superior players would be penalized by the ad-rule as they couldn't
rely on the stamina factor - because, precisely, the stamina factor would
be of little relevance with very few games going to 40-all against weaker
opponents as I said earlier.
It is intuitively obvious to me that the difference between traditional
and no-ad scoring is only relevant when the two players are very close
in overall ability.
? But the players' claim is precisely about their superiority, as partly
based on their stamina, being mitigated by the new rule.
Post by Quinn C
In that case, a longer game obviously favors the person with more
stamina. But I wonder how large this component is, anyway. Is it at
least bigger than chance? People are prone to underestimate chance.
The main factor is that a smaller number of points played statistically
favours the returner, as has been noted.
Do you really mean that, or do you mean that the smaller the
number of points, the lesser the advantage a server may have
over the returner? (The difference is that in latter case,
the server would still have an advantage even if it is down
to one point.)
No, the server still has an advantage with only one point with the
two interpretations. The way I employed "statistically" means
"according to statistical calculations" not "according to statistical
figures".
Post by Tak To
If you mean the former, please give some supporting evidence.
Yes I mean the former, but what I mean is that the no-ad rule favours
the returner over the classical advantage rule, not that if favours
them in such a way that they are more likely to win the point (and
therefore the game) than is the returner.
Post by Tak To
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tak To
2019-11-03 19:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
The first claim is true as it seems to be based on players' statements.
The second one can be true in tight matches where the players are of about
equal value and many games go to 40-all. What is dubious is the reasoning
that superior players would be penalized by the ad-rule as they couldn't
rely on the stamina factor - because, precisely, the stamina factor would
be of little relevance with very few games going to 40-all against weaker
opponents as I said earlier.
It is intuitively obvious to me that the difference between traditional
and no-ad scoring is only relevant when the two players are very close
in overall ability.
? But the players' claim is precisely about their superiority, as partly
based on their stamina, being mitigated by the new rule.
Post by Quinn C
In that case, a longer game obviously favors the person with more
stamina. But I wonder how large this component is, anyway. Is it at
least bigger than chance? People are prone to underestimate chance.
The main factor is that a smaller number of points played statistically
favours the returner, as has been noted.
Do you really mean that, or do you mean that the smaller the
number of points, the lesser the advantage a server may have
over the returner? (The difference is that in latter case,
the server would still have an advantage even if it is down
to one point.)
No, the server still has an advantage with only one point with the
two interpretations. The way I employed "statistically" means
"according to statistical calculations" not "according to statistical
figures".
Post by Tak To
If you mean the former, please give some supporting evidence.
Yes I mean the former, but what I mean is that the no-ad rule favours
the returner over the classical advantage rule,
What you meant then, is that
the no-ad rule favours the returner
more so than
the classical advantage rules *favours*the*returner*

No?
Post by b***@aol.com
not that if favours
them in such a way that they are more likely to win the point (and
therefore the game) than is the returner.
Sorry, I can't interpret the "than is the returner" part.

Other than that, it sounds like equivalent to the "latter"
meaning that I first wrote about.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
b***@aol.com
2019-11-03 20:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
The first claim is true as it seems to be based on players' statements.
The second one can be true in tight matches where the players are of about
equal value and many games go to 40-all. What is dubious is the reasoning
that superior players would be penalized by the ad-rule as they couldn't
rely on the stamina factor - because, precisely, the stamina factor would
be of little relevance with very few games going to 40-all against weaker
opponents as I said earlier.
It is intuitively obvious to me that the difference between traditional
and no-ad scoring is only relevant when the two players are very close
in overall ability.
? But the players' claim is precisely about their superiority, as partly
based on their stamina, being mitigated by the new rule.
Post by Quinn C
In that case, a longer game obviously favors the person with more
stamina. But I wonder how large this component is, anyway. Is it at
least bigger than chance? People are prone to underestimate chance.
The main factor is that a smaller number of points played statistically
favours the returner, as has been noted.
Do you really mean that, or do you mean that the smaller the
number of points, the lesser the advantage a server may have
over the returner? (The difference is that in latter case,
the server would still have an advantage even if it is down
to one point.)
No, the server still has an advantage with only one point with the
two interpretations. The way I employed "statistically" means
"according to statistical calculations" not "according to statistical
figures".
Post by Tak To
If you mean the former, please give some supporting evidence.
Yes I mean the former, but what I mean is that the no-ad rule favours
the returner over the classical advantage rule,
What you meant then, is that
the no-ad rule favours the returner
more so than
the classical advantage rules *favours*the*returner*
No?
No, it can't favour both, even to various degrees. However, there could
be scenarios involving three parties, where A is more favoured than B
with regard to C.
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
not that if favours
them in such a way that they are more likely to win the point (and
therefore the game) than is the returner.
Sorry, I can't interpret the "than is the returner" part.
..."than the returner is likely to win the point"... Is this phrasing
ungrammatical?
Post by Tak To
Other than that, it sounds like equivalent to the "latter"
meaning that I first wrote about.
Actually, what I said was incompatible with neither of the two
meanings you first wrote about, but it seems your "Do you really
mean that?" implied my sentence meant "In view of available statistics,
returners more often win than servers when small numbers of points
are played" (which would imply there are more games won at love, 15 or
30 by returners than by servers), whereas I meant that in theory (as
shown by the math), the server has a higher chance of winning a
larger number of consecutive points than the returner. In fact, given
the actual meaning of my sentence, your two assumptions amounted to
one.
Post by Tak To
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
b***@aol.com
2019-11-03 20:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
The first claim is true as it seems to be based on players' statements.
The second one can be true in tight matches where the players are of about
equal value and many games go to 40-all. What is dubious is the reasoning
that superior players would be penalized by the ad-rule as they couldn't
rely on the stamina factor - because, precisely, the stamina factor would
be of little relevance with very few games going to 40-all against weaker
opponents as I said earlier.
It is intuitively obvious to me that the difference between traditional
and no-ad scoring is only relevant when the two players are very close
in overall ability.
? But the players' claim is precisely about their superiority, as partly
based on their stamina, being mitigated by the new rule.
Post by Quinn C
In that case, a longer game obviously favors the person with more
stamina. But I wonder how large this component is, anyway. Is it at
least bigger than chance? People are prone to underestimate chance.
The main factor is that a smaller number of points played statistically
favours the returner, as has been noted.
Do you really mean that, or do you mean that the smaller the
number of points, the lesser the advantage a server may have
over the returner? (The difference is that in latter case,
the server would still have an advantage even if it is down
to one point.)
No, the server still has an advantage with only one point with the
two interpretations. The way I employed "statistically" means
"according to statistical calculations" not "according to statistical
figures".
Post by Tak To
If you mean the former, please give some supporting evidence.
Yes I mean the former, but what I mean is that the no-ad rule favours
the returner over the classical advantage rule,
What you meant then, is that
the no-ad rule favours the returner
more so than
the classical advantage rules *favours*the*returner*
No?
No, it can't favour both, even to various degrees. However, there could
be scenarios involving three parties, where A is more favoured than B
with regard to C.
Please disregard the above answer, as I misread what your wrote.

Actually, I don't think the classical advantage rule favours the
returner at all, I just think that the no-ad rule "favours" the
returner with regard to the server in that it (even if very little)
increases the returner's chance to win the game.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
not that if favours
them in such a way that they are more likely to win the point (and
therefore the game) than is the returner.
Sorry, I can't interpret the "than is the returner" part.
..."than the returner is likely to win the point"... Is this phrasing
ungrammatical?
Post by Tak To
Other than that, it sounds like equivalent to the "latter"
meaning that I first wrote about.
Actually, what I said was incompatible with neither of the two
meanings you first wrote about, but it seems your "Do you really
mean that?" implied my sentence meant "In view of available statistics,
returners more often win than servers when small numbers of points
are played" (which would imply there are more games won at love, 15 or
30 by returners than by servers), whereas I meant that in theory (as
shown by the math), the server has a higher chance of winning a
larger number of consecutive points than the returner. In fact, given
the actual meaning of my sentence, your two assumptions amounted to
one.
Post by Tak To
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tak To
2019-11-05 16:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
The first claim is true as it seems to be based on players' statements.
The second one can be true in tight matches where the players are of about
equal value and many games go to 40-all. What is dubious is the reasoning
that superior players would be penalized by the ad-rule as they couldn't
rely on the stamina factor - because, precisely, the stamina factor would
be of little relevance with very few games going to 40-all against weaker
opponents as I said earlier.
It is intuitively obvious to me that the difference between traditional
and no-ad scoring is only relevant when the two players are very close
in overall ability.
? But the players' claim is precisely about their superiority, as partly
based on their stamina, being mitigated by the new rule.
Post by Quinn C
In that case, a longer game obviously favors the person with more
stamina. But I wonder how large this component is, anyway. Is it at
least bigger than chance? People are prone to underestimate chance.
The main factor is that a smaller number of points played statistically
favours the returner, as has been noted.
Do you really mean that, or do you mean that the smaller the
number of points, the lesser the advantage a server may have
over the returner? (The difference is that in latter case,
the server would still have an advantage even if it is down
to one point.)
[...]
Post by b***@aol.com
Actually, I don't think the classical advantage rule favours the
returner at all I just think that the no-ad rule "favours" the> returner with regard to the server in that it (even if very little)
increases the returner's chance to win the game.
I think you and I see the word "favour" differently. To me,
"A favours X (over Y)" implies strongly that at the end, X will
have an advantage over Y. Cf "A helps X (more than it helps Y)".
Hence the original question. All is clear now.

