March 2016 - 7

➺ InBox
Transfer interference

The article "Fighting Fire With Fire"
by Fred Hamilton and Bob Ciaffone
(January issue, pg. 29) discusses the
value of transfers by responder after
the opponents have overcalled an
opening one-level suit bid, a method
now approved under the General Convention Chart. This piece illustrates
yet again why transfers are useful and
popular, but it also raises questions
about why the ACBL continues to enforce arbitrary restrictions about the
use of transfers under the GCC.
For years, it has struck me as odd
that transfer overcalls of 1NT opening bids are permitted, while transfer
overcalls of one-level suit opening bids
are prohibited. It also has struck me
odd that transfer responses to a suit
bid at the one level have been disallowed, while transfer responses to a
suit bid at the two level or higher have
been allowed. Transfer advances after
overcalls have been allowed for quite
some time with or without a bid by
responder. Now that the ACBL has decided that responder may be allowed to
use transfers after natural overcalls, it
is perplexing that the ACBL continues
to prohibit responder making a transfer response to a one-level opening bid
when the overcall seat passes.
That prohibition applies, of course,
unless the opening bid is made in
notrump or unless the overcaller
makes a conventional call, such as a
takeout double. But why should there
be all this inconsistency and exception? In the past, it has been explained
that the use of transfer responses at
the one level had been disallowed
because the opposing partnership
was too likely to be unfamiliar with
one-level transfer methods and, thus,
the opposing partnership would be
disadvantaged due to increased opportunity for misunderstanding. This
explanation has made little sense for

Letters to the Editor
decades, of course, because virtually all
tournament players have been familiar
with transfer responses and, for many
years, partnerships have been expected
to have competitive agreements for
dealing with transfer bids at the two
level or higher. Why should defensive
methods for transfer bids at the one
level be viewed as more complicated
or riskier than when transfer bids are
made at a higher level?
JONATHAN E. BRILL
Voorhees NJ

Use computers to stop cheaters

Recent events have shown that the
current methods of preventing cheating are inadequate. It's time for something more radical.
What I propose for the highest level
of competition is that they be played on
a computer. Put the four players in four
separate rooms, each with a director
present to make sure that the players
do not attempt to use electronic devices to communicate with each other.
Have them play using an interface
similar to OKBridge or Bridge Base
Online. If it appears to be necessary,
program the software to throw in some
tempo randomness to mask the timing
of plays.
Adapting to this method of play
should not be difficult for the players. Many of them already play online
bridge, and the success of online sites
shows that it is not difficult to learn.
And the known methods of cheating
would be impossible, protecting the
integrity of the competition.
SHIRLEY M. DULCEY
Dorchester MA
I believe the following system to
prevent cheating at high-level competitions merits study. Online bridge
should be mimicked, that is, each
table has four interconnected iPads
or other tablets for bidding and play.

Screens are maintained throughout to
completely prevent partner contact.
Each table is connected to a central
computer that transmits hands to be
played, records bidding and play, and
summarizes results.
HOWARD JACOBY
San Diego CA

Pasteboard, please

Duane Friedrich (December, pg. 7)
wrote a letter referring to technological advances entering the bridge scene,
like bidding boxes and electronic score
pads. Even though it is theoretically
possible to make bridge games cardfree, I think that the game would lose
some of its character at clubs and tournaments if tablets were used rather
than cards and bidding boxes. Despite
the fact that I am part of the millennial generation, I enjoy going to bridge
tournaments as a way to get away from
computers and TV screens! I feel that
bridge should remain a relatively lowtech game when playing it face to face.
NOAH WEISS
Menomonie WI

Declarer's partner

In regard to the term "dummy"
(discussed in previous Letters to the
Editor), the 1935 edition of The Laws
of Contract Bridge is interesting in
that it avoids using the word dummy
altogether, instead using the term "declarer's partner."
Law 19 ("The Final Bid and the
Declarer") defines who declarer is and
continues, "His partner ceases to be a
player and becomes declarer's partner."
Later, Law 30 ("Declarer's Partner")
Letters to the editor are welcome by regular mail and email.
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. Send emails to editor@acbl.org.

March 2016 Bridge Bulletin

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of March 2016