Yellow Rain
Leading a horse to water
The American Contract Bridge League is the primary organization in the USA for conducting organized bridge games and tournaments. They have put ill-advised faith in someone’s computer program known as ACBL SCORE. Following is one of my many attempts at getting them to open their eyes, but all for naught:
Let there be light – The case for simplified scoring for club games.
Dear ACBL Directors:
Recently I sent examples of cases where scoring with ACBL SCORE seem to be contrary to common sense and coupling that with the “.01 rule” injustices occur.
Now I would like to present one final argument for simplified scoring in club games.
Bridge is a complex game but we must begin teaching it with basics and work toward more sophisticated concepts over time. At some point in time, players who became directors learned how to matchpoint. It was simple, it was understandable and it could be explained to the novice.
Now, along comes the computer and ACBL SCORE and no one can explain it so that anyone can understand it. Directors have questioned some of its apparent aberrations only to be told “Don’t worry about it, the computer figures it out.”
“Taking it on faith” should only belong to religious groups, not the ACBL.
Where do new ACBL members come from? Can we count on our present member’s progeny to swell our ranks? Do we recruit graduates in computer science? I think wherever they come from a lot of their early experiences in playing duplicate bridge will be in club games until they are “hooked.”
Why handicap club directors with a scoring system that cannot be explained to the novice? Try explaining why you lost first place by .01 matchpoints because there was a sit out in another section. What has the ACBL to lose by creating an optional ½ point scoring system for clubs? Let the big tournaments break ties by as many “point zeros” as they wish.
The computer is indeed a wonderful tool, but I think that sometimes we get carried away. I was told that there was “no compelling reason” for keeping ½ matchpoint as the tie breaker. I don’t know what reason there was to make it .01 but for club games I can think of NO reason why it shouldn’t be ½. You understand it, I understand it and club directors can explain it to new players.
I propose that the ACBL amend its fiat that the .01 rule apply universally and that club games may optionally select ½ matchpoint (natures way) and that ACBL’s computer wizards provide the appropriate program for use.
Respectfully,
Rev. Snodgrass
Nothing has been done nor should I ever expect it to be, even as I stand here in yellow stained clothing pissing into the wind.
The American Contract Bridge League is the primary organization in the USA for conducting organized bridge games and tournaments. They have put ill-advised faith in someone’s computer program known as ACBL SCORE. Following is one of my many attempts at getting them to open their eyes, but all for naught:
Let there be light – The case for simplified scoring for club games.
Dear ACBL Directors:
Recently I sent examples of cases where scoring with ACBL SCORE seem to be contrary to common sense and coupling that with the “.01 rule” injustices occur.
Now I would like to present one final argument for simplified scoring in club games.
Bridge is a complex game but we must begin teaching it with basics and work toward more sophisticated concepts over time. At some point in time, players who became directors learned how to matchpoint. It was simple, it was understandable and it could be explained to the novice.
Now, along comes the computer and ACBL SCORE and no one can explain it so that anyone can understand it. Directors have questioned some of its apparent aberrations only to be told “Don’t worry about it, the computer figures it out.”
“Taking it on faith” should only belong to religious groups, not the ACBL.
Where do new ACBL members come from? Can we count on our present member’s progeny to swell our ranks? Do we recruit graduates in computer science? I think wherever they come from a lot of their early experiences in playing duplicate bridge will be in club games until they are “hooked.”
Why handicap club directors with a scoring system that cannot be explained to the novice? Try explaining why you lost first place by .01 matchpoints because there was a sit out in another section. What has the ACBL to lose by creating an optional ½ point scoring system for clubs? Let the big tournaments break ties by as many “point zeros” as they wish.
The computer is indeed a wonderful tool, but I think that sometimes we get carried away. I was told that there was “no compelling reason” for keeping ½ matchpoint as the tie breaker. I don’t know what reason there was to make it .01 but for club games I can think of NO reason why it shouldn’t be ½. You understand it, I understand it and club directors can explain it to new players.
I propose that the ACBL amend its fiat that the .01 rule apply universally and that club games may optionally select ½ matchpoint (natures way) and that ACBL’s computer wizards provide the appropriate program for use.
Respectfully,
Rev. Snodgrass
Nothing has been done nor should I ever expect it to be, even as I stand here in yellow stained clothing pissing into the wind.
posted by revsnodgrass | 5:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home