July 31st, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 2 Comments 
To those of you who have either commented or written to me privately because of your outrage and curiosity to learn what, if anything, was done by the Board of Directors (BOD), at their meetings at the current NABC in New Orleans: The answer is NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
They apparently, from the deafening silence, decided to pass the buck and leave it in the capable hands of their Educational Foundation (EF) who probably should not have had discretionary power as to the disbursement of Peter’s designated monies in the first place.
From what we gather from the silence of the twenty-five members of the BOD who met for several days, the embarrassing subject was not deemed worthy of being placed on the agenda and appears to me as a disclaimer. Apparently, it has been handled all these years (starting in 1990 when Peter died) by the ACBL EF.
(1) Is not the Educational Foundation a branch of the ACBL? YES!
(2) Does not the ACBL oversee the disbursement of monies bequeathed? NO!
Otherwise, somebody would have been minding the store or vault in which Peter Pender’s $50,000 bequest was being kept and followed up on the $27,500 grant for the Peter Pender Junior Trophy (PPJT) that had fallen by the wayside until Bobby and I discovered the lethargy of its disappearance.
Further, I did a little extra homework, checking out the website of the ACBL EF, which you can do too. Go to their site (I can’t identify it here because of the Spam Rule) which is entitled ACBL Educational Foundation and find the heading called “Major Foundation Donors,” differentiating the categories by amounts of contributions – ranging from Patron ($5,000 and over) down to Friend ($25 to $99). In the PATRON category (touchingly preceded by a red heart) it lists:
Sidney H. Lazard to the Sidney H. Lazard Sportsmanship Award Fund
Frances Leventritt in memory of Peter Leventritt
Geoffrey Cross
The Daily Bridge Calendar – Lee Daugherty, Ashlar House 2002
INCREDIBLE IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT AS NOWHERE APPEARS THE NAME OF ‘PETER PENDER’ WHO SHELLED OUT A TOTAL OF $77,500 TO THE ACBL. Maybe that wasn’t enough?
I find it astounding, unexplainable and downright insulting! As you may recall from reading earlier references on what Bobby calls The Pendergaffe, we learned that the grant for the PPJT to purchase replicas to be engraved and presented to the winning Juniors of the Trials held every two years was totally forgotten and neglected after the first presentation (with a lot of hoopla and a picture in the ACBL Bulletin). I have arranged through Jay Baum, very competent and fair CEO, that the names of the winners will be researched, replicas purchased and engraved and formal presentations made, albeit substantially over a decade later. No one can deny this was a pure case of unadulterated negligence. And, since there is only a shade more than $27,500 sitting in Peter’s Junior Fund (in the absence of following through with the arrangement), where is all the accrued interest (remembering interest rates were quite high as compared to the pittance we now receive for our investments).
The second contribution of Peter’s was another grant – in the amount of $50,000. He died in November of 1990 and (encouraged by Bobby and Becky Rogers at a personal meeting at the Summer Nationals in Boston earlier that year) agreed to donate said money for the commemoration and perpetuation of his name via something comparable to, or more specifically, THE PENDERGRAPH. There was a Pendergraph for a bit but neither hide nor hair has been caught of it since the turn of the century (or long before) due to the appearance of our wonderful BBO. However, it is abundantly and unmistakably clear that his fifty grand bequest was specifically to USE THE NAME OF PENDER and when that ceased, it is also an unequivocal fact that the money supply should rightfully have been halted as well.
Presently there is a shade over $10,000 left but the PENDERGAPH is dead and buried like it’s donor.
Having read the above (elaborating on the $77,500 Peter left to the ACBL), WHY WAS NOT THE NAME OF PETER PENDER HEADING THE LIST OF MAJOR FOUNDATION DONORS.
Back to New Orleans. A conscientious member of the Board (who would not press for it to be listed on the BOD agenda) did attend the EF Meeting. Let me read you excerpts from the disappointing report we received:
“I went to the Educational Foundation meeting last Saturday morning and went over the financial page I had been sent and forwarded to you showing the $40,000 that was spent on the Pendergraph from the time the Peter Pender Fund was turned over to them and the $10,000+ that is left. And as you know there is $27,000 left of Junior money allocated for replicas of the Peter Pender Junior Team Trials Trophy.” [That’s old news. We already knew that. Actually, it is reported there is over $28,000 in the Juniors].”
