Judy Kay-Wolff


THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN RELEASED FOR ALL THOSE PARTICIPATING IN THIS YEAR’S (AND HOPEFULLY ALL FUTURE YEARS’) ACBL/USBF/WBF COMPETITION. In an effort to stand firmly behind our world effort in bridge to uphold the road to peace, all members and coaches of teams representing ZONE 2 are unconditionally required to sign and return for the USBF/ACBL records so they may be approved.


As a condition of USBF qualification to represent the United States, I agree to abide by all regulations of the USBF, ACBL, WBF and other sponsoring organizations regarding international competition, including the Olympic Rules adopted by the WBF. I recognize that it is a privilege to represent my country as a member of both the USBF and the ACBL. For the duration of the competition I will adhere to the regulations of proper dress and deportment at all times including tournament play and any related events and ceremonies. International bridge events are not the time or place for any type of planned or spontaneous personal statements, demonstrations or public displays. I agree that they are intended as a respite from politics, with all nations welcome to participate. Without permission from the USBF, only the winners and their official captain and coach are to appear on the podium to receive medals at the award ceremonies where full respect is to be given to the US and the USBF through absence of all non-bridge related activity. I understand that the USBF reserves the right to sanction any participant who violates the Code of Conduct.

I hereby agree to these conditions, as a representative of the USBF.

Name (printed): __________________________________

Signature: ______________________________________

Date: ________________________________________

Apparently the above was recently drafted (and well documented) although the same major basic conditions were indeed required and in existence in 2007 What happened there is not worth discussing again. In any event, this strong mandate will prevent any future mamby-pamby and avoid committees, recusals, unrecusals, legal representation, outside interference and the other sordid events that took place over the Shanghai debacle resulting in whitewashing the podium indiscretions. Surely the above will keep the tournament running smoothly and without incident in Sao Paulo in about a month. Being in Ernesto and Cecilia D’Orsi’s back yard and with Ernesto overseeing the production, we expect great things!


JENAugust 9th, 2009 at 6:31 pm

Did the people involved on the awards podium receive any type of punishment or just a slap on the wrist so that the bad publicity would go away and the chatter stop — or were they made to

apologize for their overstepping their bounds for the world to see? It was hushed up and

few seem to know how the problem was resolved.

Danny KleinmanAugust 11th, 2009 at 11:45 am

For shame! To think that the ACBL and USBF wish to sever from the players who represent our country in international bridge championships the rights of free speech that our Founding Fathers called “inalienable”! And to think that any officials could demand “apologies” for actions performed by people who do not see or believe that their actions are wrong. It smacks of the “re-education camps” of Maoist China and the coerced confessions of the Stalin regime in the USSR. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

I recall a demand from my third-grade teacher, in front of the class and the school Principal, that I apologize for doing something that I knew was right. The upshot was that in the fourth grade I became a disciplinary problem and was expelled by the Principal early in the fifth grade.

JENAugust 12th, 2009 at 4:42 pm

Danny: You speak of concepts. I speak of specifics. Sure, everything else being equal, it is better to allow “free speech” rather than censor it.


However, in a totally inappropriate venue …. an awards presentation to worldwide winners — the audience (with the vanquished very much present) want to show their congratulations and great respect. Instead it was misused as a “bully pulpit” to denounce one country by embarrassing its leader publicly. Bear in mind, this was done after first signing a guarantee of not performing such a petty political act It wreaks from “wrong time, wrong place”, particularly since almost every important country in the world has representation at that event and, although hopefully the people present are primarily bridge players, not rebels, it represented the worst taste possible to transform this otherwise humble and appreciative crowd to the mind set created by this horrible tasteless outburst.


When you suggest shame, you are certainly using the right word. However, it should rightfully be tacked to the backs of the rabble rousers, not the innocent audience, and furthermore to not discipline the culprits smacks of total sellout to less important motives based on law suits, friendships and worst of all, bridge professionalism.


Sometimes, as you may have already found out, in order to live this life, and in this case form a more perfect union, one has to squelch his feelings when he should, rather than allowing one’s ego to rule the day and the podium.   Perhaps your 3rd grade School principal was trying to teach you that. Pity you didn’t learn.



