On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 ptrachrp@aol.com wrote:

 Dear Fellow NSA Directors and others:

      Last weekend we hosted a sanctioned tournament here in Orange county, 
 California.  A problem was that an Expert player, though he ranked 250 points 
 above anyone else, insisted on being allowed to play, though he was informed 
 that there were no players in his class. He was unwilling to accept a refund, 
 and actually called National to complain about us. National took his side, 
 demanding that we keep him in the tournament. The feedback from other good 
 players not at his ratings level was that they felt they had no chance 
 against him. We are puzzled as to why he insisted on playing, since all the 
 players were below him, and his NSA rating would  probably have gone down. 

      As directors, registered with NSA, the 3 of us feel that in order to 
 nourish group morale we have the right to dissuade players who are rated so 
 much higher than everybody else. We were informed by phone by NSA that we do 
 NOT have this right. This is hard for us to accept. If National does not 
 allow directors to design their tournaments on a fairer basis than this, 
 shouldn't there be a frank discussion here and now about changing the rules? 
 Why does the fact of a sanctioned tournament automatically mean that anyone 
 who wants to play must be allowed to? We'd greatly appreciate hearing from 
 other Directors as to how they've faced this challenge. Please feel free to 
 contact us either privately or through the crossword site. Our address is 
 ptrachrp@aol.com.
 Sincerely,
 
    Paul Trachtenberg
    Robert Peters
    Penny Baker

Followup to my own letter

I only had a short time to respond before, so only dashed off a quick reply and didn't get to say all I wanted. Everyone else's replies were great and don't need much comment. But as long as Joan spoke i*a, I'll say what I really wanted to say:

This guy is a fuckin' Scrabble hero. I'll be the first to admit that he's an acquired taste, but there is no competitor for whom I will admit more respect. He will play anytime anywhere with anybody. He loves the game more than anyone I know. If I called him on the phone right now and said let's play, he'd start driving from LA and be here by sunfall. He shows up at every tournament he possibly can and doesn't give a damn about what negative expectancy this might portend for his rating. His joy in playing the game can only be described as the wide-eyed wonder of a child. If there was ever a 'Mr. Scrabble,' it's Ira.

I'm not really sure if you actually expected that by pleading your case to cgp that you were going to get sympathy and rally the troups against the NSA's radical policy of being pro-people-playing-Scrabble, but given the good advice you already received from the NSA, I'm not sure that the title of your post was sincere. If it in fact was, you've gotten some more. In any event, I'm quite intrigued with the invocation of the word _fair_ in the effort to exclude good Scrabble players from playing in Scrabble tournaments. CGPers with long memories may recall a certain completely off-topic post a year or so ago about the tribulations of being a member of a group that wasn't yet completely accepted by our society. Irony abounds when the victims of discrimination are now wrestling with the fairness of not being able to discriminate against those who love the game enough to become substantially adept at it. I don't know, I guess it's different when you're not the minority guy.

Here's how other directors "face the challenge." They love the game and want like-minded people to show up.

Silly Footnote

 a lot harder to accept one overclassed player taking easy money.  What
 if, by some miracle, the top division at Reno consisted of a bunch of
 low 1700s and a 2050, and $10,000 was at stake? 

Last Modified 3/12/01

Back to Scrabble Correspondence Page
Back to Scrabble Main Page
Back to Jim's Main Page