Pair contest

These are the available tiebreak methods in pair contests, by default order:


In-between meeting

This is the most straight-forward of the available tiebreak methods.

Did the pairs meet? If so, who scored the most? That is the winner.


Session percentage

This method only works in multi-session events.

The pair with the single highest session percentage percentage. If that is the same, then the second highest session percentage is used, and so on.


Standard deviation

This method is used by the French Bridge Federation.

Standard deviation is pure math according to this formula:


In plain language: Convert all topscores to average=0. Then square these values. Then add them together. Then divide by number of scores minus 1. Then take the square root of this. The lowest value wins the tiebreak. The final value will be lower the closer to average the scores are.

This method favours pairs who do not play yo-yo bridge, as opposed to Session percentage above that in some sense does.


Topscore comparison

Version 4.12: This method is not yet activated. Read more…

A new “pair contest” is created that contains only the scores of the involved pairs, no matter if they played against each other or not. The scores are compared with top=2 for two involved pairs and top=4 for three.

Let us assume that A receives 50 points, B receives 47 points, and C receives 47 points. In this case, A is the winner of the tiebreak, whereas B and C are still tied.

If the Repeat in case of partial tiebreak in a 3-way tie setting is activated, another tiebreak is attempted, this time only for the two pairs with top=2, which may or may not break the tie between B and C.

Note! The crucial point is whether all scores should be compared, i.e. the awarded topscores no matter the seated direction of the involved pairs, or only scores received when the pairs are seated in the same direction. The Swedish rules used to be that you needed to sit in the same direction, and then it changed to including all scores. The question will again be brought up at a meeting in January 2018.


Table of contents