December 2017 - 7

➺ InBox
Well-deserved promotion

It was just after Christmas in 2009,
and my son and I had made our longest
trip ever to attend a regional tournament, from Toronto to Reno. We'd only
been playing duplicate for a couple of
years, but on the last board of an evening side game, an opponent successfully psyched against us, and we got a
bad board.
The game was over, but we were still
sitting somewhat dejectedly at the
table as the room emptied, wondering exactly what had happened. The
tournament director we later knew
as Matt Koltnow was nearby, and in a
joking voice, I weakly called, "Director." He came over, and we told him the
strange bidding our opponents made
that didn't match their holdings. He
explained that we'd been psyched, but
took the time to go through all the bidding with the hands double-dummy.
He was not condescending in the least
or impatient at all, and we learned a
valuable lesson that night. We went on
to have a pleasant and rewarding tournament after that. I'm glad to see that
Matt has been promoted to National
TD. He's a true asset to the ACBL.
JIM BEDLEY
Richmond Hill ON

Tried it, liked it

As I scanned the October issue of the
Bridge Bulletin, the first item that attracted my attention was a letter from
Philip Baer, one of my bridge partners
in the long-ago days when we were
both young. His opinions on the NABC
Online event were identical to mine.
Since 1992, I have not played in any
club games or sectionals, limiting my
attendance to one or two regionals a
year, an occasional NABC and a few
Canadian National Team Championships. I have not played a single hand
of at-the-table bridge anywhere since
May 2012. Furthermore, I had never

Letters to the Editor

played even one hand of online bridge
prior to reading about the event, as
I viewed online bridge with skepticism and disdain. In spite of all that, I
decided to give it a try.
The experience was similar to playing "real" bridge, with the main difference being the challenge of outsmarting the robots, particularly the robot
acting as your partner. As I said, the
experience really was similar to playing real bridge!
I agree with Philip that this was a
great initiative by the ACBL and BBO,
and I would definitely play again in
such an event.
ERNEST ECCLES
Montreal QC

Ratings redux

Reading the October 2017 issue,
I was encouraged by the discussion
around an improved "effective rating
system." I have also been chagrined
by the current ACBL rating system.
Although my partner and I perform
well, I only get to play in club games a
few times a month because I am still
working, and we can play in sectional
or regional tournaments only once
or twice a year. I often lament, "This
'work' thing keeps getting in the way
of my bridge game." As such, I am still
just a Regional Master, and it will take
me a while to reach Life Master (at
least until I retire).
So I wholeheartedly agree with the
points made by Berry Elberg and Marty
Deneroff in their letters to the editor.
The current ranking system is fine for
lifetime achievement (I'll make Life
Master eventually), but a better rating
of current performance level could be
found. I would further suggest that a
sliding point scale based over the past
few years of play, similar to the OWGR
(Official World Golf Ranking) may be
of use here. The OWGR rates a player's

performance over the past few years,
placing more emphasis on later tournaments, major tournaments, tournaments with stronger competition,
etc. It seems to be a good predictor of
(near) future performance.
PAUL LATIMER
Waterloo ON
As a mathematician, I spent some
time looking at current-ability algorithms. It is complicated by the fact
that bridge is a game played by pairs. If
I only played with Rodwell and viceversa, we would have the same rating.
Perhaps pro tennis doubles players
have a ranking system we could use,
but there are not a lot of examples from
other sports to learn from. But doubtless, something can be done to create
a reasonable rating system. However,
there are some important concerns
from a social viewpoint.
As a former member of OKBridge, I
observed first-hand the toxic nature
of their "Lehman" rankings. In 2004, I
was new and only had a limited experience playing party bridge using Goren
30 years before. People were very
nasty when my initial number was an
overestimate, because playing with
me hurt their rating. As my rating fell,
it became hard to find a partner at all.
The system tried to compensate when
stronger players partnered weaker, but
it didn't work. I left after a few years.
Had it not been for some online lessons
where I met others like myself, I might
not have ever gone to play at a club.
I do not know if the Lehman system
was ever improved. My point is not
whether it worked, but that any system
must be evaluated for side effects,
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.

December 2017 Bridge Bulletin

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of December 2017