“…… But at this point – I am not willing to do anything more … mostly because I don’t see any wrong doing here except that after the program was halted, we did nothing to spend the rest of the Fund in a way to honor Peter’s memory.” [The wrongdoing is that ANY money spent after the name PENDERGRAPH was dropped is, we believe, a legal decision, as Peter was specific as to the purpose of the bequest – the perpetuation of his name].
“I am going to pursue getting the names of the US Under 26 Trials Winners and have replicas made for them as well as, of course, try to make certain that continues.” [That, too, was confirmed over a month ago by Jay Baum who volunteered to take care of it as soon as they settled in at their new Headquarters.']
“As far as the $10,000 left I would hope that you with the help of Jeffrey Polisner, Peter Rank and myself might figure out a worthwhile use of these funds to make sure that Peter’s legacy will remain. The Educational Foundation is certainly willing to work with you and release the money to any worthwhile endeavor you feel is appropriate. “ [Sorry, THAT JUST DOESN’T CUT IT. We want an accounting of all the misappropriated money that was spent setting up other programs, maintenance and repair services AFTER THE NAME OF THE PENDERGRAPH WAS DROPPED and have the original bequest replenished as Peter’s wishes were certainly not honored as he expected].
At the present time, we have sought legal counsel (on Peter’s behalf). It is unclear whether the $50,000 bequest was directly to the ACBL (or possibly because of tax consequences to its charitable arm, the EF). However, it matters not as the EF is under the auspices of the ACBL and the responsibility must be shared. We have requested that a competent, interested lawyer speak to Peter’s attorney and examine the probated Will to ascertain the details. Then, if our suspicions are substantiated, the following two choices remain: (1) Either retrieve and restore the misspent moneys to Peter’s Residuary Estate if indeed the monies were wrongly spent; or preferably, and in the alternative (2) If the ACBL/EF is amenable, restore the assumed misspent monies AND let us go back twenty years and right the ship by naming some major event or function after a very generous bridge icon. In good conscience, how can anyone deny Peter’s desires were violated and the commemoration of his name was only negatively revived by calling attention to The Pendergaffe.
July 24th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 11 Comments
In the early to mid sixties, four eligible bachelors who often partnered or teamed up together, bit the dust. The first to go was Edgar Kaplan who married his former partner Alfie Sheinwold’s ex-wife, Betty. Then I lassoed Norman, Lenny Harmon married the widowed Marion Stein and Ivar Stakgold wed Alice Cox. Another good friend, Dickie Freeman (who lived farther south in the Washington, D.C. area) but was close with the group, married Louise Robinson. Against the odds, all five marriages happily survived until one of the spouses passed on. Quite a record for our bridge circus, you must admit!
By this time you must be wondering why the above caption! It was the, shall we say, brainchild of Edgar Kaplan, who was a great theoretician, a brilliant writer, and marvelous partner to my late husband Norman Kay. They played together for over forty years — first in the late fifties and early sixties with a brief hiatus when Norman was snatched up to play on the big team by Sidney Silodor (until Sidney’s death in 1963), and then he and Edgar resumed their partnership from 1965 until 1997 when Edgar finally lost his battle with cancer.
One of the highlights of my long bridge career was getting to know and become close with Edgar and Betty. If ever a marriage was made in heaven — this was it! They married in 1962 and savored each other’s company for twenty-three years until her death in 1985. Betty was a very talented individual — a music teacher in her younger days, gained fame as a gracious hostess at their home on West 94th — but more to her credit, she will forever be remembered as Edgar’s Boswell, carefully capturing on paper many of what are referred to as Edgarisms. A while back I believe I wrote a tribute to Edgar and his clever and funny words of wisdom. Hold on! Be patient! I am getting to RATS!
Betty had a few scalps on her own wall, having won four national championships. However, she (like most wives of world class players) suffered from the pressure of playing with her beloved and did not always put her best foot forward, especially after making a boo-boo and being reprimanded for it. So, Edgar laid down a new set of ground rules which he thought might improve their rapport. He was only allowed to refer to her errors in judgment (?) by using four words, which as you by now have gathered — began with the letters R, A, T and S. They were intended as a one-word synopsis of her particular performance. Are you ready???? Here they come ….
Reasonable! Attractive! Thoughtful! Scintillating!
Bobby has already retired for the night, but when he awakens in the morning, rest assured this copy of Edgar’s restricted list of comments at the bridge table will be sitting upon his desk!
