September 2015 - 8

Letters to the Editor

played our game every month, either in
Sarasota or in Cincinnati.
All duplicate bridge players have
similar stacks. They are the vestiges of
partnerships memorialized forever.
Bridge is a great game. It challenges
the mind - and if we play our cards
right, it forms the basis of cherished
friendships that live on in our hearts
long after we leave the table.
DEAN CONGBALAY
Longboat Key FL

Sour grapes or valid point?

I expect you'll be getting a lot of mail
in response to Edward Hoffer's letter in the July issue, but I'd like to add
my two cents. Mr. Hoffer complained
about getting two zeroes because his
opponents reached two successful
contracts that no one else bid, and suggests that a scoring algorithm could be
devised that would give the pairs who
made those bids their deserved tops,
while not penalizing their opponents
who did nothing wrong. Perhaps it
could, but in my humble opinion, that
way lies madness!
If we're going to adjust the score
of the pair whose opponents were
the only ones to bid the slam, then
shouldn't we also adjust the score of
the pair whose opponents were the
only ones to find the lead that sets the
contract? Or the only ones to find the
profitable sacrifice? And shouldn't this
protection from unusual results work
the other way, as well? Why should a
pair get an undeserved top when their
opponents are the only ones to overbid
and go down, or the only ones not to bid
a game that makes?
Getting "fixed" is part of the game
and should be accepted grudgingly
but with grace. As I like to say, to play

8 Bridge Bulletin September 2015

this game, you should have a sense of
humor!
SANDY FORSYTHE
Dayton OH
Mr. Hoffer suggests the ACBL should
create an algorithm to not penalize a
pair who did nothing different than
all other pairs in his direction except
that his opponents bid better than
the opposing pairs. This idea could be
extended to reduce a top for a pair who
did nothing to achieve their top except
that the opponents really screwed up
while playing "the not our fault we got
a top" pair. Extend it even further to
include an algorithm that gives extra
matchpoints (or masterpoints) to a
partner who was not at fault when
the person he was playing with made
a clear mistake. Or maybe we should
have an algorithm that awards more
masterpoints to a player who was
playing with someone beneath his skill
level?
While my heart bleeds for Mr. Hoffer's bad luck on the two boards in
question, I think I have already written
far more than his suggestion deserves!
ALAN MARTIN
Prince George BC
Edward Hoffer makes a very valid
point in his letter. Along similar lines,
I consider that the current penalties
for revokes often create a very unfair
result. For example, when a revoke occurs, the declaring side receives a gift
of a trick or more that may give them a
top over all other same-side declarers.
I agree that the offending side should
be penalized, but I fail to see why the
other side should receive such a gift
that places them above the rest of the
field.
DOUG NIBLOCK
Perth ON

Mother is watching

At a recent tournament in Nashua
NH, I found myself seated at the
adjacent table to where my sons were
playing. When the younger used a
harsh tone towards his older brother, I
cast a sharp glare at him, as is my wont.
In response, my son, Zach, raised his
hands in a big, somewhat loud gesture,
and, smiling, proclaimed, "Overbearing
Mother, Alert!"
As both tables started laughing, my
other son, Adam (straight-faced as
usual), set the record straight, explaining, "Zach, I'm pretty sure that's not
Alertable. That's standard." Foiled
again.
JORI CEDER GROSSACK
Waban MA

Dissing decimals

In response to Danny Kleinman's interesting letter (Down with Decimals!,
June 2015), my brother Jonathan (a
frequent contributor) devised an ingenious matchpointing method when
boards were played an unequal number
of times. In order to ensure that all
boards had the same average (say the
bulk of the boards were played seven
times and one or two sets were played
eight times), the boards played seven
times had a top of 6, a bottom of zero
and an average of 3. The boards played
eight times had a top of 6.5, a bottom
of minus 0.5, and still the average was
3. Unfortunately, he never published
his technique. Our mentor, Sam Gold,
member of the Canadian Bridge Hall
of Fame and creator of many of the duplicate movements, approved of Jon's
scoring innovation.
ROBERT SHUSTER
Hampstead QC
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of September 2015
