Crea sito

Ron Klinger: The New WBF IMPs-to-VPs Scale

Posted on 10 May 2013

Leggi in italiano »

ibpaAs known, the WBF decided to revise the scoring system and published a new VP scale, which will become the standard starting from Bali’s World Championships 2013. On May’s edition of IPBA bulletin, Ron Klinger published an interesting article, followed by the director’s comment, John Carruthers.  We publish here both contributes.

Ron Klinger. Under the new Victory Point scale adopted by the World Bridge Federation, every IMP counts (very good), but the IMPs vary in ever-decreasing fractions the more one scores. For the Ron Klinger (by E. van Ettinger)14-board scale used in the NEC Cup, IMPs 1 and 2 were worth 0.33 VPs each, IMPs 3 and 4 were worth 0.31 VPs each, IMP 5 = 0.30 VPs, IMPs 6 and 7 = 0.29 VPs and so on. Unless you memorize the scale, you have no way of checking your Victory Point score without consulting the relevant scale.

Another feature of the new scale is that it tilts the scores heavily in favour of small wins (making overtricks significantly more valuable). Under the former WBF scale, 0-2 IMPs was a draw for 14-board or 16-board matches. On the new scale 2 IMPs = 10.66–9.34 or a difference of 1.32 VPs compared to the draw previously. For 16-board matches, 3-7 IMPs used to be 16-14 in VPs, a difference of 2 VPs. On the new scale 7 IMPs = 12.16–7.84 VPs, a difference of 4.32 VPs, more than double the previous 2-VP difference.

It is very attractive to have every IMP count, but the scale could be greatly simplified and achieve virtually the same result with slightly less emphasis on small wins.

Suppose you want to cut the scale out at a maximum win of, say, 60 IMPs (16-board to 20-board matches). The first 20 IMPs could be scored at 0.25 VP each. Thus a 10-IMP win would be 12.5–7.5 (12.97–7.03 on the current scale) and a 20-IMP win would be 15.0–5.0 (15.26–4.74 on the current scale). It would also lessen the impact slightly for small wins: 2 IMPs = 10.5–9.5 (vs 10.66–9.34), 7 IMPs = 11.75–8.25 (vs 12.16–7.84).

IMPs 2-40 could be at 0.20 VPs each. Thus a 30-IMP win would be 17.0–3.0 (17.04–2.96) and a 40-IMP win = 19.0–1.0 (18.41 –1.59) IMPs 41-60 could be at 0.05 each.


Or, a slightly more even gradation could be:

IMPs 1-20 at 0.25 VPs each. 10-IMP win = 12.5 – 7.5; 20-IMP win = 15-5

IMPs 21-40 at 0.15 VPs each. 30-IMP win = 16.5 – 3.5; 40-IMP win = 18-2

IMPs 41-60 at 0.10 VPs each. 50-IMP win = 19.1; 60-IMP win = 20-0


If you wanted to cut out at 50 IMPs for a maximum win (12-15 board matches):

IMPs 1-20 at 0.25 VPs each. 20-IMP win = 15-5

IMPs 21-40 at 0.20 VPs each. 40-IMP win = 19-1

IMPs 41-50 at 0.10 VPs each. 50-IMP win = 20-0


If you want to make 40 IMPs a maximum win (8-11 board matches):

IMPs 1-20 at 0.30 VPs each. 20-IMP win = 16-4

IMPs 21-40 at 0.20 VPs each. 30-IMP win = 18-2, 40 IMPs win 20-0.


For 30 IMPs as a maximum win: 3-7 board matches:

IMPs 1-20 at 0.40 VPs each. 20-IMP win = 18-2

IMPs 21-30 at 0.20 VPs each. 30-IMP win = 20-0


For 1 or 2 board matches: 1 IMP = 1 VP up to a maximum of 20 VPs.


I am no mathematician, and those who produced the new WBF scales are, but it does seem attractive to make the WBF scales sIMPle and comprehensible to the average player. The preceding suggestions achieve the aim of having every IMP count and skew the scale less heavily in favour of the small wins. It also makes the scales easier to follow and allows anyone to work out the VPs using sIMPle arithmetic.


John CarruthersJohn Carruthers (IBPA Bulletin’s Editor). Agreed, simpler is better. However, do we need to accept the premise that “Every IMP counts”? I see no intrinsic merit in it. To illustrate why, consider the scoring at bridge from total points to IMPs. There are no decimal IMPs – every IMP has a range of points. A differential in team scores of 10 points even counts as 0 IMPs. So why is it necessary to make every IMP count? To my mind, having whole Victory Points is a more more laudable goal than making every IMP count.

 In an era when most jurisdictions are having difficulty attracting new players (especially young ones) to the game, we should be doing all we can to simplify scoring, not complicate it. Moves such as this to decimal scoring reduce the accessibility of the game to the uninitiated. A better move would have been to make every IMP worth one Victory Point or to make every board a point. Decimal Victory Points are an abomination! What is next on this continuum – making every point count for decimal IMPs? 


 Read the previous discussion: Carruthers Klinger and Bramley about new Victory Points Scales


IBPA Bulletin No 580 – May 10, 2013

(Visited 1,353 times, 1 visits today)

Comments are closed.

Giorgino Duboin’s column

Italian style 02The Neapolitan Club staff is honoured to welcome a new illustrious contributor: Giorgino Duboin. The great Italian champion will write a series of articles mostly dedicated to his international bridge activities. Duboin’s Column »

Norberto Bocchi’s column

MyWay-logoThe great Italian champion Norberto Bocchi contributes articles on a regular basis to Neapolitan Club. Norberto refers in his column ‘My Way’ to political issues which may arise in the bridge world and sometimes he describes interesting hands. Read Bocchi’s column»   Read Bocchi’s interviews»

Rhoda Walsh Notes

Rhoda_WalshWalsh No Trump Notes by Rhoda Walsh: a study on No Trump openings with their developments  in uncontested and contested auctions. Table of Contents »
Annotations by Rhoda Walsh on the 1 Notrump game forcing  response in the "2 over 1 game forcing system" (Walsh System).Table of Contents»

Simply the Best

Best articles by Paolo Enrico Garrisi: open »

Let’s talk to the Champions!

Best interviews run by Laura Camponeschi: open »

Momorizing at Bridge

Are there techniques to develop some specific memory? Could be possible to make a choice of what might be more useful to memorize? Read what the champions say: open »

Silvio Sbarigia


SILVIO SBARIGIA is a pharmacist; he was born in Rome and lives there. He has won the European championship in 1975 with legendary Blue Team, runner up at 1974’s and at Olympic games of 1976.  Sbarigia is member of Neapolitan Club Technical Commettee. His bridge problems aren’t difficult; just we need to think on a plan and to avoid the instinctive playing. Bridge quizzes by Sbarigia »

Laura Cecilia Porro

Laura-Cecilia-Porro 142
Content Protected Using Blog Protector By: PcDrome.