Judy Kay-Wolff

THE NORMAN KAY PLATINUM PAIRS

by Judy Kay-Wolff on March 14th, 2011

You could have knocked me over with a feather when I received am email (actually a blog comment)  from Peg Kaplan telling me about the renaming of the above for my late husband, Norman.   I had not seen the March 11th Daily Bulletin which bore the following information.

Platinum Pairs renamed

The ACBL Board of Directors has unanimously approved the renaming of the Platinum Pairs to the Norman Kay Platinum Pairs. The three-day event will be played starting today for the second time.  The decision means that the names of both members of one of the best-known pairs in bridge annals – Edgar Kaplan and Norman Kay – are now on two of the ACBL’s premier pairs events. The Blue Ribbon Pairs was renamed the Kaplan Blue Ribbon Pairs several years ago.

Norman would have been honored to have such a prestigious event named for him and on his behalf, I thank those who were instrumental in the decision.

Uncategorized

2 Comments

ALANMarch 14th, 2011 at 3:48 pm

I noticed the Blue Ribbons were named for Edgar two years after his death. Why did Norman have to wait so long (9 years). And, by the way, what, if anything, has been done about straightening out the Peter Pender mess. They stopped using the Pendergraph over 12 years ago but kept using his fund long after? Have you given up on it?

Judy Kay-WolffMarch 14th, 2011 at 5:21 pm

Alan:

I think the answer to the first question is easy. Edgar was actively expert in such a multitude of capacities, it was a slam dunk to honor him almost immmediately. Norman, on the other hand, looked upon bridge as a hobby, working full time 9-5 except for the three nationals. He was a marvelous player, a perfect role model as partner and opponent and did hold the record as the most successful player for the double decade 1957-77 — but Edgar was undoubtedly involved in just about every facet of the game imaginable.

Now, Peter Pender is another matter.

Bonnie Bagley, District 17 Representative, presented our case to the EF committee who refused to ante up anything but the present residue (quite short of what it should be since the Pendergraph stopped being featured way before the turn of the century). My claim is that when the Pendergraph stopped, the flow of money should have ceased as well. Instead, the residue is being transferred to the ACBL and they can decide what event to name after Peter in lieu of the stoppage of the Pendergraph at least twelve years ago.

None of the original people involved with the bequest are still active or accountable, and we are not pointing fingers at specific culprits. It was totally mismanaged and the floodgates should have been closed when they abandoned the Pendergraph. Besides money mismanagement and sloth, the EF and ACBL are responsible for not minding the store with the release of countless thousands of bucks. Hopefully when it goes back to the ACBL, after they investigate the expenditures, we may get some more satisfying answers and suggestions how to make up the disputed balance from the $50,000 endowment of Peter from 1990. It’s not over till it’s over.

Good questions!