Matchpoints Scoring (MPs)
The scoring system at a regular duplicate a club is almost always called “Pairs” or “Matchpoints”.
It is a slightly strange scoring method because the size of the score isn’t important, how many pairs you beat is important.
Usually you get two points for each pair that you beat and one point for each pair that you get the same score as.
These points are called matchpoints, and are divided by the best possible score to give you a percentage.
Here are some examples:
(Example ONE) If there were only 3 tables playing,
MPs % %
Contract Made Score NS EW
3NT 10 430 4 (beat two) 100 0
4H 10 420 2 (beat one) 50 50
3NT 9 400 0 (beat no one) 0 100
Notice?
The size of the score doesn’t matter, only the relative placement of the score.
If your opponents have a terrible bidding misunderstanding and you play in 3NT redoubled and make 10 tricks, then you score (+1000). You would get a top board.
Similarly, if you played 4H poorly and only made 9 tricks (-50) then you would get a bottom
(Example TWO)….. Then add the new upper & lower. If there were now 5 tables playing,
MPs % %
Contract Made Score NS EW
3NTX 10 1000 8 (beat four) 100 0
3NT 10 430 6 (beat three) 75 25
4H 10 420 4 (beat two) 50 50
3NT 9 400 2 (beat one) 25 75
4H 9 -50 0 (beat no one) 0 100
Notice how now, for the same first 3 scores, their MP percentage has changed?
How Does that differ to IMP scoring (see also the “Butler” scoring article)?
Normally the best and worst scores are removed, and the average is calculated, and then rounded (down I believe).
So, on the first 3 boards we remove the best & worst, and get the average … 420.
Then we compare the difference for all scores to the average, and look at the IMP table to see the result.
(Example THREE) If there were only 3 tables playing,
MPs % % IMP avg 42o
Contract Made Score NS EW Diff NS EW
3NT 10 430 4 100 0 10 0 0
4H 10 420 2 50 50 0 0 0
3NT 9 400 0 0 100 -20 -1 1
Notice? In IMPs, the result is IDENTICAL for 2, and only 1 IMP on the third board.
How about if we now do the same calculation on the 5 board hand?
(Example FOUR) MPs % % IMP avg 42o
Contract Made Score NS EW Diff NS EW
3NTX 10 1000 8 100 0 580 11 -11
3NT 10 430 6 75 25 10 0 0
4H 10 420 4 50 50 0 0 0
3NT 9 400 2 25 75 -20 -1 1
4H 9 -50 0 0 100 -470 -10 10
In IMPs, the size of the score does matter, as this affects it’s distance from the average. The relative placement of the score is effectively irrelevant.
In both methods, a good board is still a good board, and a bad board is a still a bad board, but in MPs, it is the relative placement, in IMPs it is the distance from the average.
Remember the 4 things I said last week for when playing IMP based scoring?
– Declarer’s top priority is making the Contract
– Play the Safest Contract
– Bid Your Games
– Defender’s top priority is to defeat the contract rather than simply try to limit the overtricks
PLUS, after looking through the scores,
DON’T DOUBLE unless you are confident taking off the contract, but if confident the contract is going down, then DOUBLE (bigger distance from the average)
Be confident in your sacrifices but don’t give away big scores.
If you know your scoring, then these can be good sacrifices vs a game contact (but terrible vs a part score game)
1 down VUL vs NV (300 vs 420)
Or 2 down VUL vs VUL (500 vs 620)
Or 3 down NV vs VUL (500 vs 620)
If the opposition sacrifice, you should double.
