If I would be asked, “Who, in the current bridge world, is the closest to your own views on the most important connundrums confronting and perplexing us today, especially pertaining to the high level game?” your name would be front and center on my relatively very short list.

Having said that, I hold at least a slightly different view on your last paragraph of your May 3rd blog. Since nothing less has worked, and over a very long period, yes I think that if we were clearly right we should start a crusade of disagreeing with the existing rules and taking our own actions, if for no other reason than to call attention to WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE!

Through the last half of my rather long life the saddest event for me to contemplate is how the lawyers and judges in Nazi Germany, during the 1930’s and early 1940’s, blindly followed the laws dictated by an obvious madman, despite no doubt, being specifically trained in exactly the opposite way.

There is a time to love, a time to die, and perhaps most importantly, a time to stand up to what one believes and go to the death to get it done.

I don’t think we should get into the business of making up our own rules when we disagree with the existing rules, even if we are clearly right!

I agree with much of what you say, but it will only be redundant to respond to the above at this time. I am awaiting an official response from the powers on high and then I intend to present a provocative post on the subject.

I strongly feel that it’s a “when in doubt, alert it” approach that should be used. Certainly, part of being ethical is being cognizant of player’s body language and reactions when we alert that Larry and I play strong club, 4 card majors, with canape. Most of the time, their reactions helps gauge the approximate level of both alerting and full disclosure, even at Nationals.

I wonder tho, if this is truly being fair, not just to the pair, but to the entire field itself. I think to enforce an unilateral “alert everything” slows the game up markedly, and with the many directors not willing to enforce slow play penalties, I think the game has evolved into not necessarily a “don’t tell them unless they ask” as much as a “God, if I have to explain this for the 8th time again, I’m going to be late for the break” or something thereof.

I think a likely solution, is to take a more traditional, strict interpretation and alert, and enforce the time limits on hands. I think we can get two issues resolved adequately: full disclosure and slow play.

Just my one half of one cent.

Part of what is interesting is this. I have seen people whose character I admire take actions which I think they chose in an effort to be very ethical – and yet, I disagreed as to THAT action being the wisest choice.

Part of what makes horse races, Judy!

Your comments are always very on-target and stimulating. However, obviously in this case, there is no simple solution. It is a multifaceted problem and painfully apparent to those who want to preserve the honor of the game that many of the present guidelines need reexamining and revamping. We have a leviathan task before us because of (1) the disparity in levels of play; (2) the inability of some of the anointed decision makers to recognize and comprehend the deeper issues involved; and (3) the fervent desire of those in high places to lazily maintain the status quo (by not whipping the great unwashed into shape) because it makes less waves and rattles fewer cages. Policing the hobby is a necessary evil and always will be.

As to your well-presented issues:

1) VENUE AND LEVEL — a tremendous stumbling block! I don’t entirely agree with Bobby about bearing down harder at the top levels on the expert players. However, I understand his thinking. According to him, it would be better for everyone to conform — but when players have little talent and no real love for something that comes hard to them — no one will ever convince them to ‘play it straight’ or not play at all. It does not apply to those closer to the top echelon. Thus, because of his frustration to see competitors at the summit abide by the highest ethical standards, he was forced to compromise similar issues embracing the lower levels of the bridge universe. I suppose his reasoning was — “anything” is better than nothing — pressuring the high level players to rise to the occasion. That form of capitulation marks a sad day for bridge.

I have never advocated or approved double standards as I feel everyone must assume responsibility for their actions. It is the duty of the educators to instill in beginners (or those who have returned to the fold) the concept that everyone plays by the same rules and ethics, making that crystal clear before a student is taught to count up to thirteen. With that entrenched in their heads, they will ascend the ranks from Class ‘C’ to ‘B’ to ‘A’ and when they arrive at the pearly gates of the local tournament (and eventually the national) level, they will have been groomed to honor the game as it should be played — avoiding the embarrassment of appearing before committees for nondisclosures, bids out of tempo, huddle-induced balances, etc. It eventually catches up with one — so why not nip it in the bud or cut it off at the pass if it has already reared its ugly head?

