ACBLSCORE (bridge players only)

To whom it may concern:

I have expressed my displeasure with ACBLSCORE in the past, but perhaps my arguments were over the head of the average bridge player. So let me present you with a simple scenario:

Barry Crane and partner are playing in the finals of a matchpoint event. In another section are Charles Goren and partner. As the caddies are picking up the score slips Barry and Charlie find to their amazement that their every score is identical on every board. After a brief wait (computers are scoring) the announcement comes “ In first place with 68.22% , Charles Goren and X; second with 68.22%... Oh wait a minute, let’s do matchpoints… with 222.18 is Goren and second with 222 is Barry Crane and Y.” Do you hear “nice game Challie” from Barry? I think not. And how can this happen? If a board in Goren’s section was not played, say due to a late play where no one showed, the director inserts “No play” on that board for the missing pairs. Goren’s below average score on the board is rewarded by .18 and amazingly, if he had had an above average score on that board he would have points deducted and would therefore be SECOND! PLEASE! SOMEONE DO SOMETHING!

I have suggested a return to the ½ matchpoint difference, but for some reason the ACBL seems to abhor ties.

To whom it may not concern:

Recently I E-mailed you a simplified explanation of ONE of the problems with ACBLSCORE. In my fictitious event I used two of the most prominent players of all time, Charles Goren and Barry Crane, to try to imply a point. That is, if the abomination that I pointed out had happened to someone of their stature, someone with clout, I guarantee it would not happen again. Unfortunately for we pairs players, no one of clout is left – they have all left for the greener pastures of knockouts where the masters of the ACBL have decreed that masterpoints shall rain down like manna from heaven.
Am I the only person in ACBLdom that thinks this is a problem, or cares? Wake up people!

THE ACBL RESPONDS:

Hi Ron,
Since this policy has been in effect for many years I am sure that such a scenario has occurred involving some top ranked players. To the best of my knowledge they have not registered a complaint.
Regards,
ACBL Computer Help Desk/ACBLscore

I RETORT:

Dear Desk,

Thank you for your response.

A system that perpetuates an inherent injustice should not require a minimum number of complaints to be righted.

The ACBL has responded and I replied in turn. Apparently the fact that the system is unfair is not the criteria for fixing it, but the number of complaints received. I would be delighted if the ACBL would begin keeping a record of complaints and put me down as #1.

I have sent the following two letters to all ACBL District Directors:

Dear Madam or Sir;

For your consideration:

In a matchpoint game, the players at tables A3 N/S and B3 N/S compare scores at the end of the game and amazingly, they are identical. In section A, there is a late play on board 13 but no one shows so the result is entered as NP (no play). According to the ACBL we no longer have a tie, which will be determined by as little difference in matchpoint score of .01 (one onehundreth). Who wins? I love this part, IF our player at A3 was below average on board 13, he will be factored “up” by at least .10 and therefore be the clear winner. However, as you can guess, if he was above average on board 13 he will be factored “down” and plummet to second place in the event.
If you think this is fair or don’t care, do nothing, as so many have done in the past.
If you think this wrong should be righted, please speak to someone who may be able to help. The “desk” at ACBLSCOREs answer is we don’t have any complaints. I believe a return to the ½ matchpoint rule for breaking ties would ameliorate this situation, but evidently someone at ACBL has a fetish about ties.

To whom it should concern:

Following are excerpts from an actual matchpoint game at the Houston Bridge and Games Studio. Out of 27 boards, there were 2 adjusted by the director. One for a “no play” and one where an average plus/minus was decreed. Look closely and you will see that there is NO difference in the calculated percent and (yes, believe it or not)only one onehundreth of a matchpoint difference in the two scores. If you believe that this is fair and the wisdom of the creators of ACBLSCORE in selecting the precise percentage adjustments under all circumstances is infallible, then my hat’s off to them. Otherwise, the answer for the return to sanity is simply to return to the ½ matchpoint difference is required for a difference in placement. So simple, so right, why do you resist?

Open Pairs Saturday Aft Session March 4, 2006 Sect B N-S
Pair ---Pct--- Score--- Overall Rank
5----- 61.46- 132.76 -----4

Open Pairs Saturday Aft Session March 4, 2006 Sect B E-W
Pair ---Pct--- Score--- Overall Rank
6----- 61.46- 132.75----- 5