To cut down the possibility of long matches if a "win by 2" rule was implemented, would allowing the player who started as first player last to win the match after the first break with the required minimum number of wins create an unfair advantage?
For example, a best-of-7, win-by-2 match is being played where Player A goes first in the odd games, while Player B goes first in the even games. The first 6 games are split 3-3. Now in the 7th game, player A goes first, but player B breaks player A and wins the match because he "broke serve" first and has reached the minimum number of wins (4).
Does this option create too much of a 2nd player advantage? (Essentially, we would be asking player A to get an additional 1st-player win that player B doesn't necessarily need to win the match.)
Edit: In case my position on the win-by-2 stance is unclear, I am in favor of some form of that being used in tournament play. First player advantage is significant, and something should be done to mitigate it. Yes, there are other factors at play here, but those are more random and can't really be controlled without changing the game itself (shuffle luck, kingdom selection, etc). Also, I don't really like the idea of playing the same kingdom twice in a row alternating the first player. A huge skill in Dominion is being able to read the kingdom cards and develop a game plan at the beginning of a new game. It's not really the same game if you start playing the same boards twice in a row consistently.