July 21st, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 10 Comments
I must confess, I am not much of a reader since my forced Required Reading days in college umpteen years ago. The only time I am conscious of sitting still for an extended length of time is when I am North or South. Life in Las Vegas continues to be hectic with a multitude of options (as long as they are enjoyed within the confines of an air-conditioned building). Most of my indoor hours are spent either drafting or answering blogs. However, in the last couple of years, I have weakened and succumbed to the other side of the coin: reading. I became captivated by the writings of Danny Kleinman, whose credentials are a mile long (with multi-talents in a variety of fields) but I have particularly savored his ludicrous after-game bridge analyses when playing with a student or his official complaints (which are always well founded) about either the opponents or the director. He has a wonderfully entertaining style and I adore his cleverly reported findings. He does not have a blog site, so I am at his mercy to forward me copies of hilarious experiences and I light up every time I see my You’ve Got Mail with Danny’s name.
Lately, Bobby and I have come upon another extremely talented writer in cyberspace: An Englishman named Howard Bigot Johnson. His sense of humor is incredible and sometimes I even find myself re-reading the previous line or two as his clever plays on words often escape me if I am not concentrating. With HBJ’s permission, I am reprinting a recent blog from him which I posted at my bridge club yesterday that was met with roars of laughter:
Saturday, 17 July 2010
WHAT IS THIS GAME OF BRIDGE THEN ?………………. ( Article by Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi )
People who know so little about card games often ask this question, expecting of course to get a simple answer. So how does one go about defining bridge in a way that captures the very essence of the game ? Well, I’ve been doing a bit of Internet research and have come across quite a few useful definitions…..all of which suggest that the authors have gone about the task with a good dollop of realism and humour. Bridge therefore is simply……
- An absurd game in which players try to analyse the significance of every card played, when in fact the person who played the card more often than not picked it out at random
- An alternative to viagra, where male players look to jump their female partners at every opportunity, seeking out perfect fits, raising to the limit, and hoping to score big
- A highly ritualised and sophisticated form of non-physical violence
- A game which specialises in organised loafing
- A card game in which a good deal depends on a good deal
- Violence under wraps
- A game that requires a real understanding with partner, in that if things go wrong someone has to die
- An obvious alternative to a friendly and social game of cards
- A weapon of mass distraction
- A game in which a wife is always eager to do her husband’s bidding
- A test of one’s skill against an opponent’s luck
- A game that has been destroying marriages since 1927
- An extreme addiction, which is only curable by death
- A non-violent game played violently from within
- The ultimate adventure, for if people see it as just a game then the Grand Canyon is just a hole in the desert
- A game not at all about winning or losing, but whether you win or lose
- A game in which winning isn’t everything, because what matters is the gloating and rubbing their noses in it
- An institution full of crazy people, a gravy train on which psycho-analysts and therapists can climb on board to earn a lucrative living
- Illogical, in that your partner, contrary to all expectations, proves to be more of an enemy than your opponents
- An unfair game, where weak players are regularly hunted down like game
- A masturbator’s paradise, given that any man with a good hand doesn’t need a partner
- A game played in dins of inequity, where superior players constantly scream and rant at their inferior partners **
** (Though Bobby adds – even if it is unclear which partner is inferior).
If you are not already a fan of HBJ, add this to your Bridge Habits. His site is easy to find. Just go to http://bridgeblogging.com and scroll to the bottom, click on Howard Bigot Johnson’s Bizarre World of Bridge and presto – you will be enamored by cleverly presented humor, outrageously absurd creativity and unique bridge tales rolled into one!
(I am posting this blog with full knowledge that THE PENDERGAFFE, because of company rules, will be dropped from Featured Bloggers to my regular site, http://judy.bridgeblogging.com). However, stay tuned as the New Orleans NABC ACBL BOD Committee Meetings were held on Monday and Tuesday and now the fun begins – the actual Board Meetings are today and tomorrow when The Pendergraph SHOULD be one of the controversial, icky issues that needs to be discussed! We’ll see. JKW
July 12th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 25 Comments
(Original Publishing Date: Jul 9, 2010 @ 21:52)
Yes, that is Bobby’s pet nickname (and how fitting) for the Pendergraph ….. the long forgotten Vugraph presentation for which Peter Pender’s $50,000 probated endowment was directed to perpetuate his name. He died in 1990 and according to recent reports, the last sighting of an instrument resembling the Pendergraph was around 1995.
Let’s backtrack a moment. Peter’s first donation (before his death) of $27,500 was for the Peter Pender Trophy awarded to the winner of the Junior Trials. That money was intended to be used for engraved replicas to be presented to the winners. His request was honored for the first few years but we have learned it cratered and lapsed into obscurity for the last fifteen years.