----- -----
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
not that if favours
them in such a way that they are more likely to win the point (and
therefore the game) than is the returner.
Sorry, I can't interpret the "than is the returner" part.
..."than the returner is likely to win the point"... Is this phrasing
ungrammatical?
Still makes no sense to me. What does "they" refer to in the
first half of the comparison?

----- -----
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
b***@aol.com
2019-11-05 18:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
The first claim is true as it seems to be based on players' statements.
The second one can be true in tight matches where the players are of about
equal value and many games go to 40-all. What is dubious is the reasoning
that superior players would be penalized by the ad-rule as they couldn't
rely on the stamina factor - because, precisely, the stamina factor would
be of little relevance with very few games going to 40-all against weaker
opponents as I said earlier.
It is intuitively obvious to me that the difference between traditional
and no-ad scoring is only relevant when the two players are very close
in overall ability.
? But the players' claim is precisely about their superiority, as partly
based on their stamina, being mitigated by the new rule.
Post by Quinn C
In that case, a longer game obviously favors the person with more
stamina. But I wonder how large this component is, anyway. Is it at
least bigger than chance? People are prone to underestimate chance.
The main factor is that a smaller number of points played statistically
favours the returner, as has been noted.
Do you really mean that, or do you mean that the smaller the
number of points, the lesser the advantage a server may have
over the returner? (The difference is that in latter case,
the server would still have an advantage even if it is down
to one point.)
[...]
Post by b***@aol.com
Actually, I don't think the classical advantage rule favours the
returner at all I just think that the no-ad rule "favours" the> returner with regard to the server in that it (even if very little)
increases the returner's chance to win the game.
I think you and I see the word "favour" differently. To me,
"A favours X (over Y)" implies strongly that at the end, X will
have an advantage over Y. Cf "A helps X (more than it helps Y)".
Hence the original question. All is clear now.
----- -----
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
not that if favours
them in such a way that they are more likely to win the point (and
therefore the game) than is the returner.
Sorry, I can't interpret the "than is the returner" part.
..."than the returner is likely to win the point"... Is this phrasing
ungrammatical?
Still makes no sense to me. What does "they" refer to in the
first half of the comparison?
It refers to the returner, who can be a man or a woman, hence "they".
However, I just realized that the end of the sentence, "...than is
the returner", was a thinko and I should have written "...than is the
server".
Post by Tak To
----- -----
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-03 23:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
The first claim is true as it seems to be based on players' statements.
The second one can be true in tight matches where the players are of about
equal value and many games go to 40-all. What is dubious is the reasoning
that superior players would be penalized by the ad-rule as they couldn't
rely on the stamina factor - because, precisely, the stamina factor would
be of little relevance with very few games going to 40-all against weaker
opponents as I said earlier.
It is intuitively obvious to me that the difference between traditional
and no-ad scoring is only relevant when the two players are very close
in overall ability.
? But the players' claim is precisely about their superiority, as partly
based on their stamina, being mitigated by the new rule.
Post by Quinn C
In that case, a longer game obviously favors the person with more
stamina. But I wonder how large this component is, anyway. Is it at
least bigger than chance? People are prone to underestimate chance.
The main factor is that a smaller number of points played statistically
favours the returner, as has been noted.
Do you really mean that, or do you mean that the smaller the
number of points, the lesser the advantage a server may have
over the returner? (The difference is that in latter case,
the server would still have an advantage even if it is down
to one point.)
No, the server still has an advantage with only one point with the
two interpretations. The way I employed "statistically" means
"according to statistical calculations" not "according to statistical
figures".
Post by Tak To
If you mean the former, please give some supporting evidence.
Yes I mean the former, but what I mean is that the no-ad rule favours
the returner over the classical advantage rule,
What you meant then, is that
the no-ad rule favours the returner
more so than
the classical advantage rules *favours*the*returner*
No?
No, it can't favour both, even to various degrees. However, there could
be scenarios involving three parties, where A is more favoured than B
with regard to C.
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
not that if favours
them in such a way that they are more likely to win the point (and
therefore the game) than is the returner.
Sorry, I can't interpret the "than is the returner" part.
..."than the returner is likely to win the point"... Is this phrasing
ungrammatical?
...
It's fine and rather high-faluting. "...than the returner is" is
probably more common. (And I call that person the receiver.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-03 23:38:04 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Tak To
Post by b***@aol.com
The main factor is that a smaller number of points played statistically
favours the returner, as has been noted.
Do you really mean that, or do you mean that the smaller the
number of points, the lesser the advantage a server may have
over the returner? (The difference is that in latter case,
the server would still have an advantage even if it is down
to one point.)
No, the server still has an advantage with only one point with the
two interpretations. The way I employed "statistically" means
"according to statistical calculations" not "according to statistical
figures".
Post by Tak To
If you mean the former, please give some supporting evidence.
Yes I mean the former, but what I mean is that the no-ad rule favours
the returner over the classical advantage rule,
What you meant then, is that
the no-ad rule favours the returner
more so than
the classical advantage rules *favours*the*returner*
...

That "so" is very common, maybe especially these days, but I consider it
non-standard (if you're interested).
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2019-11-04 00:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tak To
What you meant then, is that
the no-ad rule favours the returner
more so than
the classical advantage rules *favours*the*returner*
...
That "so" is very common, maybe especially these days, but I consider it
non-standard (if you're interested).
I agree with you, simply because the "so" has no referent. There are
some other situations where the "so" would be perfectly OK.

What really bothers me is when people leave out the space and write
"moreso". That always throws me, to the point where I read it with the
stress on the middle syllable.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Paul
2019-10-31 20:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
The first claim is true as it seems to be based on players' statements.
The second one can be true in tight matches where the players are of about
equal value and many games go to 40-all. What is dubious is the reasoning
that superior players would be penalized by the ad-rule as they couldn't
rely on the stamina factor - because, precisely, the stamina factor would
be of little relevance with very few games going to 40-all against weaker
opponents as I said earlier.
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
I wonder if this is less of a concern in
doubles.
They didn't discuss at all that it gives chance a greater share of the
result, as my intuition says. Although I can't say how much difference
it makes. I may have to run some simulations if I want to find out.
My intuition says it favours the returner, as, statistically, the chance
of winning a point as a server is greater than of losing it by a factor
of at least 1.2 (combining first and second serves), i.e. the chance of
losing a point on service is of 1/1.2 = 0.83, whereas the chance of losing
two consecutive points on service is of 0.83² = 0.68. The chance for a
server to lose a service game that's reached a score of 40-all with the
no-ad rule is therefore 1.22 (i.e. 0.83/0.68) times greater than with the
classical advantage rule. (But I may be wrong as I'm no good at math.)
The maths is wrong
I feared so. Where does the shoe pinch?
Post by Paul
-- it's more complicated than you make it seem.
What else should be factored in?
...
It's great that you're interested!
I have to answer these types of questions all the time when I apply
for analyst or developer jobs at bookmakers.

It depends on the precise numbers of course.
Let's take an example that seems to correspond to yours.
The first step is to calculate the probability of the server winning a single point. Let's call this probability s.
The probability of the server winning a point and the probability of
the receiver winning a point must sum to 1.
And let us assume, per your example, that s = 1.2 * prob(receiver winning).
We then get s + s/1.2 = 1.
So s = 1 /( 1 + 1/1.2) = 6/11.
So the server's probability of winning the next point is 6/11.
Let's consider that the game has reached 40-40.
With no-ad scoring, the server wins with probability 6/11.
With normal scoring, it gets tricky.
We let x denote the probability that the server wins from 40-40.
It is this x that needs to be calculated.
The server has three ways of winning.
1) The server can simply win the next two points.
2) The server can lose the next point and then win the point
and then win from deuce.
3) The server can win and then lose and then win from deuce.

x is the sum of the probabilities from all events 1), 2) and 3).
Note that 2) and 3) have equal probability.

We then get the equation: x = 6/11 * 6/11 + 2 * x * (1 - 6/11) * 6/11
and the next step is simply bringing the x terms to the same side.

x = 6/11 * 6/11/( 1 - 2 * 5/11 * 6/11) =
36/121/ (61/121) = 36/61

So with your figures (as I understand them), assuming 40-40 is reached,
the no-ad rule leads to the server winning 54.5% of the time and
the normal rules lead to the server winning 59% of the time.

Admittedly, these figures seem low but that is because your quoted
ratio of 1.2 is low. Usually, in pro tennis, we expect the server to
win more than 1.2 times as often as the receiver.

If we're interested in the ratio, then the ratio (increased advantage
to the server) is 36/61/(6/11) = 396/366 = 1.08 (approx).

