January 2006 - 8

Letters to the Editor

director calls (mostly about hesitations), and the detrimental effect
they have on some players' enjoyment of the game, versus the
enforcement of ACBL rules and
regulations.
It is certainly true that some
players seem to consider the director call a convenient source of
matchpoints or IMPs - and we all
know the shrieking or bellowed director calls. When playing in casual
games against inexperienced opponents, certain behaviors by them
should be excused, though perhaps
brought to their attention after the
round.
That being said, I would like
to point out that by far the most
frequent Zero Tolerance violations
I witness are opponents' reactions
to director calls. They frequently
include statements made to partner
- but clearly aimed at the opponents - to the effect of "Let them
call the director if they need a top
so desperately." Directors seem very
hesitant to enforce Zero Tolerance in
these situations.
What seems to be frequently
forgotten in these situations is that
a director call is supposed to make
sure that the game continues to be
played by the rules following an
infraction.
Finally, while experienced players
certainly have a responsibility to
be more considerate toward inexperienced opponents in more casual
settings, I would suggest that anyone
playing in the A flight of a flighted
event should be deemed able to follow rules and procedures correctly.
DAVID KEMPE
Los Angeles CA

Déjà vu
To the Editor:
When I first looked at the cover
of the June 2005 issue of the Bridge
Bulletin, I thought that it was ad-

Patron Member
Lloyd Arvedon of Bedford MA should
have been listed along with other
Patron Members in the December
issue (page 22).
8

dressed to me personally. After
all, it had my name (even though
it was turned sideways) just under
the wording "Thank you, Colonel."
Actually, my association with ACBL
goes back a long way. One of my
most treasured possessions is a silver box with the following engraved
on the lid:
In Appreciation to William F.
Lovell, Director and number one
player of CZOOM Duplicate Bridge
Club, 1957, 1958, Japan
CZOOM is the abbreviation of
Camp Zama Officers Open Mess.
I remember the times all those
years ago when I manually calculated the results at the end of each
session and sent the pertinent data
back to ACBL Headquarters. As
I recall, I was a major then. My
favorite bridge story goes back to
1950, when I was posted in Tehran,
Iran, as an advisor to their Army
to assist in the establishment of an
Officers Infantry School. Needless
to say, the U.S. and Iranian governments were on friendly terms then
and the Shah reigned supreme.
We also had U.S. advisors to their
police establishment stationed there.
Our families were permitted to accompany us. My assignment just
before going to Iran was as an advisor to a National Guard unit located
in Reno NV.
In Iran, there were more than 50
persons in the ARMISH group (U.S.
Army Headquarters) and about that
many in the Gendarmarie Mission
(the police advisors). Many of the
women and some of the men were
bridge players. A number of them
had played duplicate bridge back
home and were interested in starting a club in Tehran. There was a
problem, though - our group had
neither the cards nor the boards!
Where there is a will, there is a
way, however.
I wrote to the manager of a club
in Reno I had met during my assignment there. I asked him to send me
30 used decks of cards and he did.
But what about the boards? The
women solved that problem - they
cut out strips of oilcloth (used for
tablecloths in some instances) about

the length of four cards and slightly
wider than a card, folded and sewed
each end so that 13 cards could
be slipped inside. Two strips holding cards at each end were placed
exactly across each other, sewed
at the middle. When the four ends
holding the cards were folded over
each other, viola! A new type of
duplicate board. I wouldn't say that
necessity is the mother of invention
in this case but it was very clever
and lots of fun for all concerned.
COL. WILLIAM F. LOVELL
(retired)
Honolulu HI

No more VPs
To the Editor:
I have played in several regional
and sectional tournaments in the
past few years, and I cannot see
why the tournaments have adopted
victory point scoring for Swiss
teams. The only reason several of us
can see is it is strongly favorable for
the professional bridge player.
I was on a team that played in the
Seaside Oregon Sectional this year.
We won six of seven close matches
and lost one by 3 IMPs. We placed
tied for third.
In my estimation VPs work best
for teams that annihilate their opponents. A very good team can do
this to most any other team. This
gives them a tremendous advantage,
and it doesn't seem to be in the best
interests of bridge.
Stratified events, where multiple
strats are playing each other, also
causes huge VP differences. Directors should be able to handle the
win/loss scoring easier. It certainly
is no more difficult than VPs.
I have talked to many tournament
players (not professionals), and
have not found anyone in favor of
the VP system. So why aren't you
organizers listening? A change back
to win/loss may improve attendance
at your tournaments. Listen to
what the people with fewer than 50
masterpoints have to say. Please,
tournament organizers, go back to
wins and losses.
DICK MALLON
Ocean Shores WA
Bridge Bulletin
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of January 2006