At our request, Jay Baum, conscientious ACBL CEO, has agreed to research the old records, bring the trophy up to date and present engraved likenesses to the worthy winners. That does not seem to present a problem as there remains over $28,000 – although we are wondering why over a twenty-year period it has not accumulated an enormous amount of accrued interest because so little of the original money was ever used as designated.
However, let us readdress the major problem – the present status of the Pendergaffe. From the original $50,000, about 20% remains – but the Pendergraph (intended to perpetuate Peter’s name) ceased five years after his death. How could that happen?
BBO has ably taken over and it is fantastic for viewers both at the NABCs and those watching from their homes all over the world. For my money, BBO is an incredible contribution to our game – second only to the genius of Charles H. Goren laying the groundwork to put bridge on the map. However, that does not account for or excuse the use (or misuse) of the money for other similar programs THAT DO NOT HONOR THE NAME OF PETER PENDER. Incidentally, according to reports from the ACBL, a total of four video cameras were stolen over a period of two Nationals. I would imagine that insurance would cover their replacements as I’d hate the prospect that it came out of Peter’s endowment. I also saw reports of repair, upkeep and maintenance expenditures and I couldn’t imagine the nerve to use Peter’s money to support anything other than THE PENDERGRAPH.
This preposterous situation has been called to the attention of the Board of Directors, ACBL President, many individual Board Members, past and present Legal Counsel for the ACBL and the Chairman of the Board of Governors. Though investigations are underway and reports voluntarily given by the cooperative Educational Foundation, in whose lap apparently the money landed — when I made an inquiry, I was told it was NOT listed on the Agenda to be discussed at the upcoming NABC Board Meetings scheduled in about ten days. I was not a happy camper!
An attempt to pacify me was made by offering a sincere glimmer of hope that “it can still be brought up” and the interested parties are earnestly looking for a way to solve the problem. Having no assurance that this nightmare will be discussed, I felt compelled to make the issue one of public domain.
I do have a suggestion: Whichever party was not minding the store can start by putting back a humongous portion of the $50,000 into the decedent’s Residuary Estate as his bequest was not honored. Bear in mind, Peter wanted to be remembered by his contemporaries. Many of them are pushing up daisies today and few of the newer breed have ever heard of him. No one can deny we let him down by violating his trust in us.
Let the ACBL BOD or the EF (whichever body was responsible for this embarrassing and disgraceful negligence) either shell out the missing money or come up with an UNBELIEVABLE plan to make amends and honor Peter Pender in the manner in which his money was intended. Maneuvering seems to be the keyword in today’s universal financial world. However, when a generous icon in our bridge society dies, it seems a bit much to pick his pocket.
This should be resolved in New Orleans NO MATTER WHAT! Peter has waited long enough.
July 9th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 5 Comments
The normal application of the above word is a global phenomenon involving sexual exploitation, forced labor and usually physical abuse. I am happy to immediately relieve your fears – as my reference is bridge-related and totally pure of heart – applying to the number of “hits” (times people click onto our site). The following statistics have been gathered by our sensational gals at bridgeblogging.com, namely Jessica and Luise. Since I always seem to be at my computer (either composing or responding), these two female dynamos serve as my life-saving devices (correcting typos, spacing and however else I manage to foul up).
I was fascinated by the email from Jessica (who modestly describes herself as Marketing Intern, Master Point Press). It was addressed “Dear Bridge Bloggers” and imparted the results of their tabulations, comparing traffic from January, 2010 through the end of June of this year (a six month period). According to her figures, ‘hits’ at bridgeblogging were UP 28%, and listed the top four countries responsible:
(43.5% from the U. S.); (25.2% from Canada); (6.5% from United Kingdom); and (3.7% from Australia).
The brief message (containing the above information and a thank you for the exceptional dedication of the bloggers) was followed by an amazing graphic attachment which included some surprising statistics which I want to share as many of you readers are from the areas recognized.
There was a “Map Overlay” which showed over 100,000 visits (hits) from 121 countries/territories. The first four cited above were followed by Venezuela, Japan, Netherlands, France and India rounding out the top nine.
The second was Country/Territory Detail (in this case — The U. S.). There were over 45,113 visits via 52 regions. We haven’t figured out why as yet, but Nevada led the pack. The itemized number of visits were as follows: (1) Nevada (8,239); (2) California (5,603); (3) New York (4,432); (4) Texas (3,200); (5) Washington (1,998); (6) Florida (1,632); (7) Illinois (1,626); (8) Ohio (1,432); and (9) Pennsylvania (1,288).