Paul
Rich Ulrich
2019-10-31 21:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
The first claim is true as it seems to be based on players' statements.
The second one can be true in tight matches where the players are of about
equal value and many games go to 40-all. What is dubious is the reasoning
that superior players would be penalized by the ad-rule as they couldn't
rely on the stamina factor - because, precisely, the stamina factor would
be of little relevance with very few games going to 40-all against weaker
opponents as I said earlier.
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
I wonder if this is less of a concern in
doubles.
They didn't discuss at all that it gives chance a greater share of the
result, as my intuition says. Although I can't say how much difference
it makes. I may have to run some simulations if I want to find out.
My intuition says it favours the returner, as, statistically, the chance
of winning a point as a server is greater than of losing it by a factor
of at least 1.2 (combining first and second serves), i.e. the chance of
losing a point on service is of 1/1.2 = 0.83, whereas the chance of losing
two consecutive points on service is of 0.83² = 0.68. The chance for a
server to lose a service game that's reached a score of 40-all with the
no-ad rule is therefore 1.22 (i.e. 0.83/0.68) times greater than with the
classical advantage rule. (But I may be wrong as I'm no good at math.)
The maths is wrong
I feared so. Where does the shoe pinch?
Post by Paul
-- it's more complicated than you make it seem.
What else should be factored in?
...
It's great that you're interested!
I have to answer these types of questions all the time when I apply
for analyst or developer jobs at bookmakers.
It depends on the precise numbers of course.
Let's take an example that seems to correspond to yours.
The first step is to calculate the probability of the server winning a single point. Let's call this probability s.
The probability of the server winning a point and the probability of
the receiver winning a point must sum to 1.
And let us assume, per your example, that s = 1.2 * prob(receiver winning).
We then get s + s/1.2 = 1.
So s = 1 /( 1 + 1/1.2) = 6/11.
So the server's probability of winning the next point is 6/11.
Let's consider that the game has reached 40-40.
With no-ad scoring, the server wins with probability 6/11.
With normal scoring, it gets tricky.
We let x denote the probability that the server wins from 40-40.
It is this x that needs to be calculated.
The server has three ways of winning.
1) The server can simply win the next two points.
2) The server can lose the next point and then win the point
and then win from deuce.
3) The server can win and then lose and then win from deuce.
x is the sum of the probabilities from all events 1), 2) and 3).
Note that 2) and 3) have equal probability.
We then get the equation: x = 6/11 * 6/11 + 2 * x * (1 - 6/11) * 6/11
and the next step is simply bringing the x terms to the same side.
x = 6/11 * 6/11/( 1 - 2 * 5/11 * 6/11) =
36/121/ (61/121) = 36/61
I got the same answer, but I didn't like the way you
describe for getting there. Where is the infinite repetition?

I would say: At deuce, the 6/11ths chance for the server
results in 36 of 121 game-terminating wins, and 5/11ths
results in 25 of 121 terminating loses.

Adding 25 to 36 yields your result, 36 of 61 ends, of each 121,
going to the server. 60 of 121 times, there is another deuce,
so there is a continued sum (I think I recall that technical term).

If the game does not terminate, the cycle repeats and
gives exactly the same numbers at each step. The infinite
sum (p's adding to 1.0) of possible number of steps always
is a sum with a coefficient times 36/61, so the sum is 36/61.
Post by Paul
So with your figures (as I understand them), assuming 40-40 is reached,
the no-ad rule leads to the server winning 54.5% of the time and
the normal rules lead to the server winning 59% of the time.
Admittedly, these figures seem low but that is because your quoted
ratio of 1.2 is low. Usually, in pro tennis, we expect the server to
win more than 1.2 times as often as the receiver.
OTOH, the more uneven they are, the less likely is it that
the score reaches 40-40. Also - the server who gets broken
a lot is in a match where they may be winning even less than
half the points on their own serve.
Post by Paul
If we're interested in the ratio, then the ratio (increased advantage
to the server) is 36/61/(6/11) = 396/366 = 1.08 (approx).
--
Rich Ulrich
Paul
2019-10-31 21:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
The first claim is true as it seems to be based on players' statements.
The second one can be true in tight matches where the players are of about
equal value and many games go to 40-all. What is dubious is the reasoning
that superior players would be penalized by the ad-rule as they couldn't
rely on the stamina factor - because, precisely, the stamina factor would
be of little relevance with very few games going to 40-all against weaker
opponents as I said earlier.
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
I wonder if this is less of a concern in
doubles.
They didn't discuss at all that it gives chance a greater share of the
result, as my intuition says. Although I can't say how much difference
it makes. I may have to run some simulations if I want to find out.
My intuition says it favours the returner, as, statistically, the chance
of winning a point as a server is greater than of losing it by a factor
of at least 1.2 (combining first and second serves), i.e. the chance of
losing a point on service is of 1/1.2 = 0.83, whereas the chance of losing
two consecutive points on service is of 0.83² = 0.68. The chance for a
server to lose a service game that's reached a score of 40-all with the
no-ad rule is therefore 1.22 (i.e. 0.83/0.68) times greater than with the
classical advantage rule. (But I may be wrong as I'm no good at math.)
The maths is wrong
I feared so. Where does the shoe pinch?
Post by Paul
-- it's more complicated than you make it seem.
What else should be factored in?
...
It's great that you're interested!
I have to answer these types of questions all the time when I apply
for analyst or developer jobs at bookmakers.
It depends on the precise numbers of course.
Let's take an example that seems to correspond to yours.
The first step is to calculate the probability of the server winning a single point. Let's call this probability s.
The probability of the server winning a point and the probability of
the receiver winning a point must sum to 1.
And let us assume, per your example, that s = 1.2 * prob(receiver winning).
We then get s + s/1.2 = 1.
So s = 1 /( 1 + 1/1.2) = 6/11.
So the server's probability of winning the next point is 6/11.
Let's consider that the game has reached 40-40.
With no-ad scoring, the server wins with probability 6/11.
With normal scoring, it gets tricky.
We let x denote the probability that the server wins from 40-40.
It is this x that needs to be calculated.
The server has three ways of winning.
1) The server can simply win the next two points.
2) The server can lose the next point and then win the point
and then win from deuce.
3) The server can win and then lose and then win from deuce.
x is the sum of the probabilities from all events 1), 2) and 3).
Note that 2) and 3) have equal probability.
We then get the equation: x = 6/11 * 6/11 + 2 * x * (1 - 6/11) * 6/11
and the next step is simply bringing the x terms to the same side.
x = 6/11 * 6/11/( 1 - 2 * 5/11 * 6/11) =
36/121/ (61/121) = 36/61
I got the same answer, but I didn't like the way you
describe for getting there. Where is the infinite repetition?
I would say: At deuce, the 6/11ths chance for the server
results in 36 of 121 game-terminating wins, and 5/11ths
results in 25 of 121 terminating loses.
Adding 25 to 36 yields your result, 36 of 61 ends, of each 121,
going to the server. 60 of 121 times, there is another deuce,
so there is a continued sum (I think I recall that technical term).
If the game does not terminate, the cycle repeats and
gives exactly the same numbers at each step. The infinite
sum (p's adding to 1.0) of possible number of steps always
is a sum with a coefficient times 36/61, so the sum is 36/61.
...

It's not at all clear to me why you don't like my method.
One way uses an infinite repetition -- my way doesn't.
Both approaches work equally well.
They ask these questions at job interviews. It's a matter of
being clear and convincing.

Paul
Jerry Friedman
2019-10-31 21:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
The first claim is true as it seems to be based on players' statements.
The second one can be true in tight matches where the players are of about
equal value and many games go to 40-all. What is dubious is the reasoning
that superior players would be penalized by the ad-rule as they couldn't
rely on the stamina factor - because, precisely, the stamina factor would
be of little relevance with very few games going to 40-all against weaker
opponents as I said earlier.
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
I wonder if this is less of a concern in
doubles.
They didn't discuss at all that it gives chance a greater share of the
result, as my intuition says. Although I can't say how much difference
it makes. I may have to run some simulations if I want to find out.
My intuition says it favours the returner, as, statistically, the chance
of winning a point as a server is greater than of losing it by a factor
of at least 1.2 (combining first and second serves), i.e. the chance of
losing a point on service is of 1/1.2 = 0.83, whereas the chance of losing
two consecutive points on service is of 0.83² = 0.68. The chance for a
server to lose a service game that's reached a score of 40-all with the
no-ad rule is therefore 1.22 (i.e. 0.83/0.68) times greater than with the
classical advantage rule. (But I may be wrong as I'm no good at math.)
The maths is wrong
I feared so. Where does the shoe pinch?
Post by Paul
-- it's more complicated than you make it seem.
What else should be factored in?
...
It's great that you're interested!
I have to answer these types of questions all the time when I apply
for analyst or developer jobs at bookmakers.
It depends on the precise numbers of course.
Let's take an example that seems to correspond to yours.
The first step is to calculate the probability of the server winning a single point. Let's call this probability s.
The probability of the server winning a point and the probability of
the receiver winning a point must sum to 1.
And let us assume, per your example, that s = 1.2 * prob(receiver winning).
We then get s + s/1.2 = 1.
So s = 1 /( 1 + 1/1.2) = 6/11.
So the server's probability of winning the next point is 6/11.
Let's consider that the game has reached 40-40.
With no-ad scoring, the server wins with probability 6/11.
With normal scoring, it gets tricky.
We let x denote the probability that the server wins from 40-40.
It is this x that needs to be calculated.
The server has three ways of winning.
1) The server can simply win the next two points.
2) The server can lose the next point and then win the point
and then win from deuce.
3) The server can win and then lose and then win from deuce.
x is the sum of the probabilities from all events 1), 2) and 3).
Note that 2) and 3) have equal probability.
We then get the equation: x = 6/11 * 6/11 + 2 * x * (1 - 6/11) * 6/11
and the next step is simply bringing the x terms to the same side.
x = 6/11 * 6/11/( 1 - 2 * 5/11 * 6/11) =
36/121/ (61/121) = 36/61
I got the same answer, but I didn't like the way you
describe for getting there. Where is the infinite repetition?
...

