July 2007 - 7

Letters to the Editor

VPs, is leading Strat A by 1 VP.
Team B is leading Strat B with 56
VPs. Even a blitz will not permit
Team B to go ahead of Team A. By
passing out every hand, they each
get 10 VP and win their respective
strats.
JON SHUSTER
Gainesville FL

Mind changed
To the Editor:
At first I liked the idea from Harold
C. Mathews. After consideration, I
changed my mind.
Suppose two squads in a Swiss
teams emerge undefeated. Team A
has won all but one of its matches
big. In the last match, they face Team
B, which tied each of its previous
matches but have the same score as
Team A because a tie earns the same
10 VPs as for a win, no matter what
the margin. Team A and Team B end
their match in a tie.
So, after seven matches, both teams
have 70 VPs. Which deserves to
be the winner? Does Team B really
deserve a tie for first after seven mediocre matches?
Even worse, suppose team A wins
all but one of its matches by blitzes.
They face a team that has lost all its
matches by 1 IMP, earning 9 VPs per
match in the process (for 54 VPs).
Team A is unlucky and goes minus
in a couple of good slams that are
done in by bad trump splits. Team
B blitzes Team A. The final score is
Team B 64, Team A 60. Team B wins
the event despite losing every match
but one. Team A, after dominating in
six matches, loses the event with one
unlucky match.
JOHN D'ERRICO
Alton NY

Likes new scale
To the Editor:
I really like the proposed 10-point
VP scale and urge the ACBL Board
of Directors to give it serious consideration.
The proposed scale's major advantage - and it is a big one - is that
it minimizes the "penalty" for losing
a close match. For example, losing
July 2007

by just 3 IMPs can currently cause
a 4-VP gap, while under Mathews's
scale, the gap would be only 2 VPs.
At the same time, a team can lose
their first match, beat up on a succession of weaker teams and slide
well into the overalls. The proposed
scale is really a way of getting Swiss
scoring closer to the concept of
knockouts without an all-or-nothing
result. It's a keeper!
RONALD HORWITZ
Farmington Hills MI

Stop flaps
To the Editor:
I just retired, moved cross country
and joined a new club. I thoroughly
enjoy my new club, but I am disturbed by the apparent misuse of the
Stop card by some players.
A number of players, before
making a jump bid, will lay down
the Stop card, make a bid, then immediately pick up the card. This must
occur at a good many clubs. It is clear
that this practice is intended to alert
the jump bidder's partner that there
has been a skip bid.
The worst situation is when the
opener is doubled for takeout, and the
doubler's partner lays down the Stop
card, bids, jumping the bidding one
level to show more than a minimum,
then immediately picks up the Stop
card.
It was always my understanding
that the intent of the Stop card was to
negate the effect of a quick or slow
pass over a preempt. I would like to
see the ACBL adopt a rule that the
use of the Stop card be restricted to
jump bids that are known to be weak,
and that the player laying down the
Stop card should be held, on pain of
penalty, to wait for several seconds
(in my opinion, five seconds would
be fine) before picking it up. Failing
this, at least enforce the wait over any
use of the Stop card.
STEVE POPHAM
Sebring FL
The use of the Stop card, while
preferred, remains optional. A player
opting to use the Stop card must use
it any time he skips a level in the
bidding. The use of the Stop card to
indicate a certain hand type, weak or

strong, is a clear violation of bridge
law. A player is required to make
his call based on his hand and on
the auction, not on any extraneous
information available. Players are
required to pause for eight to 10 seconds before acting after an opponent
has skipped a level in the auction,
whether the Stop card was used or
not. The Stop card is not intended
to be left on the table to control the
table tempo.

Not needed
To the Editor:
The Stop card is unnecessary and
unwise. Bid boxes now mean it is
almost impossible to make a fast pass
- unless a player is fingering the bid
cards while his RHO is preparing to
bid, and that is giving unauthorized
information.
You should see the stares I receive
when I wait the required full 10 seconds before making a call - and no
one else waits any time at all. Thus,
the Stop card helps only partner.
There have been no Stop cards in the
bid boxes at our club since they arrived, and we all do just fine.
The solution is that (a) all players
should wait at least three seconds
before making any call - it does not
slow up the auction at all. And (b)
after a jump bid, the next player is always entitled to take up to 10 seconds
to think, Stop card or no Stop card.
If Stop cards are to continue in use,
then I suggest that it must remain on
the table for a full 10 seconds and
LHO must not bid until it is picked
up. See if there isn't a revolt against
STOP cards then!
JIM HUTTER
Ames IA
See the note at the end of the
previous letter.

Letters to the editor are welcome
by regular mail, e-mail editor@acbl.
org or fax 901-398-7754. Brevity is
considered a virtue, as is subject
matter with relevance to a majority
of ACBL members. Unsigned letters
are not considered for publication,
so please include your name and
hometown. Letters may be edited.
All letters will receive a response.

7
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of July 2007