The Nevada number, at least to Bobby and me, was unexplainable as I am sure the number of bridge players in Nevada is minute compared to say — California, New York and Florida. Remember the numbers are based on the locales from which the ‘clicks’ originate (site of trafficking). Beats us! Maybe one of you rocket scientists can figure it out. Many of our local bridge club addicts do keep up with the site, but that could not possibly account for the NV numbers.
The next Country/Detail was Canada with 26,117 visits encompassing 317 cities. The leaders (by far the most popular) were (1) Toronto (4,487); followed by (2) Vancouver (1,398); Victoria (1,139); St-Laurent (1,018); Winnipeg (965); Thornhill (947); Willowdale (935); Weston (732); Penticton (580).
England’s statistics followed (6,702 visits via 248 cities); London, predictably was first (2,120); (2) Sheffield (1,357); (3) London (again?) (593); (4) Cambridge (382); (5) Manchester (240); (6) Birmingham (158); (7) Edinburgh (127); (8) Oxford (106); (9) St. Andrews (101).
And — the last of the Big Four was Australia: Predictably once more .. (1) Sydney (2,426); (2) Perth (441); (3) Adelaide (315); (4) Brisbane (185); (5) Canberra (146); (6) Melbourne (117); (7) Perth (again?) (70); (8) Brisbane (again?) (61); (9) Melbourne (again?) (45).
I might add in closing that the number of readers as compared to those who take the time and trouble to comment is miniscule. We blog our hearts out and from the above stats, it is quite apparent you are definitely reading what we are writing. It would be so nice to hear from you … even if just to say “Hi.”
July 7th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 3 Comments
When Norman first introduced me to the “serious bridge scene” in The City of Brotherly Love, I became friendly with a couple who were known as Philadelphia’s Mr. and Mrs. Bridge. Few younger players would recognize their names, but those veterans still around who have all their marbles, remember Peggy and Charlie Solomon – two very unusual people!
Charlie not only was President of the ACBL but helped to organize the World Bridge Federation and served as the first American WBF President (1964-68) (followed later by Julius Rosenblum in the 70s and Bobby in the 90s), They were the only individuals to be elected to that position from the U. S.
However, in Philadelphia, that was not his primary claim to fame. At home, he was revered and adored for more far-reaching local contributions. Back in the fifties (or maybe late forties), he was responsible for arranging (teaching) Women’s Bridge lessons in the Suburban Philadelphia Country Clubs and the bridge activity is still in existence even today. It began as a series of lessons running from the Fall to the Spring and eventually Women’s Bridge Leagues (WBL) were formed for these avid country club bridgers culminating in a playoff between the 1st and 2nd place finishers to determine the League Winner.
Since the disparity in ability was so great within one club, Charlie hired a young fledgling by the name of Arthur Robinson as the throngs were far too much for one person to handle and they were loosely broken down into Intermediate and Advanced (more accurate translation — Beginners and Intermediate). There were dozens of Clubs in the vicinity and the Leagues formed ranged from the First Team to the Sixth, depending upon the size of the membership of the club. Women’s bridge had blossomed and was celebrated in Philadelphia, later to be followed by Men’s Bridge Leagues as well.
Norman’s partner at the time, Sidney Silodor, also had been hired by several clubs but died in August of 1963, leaving many of the gals in need of a teacher. Charlie passed away in 1975 which created another huge vacancy — but no one to fill the space. Norman was approached immediately but leaving his vice presidency at ML for country club teaching was not an option. The clubs were really in a bind — left with this great legacy begun by Charlie Solomon. Every Tom, Dick and Harry (credentials or not) applied and it turned into a free for all. Actually, since there were no Solomons, Silodors or Kays available, my friend Joan Weinrott and I eventually applied at four major clubs and were hired — with me teaching the Advanced (1st and 2nd) and Joan working with the lower ranks (3rd-6th). As I look back now, it was rather humorous. I taught mostly basic conventions and card combinations (correct handling vs. safety plays) as their matches were scored by IMPS. Norman proofread every lesson the night before as back then, I was just one page ahead of them in the book, but it worked out well as I never got involved in areas in which I was not familiar.
However, prior commitments (like owning trotters which raced nightly up in New York or New Jersey) and other social obligations forced me to pass the scepter in 1983 as I had to move on. However, Charlie Solomon will always be the local folk hero, adored for his major contributions to the perpetuation of Women’s Bridge. If I am not mistaken, many clubs in Florida later followed suit and the Philadelphia snowbirds joined their ranks and played on their teams.