In an earlier blog comment I used the disapproving term ‘beloved administrators’ pointing to those individuals who were mindlessly responsible for some of the subject alert reversals. In response, a comment was made, reminding me that they were “peers of Mr. Wolff.” HARDLY!!!! When last I checked my Merriam-Webster Dictionary for the word “peer,” I found glaring back at me the definition “one of equal standing with another.” Equal standing does not cut it here since few, if any, of those alluded to (beloved administrators), have a significant history of high-level involvement with every administrative procedure (from top level appeals to running a bridge club) as well as dealing with the politics of conflicts of interest both as to financial incentives and trying to cozy up to a superstar. It is these track records that separate one “peer” from another and are light years apart. At the present time we are trying to ascertain who, indeed, did serve on that committee which approved the said alert reversals.

2) FULL DISCLOSURE: A piece of cake! All four people at the table should be privy to the same information. No more — no less! It would be ideal to utilize Alert cards when appropriate; offer brief, but accurate, explanations; avoid extraneous, irrelevant shaggy dog tales with no bearing on the subject; and make an all out effort to reveal on a need-to-know basis.

As you said, Peggy: “The ACBL does have rules. Should we go above and beyond them …..?” Absolutely! Because of a fallacy in current procedures, why should either side be disadvantaged? Better to go out on a limb than to deprive your opponents of information to which they are entitled. You’ve heard people say, “Go fight City Hall.” Perhaps the time has come.

I can well understand the aura of discontent with the current topic. Different strokes for different strokes. Some UNDER-alert; some OVER-alert; and some DON’T EVEN alert. Perhaps the answer is Simplification! It would be ideal to have an Alert card waved and a single word spoken — like Conventional, Natural, Artificial or something along those lines — with the onus upon the opponents to clear up any mysteries by further questioning. Responses should focus on clarity and brevity. No one wants to listen to the Gettysburg Address.

3) STRIVING TO PLAY THE GAME AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Your third issue fascinated me more than you’ll ever know — namely, the difference in ethics — even (or especially) at the top level. I, too, have seen it in my travels. It presents itself in all shapes and sizes .. and not restricted only to table action. Other venues of the game feature fallen idols. Some stem from the self-serving sponsor/pro relationships where individuals in administrative positions make decisions from which they will personally benefit rather than making the beneficiary the game itself. Frequently, people with conflicts of interest who serve on committees should recuse themselves — but history has shown that they rarely do. Last, and certainly not least, even though it is not a popular subject for public discussion, I suspect some ego protection and personal benefits may even creep into the process used to determine what is allowable and what is not. Like they say — if the shoe fits!

Yes, Peg, it is an imperfect world — but that’s an old story. Perhaps if enough people speak up, we can turn the corner, making it a more level playing field to be enjoyed by us and generations to come. I owe it to the Normans and Edgars of this world to do whatever I can to make it happen.

First – the issue of venue and level of expertise. The less experienced the player, the less hope there is that they will conform to alert and explanation rules – among other things. Many of them simply don’t understand it in any sense whatsoever. Long ago, I used to battle issues of “tempo” in making bids. I gave up. Truly, they could not seem to understand that they really were transmitting information illegally if they passed like a shot over a 2S opener, or if they thought a long time and doubled when they opponents got to game in a competitive auction. Thus – even this first issue leads us to this question: should the ACBL have different rules and/or standards for top players and for the great unwashed? If so – a bit more complicated. If not, we’re never going to see the rules able to be enforced equitably at all levels.

Second – the issue of full disclosure. While I strive for exactly what Judy and Bobby want, and try to do my best to conform to this, not 100% certain how to do it. The ACBL does have rules. Should we go above and beyond them – possibly being open to penalties! – and disclose what the League says does not require disclosure? What if opponents get irritated that we are “talking” too much at the table? Exactly how much should be disclosed? For instance, my most regular partner and I have a wide range for preempts – anywhere from fairly gruesome junk, to decent hands, depending upon vulnerability, position, level of opponents, state of the match, etc. Should we offer info about what we know to be true prior to an opponent asking? Or – after they do? Clearly, we have better knowledge about our tendencies than they do.

Finally – the third issue which is simply that some among us are far better at being “good citizens” irrespective of the laws. I’ve been an avid kibitzer of world class players over the years. You can see that some strive to play the game at the highest levels of comportment – and some do not. You couldn’t for a moment say that those in the latter category are necessarily breaking any laws or even being unethical. Merely that they play in a different plane than the others.

I guess it’s just an imperfect world. If I were king, I surely would change some of the laws we currently have. That being said – I do not think it’s possible to achieve a scenario that is ideal; only better.