March 2012 - 7

Letters to the Editor

I have come to the conclusion that
the bridge knowledge of the player
giving the lecture is inversely proportional to the length of the "lesson."
This is not the case with pro players,
of course, although I have had to ask
a few of them to restrict discussions
in knockouts, where the banter can be
extremely distracting.
MAC BUSBY
San Diego CA

Yak it up
To the Editor:
The answer to the player's question
is in his parenthetic statement,
"...provided that it does not compromise the time limit for the round."
This can occur only if all boards in
the round are completed and the next
round has not been started. At that
point, yak away.
RON WOODSUM
Greenville NC

Silly debate
To the Editor:
I find the ongoing debate on psychic
bids silly and pointless. Legitimate
deception is an accepted part of the
game and, rightly so, acknowledged
by ACBL. If psychs are disallowed,
so should be deceptive declarer, and
defensive card play and pre-emptive
bidding (bidding at a level higher than
justified by point holding).
One of the proclaimed virtues of
competitive bridge is that it allows
players of lesser ability to test their
mettle against stalwarts, something
not possible in other sports - e.g.,
tennis. Are tournament directors supposed to go around advising better
players before each round to go soft
on less-experienced opponents?
C. JAY KRIPLANI
Thornhill ON

Tom terrific
To the Editor:
Tommy Sanders, who died Dec. 11,
was an outstanding ACBL president
and a top-flight player, but he was
much more than that.

He had much to do with North
America's acceptance of screens for
major events. There was determined
resistance to screens at first, but
Tommy helped prove just how valuable screens could be.
When Kathie Wei-Sender came up
with the idea of matches between the
kingpins of the corporate world and
Congress, Tommy helped make it possible. It was through these matches
that investment guru Warren Buffett
became known as a bridge lover.
Everyone knows that the ACBL
Charity Foundation raised millions of
dollars. Tommy played a major role in
the formation of this foundation.
One of the greatest players of all
time was Barry Crane. Tommy was
one of Barry's regular partners. I
played against them once and got zero
matchpoints out of 50.
Playing with Tommy in the Epson
Instant Matchpoint game in the Great
Hall in Beijing, China, was an eyeopener for both of us. When it came
time for our round against two very
high-ranking members of the government, we were led down countless
corridors to a special room. The
higher-ranking officer had a consultant sitting behind him who offered
advice to him on every bid and every
play! We were up against a three-man
"pair"!
HENRY FRANCIS
Memphis TN

Not perfect
To the Editor:
I appreciate the two recent articles
on losing trick count by Jennifer
Jones, as I am also an avid user of
LTC and like that I can use it even
though my partner does not! Although
LTC generally provides an improved
estimation for distributional contracts, it should be noted that LTC can
suffer from duplication of assets just
as other evaluation methods. In some
cases, it can also suffer by giving
equal value to an ace, king or queen.
Considering one of the examples in
Jennifer's January 2012 article, if we

change the A in hand D to the K,
it remains a six-loser hand. However, the chances of making game in
combination with hand B drops from
almost a certainty to only about 50%.
If we further change from a doubleton
king in clubs to a doubleton king in
hearts, it is still a six-loser hand that,
opposite hand B, is down one due to
duplication of assets.
Consider this extreme example
of differences that can occasionally
occur between two hands with the
same losing trick count. Opposite this
seven-loser hand:
Q J 5 4 Q J 7 3 5 4 A K 6,
which six-loser hand below would
you rather have?
1. A 8 6 3 2 A 5 A K 6 Q J 4
2. K 8 6 3 2 K 5 K Q 6 Q J 4
As many would suspect, LTC can be
a great improvement, although not a
perfect estimator.
LARRY NOYES
Topton NC

Young but wise
To the Editor:
Playing duplicate bridge in Indiana
in the Seventies gave me the opportunity to play against Jeff Meckstroth
and Eric Rodwell when they first
started playing together. On one occasion, they had a rare bidding misunderstanding, which gave us a good
result. As play progressed, not a word
was spoken. When the round was
over, they quietly got up and excused
themselves.
When I hear people criticize their
partners at the table, ostensibly to ➤

Correction
The profile on Player of the Year Joel
Wooldridge (March issue) incorrectly
identified Wooldridge's partner in the
2011 Baldwin North American Pairs as
Shane Blanchard. Wooldridge played
with Kevin Bathurst; they finished sec‑
ond in the contest.
Blanchard won the event playing
with Joe Grue.
March 2012 Bridge Bulletin

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of March 2012