Charlie’s wife, Peggy, was quite popular but more laid back. She had an interesting background before she married Charlie. Born Peggy Mastbaum, she enjoyed a rather unusual family tree. Her father was the movie theatre magnate Jules Mastbaum who was associated with one of Philadelphia’s most famous landmarks on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway — The Rodin Museum. According to information gathered from the official Rodin Museum site:
… “Mastbaum began collecting works by Rodin in 1923 with the intent of founding a museum to enrich the lives of his fellow citizens. Just three years later, he had assembled the largest collection of Rodin’s works outside Paris, including bronze castings, plaster studies, drawings, prints, letters, and books. In 1926, Mastbaum commissioned French architects Paul Cret and Jacques Gréber to design the Museum building and gardens. Unfortunately, the collector did not live to see his dream realized, but his widow honored his commitment to the city, and the Museum was inaugurated on November 29, 1929.”
Peggy was married to Col. Ben Golder (The Golder Cup) who served as a State Senator, Member of the House of Representatives and sadly died at the age of 52 the day before the end of his term as ACBL President in 1946. Because he was away so much of the time, he had encouraged Peggy to become more involved in a hobby and hired his friend Charlie Solomon to give Peggy private lessons. Thus — Peggy meets Charlie. Sometime after Golder’s death, Peggy became Mrs. Charles J. Solomon. Peggy was kind enough to often ask me, a struggling novice, to partner her in some insignificant events.
In 1971, I accompanied Norman to Taiwan for the Bermuda Bowl. Charlie was busy with administrative responsibilities and Peggy had idle time so she invited me to play in a small innocuous side game which by some miracle we won. I remember boarding the plane homeward bound dragging this huge, heavy, meaningless trophy while Norman walked five paces behind me carrying some small token of his team’s (North America 2) finishing 6th. Peggy always acted like a Plain Jane but, in reality, was a classic grande dame – continually downplaying her family fame and fortune.
I’d like to close with my favorite Peggy Story. One of her daughters from her first marriage had decided to spend the winter waitressing in Hawaii — anything to get away from the legendary dreaded Philly cold. Peggy grinned as she related to me that she had received a call from her bewildered offspring who thought some guy was trying to pull her leg. She told her mom she had waited on a really cute young fella from the States who bemoaned that he had a pretty good professional sports career going until it got cut short by a serious injury. Not being a sports buff (nor wanting to appear dim-witted) she thought she would check the story out as he was staying at the hotel and no doubt she would see him again as he appeared interested. She began, “He said his name was Sandy … Sandy something or other. I think it began with a K.” Peggy interrupted her. “Believe him, dear,” encouraged Peggy. “It sounds like Sandy Koufax to me.” And indeed, it was!!!!
July 5th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 29 Comments
Yes, indeed! I plead guilty as charged. Passing by Bobby as he typed away on his computer this morning, I was intrigued as I caught a glimpse of the subject matter involved. Therefore, taking matrimonial editorial license, I wanted to share some of his provocative thoughts with you concerning an appeal by a caring administrator to encourage others to become educated and improve their skills, adding expertise to the group as a whole. Certainly, a great starting point and a noble intention of enlisting additional help with a long-missing admission the system needs overhauling.
Here are several of the points Bobby made, imploring those in charge to consider the game’s future by not giving credence to some current specialized agendas, but rather by cleaning it up in a few specific areas, to wit:
1. While playing support doubles, it is impossible to define what a PASS means (without an alert) since the defensive implications and/or bidding judgment is greatly affected and the opponents are 100% entitled to be alerted to such. (Not part of the current law? Hell, let’s change it! JKW).
2. Any convention deemed to be used to basically confuse and harass average or less-than-average players should not be allowed. (And, yes, it does happen)! The Committee should strictly judge "wild or indifferent" defensive conventions on their positive merit but discourage hard-to-understand features and be hard taskmasters with their final decisions — protecting the innocent public.
3. Players (particularly average-plus to better players) should only be allowed to play conventions (a) which both partners understand and will remember; and (b) be aware of the various intangibles that could cause doubt as to when applicable. In the absence of either of the above, they should expect to be penalized the whole board — or in extreme cases — even more (because of the time wasted, the unhealthy feelings exchanged back and forth as well as the overall detriment to the game itself). Obviously, lesser players will be cut some slack, but should it occur again, harsher penalties will be applied.
This approach will not only increase the fairness of the game, but will inspire all partners to know their system, thereby exhibiting a responsibility to each other as well as to the game.
