July 2018 - 8

Letters to the Editor

conducted one, and it caused huge
confusion among the players, mainly
because they did not know what their
handicaps were in advance (or even
how it was arrived at after the game).
Further, as a club director and fulltime statistician, I believe that the
method for implementing handicap
in ACBLscore - which is based on the
average masterpoints of the pair - to
be invalid statistically.
Here's the current ACBL Handicap
Formula (abbreviated for space):
Player Rank
Handicap Bonus
Rookie (0-5)
30%
Junior Master (5-20)
25%
Club Master (20-50)
20%
Sectional Master (50-100)
15%
Regional Master (100-200)
10%
NABC Master (200-non LM)
5%
Life Master (under 500)
2%
Life Master (500+)
0%
Here's what I propose: Each player
is assigned a handicap based on their
masterpoint total. This is represented
by a percentage inflation factor. Borrowing from golf, the pair receives the
average of the two players' handicaps
(not the handicap based on the average
masterpoint holding). Then, the final
score is calculated as the raw percentage achieved at the table multiplied by
the net handicap percentage.
Two examples will illustrate: According to the current ACBL Handicap
Formula, a Rookie gets 30% and her
partner, a Sectional Master, gets 15%.
Their average handicap is (30 + 15)%
divided by two, which is 22.5%. If their
raw score was 49.67%, their bonus is
22.5% of 49.67% or 11.18%. This makes
their final (handicap) score of 60.85%.
Now, when a Life Master with 8200
points (0% bonus) plays with a Junior
Master (25%), they get a handicap of (0
+ 25)% divided by two, which is 12.5%.

8 Bridge Bulletin July 2018

Their raw score of 55.10% gives them
a bonus of 12.5% of 55.1% = 6.889% for
a total with handicap of 61.99%. Had
handicaps been awarded on the basis
of average masterpoints, no bonus
would result, and the Rookie/Sectional
Master pair would have inappropriately finished higher than the Life Master/
Junior Master pair.
It would be easy to add a field in the
player database for handicaps. In a
club game, you could get ACBLscore
to print out the handicaps as soon as
the names have been entered into the
system. No surprises would occur. The
MyACBL site could keep track of your
handicap.
JON SHUSTER
Gainesville FL

Temporary solution?

I am aware of the new ACBL policy
to introduce "temporary" memberships for non-ACBL members. This
supposedly will encourage people to
become full members of the ACBL.
As someone who has been actively
involved in small sectional tournaments, however, I think the effect of
this will be counterproductive.
A sizeable number of casual players do not want to belong to the ACBL.
They do not mind participating in
ACBL tournaments occasionally, but
people already balk at the cost of tournaments, so they will see the "temporary" membership as a disincentive
rather than an inducement to join.
Obviously, the goal of the ACBL is
to attract new members. What are the
deterrents for people becoming members? I would say that cost is a factor,
particularly for young people and also
for people on a fixed income. I would
also say that fear of being embarrassed
is a factor for some people.
How can the ACBL address these
issues? Newcomer games are fine, but

some tourneys have such small fields
that it is not practical to run a newcomer game. As a result, novices may
find themselves playing against much
stronger players. So, good behavior
becomes paramount. Fortunately, most
ACBL directing staff are excellent in
this regard.
Which brings us back to cost. Presumably, the ACBL is concerned about
table count. Anything that reduces
table count must be bad for tourneys
and for the ACBL. Maintaining and
increasing table count can be done by
making the game more attractive and
affordable for non-committed players.
It is also essential to bring younger
players into the game. Here are some of
my ideas:
1. Anyone in a full-time study program (with some sort of proof, such as
a student ID) gets a reduced membership and reduced entry fee.
2. Anyone coming to a tournament
for the first time is given a free temporary membership. This is valid for their
first year.
3. I would also strongly suggest
that all players with less than some
arbitrary level of masterpoints get a
reduced entry.
4. Looking at the ACBL financial statements, I was struck that the
travel and entertainment component
attached to the NABCs in 2016 was
more than $540,000, whereas the total
expense for membership development
was just over $407,000. This indicates
to me that the NABCs have more
cachet than attracting new members.
I suggest that the importance and
frequency of the NABCs need to be
considered in the context of the interest of the average ACBL member (or
potential member).
BUZ TREVOR
Saskatoon SK

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of July 2018