[BLML] Victory Points for Swiss Matchpoint Pairs

Gordon Rainsford gordonr60 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 22 08:55:54 CET 2017

I’m struggling to find any connection between Richard’s post and the thread to which it purports to respond.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Richard Hills
Sent: 22 December 2017 02:12
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] Victory Points for Swiss Matchpoint Pairs

Is it so bad to do what players prefer?

Well, as a semi-official semi-participant in the drafting of the 2007 Lawbook, I know for a fact that players' preferences and players' actions were key to stimulating the introduction of the "card pointed incorrectly" Law 65B3 (which Law has two opposing interpretations in a parallel blml thread, due to a missing cross-reference between it and Laws 9A4 / 42B3).

However, the 2017 Introduction, which is "part of the Laws", announced that "attempts have been made to clarify interpretations. The Committee intends to prepare a separate official Commentary, containing examples to help in this respect." Perhaps a Commentary example will confirm that dummy can use Law 65B3?

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

Sent from my iPad

On 22 Dec 2017, at 7:39 AM, Jan Peach <janpeach8 at bigpond.com> wrote:
As a player, I prefer swiss matchpoint events not to be converted to VPs. I’m happy for the luck factor to play its part.
It seems that big scores in the final round may be viewed suspiciously. Big scores in earlier rounds are not always noticed.
Can anyone help please with why converting matchpoints to VPs may be desirable? 
Does it produce more deserving winners? 
Is there mathematical proof of this?
Is it so bad to do what players prefer?
Blml mailing list
Blml at rtflb.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171222/db620c22/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Blml mailing list