4. There are too many adventuresome players out there who want to experiment, just have fun and basically want to cause a stir. (Bear in mind — this is not a circus or amusement park — but a world class endeavor). However, when by so doing, they not only make the greater majority very uneasy about their methods but also cause the tournament directors (and especially volunteer committees) to waste endless time on issues which are in the long run detrimental to the direction into which we should be heading. It is time we took a fierce stand against such behavior and make it unlawful.
5. At a high-level, make all alerts on a ‘need-to-know’ basis and at the proper time (even if the alert doesn’t come until the close of the auction). The Golden Rule applies in Bridge as well as Real Life. Alert your opponents to what you and your partner would like to be alerted yourselves! The end product will create respect among the participants which will tend to serve the game in the best possible way.
Though some who are more interested in their own self-interests will not agree, it should be compelling for partnerships to volunteer obvious help to their opponents (though possibly not legally required) in an effort to make the game fairer and more playable. We must be circumspect to not use this caveat to our own advantage (vs. the opponents) and be assured that good opponents will soon, if not immediately, recognize the difference and return the favor — not to mention avoiding the hatred it otherwise causes and deserves.
The road ahead is a long and tough one to be plowed and Bobby closed by wishing all those who have volunteered their services — good luck!
I have to confess again to the editorial license, but the facts above are the points he was trying desperately to get across — with his focal point being to restore the game of bridge to the majestic position it once held and to which it continues to aspire!
July 5th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 5 Comments
I am certain every game, sport or hobby can cite a type of individual who won’t win any popularity contests — not because of his or her prowess — but due to their irritating persona. In bridge, there are the high-fivers, the gloaters, the know-it-alls, the double-dummy experts, the pointers and the person known as the proverbial ‘hand-hog.’ Luckily for me, since my bridge activity has been confined to the local scene in the last couple of years (with no regrets), I sit regularly facing someone who declares the hands a large percentage of the time — with amazing results. But, who am I to complain or question? In any event, I am not filing a grievance report — just making the observation that hand-hogging is not all bad for a partnership (as long as the right person assumes the role of the hog). But, then again, most individuals who are of that ilk don’t have the credentials mine has. We seem to get luckier results playing from his side of the table.
Today at the local casino I was reminded of a special kind of individual (reminiscent of the hand hog) who is convinced he can direct the destiny of the blackjack table by sitting on the far left (the 6th chair/in front of the dealer), playing what is commonly referred to as Third Base. Being the last person to play before the dealer very often (unless the dealer has a ‘pat hand’) can affect the fate of the entire table by ’standing’ or ‘hitting’ — though it actually is totally random (which most individuals will not or cannot accept). If he or she should hit (and the dealer stands), it obviously affects the rotation of the next series of cards unless it is the end of the shoe and dealer must reshuffle.
This evening before dinner, Bobby and I sat down for half an hour at our favorite gaming table — Super Fun Twenty One/Double Deck. It is pretty hard to beat any casino (and counters are thrown out before they can get themselves comfortable), but this format of the game offers you many more options (six additional gimmicks) than a regular 21 shoe. It is fun and affords you tons of action, but you must be in control and not check your brains — especially living here all year round. Incidentally, this particular form of BJ is only offered by four casinos here, of which we are aware. Luckily for the casino chain, most players (unless experienced) do not have a clue about all the nuances of this special adaptation of Twenty-One and park their carcasses at the table thinking it is standard BJ. Far from it!
As we approached the game tonight, my immediate vibes proved right on target. I spotted an older, serious, prune-faced male who was obviously all-business, seated at Third Base (and from his demeanor — it was not by accident). He was the stereotype ‘Control Freak.’ In my mind, he is a close confederate to the Hand Hog. He earnestly believes he is in command of the fate of the entire table by sitting where he was. He was a reasonable player (far from expert), and there we were — the three of us — battling against a dealer who got blackjack after blackjack. I was able to tolerate pompous Mr. Third Base only up to a point. He had never uttered a word until the dealer gave me an extra chip and as I was about to tell her she had overpaid me, he preempted me by piping up …. “you gave her too much” … like it was HIS business. As they say, “Another country heard from!” It was time to depart for dinner anyway — and I was a happy camper with a hearty appetite (despite the fact I had little remaining from my small original outlay). Why? As I arose from the table, I happened to catch a glimpse of my LHO’s stack of $400 — which had dwindled to three five dollar chips! So much for playing Third Base!
