October 2005 - 8

Letters to the Editor

Clean up!
To the Editor:
It was a pleasure to play at the
Long Beach Regional. Kudos to John
Killian, tournament manager, and to
the wonderful staff of directors!
The venue (the Westin Hotel) was
great, and we like the format of
10:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. sessions.The
only negative side of the regional
had to do with the other players.
When we arrived, the place was
very neat and tidy with trash bags
at each table. By 1:30 p.m. the floor
was a mess, and by 6:30 p.m. it was
even worse.
MRS. GENE YAFFEE
Seal Beach CA

Be careful
To the Editor:
Regarding Walt Mendenhall's idea
of a promoted point‑count system
(July, page 8), I would point out
that often in a suit contract having
two or three top cards in a side suit
can still win only one trick, and
that promoting lower cards is not
as valuable. His new point‑count
system may well be a good method
of reevaluating a hand once you be‑
lieve you are playing notrump, but it
could definitely lead to inflated hand
values and poor contracts if used as
a basis for all bidding.
WILLIAM SHEPHERD
Evanston IL

Looks and laws
To the Editor:
Marie Sander's helpful columns
on manners and etiquette have
been included as a part of the Play
Bridge section. There is one matter
not covered in Marie's columns that
is discussed in the conduct and eti‑
quette section of the laws, and that
some (many?) of us older longtime
players are either ignorant of - or
choose to ignore.
We are admonished that during
the bidding and play we are not to
look, especially a glaring stare, at
our opponents or our partners. Who
of us is sometimes guilty of begin‑
ning a finesse and at the moment
our card hits the table, turning our
8

head to stare directly at the op‑
ponent who is contemplating their
play? Who of us sometimes (when
partner has failed to Alert our call
or errs in answering a question
about our bid or play) begins an un‑
interrupted visual appeal to partner?
Or, after we lead what we think is
an obvious singleton, closely moni‑
tor our partner's face to make sure
the message has been understood? Is
it possible that we more experienced
players are ignorant of these propri‑
eties and have formed bad habits?
Is it also possible that some of the
long‑suffering victims of such con‑
duct are also unaware that the laws
cover this kind of improper visual
communication? Since it seems to
keep occurring, should it receive
more attention when discussing
ethics and proper deportment at the
table? Just checking.
WADE KOENINGER
Hopland CA

Keen observer
To the Editor:
Congrats to all the participants
of the Canadian Bridge Federation
Bridge Week 2005 in Montreal,
especially those teams with only
four members.
A big hurrah to Bridge Base
Online - I was an avid vugraph
voyeur for most of the events. It is
such a thrill to watch the champions
in action! Thank you, Fred Gitel‑
man, Sheri Winestock and Uday
Ivatury (Bridge Base) for such a
wonderful program. It has opened
the bridge world to so many.
TRACEY FUHR
Thunder Bay ON

Rating system?
To the Editor:
You occasionally publish a letter
decrying some real or imagined
inequity in the masterpoint system,
people who hire professional part‑
ners (or teammates) so that they can
win "above their level," or both.
I usually view those letters as sour
grapes. How much less would the
game have advanced without the
contributions those professionals
have made to theory, practice and

literature? Similarly, warts and all,
the masterpoint system is fair to the
extent that the masterpoint awards
process and ranks attained from
masterpoints earned are the same
for all of us.
Yet, the masterpoint award process
does have room for improvement. At
the Wolverine Regional in Farming‑
ton Hills MI, my Strat C squad tied
for second in Strat A in the Board‑
a-Match Swiss Teams without ever
playing a Strat A team. We played
well, but not well enough to earn ei‑
ther our finish or the corresponding
masterpoint award.
Consider the chess rating system.
Players who beat higher‑rated play‑
ers gain rating points. Losing to
lower‑rated players reduces one's rat‑
ing. Losing to a higher‑rated player
or beating a lower‑rated player has
little effect on either player's rating.
Results between players with nearly
equal ratings have an intermediate
effect. Thus, the chess player rating
system slightly underrates strong
young players "on their way up" and
slightly overrates older players who
are still quite good but beginning to
"lose their edge."
Before computers, applying such
a rating model to bridge would have
been a computational nightmare.
Now, the ACBL might consider
parallel ranking systems. Retain
the current masterpoint system (or
something very like it) but introduce
a system that emulates the chess
system. Thus, a Life Master might
enter a club game against a field of
weaker players, finish second, pick
up some black points and leave with
a lower rating.
The masterpoint system would
continue measuring lifetime achieve‑
ment. The chess‑like rating system
would usually offer a lagging
"current ability" indicator. After
both systems have been in place
long enough so that members feel
comfortable with both, the ACBL
might consider determining strata,
determining national champions and
picking international team represen‑
tatives with the chess‑like system.
BRIAN POTTER
Farmington Hills MI
Bridge Bulletin
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of October 2005