Danny KleinmanAugust 15th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

Dear Jen,

I agree with you about the Shanghai Witches. It was totally inapporiate for them to spoil the awards ceremony when called to the podium by chanting, “Down with Bush! “Down with Bush” or, as I understand from your account, “Down with the USA! Down with the USA!” They should have contented themselves with a quiet disclaimer of responsibility for the actions of our government for which their opponents during the championship had been blaming them, by (for example) silently displaying a sign that said, “We did not vote for the present Administration.”

However, I must disagree with you about my third-grade teacher and the school Principal. I was a short boy, and in the seating arrangements of that school, I was given a desk right in front of the teacher’s desk like other shorties. The teacher was entering grades for the term, and told us to sit quietly while she did so. I sat and read Simon Newcomb’s book on Astronomy, from which I dare say I was learning more than I’d learned all term in that class. Suddenly I was struck on the forehead by a spitball. I looked up and saw the Principal behind the teacher’s desk; it was she who had struck me with the spitball. The teacher demanded that I stand and salute the Principal, then apologize for having failed to do so with the other children, who unlike me had noticed the Principal’s arrival and had stood and saluted promptly. The lesson I learned from that was that neither my teacher nor the Principal cared that I was actually learning something (Astronomy), but they cared only that I bowed to authorities.

Judy Kay-WolffAugust 16th, 2009 at 8:40 pm

Dear Danny:

This personal glimpse into your private earlier life helps to explain many things (and I do not mean that sarcastically). We have a lot in common as neither of us tolerate garbage. I believe that one must earn respect — not have it coming to them because of some quirk of good fate that has fallen into one’s lap. I am not big on salutes (nor spitballs — wouldn’t even know how to make one if push came to shove). (By the way — the incident you recounted brought to mind Hiter and the goosestep and the mandatory show of unwarranted and undeserved respect).

However, I can imagine the humiliatiion as a young child being embarrassed in front of the whole class for some ridiculous failure to show respect because it was the law of the land. Rubbish. (Incidentally, your statement above is the first inkling that you did not necessarily approve of the SW behavior and I was in total shock).

You call to mind an aunt I had some seventy years ago. She was weatlthy and everyone cowtowed to her (becuase their parents made them). I fefused to fall in line because she flaunted her power and greenbacks) and am a firm believer that individuals must earn respect not come by it because of their financial resources. I was a young kid but I didn’t waiver. I didn’t have a valid excuse but I have always believed that one must earn his way and no one just ‘comes” by something in the scheme of things. Perhaps your view about the Shanghai Witches produces an inkling of why you (like I) reacted so strongly to deliberately doing their own thing. But — it was far afield from the ugly and embarrassing principal’s’ childlike behavior. In today’s world you probably would have good grounds for a lawsuit. “Giant power-mad pompous principal attacks undersized student.”

Seriously, it helps me understand why you rebel when you think something is amiss (or about to go in that direction). Though we started off on the wrong foot (or the wrong sign), your recent blog helps me to understand and appreciate your forthrightness and determination to right the ship or prevent it from listing before it’s time.



LenAugust 18th, 2009 at 11:45 pm

Jen, I was going to say that holding a sign is not, in any way, an “outburst” but Danny beat me to it, expressing it far better than I could have.

Judy, you might want to retract your love for Danny, after you reread his second comment and check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony. Hint: He doesn’t think anyone chanted on stage.

Danny, what was it you did, that you knew was right, for which you were supposed to apologize? BTW, to be pedantic, saluting is, pretty much, the physical opposite of bowing, though I see your point metaphorically.

Kevin LaneAugust 26th, 2009 at 6:22 pm

I strongly side with Danny on the code of conduct on Shanghai issue, but I abstain on matters of his childhood development.

Claude W. Cain III, Ph.DOctober 7th, 2009 at 12:35 am

No one seems to note that the ladies on our championship team had to put up with an entire week and a half of other players from other countries making snide and insulting remarks to them regarding President Bush and his holy war programs. They WERE there to play bridge , not to engage in political argument and yet they were treated as being almost personally responsible for the United States actions in the Middle East. So, they finally had enough and made a simple statement to one and all. For this they were accused of no less than TREASON by some people from a public forum and threatened with expulsion (Sorry, Danny but burning at the stake is no longer allowed since the drunken death of Joe McCarthy). Had our representatives in Shanghai been protected from the harassment they received, the dais display would never have happened.