December 2010 - 6

Viewpoint
By Brent Manley

Human beings must have action; and they
will make it if they cannot find it.
- Albert Einstein

Letters to
the Editor

Pressure
As editor of the Daily Bulletin at the World Bridge Championships in Phila‑
delphia, I watched a lot of bridge. Some of it was exciting. It was impressive to
see Brad Moss play seemingly without effort to land a grand slam via a double
squeeze in the Rosenblum Cup final against the Nick Nickell team, last year's
winners of the Bermuda Bowl.
Some of what I saw was tough to fathom, as when two world champions
bid themselves to the six level, wide open in spades. Unluckily for them, the
opening leader held the top two spades. Quick as a wink, it was down one,
double‑digit IMPs to the other team.
All in all, it was an excellent tournament with lots of interesting action and a
great showing by ACBL players (see page 14).
My lasting impression from Philadelphia, however, does not involve individ‑
ual players or matches. Rather, it was the continuation of a trend that started
many years ago - incredibly light opening bids.
In high‑level competition, there's not much difference in the card‑play skills
of the players who get to the medal rounds. What separates the winners from
the losers is experience and facility for coping with pressure in the bidding -
in short, judgment.
That makes it all the more important to get in the first lick, so opening bids
have become lighter and lighter.
Jeff Meckstroth and Eric Rodwell are so tough to play against because they
are hyper‑active in the bidding. Even top players can be unsure about bidding
on or pulling out the red card against them.
What's clear is that Meckwell are not the only pair terrorizing the opposition.
In just a couple of sets in the latter stages of the Rosenblum (the open knock‑
out), I saw players opening hands that would make most of us cringe. Shape
and/or vulnerability didn't matter. Aceless 4-3-3-3 with 11 high‑card points, red
as a beet? No problem. Nine‑pointer with no shape, in first seat? 1 coming up.
It was a shock when one deal in the Rosenblum was passed out - at one
table, anyway. At the other, they bid 5, down one. A hard way to lose 2 IMPs.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticizing, just making an observation. The ag‑
gressive style works well for the pairs who know how to manage it. You can't
argue with success.
For most of us, of course, the best advice in this area might be a variation on
the familiar car commercial disclaimer: "Professional driver. Closed course.
Do not attempt."
r
© 2010 by American Contract Bridge League. All rights reserved. Contents of this magazine may not be reproduced in any manner without written
consent from the publisher. Mention of any product does not constitute endorsement by the Bridge Bulletin. Bridge Bulletin assumes no responsibility
for return of unsolicited manuscripts, photos, art, or cartoons, and reserves the right to reject any editorial or advertising materials. Unsolicited materials
should be accompanied by a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Bridge Bulletin is a registered trademark of American Contract Bridge League.
It is Bridge Bulletin policy not to accept advertising from persons or organizations believed to be unreliable or financially irresponsible. We are not
responsible, however, for the performance of advertisers, the delivery or quality of their merchandise or services, or the legality of any particular program.
On cruise ads, we suggest you check to make sure duplicate bridge will be offered on the cruise you desire. Regarding investment ads, we recommend
that you check with your financial adviser before acting. ACBL Management reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to refuse any advertisement.

6 Bridge Bulletin December 2010

Shuffling along
To the Editor:
In the October 2010 issue of The
American Mathematical Monthly,
in an article titled "A Better Way to
Deal Cards," the authors investigate
various shuffling and dealing meth‑
ods as applied to bridge and poker.
For bridge players, the most sig‑
nificant sentence reads in part, "We
have shown that in the long run ...
back‑and‑forth dealing is 13 times as
effective as cyclic dealing."
I have always dealt out cards in a
back and forth manner, and I often
get questions about why I deal that
way. Until now, I guess it was a mere
instinctive preference (I taught math‑
ematics before I retired). Now I learn
that my dealing method is a signifi‑
cantly superior method.
Therefore, I recommend that the
next time the commission on laws
meets, it makes a change to Law 6B,
entitled "The Deal," which reads in
part "... The recommended procedure
is that the cards be dealt in rotation,
clockwise."
It has now been proven that clock‑
wise dealing is less random than
back‑and‑forth dealing, so the time
has come to try to change the deal‑
ing habits of bridge players. That may
not be an easy change for most, but
we now know that it would be a good
change.
STEVE CONRAD
Manhasset NY

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of December 2010