Note also, in Matchpoint scoring, each board is worth about 2.5% of your total percentage score. (100% divided by 25 boards played (usually 24 to 27 boards))
LOOK AT THESE 2 BOARDS FROM 07/03/19 at SBC)
|
BOARD 1 |
SCORES |
Calc. |
IMPs |
MPs No. |
% | |||||
|
Bid |
By |
Making |
NS |
EW |
NS |
EW |
NS |
EW |
||
|
1 |
5SX |
S |
11 |
650 |
– |
230 |
6 |
-6 |
40 |
100.0% |
|
2 |
5S |
S |
13 |
510 |
– |
90 |
3 |
-3 |
37 |
92.5% |
|
3 |
4S |
S |
13 |
510 |
– |
90 |
3 |
-3 |
37 |
92.5% |
|
4 |
4S |
N |
12 |
480 |
– |
60 |
2 |
-2 |
24 |
60.0% |
|
5 |
5S |
S |
12 |
480 |
– |
60 |
2 |
-2 |
24 |
60.0% |
|
6 |
4S |
S |
12 |
480 |
– |
60 |
2 |
-2 |
24 |
60.0% |
|
7 |
4S |
N |
12 |
480 |
– |
60 |
2 |
-2 |
24 |
60.0% |
|
8 |
4S |
S |
12 |
480 |
– |
60 |
2 |
-2 |
24 |
60.0% |
|
9 |
4S |
S |
12 |
480 |
– |
60 |
2 |
-2 |
24 |
60.0% |
|
10 |
5S |
S |
12 |
480 |
– |
60 |
2 |
-2 |
24 |
60.0% |
|
11 |
4S |
N |
12 |
480 |
– |
60 |
2 |
-2 |
24 |
60.0% |
|
12 |
5S |
S |
12 |
480 |
– |
60 |
2 |
-2 |
24 |
60.0% |
|
13 |
4S |
S |
11 |
450 |
– |
30 |
1 |
-1 |
11 |
27.5% |
|
14 |
4S |
S |
11 |
450 |
– |
30 |
1 |
-1 |
11 |
27.5% |
|
15 |
4S |
S |
11 |
450 |
– |
30 |
1 |
-1 |
11 |
27.5% |
|
16 |
5S |
S |
11 |
450 |
– |
30 |
1 |
-1 |
11 |
27.5% |
|
17 |
4S |
S |
10 |
420 |
– |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
20.0% |
|
18 |
5C |
N |
11 |
400 |
– |
-20 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
15.0% |
|
19 |
5DX |
W |
9 |
300 |
– |
-120 |
-3 |
3 |
4 |
10.0% |
|
20 |
5S |
S |
9 |
– |
100 |
-520 |
-11 |
11 |
2 |
5.0% |
|
21 |
3H |
E |
10 |
– |
170 |
-590 |
-11 |
11 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
8260 |
100 |
|||||||||
|
Total excluding top & bottom |
8160 |
|||||||||
|
Total / 19 (Average) |
429 |
or say |
420 |
420 |
||||||
|
IMPS same, MPs different |
||||||||||
|
Note Prs 17 & 18… 0 IMPSs here = terrible MP score |
Small IMP diff. huge MP difference |
|||||||||
|
BOARD 19 |
SCORES |
Calc. |
IMPs |
MPs No. |
% | |||||
|
Bid |
By |
Making |
NS |
EW |
NS |
EW |
NS |
EW |
||
|
1 |
3NT |
E |
7 |
200 |
– |
200 |
5 |
-5 |
37 |
92.5% |
|
2 |
3NT |
E |
7 |
200 |
– |
200 |
5 |
-5 |
37 |
92.5% |
|
3 |
2♠ |
E |
6 |
200 |
– |
200 |
5 |
-5 |
37 |
92.5% |
|
4 |
3NT |
E |
7 |
200 |
– |
200 |
5 |
-5 |
37 |
92.5% |
|
5 |
3♥ |
E |
8 |
100 |
– |
100 |
3 |
-3 |
30 |
75.0% |
|
6 |
2♥ |
E |
7 |
100 |
– |
100 |
3 |
-3 |
30 |
75.0% |
|
7 |
2NT |
E |
7 |
100 |
– |
100 |
3 |
-3 |
30 |
75.0% |
|
8 |
2♦ |
S |
8 |
90 |
– |
90 |
3 |
-3 |
26 |
65.0% |
|
9 |
2♦ |
S |
7 |
– |
50 |
-50 |
-2 |
2 |
23 |
57.5% |
|
10 |
1NT |
S |
6 |
– |
50 |
-50 |
-2 |
2 |
23 |
57.5% |
|
11 |
1NT |
E |
7 |
– |
90 |
-90 |
-3 |
3 |
17 |
42.5% |
|
12 |
1NT |
E |
7 |
– |
90 |
-90 |
-3 |
3 |
17 |
42.5% |
|
13 |
1NT |
E |
7 |
– |
90 |
-90 |
-3 |
3 |
17 |
42.5% |
|
14 |
1NT |
E |
7 |
– |
90 |
-90 |
-3 |
3 |
17 |
42.5% |
|
15 |
2♦ |
S |
6 |
– |
100 |
-100 |
-3 |
3 |
10 |
25.0% |
|
16 |
2♦ |
S |
6 |
– |
100 |
-100 |
-3 |
3 |
10 |
25.0% |
|
17 |
2♦ |
S |
6 |
– |
100 |
-100 |
-3 |
3 |
10 |
25.0% |
|
18 |
2♠ |
E |
8 |
– |
110 |
-110 |
-3 |
3 |
6 |
15.0% |
|
19 |
2NT |
E |
8 |
– |
120 |
-120 |
-3 |
3 |
4 |
10.0% |
|
20 |
1NT |
E |
9 |
– |
150 |
-150 |
-4 |
4 |
1 |
2.5% |
|
21 |
1NT |
E |
9 |
– |
150 |
-150 |
-4 |
4 |
1 |
2.5% |
|
990 |
1140 |
|||||||||
|
Total excluding top & bottom |
-150 |
|||||||||
|
Total / 19 (Average) |
-7.89 |
or say |
0 |
0 |
||||||
|
IMPS same, MPs different |
||||||||||
|
Small IMP diff. huge MP difference |
||||||||||
