January 2022 - 8

IN Box
you do this? We both pay our dues and
should be allowed to play in any game
offered by the ACBL, be it online or
F2F. My sister and I live 2000 miles
apart, therefore, F2F is not practical
for us.
The ACBL is a monopoly and I now
wish I had a choice! I chose to play in
the virtual online game in Arizona
directed by Clark Ransom because he
runs a very friendly game and sends
me daily newsletters with information
on the daily winners, an analysis
of one of the hands and all the
information on the tournaments and
special games. Clark even throws in
a joke or two. I love his games and the
familiar players.
Why deny my ability to play in
these games? What can be done to
rectify this awful situation?
JOY C. BALSER
Tempe AZ
I am completely disgusted with the
ACBL not allowing a player like me to
be an online guest at my local country
club game. This will not force me to
play face-to-face bridge. If anything,
it will alienate me.
Like so many others, I cannot at
this time risk being exposed to a
COVID carrier who might be asymptomatic.
JANE
KANTOR
Scottsdale AZ
There seem to be many conflicting
changes regarding guest players at
virtual clubs. Many members have
written letters on both sides of this
issue. I do understand that the ACBL
wants to get in-person games up
and running to support the physical
clubs which are responsible for rent
and related expenses. But the virtual
clubs are a perfect outlet for people
who cannot play in person or are not
comfortable doing so. Sometimes we
have a partner who did not play at one
8 | Bridge Bulletin | January 2022
of the physical clubs whose members
are allowed in certain virtual games,
but it is my understanding that those
people are now prohibited from playing.
In other words, the guest lists
have been purged.
I play both in-person and online
depending upon my partners. I really
hate to see such prohibitive rules being
implemented. It affects both individuals
and the games themselves, as
the directors need a certain number
of pairs to make the game viable.
JO LINDAMOOD
Phoenix AZ
Online bridge is not inferior to
face-to-face bridge, just different. It
does have some significant advantages
over F2F. In online games, you
can see immediately how you are
doing and do not have to wait until
the end of the session. Double-dummy
analysis is also available, and one
may replay a hand later. One can play
with friends and family from any
place in the world. It also can easily
be played on electronic tablets at a
table F2F. Remote socialization is
possible using a meeting app.
If online bridge is made less attractive
to ACBL members, it will not
drive them back to F2F games. The
desire for masterpoints is intangible
and will never provide leverage
in motivating people to do anything
contrary to their natural inclination.
There are online games for newer
players in Florida. They include a
class before the game and a review of
the hands played by an expert afterwards,
a really attractive business
model that could be copied elsewhere.
This would be difficult to do F2F. At
our local club, the manager emails a
review of some hands shortly after
play.
Young people are accustomed to
playing online games, and it could be
promoted as such. For them, it could
be a new fad. For the ACBL, it may be
an important opportunity.
The club businesses will adapt and
survive (or not), just like any other
enterprise in this free country. The
requirement that ACBL members
be club members to play online will
make club survival less certain.
Clubs need to be able to offer
ACBL-approved online play and
membership by online application
regardless of geographic region.
The ACBL would be wise to promote
online bridge as an equally
acceptable approach to the game.
Change is a part of life and only the
adaptable prosper.
MICHAEL HARVEY
Ottawa ON
Mix it up
I am in total agreement with the
comment from Jon Preston in the
November Bridge Bulletin. I'm a
regular player in the online 18-board
ACBL tournament games. It is not
uncommon to play six rounds of three
boards and meet four advanced pairs,
one expert and one world class. Other
pairs do not face the same dilemma.
I strongly agree that nine rounds of
two boards is much fairer.
MARIO ROVINELLI
Sudbury ON
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.
January 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of January 2022