It's in "win from deuce". AIUI, Paul's x is the probability of
winning from deuce after any number (including 0) of subsequent
deuces.
--
Jerry Friedman
Rich Ulrich
2019-11-01 03:01:52 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:48:16 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

me>
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
I got the same answer, but I didn't like the way you
describe for getting there. Where is the infinite repetition?
...
It's in "win from deuce". AIUI, Paul's x is the probability of
winning from deuce after any number (including 0) of subsequent
Okay. That finally got through to me.

The probability of "winning in the two points after deuce"
is always the same. So you can get the answer when you
solve for win/lose just once.

Still, we must think of it a bit differently because I would
solve directly for "win" and "lose", squaring each of
p and (1-p), instead of that indirect computation.
--
Rich Ulrich
Paul
2019-11-01 09:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:48:16 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
me>
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
I got the same answer, but I didn't like the way you
describe for getting there. Where is the infinite repetition?
...
It's in "win from deuce". AIUI, Paul's x is the probability of
winning from deuce after any number (including 0) of subsequent
Okay. That finally got through to me.
The probability of "winning in the two points after deuce"
is always the same. So you can get the answer when you
solve for win/lose just once.
Still, we must think of it a bit differently because I would
solve directly for "win" and "lose", squaring each of
p and (1-p), instead of that indirect computation.
Well, there are two common ways of doing it -- the way I did it,
and the way you did it.

Since I fully appreciate and understand both ways of doing it, I'm not sure that
I'm thinking "differently" to you.

If you thought your way was the unique right way to do it, and I
thought my way was the unique right way to do it, then we'd be thinking
differently.

A political analogy might help.
Suppose we have a presentation of the news as seen by Tucker Carlson.
He would present from a Conservative or right-wing point of view.

Then we could have a presentation by Rachel Maddows, who would present
from a progressive or left-wing point of view.

These two people would be thinking differently.

However, suppose the anchor is non-partisan and follows up with a
short summary of Carlson's presentation, together with a short summary
of that of Maddows.
Would the commentator be "thinking differently" while giving the different
summaries?
I think the answer is a clear "No" -- both ways are conscientious attempts
to represent another person's point of view.

Paul
Quinn C
2019-11-01 16:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:48:16 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
me>
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
I got the same answer, but I didn't like the way you
describe for getting there. Where is the infinite repetition?
...
It's in "win from deuce". AIUI, Paul's x is the probability of
winning from deuce after any number (including 0) of subsequent
Okay. That finally got through to me.
The probability of "winning in the two points after deuce"
is always the same. So you can get the answer when you
solve for win/lose just once.
Still, we must think of it a bit differently because I would
solve directly for "win" and "lose", squaring each of
p and (1-p), instead of that indirect computation.
Well, there are two common ways of doing it -- the way I did it,
and the way you did it.
Since I fully appreciate and understand both ways of doing it, I'm not sure that
I'm thinking "differently" to you.
If you thought your way was the unique right way to do it, and I
thought my way was the unique right way to do it, then we'd be thinking
differently.
A political analogy might help.
If you think a political analogy can help clarify a mathematical
question, then you clearly think differently from me.
--
It was frequently the fastest way to find what he was looking
for, provided that he was looking for trouble.
-- L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen
Paul
2019-11-01 17:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:48:16 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
me>
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
I got the same answer, but I didn't like the way you
describe for getting there. Where is the infinite repetition?
...
It's in "win from deuce". AIUI, Paul's x is the probability of
winning from deuce after any number (including 0) of subsequent
Okay. That finally got through to me.
The probability of "winning in the two points after deuce"
is always the same. So you can get the answer when you
solve for win/lose just once.
Still, we must think of it a bit differently because I would
solve directly for "win" and "lose", squaring each of
p and (1-p), instead of that indirect computation.
Well, there are two common ways of doing it -- the way I did it,
and the way you did it.
Since I fully appreciate and understand both ways of doing it, I'm not sure that
I'm thinking "differently" to you.
If you thought your way was the unique right way to do it, and I
thought my way was the unique right way to do it, then we'd be thinking
differently.
A political analogy might help.
If you think a political analogy can help clarify a mathematical
question, then you clearly think differently from me.
Analogies from outside of mathematics are used in mathematical discourse
all the time.
For example, there's Hall's Marriage Theorem.
Do you object to that on the ground that "If Hall think that the marriage
concept can be used to explain mathematics, then Hall thinks very
differently to me." ?

Paul
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-01 22:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:48:16 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
me>
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
I got the same answer, but I didn't like the way you
describe for getting there. Where is the infinite repetition?
...
It's in "win from deuce". AIUI, Paul's x is the probability of
winning from deuce after any number (including 0) of subsequent
Okay. That finally got through to me.
The probability of "winning in the two points after deuce"
is always the same.
Next: modeling the result if one player has an advantage in stamina.
Post by Rich Ulrich
So you can get the answer when you
solve for win/lose just once.
Still, we must think of it a bit differently because I would
solve directly for "win" and "lose", squaring each of
p and (1-p), instead of that indirect computation.
I like the trick that's similar to how you find the sum of a
geometric series or evaluate the continued fraction that's all
1's.
--
Jerry Friedman
RH Draney
2019-11-01 23:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
I like the trick that's similar to how you find the sum of a
geometric series or evaluate the continued fraction that's all
1's.
How are you on simplifying fractions to lowest terms?


Loading Image...

....r
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-02 01:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Jerry Friedman
I like the trick that's similar to how you find the sum of a
geometric series or evaluate the continued fraction that's all
1's.
How are you on simplifying fractions to lowest terms?
https://what.thedailywtf.com/assets/uploads/files/1559677397433-bogusmath.gif
*sigh*
--
Jerry Friedman
Paul
2019-11-02 10:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:48:16 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
me>
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
I got the same answer, but I didn't like the way you
describe for getting there. Where is the infinite repetition?
...
It's in "win from deuce". AIUI, Paul's x is the probability of
winning from deuce after any number (including 0) of subsequent
Okay. That finally got through to me.
The probability of "winning in the two points after deuce"
is always the same.
Next: modeling the result if one player has an advantage in stamina.
...

I've never worked specifically in tennis.
Tennis models are extremely good.
In practice, people use simple smooth models and
make them live when the backtesting indicates profits.

There will be a few commercial losses in the early
days, and these will lead to iterations and improvements.

All that is vague waffle which doesn't address your issue.
To model the cases where A has more stamina than B:
Consider A's probability of winning when serving,
and A's probability of winning when receiving.
If A has more stamina, then both these probabilities
increase smoothly as the length of the match (in terms of time)
increases.
Find a smoothing function that works in practice on large
samples but take care to distinguish between in-sample
testing and out-of-sample testing.

The thing about tennis is that tennis modelling is extremely old,
so these techniques have been perfected.
This is because tennis is such a popular sport to bet on.
Another reason the models can be made good is that the sample
of available data is so large.

