March 2017 - 8

Letters to the Editor

Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto

I'm only a little ashamed to admit
that I share editor Paul Linxwiler's
"dirty little secret" (January, pg. 6).
I am also a fan of the robot games on
Bridge Base Online.
There are almost always a dozen or
more people ready to play 12 hands at
IMPs or matchpoints sometime in the
next five minutes. I can play the hands
as quickly or as slowly as I like: There's
never a move about to be called and a
table waiting for me to arrive. If I'm
interrupted by something urgent, I still
have most of an hour to get back to my
game.
Playing the robots has improved my
game in many ways:
⦁ When I get a very good or very bad
result, I can go through the hands
after the match with all of the bidding and play sequences of other
players available to learn what they
did differently.
⦁ I get so much practice at stronghand bidding!
⦁ When I play quickly, I love to join
tables and watch how others bid
and play the later hands.
⦁ I've added so many bidding tools
that I can't normally practice with
pickup partners: Soloway jump
shifts, splinters over notrump,
lebensohl, Smolen, support jump
shifts, and more.
⦁ I learned falsecarding techniques
from watching the robots defend.
On the somewhat shameful side,
because BBO always gives the human player the "best hand" (by some
definition of "best"), I already have
what would normally be unauthorized

8 Bridge Bulletin March 2017

information about the other hands at
the table - including my partner's. But
the conditions of contest are even: Every other human player has the same
information. (I've used that information to my misfortune sometimes.)
I've heard players at the club and
tournaments talk about how "awful"
the robots are. I think most of the dissatisfaction comes because the robot
doesn't bid or play exactly the way they
would. For me, studying how the robots
bid and play has elevated my game.
And they sure are a lot of fun.
MORRIS "MOJO" JONES
Monrovia CA

Your turn to bark

I was fast asleep at 4 a.m. when
canine companion Lilly, who sleeps
nearby, began barking furiously. Still in
my slumber, I thought that my righthand opponent had opened 3NT. I was
trying to determine if I had a bid when
I awoke.
Too much bridge perhaps?
MARTIN ARNOLD
Milford CT

STaC attack

My club recently ran Sectional Tournaments at Clubs (STaC) games for an
entire week. When they made the announcement for the next set, I thought,
"Oh no! Not again!"
I understand that the point of these
games is to give members the opportunity to earn silver points at the
club level, but I still believe that the
masterpoint awards are extremely
inequitable. I played in one session and
scored slightly over 65%. The game
had 414 tables, and 65% was good for

14th overall. For coming in 14th out of
828 pairs, I received only the amount
of my section-top award. Only the top
eight or nine pairs get any worthwhile
increase over their local section award.
Actually, the STaC game section top
pays less than first overall in the local
club game with sections of the same
size (2.25 vs. 2.50). For this I had to pay
$2 extra. No wonder I can't wait for
STaC week to end.
I believe the ACBL needs to provide
local overall awards or to construct an
overall award scale that grades down
much more slowly and provides something worthwhile for the top scorers. I
consider STaC inequity to be a major
issue and am surprised that I have not
seen any other comments about it.
FRANK HACKER
Fort Myers FL

Walker fan

Karen Walker's columns are full of
insight and useful tidbits. Her January 2017 offering is simply outstanding. Whatever your level of ability and
experience, bridge is a partnership
game. Therefore, one of your top goals
should be to make things as easy as
possible for your partner. Walker's two
most recent columns should be copied
and stuck in the back of everybody's
convention-card holder.
MITCHELL POTE
Indianapolis IN

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of March 2017