December 2008 - 7

Letters to the Editor

into the tank, spending an inordinate
amount of time studying the lead.
All of a sudden, it came to me. My
wife had led, as instructed, fourth best
from her longest and strongest suit.
I crossed my fingers, praying the
declarer wouldn't put up the jack.
Finally, he called for a low club and
my wife promptly ran off the rest of
the clubs. We were the only pair to
defeat the contract. "Well done," I
told my wife.
ALLAN LYONS
Palm Beach Gardens FL

Change luck
To the Editor:
One of the side effects of the
popularity of knockout teams is the
simultaneous growth in field size of
the one-session evening Swiss teams.
If your four matches are "tight," you
may win four close matches without
swingy boards and find yourself with
little chance to hit the overalls and
none for a high finish. I believe a
team that plays 24 boards giving up
only a few IMPs deserves better.
A study of 11 Swiss teams at two
regionals (Las Vegas and Council
Bluffs) shows that it required an average of 54 victory points for an overall
finish. Winning four close matches
by 7 IMPs leaves you out of the
money or only a "scratch."
In the interest of minimizing the
swingy board luck factor, I propose
that single-session Swiss teams with
field sizes greater than, say, 30 teams
use a more differentiated win-loss
scoring scale: eighths or tenths for
six-board matches.
Going by eighths, a tie would earn
four-eighths, or 50%; a win by 1 IMP
would get you five-eighths (63%);
by 2 IMPs, sixth-eighths (75%), and
by 3 IMPs seven-eighths (88%). Any
win of 4 IMPs or more would earn a
full win.
Using tenths, a full win would
require 5 IMPs. Ties would earn 50%
of a win, then 1 IMP through 4 IMPs
would earn 60% through 90%.
If the new win-loss scoring method
still denies undefeated teams a clear
first overall finish, you could break
ties using each team's overall total
IMP differential.
December 2008

Let's reward good performance and
dampen the luck factor.
MIKE CASSEL
Roseville MN

Everyone behave
To the Editor:
I support Vicki Buchanan (October,
page 7) regarding the "quiet majority" of well-behaved players. We
don't need rude, obnoxious, intimidating people who run new players
away from the game. I will continue
to report bad behavior at my table. I
won't tolerate it, nor should anyone
else. People need to make a stand for
themselves and those around them.
PAT JANKOVIC
Alcoa TN

Unwelcome changes
To the Editor:
I have been an ACBL member for
many years and intend to remain a
member until my demise. I do have
some comments, however, about
recent changes by the ACBL.
The first is raising the Life Master
requirement to 500 masterpoints
(October, page 22), which takes effect Jan. 1, 2010.
About five years ago, a woman
with whom I was playing in a sectional tournament made Life Master.
She cried and took our team out to
dinner. She said some of her least
favorite relatives had told her that she
would never make Life Master. If the
baby boomers enter retirement and
conclude that they can never make
Life Master within their remaining
active years, we will suffer losses
in membership. Please spare me the
elitist comments that so-and-so made
Life Master without having to play
anybody. It is still a numbers game
for membership.
I am also concerned about knockouts. At a recent sectional, one of
the lower bracket knockout teams
won their three-session event. They
later won a one-session pairs game
(0-500) and received a greater award
for the pairs game. Their conclusion - no more knockouts. Look
at Gatlinburg. Please rethink the
award system, especially on the lower

levels.
Finally, there is the event known as
bracketed Swiss teams. A recent sectional tournament had three brackets
of seven teams each. The top seven
teams could receive only three place
awards. Four of the best seven were
relegated to match awards.
Another consequence was that
the seventh team in Bracket 1 was
hopelessly outclassed. After enduring
a few blitzes and near-blitzes, they
withdrew, totally throwing the event
out of kilter. In a regular Swiss teams,
they would have had chances against
teams in the lower two brackets. The
lower teams would have had chances
to place in B or C. I realize that a
stratified Swiss teams is not nearly as
fair to B and C players as a stratified
pairs game, but there must be some
better solution.
KYLE WEEMS
Chattanooga TN
Tournament organizers do the best
they can to accommodate the desires
of the majority of players. Smaller
tournaments, such as those cited in
this letter, have special challenges in
arranging their event schedules.

Opposes new LM rules
To the Editor:
I recently read that the requirements for Life Master will be raised
for future new joiners. I believe this
plan will hurt the recruitment of new
members and be detrimental to bridge
in general.
I would think the travel and
expense to obtain "colored"
masterpoints would discourage new
members for the ACBL because
many people do not have the time
and/or money to meet the new stringent requirements.
I know there are abuses at local

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 December 2008