Paul
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-02 14:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:48:16 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
me>
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
I got the same answer, but I didn't like the way you
describe for getting there. Where is the infinite repetition?
...
It's in "win from deuce". AIUI, Paul's x is the probability of
winning from deuce after any number (including 0) of subsequent
Okay. That finally got through to me.
The probability of "winning in the two points after deuce"
is always the same.
Next: modeling the result if one player has an advantage in stamina.
...
I've never worked specifically in tennis.
Tennis models are extremely good.
In practice, people use simple smooth models and
make them live when the backtesting indicates profits.
That is, bookmakers make simple smooth models and offer bets based on
them when testing them against past results indicates profits?
Post by Paul
There will be a few commercial losses in the early
days, and these will lead to iterations and improvements.
All that is vague waffle which doesn't address your issue.
Consider A's probability of winning when serving,
and A's probability of winning when receiving.
If A has more stamina, then both these probabilities
increase smoothly as the length of the match (in terms of time)
increases.
Find a smoothing function that works in practice on large
samples but take care to distinguish between in-sample
testing and out-of-sample testing.
I was actually thinking of stamina in one game, since we were talking
about the probability of winning a game that reaches deuce, but no doubt
the same idea works.
Post by Paul
The thing about tennis is that tennis modelling is extremely old,
so these techniques have been perfected.
This is because tennis is such a popular sport to bet on.
A whole different world from mine. Betting on sports is illegal in much
of the U.S., and I believe it has become as widely legal as it is only
in recent years. I've never heard of anyone betting on tennis. No
doubt you can bet on tennis with a bookmaker here even where it's still
illegal, and the bookies (part of organized crime in those places) use
sophisticated modeling techniques, but it wouldn't be talked about much.
Post by Paul
Another reason the models can be made good is that the sample
of available data is so large.
Paul
--
Jerry Friedman
Paul
2019-11-02 15:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:48:16 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
me>
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
I got the same answer, but I didn't like the way you
describe for getting there. Where is the infinite repetition?
...
It's in "win from deuce". AIUI, Paul's x is the probability of
winning from deuce after any number (including 0) of subsequent
Okay. That finally got through to me.
The probability of "winning in the two points after deuce"
is always the same.
Next: modeling the result if one player has an advantage in stamina.
...
I've never worked specifically in tennis.
Tennis models are extremely good.
In practice, people use simple smooth models and
make them live when the backtesting indicates profits.
That is, bookmakers make simple smooth models and offer bets based on
them when testing them against past results indicates profits?
...

Yes, that is what I meant. During the final stages of development,
an attempt is made to simulate what would happen if bets were allowed
in practice. If there is sufficient evidence that it would boost profits,
the bets can be offered.

Paul
Peter Moylan
2019-11-02 21:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Paul
The thing about tennis is that tennis modelling is extremely old,
so these techniques have been perfected. This is because tennis is
such a popular sport to bet on.
A whole different world from mine. Betting on sports is illegal in
much of the U.S., and I believe it has become as widely legal as it
is only in recent years. I've never heard of anyone betting on
tennis. No doubt you can bet on tennis with a bookmaker here even
where it's still illegal, and the bookies (part of organized crime in
those places) use sophisticated modeling techniques, but it wouldn't
be talked about much.
Two or three years ago, greyhound racing became controversial in
Australia. It started with a TV documentary that exposed widespread use
of live baiting when training the dogs to race. Subsequently it turned
out that the greyhounds themselves were being mistreated. It peaked when
mass graves were discovered of "surplus to requirements" greyhounds.

The NSW Premier announced a ban on greyhound racing, but then
backflipped after a lot of political pressure was brought to bear. Two
things became clear at that point. First, that the cruelty was being, in
effect, driven by the gambling industry. Second, that the gambling lobby
is politically powerful.

Now we've just been told - after another undercover investigation by the
same TV program, IIRC - about cruelty to racehorses. The factor that's
triggered public anger is TV footage of cruelty at the slaughterhouse
where retired racehorses are sent. And again it's becoming clear that
betting on races is what is driving some nasty practices.

The solution I've tried to suggest is to ban all sports that involve
betting. But gambling has so taken over the country that that would
include things like the major football leagues.

The biggest annual horse race in the country happens two days from now.
I'm waiting to see whether a proposed boycott actually happens. The rich
young people who attend the Melbourne Cup don't seem to take much
interest in the news.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-02 23:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Two or three years ago, greyhound racing became controversial in
Australia. It started with a TV documentary that exposed widespread use
of live baiting when training the dogs to race. Subsequently it turned
out that the greyhounds themselves were being mistreated. It peaked when
mass graves were discovered of "surplus to requirements" greyhounds.
"Surplus" (retired) greyhounds in the US can become pets. I knew a family
that had one. Fortunately they had a very large back yard (on the far
Southwest Side of Chicago). The dog would usually lie around quite conten-
tedly, playing with the children or whatever, but every so often he would
jump up and tear around the property at great speed for a circuit or two,
then lie back down, not even breathing heavily.
Tony Cooper
2019-11-03 01:15:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 08:38:59 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
A whole different world from mine. Betting on sports is illegal in
much of the U.S., and I believe it has become as widely legal as it
is only in recent years. I've never heard of anyone betting on
tennis. No doubt you can bet on tennis with a bookmaker here even
where it's still illegal, and the bookies (part of organized crime in
those places) use sophisticated modeling techniques, but it wouldn't
be talked about much.
Two or three years ago, greyhound racing became controversial in
Australia. It started with a TV documentary that exposed widespread use
of live baiting when training the dogs to race. Subsequently it turned
out that the greyhounds themselves were being mistreated. It peaked when
mass graves were discovered of "surplus to requirements" greyhounds.
There are eleven greyhound racing tracks in Florida, but greyhound
racing in this state will end in 2020. It was voted out a few years
ago, but the ban doesn't take effect until sometime in 2020.

Most of the people who go to the tracks now don't go for the dog
racing. The tracks offer off-track betting (on horse racing in this
and other states) and poker rooms. Where legal (not in all counties),
slot machines, too.

The facilities will either remain open for the other gambling aspects
or be sold off to developers.

The problem will be what to do with the dogs. There are greyhound
adoption agencies, but greyhounds have limited appeal as rescue dogs.
From what I've heard, they make good pets, but don't adapt well if not
in a place where they have some space to run around.

The dogs chasing "Swifty"

Loading Image...

And a state inspector collecting a sample:

Loading Image...


And a punter deciding which dog to bet on:

Loading Image...
The jai alai frontons - there are six in Florida - are going through a
change, too. Jai alai is going because there aren't enough players,
but the frontons also have the same other gambling options as the
greyhound tracks.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Janet
2019-11-03 15:16:31 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@invalid.com says...
Post by Tony Cooper
The problem will be what to do with the dogs. There are greyhound
adoption agencies, but greyhounds have limited appeal as rescue dogs.
From what I've heard, they make good pets, but don't adapt well if not
in a place where they have some space to run around.
Most retired greyhounds prefer to spend the day lazing on a sofa.
They make very affectionate laid-back pets, we have a much-loved 9 yr
old retired racer who thinks a one hour walk is quite enough.

Some greyhounds have a high prey drive and as they run at 30+ MPH, if
they take off you're never going to keep up and they will soon be out of
earshot. We often meet greyhound owners who have never been able to let
their dog off lead because it has no recall and a high prey drive (for
small dogs).

When we adopted ours (then age 6) from a greyhound rescue charity, he
had been rejected from his first home placement and the charity warned
me he knew no commands, refused to walk on lead, and was supposedly
"untrainable". Turned out to be far from the truth; he learnt recall, is
very obedient, has no aggression to other dogs and can safely run loose
in the park, on beaches and forest tracks.

Janet.
b***@aol.com
2019-11-01 20:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Rich Ulrich
What follows 40-40 is
Game point. At 40-40, the receiving side gets to choose
whether the serve will be to the (old) deuce side or to
the ad side.
Shocking. And why should that be used more in doubles than in singles?
It is (much) more common in doubles.
I don't think anyone here argued that that "should" be the case.
No, but some people must think it should, namely the people who
made the decision to use no-ad scoring in doubles.
Post by Paul
One possible reason is that doubles is much less popular than singles
as a spectator sport. Therefore, if the doubles matches can be made
shorter, there is more time for the singles which attracts far more
interest.
Hmph. (That's addressed to tennis spectators in general.)
The first page I ran into when looking for an explanation of no-ad
scoring (because I didn't understand it at all in Rich's description)
argued that world class players detest it because they rely on stamina
as one aspect of their superiority, and shortening the match would
lessen this component.
That seems dubious, as either they're really superior to their opponents
and they theoretically wouldn't have to play many advantage points anyway
as they should win the games easily, or they're of equal value and will be
equally affected by the no-ad rule.
But which is the claim that seems dubious? Is it the claim that world-class
players detest no-ad scoring? Or is it the claim (by world-class players)
that no-ad scoring lessens the stamina component?
The first claim is true as it seems to be based on players' statements.
The second one can be true in tight matches where the players are of about
equal value and many games go to 40-all. What is dubious is the reasoning
that superior players would be penalized by the ad-rule as they couldn't
rely on the stamina factor - because, precisely, the stamina factor would
be of little relevance with very few games going to 40-all against weaker
opponents as I said earlier.
Post by Paul
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
I wonder if this is less of a concern in
doubles.
They didn't discuss at all that it gives chance a greater share of the
result, as my intuition says. Although I can't say how much difference
it makes. I may have to run some simulations if I want to find out.
My intuition says it favours the returner, as, statistically, the chance
of winning a point as a server is greater than of losing it by a factor
of at least 1.2 (combining first and second serves), i.e. the chance of
losing a point on service is of 1/1.2 = 0.83, whereas the chance of losing
two consecutive points on service is of 0.83² = 0.68. The chance for a
server to lose a service game that's reached a score of 40-all with the
no-ad rule is therefore 1.22 (i.e. 0.83/0.68) times greater than with the
classical advantage rule. (But I may be wrong as I'm no good at math.)
The maths is wrong
I feared so. Where does the shoe pinch?
Post by Paul
-- it's more complicated than you make it seem.
What else should be factored in?
...
It's great that you're interested!
I have to answer these types of questions all the time when I apply
for analyst or developer jobs at bookmakers.
It depends on the precise numbers of course.
Let's take an example that seems to correspond to yours.
The first step is to calculate the probability of the server winning a single point. Let's call this probability s.
The probability of the server winning a point and the probability of
the receiver winning a point must sum to 1.
And let us assume, per your example, that s = 1.2 * prob(receiver winning).
We then get s + s/1.2 = 1.
So s = 1 /( 1 + 1/1.2) = 6/11.
So the server's probability of winning the next point is 6/11.
Let's consider that the game has reached 40-40.
With no-ad scoring, the server wins with probability 6/11.
With normal scoring, it gets tricky.
We let x denote the probability that the server wins from 40-40.
It is this x that needs to be calculated.
The server has three ways of winning.
1) The server can simply win the next two points.
2) The server can lose the next point and then win the point
and then win from deuce.
3) The server can win and then lose and then win from deuce.
x is the sum of the probabilities from all events 1), 2) and 3).
Note that 2) and 3) have equal probability.
We then get the equation: x = 6/11 * 6/11 + 2 * x * (1 - 6/11) * 6/11
and the next step is simply bringing the x terms to the same side.
x = 6/11 * 6/11/( 1 - 2 * 5/11 * 6/11) =
36/121/ (61/121) = 36/61
So with your figures (as I understand them), assuming 40-40 is reached,
the no-ad rule leads to the server winning 54.5% of the time and
the normal rules lead to the server winning 59% of the time.
Thanks! I was way off the mark, but my consolation is that my intuition
was right.
Post by Paul
Admittedly, these figures seem low but that is because your quoted
ratio of 1.2 is low. Usually, in pro tennis, we expect the server to
win more than 1.2 times as often as the receiver.
That's not so clear when combining the percentages of first serves in and
of first- and second serves won. See e.g. the 2019 US Open statistics here:

