July 2006 - 7

Letters to the Editor

carrying a backward piano! Bass
notes have the long piano strings,
and they are on the left.
ELEANOR TWISS
Greensboro NC

Unfair VPs
To the Editor:
It is the opinion of several
duplicate aficionados that there is a
very unfair scoring method in use
in many Swiss teams. I refer to the
20-point victory point scale.
Recently, a team consisting of
a very nice person and at least
four world-class players entered a
six-match regional Swiss teams.
After three matches, their score
was below average. The four
world-classers played the final three
matches against weaker-than-average teams (because of the matchup
system), blitzed them all and won
the event.
This is not an isolated incident.
It is possible in a six-match team
event to lose the first four matches,
bring in the heavy-hitters and, two
blitzes later, win the event ... even
surpassing a team that has won all
six matches. The same could apply
in a seven-match Swiss. I feel that
most serious players would agree
that the 20-point scale should be
abolished.
A fairer method is the 30-point
VP scale. It was used extensively at
the recent Dallas NABC. A version
of it is favored by the World Bridge
Federation. It renders virtually
impossible such ludicrous scenarios
as the above-mentioned "wins." The
only objection to it is largely psychological - it is tough to lose a
match by 3 IMPs, for instance, and
be outscored 20-10 in VPs.
I have tried to figure out an alternative to the 30-point scale and have
come up with a simple plan yielding
an identical result, but less harmful
psychologically. I call it the Marshall Plan because (a) it is my plan
and (b) it gives all contestants more
victory points and all are happier
(except possibly the nice person and
the world-classers).
The Marshall Plan would keep
the 20 VP Scale and award 4 bonus
July 2006

victory points for each win in addition to the victory points normally
awarded for a match. A tie match
would award 12 victory points to
each team.
BUD MARSH
Scottsdale AZ
Readers are invited to comment
- and check out the next letter.

VP commentary
To the Editor:
I believe the letter from Mark
Raphaelson (May, page 7) deserves
an answer, and I suppose that I, as
one of the participants in the design
of the 20-point victory point scale,
am an appropriate respondent.
The fundamental debate in scoring
Swiss teams is whether it is important to play well in each match or
important to play well during the
whole event. The 20-point VP scale
rewards playing well in the whole
event. Win-loss scoring makes it
important to play well (or in luck)
in each match. The 30-point VP
scale is an attempt to mix the two
philosophies.
Many of us feel that playing well
through the whole event is more
important than playing well in a
particular match. So we feel that
less importance should be attached
to the two IMPs that separate winning a match from losing it. Even in
the 20-point scale, those two IMPs
are worth one-tenth of the available victory points. In the 30-point
scale they are worth one-fifth of the
points.
Having those few IMPs be that
important distorts bridge odds.
Under normal circumstances, at
IMPs you should bid vulnerable
games that require a 3-2 break and
a finesse. The IMPs are win 10 for
making a game not bid at the other
table, lose 6 for going down.
When you are 3 IMPs behind, the
VP odds on the 30-point scale are
that you will gain 13 VPs for winning 10 IMPs and lose only 4 VPs
for losing 6 IMPs. When you are 3
IMPs ahead, the VP odds become
gain 5 VPs for winning 10 IMPs
versus lose 10 VP (!) for losing 6
IMPs. If Mr. Raphaelson is a good

enough judge of his game to know
whether he is 3 IMPs ahead or
behind going into the last board of
a match and therefore whether he
needs to be conservative or aggressive, well ... His other point is that
"it is unfair that some last-round
matches have flat boards, others
have swingy boards." We have a
laboratory to experiment with this:
the final of the North American
Swiss Teams, where 12 to 16 tables
play duplicated boards for eight
rounds. In all rounds, or almost all,
there are some very close matches
and some blitzes.
There are some low-scoring
matches and some high-scoring. In
the last round of the 1987 event,
two teams played a match where
the final score was 2-1, another two
played a match on the same boards
where the score was about 54-11.
As an aside, even if there were "flat
boards" and "swingy boards," why
is it particularly unfair to get flat
boards in the last round? Why is the
last round more important than the
first? The same number of VPs are
at stake in both.
HENRY BETHE
Ithaca NY

Source of pride
To the Editor:
I couldn't help noting that two
members of the winning squad in
this year's Vanderbilt Knockout
Teams (June, page 13) are from the
People's Republic of China.
The history of the development of
bridge in China is very interesting.
During the so-called Cultural Revolution, bridge was barred, in part
because the government did not want
large gatherings of intellectuals.
It was a different matter when

Letters to the editor are welcome
by regular mail, e-mail editor@acbl.
org or fax 901-398-7754. Brevity is
considered a virtue, as is subject
matter with relevance to a majority
of ACBL members. Unsigned letters
are not considered for publication,
so please include your name and
hometown. Letters may be edited.
All letters will receive a response.

7
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of July 2006
