October 2011 - 7

Letters to the Editor

Did it himself

8 6 5 K Q 8 4 3 2  - J 10 9 3.

To the Editor:
I read the August Viewpoint -
"Strange ideas" - with interest. As a
club director for more than 20 years,
I have encountered both sides of the
argument about computer-dealt hands
many times.
On Tuesday, I directed for the North
Calgary Ladies Bridge Club. I arrived
early at the playing site and personally shuffled the boards. I know that
it requires seven thorough shuffles to
achieve a random deal, but I am an
excellent shuffler and dealer, and as
usual, I employed 10 riffle shuffles
before each left-to-right deal.
Of the billions and billions of possible deals, some are flat and dull, others are wild and crazy.
For the session I dealt, there were
eight slams for North-South and none
for East-West.
Before that day, I had not encountered four consecutive slams North-
South, the last three of which were
grand slams.
In this session, with the hands
dealt by a person not a computer,
the run of the cards was heavily in
favor of North-South, who got most
of the high-card strength. The only
complaints came from five of the
East-West players, who claimed that
the hands were stacked, manipulated
or machine-dealt, although this club
has no dealing machine. The most
prevalent complaint from East-West:
"These hands were boring."
Suffice it to say there were no
complaints from North-South, who
all echoed expressions of amazement.
With appropriate apologies to Carole
King, "Sometimes you win, sometimes
you lose. I'm talking about sweet sessions on my mind."
MARTIN McDONALD
Calgary AB

After partner opened 1NT, the
player bid 2 (transfer) and passed
after partner bid 2, missing game.
Jerry suggested that the player should
have bid 4, arguing, "Facing a pure
guess, guess high!"
This hand is a good one for the
application of the losing trick count
(LTC). This is a seven-loser hand.
Partner's 1NT should show six or
seven losers. You have a total of 14
losers at worst, which is enough for
game. Moreover, you have at least an
eight-card fit in hearts, so 4 is not
a "high" guess. If partner has values
in diamonds, but not the ace (K-Q-x
or K-J-x, for example), you may not
make the game, but the odds are in
your favor on the information given.
In fact, if partner has the right
cards, slam is not impossible. I would
not normally suggest looking for a
slam, but if you are playing superaccepts, and the 1NT opener makes a
strong bid (3 instead of 2, for example), you might consider some sort
of trial, such as a diamond cuebid.
I realize that Helms is writing, in
part at least, for less-experienced
players who may not play the LTC.
But wouldn't this be an excellent opportunity to introduce this method?
W. D. WALLIS
Carbondale IL

Different view
To the Editor:
In his August column (page 40),
Jerry Helms gave advice to someone
who held:

LTC is a method of hand valuation.
In 1934, the principle of assessing
a hand in terms of "losers" was put
forward by F. Dudley Courtenay in
his book, The System the Experts
Play. The general idea was this:
when a suit fit came to light, you
added the number of worthless cards
in your hand to the number of losers
revealed by your partner's bidding;
the total was subtracted from 18, and
the answer would tell you how many
odd tricks the combined hands were
likely to take.
The hand under discussion has
three spade losers, one heart loser, no
diamond losers and three club losers,
for a total of seven. If the 1NT opener

has seven losers, the total between
the two hands is 14. Subtract from
18 and you get four, the level you
can bid to successfully - in theory,
anyway - in hearts. Look for more
on this concept in a future issue.

Crisis averted
To the Editor:
During a recent two-section STaC
game at the Narragansett Bridge Club,
at the beginning of the fifth round, it
was discovered that a set of boards
had not been passed to the next table
at the beginning of round two. What
to do? Fortunately, I had contact information for the director in charge.
I called Peter Marcus and told him
my dilemma. He responded in a calm,
professional manner with a kind
voice. With his help, I reassigned pairs
and boards for the next three rounds,
and he called me on his cell phone to
tell me what to do after each round.
We were able to save that section. He
also helped me with the scoring and
the game results.
I would like to recognize Peter
Marcus as an outstanding representative of ACBL. His problem solving,
patience and kindness to me showed
how a true professional responds in
a crisis.
JOAN O'CONNELL
Narragansett RI

Author, author
To the Editor:
In early July, I had the opportunity
to teach bridge to junior high students
through the Pasadena City Schools
Enrichment Program.
On the first day, a young girl came ➤
Letters to the editor are welcome
by regular mail, email editor@acbl.
org or fax 662-253-3187. 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.
October 2011 Bridge Bulletin

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of October 2011