https://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/extrastats/index.html?promo=subnav
Post by Paul
If we're interested in the ratio, then the ratio (increased advantage
to the server) is 36/61/(6/11) = 396/366 = 1.08 (approx).
Paul
Rich Ulrich
2019-11-05 17:36:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 02:35:34 -0400, Rich Ulrich
Post by Rich Ulrich
Sports terms are on-topic, right?
I saw a new term today, in the Next Gen Finals.
(This is a season-ending tournament for 8 invited men,
ages 21 and under. Seven are the highest in the ATP
rankings. It starts with round-robin play of 2 groups of 4,
like the women's Finals a week ago.)

"Hawkeye-Live" automattically displays the close calls -
As the name describes, the Hawkeye system is used
to make real-time calls of all lines. It uses a computer-
generated voice for calls of Out.

There are other innovations being tested.
- 5 sets of 4 games in place of 3 sets of 6.
- no-ad scoring throughout (receiver's choice).
- 25 second time clock on serves.
- no lets (Wikip says - I don't know what that means).

There is a regular 7-point tie-breaker played when games
reach 3-3.

Having shorter sets favors the weaker player; having 5
sets instead of 3 favors the stronger. I don't know how
that balances out.
--
Rich Ulrich
Paul
2019-11-06 23:14:43 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 5:36:28 PM UTC, Rich Ulrich wrote:
...
Post by Rich Ulrich
- no lets (Wikip says - I don't know what that means).
...

There is a variant of tennis which isn't particularly rare where
a serve that hits the net is just played like a normal point.
So the concept of a let serve doesn't exist. Hence "no lets".
It's the rule in US college tennis. At a higher level, this rule
was in place for about 3 months at the Challenger level around 2014 or so.
Challenger is one of the professional levels. A typical performance
for a Challenger-level pro is to play at Wimbledon but lose in the
first round.

Paul
Paul
2019-11-07 01:01:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 11:14:46 PM UTC, Paul wrote:
A typical performance
Post by Paul
for a Challenger-level pro is to play at Wimbledon but lose in the
first round.
Perhaps out of respect for them, I was exaggerating the Challenger level.
Above is an exceptional performance for a Challenger pro rather than a
"typical" performance.
From memory, I think that it's quite typical for the _winner_ of a Challenger
event to have played in the main draw of a Grand Slam tournament.

Paul
Rich Ulrich
2019-11-07 22:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
...
Post by Rich Ulrich
- no lets (Wikip says - I don't know what that means).
...
There is a variant of tennis which isn't particularly rare where
a serve that hits the net is just played like a normal point.
So the concept of a let serve doesn't exist. Hence "no lets".
It's the rule in US college tennis. At a higher level, this rule
was in place for about 3 months at the Challenger level around 2014 or so.
Challenger is one of the professional levels. A typical performance
for a Challenger-level pro is to play at Wimbledon but lose in the
first round.
Thanks. Having seen volleyball switch to playing let serves, I
am not as startled by that as I might have been.

I see that the Wikipedia article has revisions dated today, Nov. 7 -

No-Ad scoring (server’s choice in 2019, receiver's choice in 2018)
Lets on serve (in 2018 lets on serve were counted "in")

The revised description does fit what I have been watching.


It seems to be a bit of a linguistic oddity, the way that "serve"
and "service" are almost - but not entirely - interchangeable in
their common usage. Both in volleyball land in tennis.
--
Rich Ulrich
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-07 22:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by Paul
...
Post by Rich Ulrich
- no lets (Wikip says - I don't know what that means).
...
There is a variant of tennis which isn't particularly rare where
a serve that hits the net is just played like a normal point.
So the concept of a let serve doesn't exist. Hence "no lets".
It's the rule in US college tennis. At a higher level, this rule
was in place for about 3 months at the Challenger level around 2014 or so.
Challenger is one of the professional levels. A typical performance
for a Challenger-level pro is to play at Wimbledon but lose in the
first round.
Thanks. Having seen volleyball switch to playing let serves, I
am not as startled by that as I might have been.
...

I am. Is nothing sacred?

By the way, "no lets" would significantly increase the chance of
me-30-years-ago scoring a point against Serena-now.
--
Jerry Friedman
--
Jerry Friedman
Paul
2019-11-08 10:25:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 10:28:44 PM UTC, Rich Ulrich wrote:
...
Post by Rich Ulrich
It seems to be a bit of a linguistic oddity, the way that "serve"
and "service" are almost - but not entirely - interchangeable in
their common usage. Both in volleyball land in tennis.
...

It took me around a minute to realise that "land" is a typo for "and".
I appreciate your "almost" but there are at least two contexts in
which these two terms are not interchangeable:
"Service" isn't used as a verb. It sounds odd or even wrong to say
"It's your turn to service now." Also, "service" is more formal.
The umpire announcement "First service" is regularly heard but not
"First serve".

Paul
Quinn C
2019-11-08 17:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
...
Post by Rich Ulrich
- no lets (Wikip says - I don't know what that means).
...
There is a variant of tennis which isn't particularly rare where
a serve that hits the net is just played like a normal point.
So the concept of a let serve doesn't exist. Hence "no lets".
Wait - are they shouting "let" when the ball hits the net? I've never
known this word, and watched tennis for years, never noticing it's not
"net" they announce.
--
In the old days, the complaints about the passing of the
golden age were much more sophisticated.
-- James Hogg in alt.usage.english
Paul
2019-11-08 18:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul
...
Post by Rich Ulrich
- no lets (Wikip says - I don't know what that means).
...
There is a variant of tennis which isn't particularly rare where
a serve that hits the net is just played like a normal point.
So the concept of a let serve doesn't exist. Hence "no lets".
Wait - are they shouting "let" when the ball hits the net? I've never
known this word, and watched tennis for years, never noticing it's not
"net" they announce.
Yes, they say "let" and not "net".
However, this hasn't always been the case.
There used to be a dedicated net-cord judge who
kept a finger on the net before the serve to
attempt to feel for vibrations.
Under this old system, the net-cord judge
was not responsible for determining where the ball landed.
This judge would simply announce "net" when the ball hit the net
and moved forward.
So the call would be "net" followed by a pause followed by
either "fault" or "first service" or "second service" depending
on the circumstances.

However, there is a problem with these calls.
If a ball hits the net and lands outside the court, the
call is now simply "fault" whereas it used to be "net...fault".
However, in Hawk-Eye matches, it's highly relevant whether the ball
was judged to hit the net or not.
If the server wants to challenge, and the ball has been ruled to
have touch the net, the server is only challenging for a let outcome.
If the ball has been ruled to have cleared the net, and wasn't returned,
the server may be able to challenge for the full point.

Paul
Ken Blake
2019-11-08 18:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul
...
Post by Rich Ulrich
- no lets (Wikip says - I don't know what that means).
...
There is a variant of tennis which isn't particularly rare where
a serve that hits the net is just played like a normal point.
So the concept of a let serve doesn't exist. Hence "no lets".
Wait - are they shouting "let" when the ball hits the net? I've never
known this word, and watched tennis for years, never noticing it's not
"net" they announce.
Yes, it's "let," not "net." But note that touching the net is the most
common, but not the only type of let.