June 28th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 13 Comments
Many of my readers will recall a rather titillating blog called “Watch your Step and Watch your Mouth,” published June 15th, about an incident that happened at a local LV tournament with quite a bit of commentary pro and con. Before adding my two cents, I want to share an email from John Van Ness, President of District 17, who very kindly espoused the following detailed accounting of what he believed actually happened.
Dear Judy,
I’m the President of District 17, which was responsible for the District Disciplinary Committee that dealt with John Jeffrey’s premature departure near the end of the recent Las Vegas Regional. Rumors immediately circulated about what had happened and I think you and your blog got hooked by one of them. As a result the committee and its members are being criticized and even ridiculed for rulings they never made in cases they never heard.
The truth is that the only question presented to the committee was Mr. Jeffrey’s early withdrawal. This is an obvious violation of the rules and the penalty was three month’s probation, which was within the ACBL guidelines.
The committee did not deal with the question of unauthorized information for the simple reason that no one had appealed the ruling, choosing to withdraw instead, and the committee had no jurisdiction.
Nor did the committee have any jurisdiction to handle the matter of Mr. Grue’s remarks, since nobody had chosen to file a complaint or otherwise pursue the matter. Thus, the rumor that the committee had prohibited him from calling a tournament director a “f**king idiot” for six months is simply not true. In the case of Mr. Grue, there was no complaint, no committee, and thus no penalty.
This committee was carefully selected and recruited by the director in charge of the GNT. Avoiding even the appearance of bias was an important goal, and thus the committee was composed of but one person from Las Vegas with the remainder coming from Arizona, Colorado, and Texas.
I am a fan of your blog and compliment you on its high level of intelligence and knowledge, including the many comments. I’ve also read “the book”. On many issues there will always be a wide diversity of opinion but I think everyone agrees on the importance of competent and unbiased tournament committees.
The problem in the real world is that qualified people are hesitant to take on this essential but largely thankless task, especially if they can expect criticism and even ridicule. Sometimes they might deserve it, but in this case the accusations are for rulings they never made in cases they never heard. As you can imagine, these people are going to be a lot less excited the next time their services are requested.
I believe in Freedom of the Press and it’s up to you, but I think a correction of the false accusations would be the fair thing to do and it would certainly help achieve everyone’s goal of the most competent committees possible.
Thank you for your attention and thanks for all your contributions to the game of bridge. If I can provide any further information, please do not hesitate to call.
/s/John Van Ness
The facts that our District 17 Prexy cited above are totally different from the hilarious end product of Whisper Down the Lane, a game we played as kids – proving how stories can radically change from the opening gun to the finish line. This incident was a perfect example of that concept in action. It is hard to believe that John Jeffrey (the poster child for a perfect gentleman) got three months probation for an early exit from the tournament and that Tom Grue (a popular local with a cute personality) got off scot-free for calling the director a F. I. (warranted or unwarranted – depending on which side you were rooting for). I have no idea where the “six month” punishment period came from nor did John Van Ness. However, it prompted my remark that in the seventh month – Anything Goes! (Tom – just keep that in mind!).
Apparently, there was never an Appeals Committee – just a Disciplinary Committee – and Mr. Van Ness’s recounting states that Mr. Jeffrey merely got a slap on the wrist for an early exit and Mr. Grue’s utterance never came up for consideration. There you have it — as I felt duty bound to publish President Van Ness’s explanation of the happenings from on high. Thank you, John. I believe the readers were entitled to hear your side of the actual event.
June 27th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 4 Comments
The Team of Marty Fleisher, Mike Kamil, Chip Martel, Lew Stansby, Bobby Levin and Steve Weinstein won the U. S. Team Trials in Chicago in an exciting two day final match of 120 boards beating the Diamond Team (John Diamond, Brian Platnick, Brad Moss, Fred Gitelman, Eric Greco and Geoff Hampson). It was an electrifying match with tons of potentially huge swing boards, especially as they approached the finish line.
After watching BBO for the last few days, one thing is for sure. Bridge has changed dramatically in the last couple decades. Roth-Stone would shudder to see some of the opening bids – anything with a smattering of eleven or twelve flat points that walks or talks. It is definitely a bidder’s game – and quite a revolutionary theory for someone such as myself who was a former Kaplan Sheinwold disciple. It was a well fought contest – and anything but boring. An unusual phenomena prevailed. It would have been a popular victory regardless of which team emerged the winners as all six partnerships are well-respected with high ethical values and any country would be proud to be represented by whomever came out ahead.
|
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related