See http://officialtennisrules.com/rules-on-let-serves/
--
Ken
Rich Ulrich
2019-11-10 06:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul
...
Post by Rich Ulrich
- no lets (Wikip says - I don't know what that means).
...
There is a variant of tennis which isn't particularly rare where
a serve that hits the net is just played like a normal point.
So the concept of a let serve doesn't exist. Hence "no lets".
Wait - are they shouting "let" when the ball hits the net? I've never
known this word, and watched tennis for years, never noticing it's not
"net" they announce.
Yes, it's "let," not "net." But note that touching the net is the most
common, but not the only type of let.
See http://officialtennisrules.com/rules-on-let-serves/
I saw a rare let a couple of weeks ago when the spare ball
trickled out of the server's pocket during play. (I keep
wondering if a second ball kept in the pocket for a while
is going to get damp and play oddly.)

That point was called let, to be replayed. Commentators
said that you only get one of those; second time, you
lose the point.
--
Rich Ulrich
Paul
2019-11-10 12:48:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 6:19:14 AM UTC, Rich Ulrich wrote:
...
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by Ken Blake
Yes, it's "let," not "net." But note that touching the net is the most
common, but not the only type of let.
See http://officialtennisrules.com/rules-on-let-serves/
I saw a rare let a couple of weeks ago when the spare ball
trickled out of the server's pocket during play. (I keep
wondering if a second ball kept in the pocket for a while
is going to get damp and play oddly.)
That point was called let, to be replayed. Commentators
said that you only get one of those; second time, you
lose the point.
I've actually seen that a few times. I don't think it's particularly
rare.
I agree with what the commentators said about the rule.
But it's a totally bizarre rule. It would make far more sense to
hold players responsible for securing the tennis ball, and clothing items
etc., and to give the point to the opponent.
At pro tennis, during a point, there is often a player with a clear
advantage. So it is totally plausible that the server is at a big
disadvantage in the rally and gains immensely from this let. This
doesn't seem fair at all.

I wonder how that rule compares to other sports. I'll google for the
table-tennis rule. Table-tennis doesn't address the ball-leaves-pocket
situation directly. Perhaps it's rarer. However, my best interpretation
is a let in table-tennis too.
Table-tennis rules call for a let when "the conditions of play are disturbed in a way which could affect the outcome of the rally."

I've just looked at the official ITF tennis rules and I don't think
ball-falls-out-of-pocket is addressed directly. I think it's a matter
of interpretation and the umpire's judgment.
The rules of tennis specify two types of hindrance: unintentional and
intentional. An unintentional hindrance results in a let, an intentional
hindrance loses the point.
These umpires appear to be using their judgment to rule that dropping a
ball in this way once is "unintentional" by the player whereas allowing it
twice is so careless that it is ruled intentional.
It's a kind of Oscar Wilde rule, I think. "To drop a ball once is
unintentional. To do so twice is careless."
In ruling on a let due to hindrance, the wording "unintentional act of
the opponent" is used. This more or less forces the umpire to award
a let in the situation you describe. It also seems to mean that sneezing loudly
during a rally results in a let. (That's unlikely in singles because
sneezing tends not to happen in competitive stress situations, but it seems
plausible in doubles.)

Another thing I've seen several times is premature celebration;
a player hits a good shot and shouts something like "Come on!" while the
opponent still has a chance to play on. This is always deemed an
"intentional hindrance" and loses the point for the shouter. That's clear by precedent.
But I'm not sure that the interpretation follows from the wording.
The reasoning here is that the decision to shout was deliberate.
Yes, but the intention was to shout while the opponent had already lost
the point. So the hindering aspect is here unintentional.
For example, suppose a child who isn't English thinks that "I don't give
a fuck" is a perfectly polite way of saying "I don't mind" and has no idea
that this is considered rude.
If she uses this phrase, is that "intentional rudeness"? Most people would
say "no" even though the speech act was deliberate.
It seems quite a strong parallel to the premature shouting -- the shouter
didn't mean to disturb the opponent but the shouter did mean to shout.
So it seems strange that the shouting is always classed as an "intentional
hindrance" but my swearing example would not normally be called
"intentional rudeness."

Paul
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-10 14:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Rich Ulrich
I saw a rare let a couple of weeks ago when the spare ball
trickled out of the server's pocket during play. (I keep
wondering if a second ball kept in the pocket for a while
is going to get damp and play oddly.)
That point was called let, to be replayed. Commentators
said that you only get one of those; second time, you
lose the point.
I've actually seen that a few times. I don't think it's particularly
rare.
I agree with what the commentators said about the rule.
But it's a totally bizarre rule. It would make far more sense to
hold players responsible for securing the tennis ball, and clothing items
etc., and to give the point to the opponent.
At pro tennis, during a point, there is often a player with a clear
advantage. So it is totally plausible that the server is at a big
disadvantage in the rally and gains immensely from this let. This
doesn't seem fair at all.
The whole circumstance seems odd. A baseball pitcher doesn't have extra
baseballs at hand; when a ball is taken out of play, the home plate
umpire tosses a new ball (from the pouch he carries).

Maybe dampness and odd play are just part of the game?
Paul
2019-11-10 15:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Paul
Post by Rich Ulrich
I saw a rare let a couple of weeks ago when the spare ball
trickled out of the server's pocket during play. (I keep
wondering if a second ball kept in the pocket for a while
is going to get damp and play oddly.)
That point was called let, to be replayed. Commentators
said that you only get one of those; second time, you
lose the point.
I've actually seen that a few times. I don't think it's particularly
rare.
I agree with what the commentators said about the rule.
But it's a totally bizarre rule. It would make far more sense to
hold players responsible for securing the tennis ball, and clothing items
etc., and to give the point to the opponent.
At pro tennis, during a point, there is often a player with a clear
advantage. So it is totally plausible that the server is at a big
disadvantage in the rally and gains immensely from this let. This
doesn't seem fair at all.
The whole circumstance seems odd. A baseball pitcher doesn't have extra
baseballs at hand; when a ball is taken out of play, the home plate
umpire tosses a new ball (from the pouch he carries).
Maybe dampness and odd play are just part of the game?
The baseball method is available in pro tennis too, except that the
ball would be provided by a ballchild rather than the umpire.

Many players prefer to carry a tennis ball in their pocket because that
minimises the time gap between first and second serves in the case of a
fault.
Maybe a pitcher might want to do the same thing, but a difference here
is that tennis balls are smaller and lighter than baseballs.

I don't think this is odd by comparison with other sports.
I would imagine that table-tennis, squash, and tennis all have this
same ball-carrying aspect even though baseball and cricket are different
in this regard.

Paul
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-11-10 16:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Paul
Post by Rich Ulrich
I saw a rare let a couple of weeks ago when the spare ball
trickled out of the server's pocket during play. (I keep
wondering if a second ball kept in the pocket for a while
is going to get damp and play oddly.)
That point was called let, to be replayed. Commentators
said that you only get one of those; second time, you
lose the point.
I've actually seen that a few times. I don't think it's particularly
rare.
I agree with what the commentators said about the rule.
But it's a totally bizarre rule. It would make far more sense to
hold players responsible for securing the tennis ball, and clothing items
etc., and to give the point to the opponent.
At pro tennis, during a point, there is often a player with a clear
advantage. So it is totally plausible that the server is at a big
disadvantage in the rally and gains immensely from this let. This
doesn't seem fair at all.
The whole circumstance seems odd. A baseball pitcher doesn't have extra
baseballs at hand; when a ball is taken out of play, the home plate
umpire tosses a new ball (from the pouch he carries).
Maybe dampness and odd play are just part of the game?
The baseball method is available in pro tennis too, except that the
ball would be provided by a ballchild rather than the umpire.
Many players prefer to carry a tennis ball in their pocket because that
minimises the time gap between first and second serves in the case of a
fault.
Maybe a pitcher might want to do the same thing, but a difference here
is that tennis balls are smaller and lighter than baseballs.
I don't think this is odd by comparison with other sports.
I would imagine that table-tennis, squash, and tennis all have this
same ball-carrying aspect even though baseball and cricket are different
in this regard.
Paul
I'm unfamiliar with the rules, but one thought is that if a lawn tennis
player drops a spare ball it might land within the confines of the court
(baselines and sidelines) and be a potential interference with the ball
returned by the opponent. Wherever it lands it may be a danger to the
server.

If a table-tennis player drops a spare ball it will highly probably land
on the floor where it might be a slight threat to the free movement of
the player but is likely to be crushed by the player's foot rather than
interfere with his/her footwork.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Lewis
2019-11-10 15:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Another thing I've seen several times is premature celebration;
a player hits a good shot and shouts something like "Come on!" while
the opponent still has a chance to play on. This is always deemed an
"intentional hindrance" and loses the point for the shouter. That's clear by precedent.
This was the rule that some people wanted enforced against Monica Seles
because they found her "grunts" offensive in a woman (unladylike).
--
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Tak To
2019-11-09 22:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul
...
Post by Rich Ulrich
- no lets (Wikip says - I don't know what that means).
...
There is a variant of tennis which isn't particularly rare where
a serve that hits the net is just played like a normal point.
So the concept of a let serve doesn't exist. Hence "no lets".
Wait - are they shouting "let" when the ball hits the net? I've never
known this word, and watched tennis for years, never noticing it's not
"net" they announce.
"Let" can mean "to hunder", making it an auto-antonym.

"I'll make a ghost of him that lets me!" (Hamlet 1.4.85)
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-09 23:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tak To
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul
...
Post by Rich Ulrich
- no lets (Wikip says - I don't know what that means).
...
There is a variant of tennis which isn't particularly rare where
a serve that hits the net is just played like a normal point.
So the concept of a let serve doesn't exist. Hence "no lets".
Wait - are they shouting "let" when the ball hits the net? I've never
known this word, and watched tennis for years, never noticing it's not
"net" they announce.
"Let" can mean "to hunder", making it an auto-antonym.
What do you think "to hunder" means? Can you provide a source for it?
I find only two things, neither of which makes it a real, current word:
a dialectical pronunciation of hundred, and in the Urban Dictionary,
an obviously made-up meaning -- a smelly and obnoxious person.

I could be a misspelling of "hinder", of course, which could
be seen as an opposite to "let" as in "allow".

bill
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-11-09 23:34:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Tak To
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul
...
Post by Rich Ulrich
- no lets (Wikip says - I don't know what that means).
...
There is a variant of tennis which isn't particularly rare where
a serve that hits the net is just played like a normal point.
So the concept of a let serve doesn't exist. Hence "no lets".
Wait - are they shouting "let" when the ball hits the net? I've never
known this word, and watched tennis for years, never noticing it's not
"net" they announce.
"Let" can mean "to hunder", making it an auto-antonym.
What do you think "to hunder" means? Can you provide a source for it?
a dialectical pronunciation of hundred, and in the Urban Dictionary,
an obviously made-up meaning -- a smelly and obnoxious person.
I could be a misspelling of "hinder", of course, which could
be seen as an opposite to "let" as in "allow".
bill
I strongly suspect "hunder" is a typo.
The "u" key is next to the "i" key on a
QWERTYUIOP keyboard.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
charles
2019-11-10 12:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Tak To
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul
...
Post by Rich Ulrich
- no lets (Wikip says - I don't know what that means).
...
There is a variant of tennis which isn't particularly rare where
a serve that hits the net is just played like a normal point.
So the concept of a let serve doesn't exist. Hence "no lets".
Wait - are they shouting "let" when the ball hits the net? I've never
known this word, and watched tennis for years, never noticing it's not
"net" they announce.
"Let" can mean "to hunder", making it an auto-antonym.
What do you think "to hunder" means? Can you provide a source for it?
a dialectical pronunciation of hundred, and in the Urban Dictionary,
an obviously made-up meaning -- a smelly and obnoxious person.
I could be a misspelling of "hinder", of course, which could
be seen as an opposite to "let" as in "allow".
Yesterday's Guardian had a whole page devoted to CHIRSTMAS presenst
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-11-10 16:04:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 12:34:35 +0000 (GMT), charles
Post by charles
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Tak To
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul
...
Post by Rich Ulrich
- no lets (Wikip says - I don't know what that means).
...
There is a variant of tennis which isn't particularly rare where
a serve that hits the net is just played like a normal point.
So the concept of a let serve doesn't exist. Hence "no lets".
Wait - are they shouting "let" when the ball hits the net? I've never
known this word, and watched tennis for years, never noticing it's not
"net" they announce.
"Let" can mean "to hunder", making it an auto-antonym.
What do you think "to hunder" means? Can you provide a source for it?
a dialectical pronunciation of hundred, and in the Urban Dictionary,
an obviously made-up meaning -- a smelly and obnoxious person.
I could be a misspelling of "hinder", of course, which could
be seen as an opposite to "let" as in "allow".
Yesterday's Guardian had a whole page devoted to CHIRSTMAS presenst
Great! The Grauniad is living up to its long-established reputation.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-11-09 23:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tak To
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul
...
Post by Rich Ulrich
- no lets (Wikip says - I don't know what that means).
...
There is a variant of tennis which isn't particularly rare where
a serve that hits the net is just played like a normal point.
So the concept of a let serve doesn't exist. Hence "no lets".
Wait - are they shouting "let" when the ball hits the net? I've never
known this word, and watched tennis for years, never noticing it's not
"net" they announce.
"Let" can mean "to hunder", making it an auto-antonym.
"I'll make a ghost of him that lets me!" (Hamlet 1.4.85)
"let" (allow) and "let" (hinder) are different words. They just happen
to be spelled the same and pronounced the same.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/let#etymonline_v_6705

let (v.)

Old English lætan (Northumbrian leta) "to allow; to leave behind,
depart from; leave undone; bequeath," also "to rent, put to rent or
hire" (class VII strong verb; past tense let, leort, past participle
gelæten), from Proto-Germanic *letan
<snip>

let (n.)

"stoppage, obstruction" (obsolete unless in legal contracts), late
12c., from archaic verb letten "to hinder," from Old English lettan
"hinder, delay, impede," etymologically "make late," from
Proto-Germanic *latjan
<snip>

The OED has an entry for the verb "let" meaning "hinder". One of the six
sub-senses is marked "archaic", the other five are "obsolete".
(That entry was published in 1902 so the archaic sense might now be
obsolete.)
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-10 14:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Tak To
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul
Post by Rich Ulrich
- no lets (Wikip says - I don't know what that means).
...
There is a variant of tennis which isn't particularly rare where
a serve that hits the net is just played like a normal point.
So the concept of a let serve doesn't exist. Hence "no lets".
Wait - are they shouting "let" when the ball hits the net? I've never
known this word, and watched tennis for years, never noticing it's not
"net" they announce.
"Let" can mean "to hunder", making it an auto-antonym.
"I'll make a ghost of him that lets me!" (Hamlet 1.4.85)
"let" (allow) and "let" (hinder) are different words. They just happen
to be spelled the same and pronounced the same.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/let#etymonline_v_6705
let (v.)
Old English lætan (Northumbrian leta) "to allow; to leave behind,
depart from; leave undone; bequeath," also "to rent, put to rent or
hire" (class VII strong verb; past tense let, leort, past participle
gelæten), from Proto-Germanic *letan
<snip>
let (n.)
"stoppage, obstruction" (obsolete unless in legal contracts), late
12c., from archaic verb letten "to hinder," from Old English lettan
"hinder, delay, impede," etymologically "make late," from
Proto-Germanic *latjan
<snip>
The OED has an entry for the verb "let" meaning "hinder". One of the six
sub-senses is marked "archaic", the other five are "obsolete".
(That entry was published in 1902 so the archaic sense might now be
obsolete.)
The legal hendiadys "let or hindrance" wouldn't exist if there weren't
some minuscule shade of difference between them that had arisen by the
time legal language had coagulated!
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-11-10 16:13:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 06:18:37 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Tak To
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul
Post by Rich Ulrich
- no lets (Wikip says - I don't know what that means).
...
There is a variant of tennis which isn't particularly rare where
a serve that hits the net is just played like a normal point.
So the concept of a let serve doesn't exist. Hence "no lets".
Wait - are they shouting "let" when the ball hits the net? I've never
known this word, and watched tennis for years, never noticing it's not
"net" they announce.
"Let" can mean "to hunder", making it an auto-antonym.
"I'll make a ghost of him that lets me!" (Hamlet 1.4.85)
"let" (allow) and "let" (hinder) are different words. They just happen
to be spelled the same and pronounced the same.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/let#etymonline_v_6705
let (v.)
Old English lætan (Northumbrian leta) "to allow; to leave behind,
depart from; leave undone; bequeath," also "to rent, put to rent or
hire" (class VII strong verb; past tense let, leort, past participle
gelæten), from Proto-Germanic *letan
<snip>
let (n.)
"stoppage, obstruction" (obsolete unless in legal contracts), late
12c., from archaic verb letten "to hinder," from Old English lettan
"hinder, delay, impede," etymologically "make late," from
Proto-Germanic *latjan
<snip>
The OED has an entry for the verb "let" meaning "hinder". One of the six
sub-senses is marked "archaic", the other five are "obsolete".
(That entry was published in 1902 so the archaic sense might now be
obsolete.)
The legal hendiadys "let or hindrance" wouldn't exist if there weren't
some minuscule shade of difference between them that had arisen by the
time legal language had coagulated!
The use of more than one word for a single concept seems to have arisen
from the use of different languages in England: Latin, Norman French,
English, etc.
Legal English:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_English#Key_features

Use of doublets and triplets. The mix of languages used in early
legalese led to the tendency in legal English to string together two
or three words to convey a single legal concept. Examples of this
are null and void, fit and proper, (due) care and attention, perform
and discharge, terms and conditions, dispute, controversy or claim,,
promise, agree and covenant and cease and desist. While originally
being done to help all lawyers regardless of the language they spoke
(English, French, or Latin) it now often joins words with identical
meanings (dispute, controversy or claim, search and seizure).
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Loading...