Living in Sheltered Darkness

For the most part, I truly believe that the general bridge public is not aware of the difference between authentic, qualified opinion and what is not.  I have been on the scene for about fifty-six years (coincidentally a salute to Joe DiMaggio’s consecutive hit breaking record — a true master in his field).   One of these fallacies concerns ‘masters’ and ‘experts’ — terms that are used too frequently by individuals not in the know.  To borrow a trite phrase — "it takes one to know one."  Mind you, I don’t mean to allude to my being in that category — but educated enough through marital ties to have learned the distinctions from those who have been there, done that and others with possibilities to reach that plateau in the future — though far from the summit at this time.  However, I will leave that for later.

Few bridge participants (except for the serious hoi polloi who have been on the scene for decades) know that some of our earlier celebrated players had been asked to stop playing as their partnerships had fallen from grace (a kind way of acknowledging the dastardly problem).   It was reflected in knowing when to bid or pass and what to lead.  The choices made by those individuals were to disappear from the scene and those at the helm chose to let their actions be buried with their winning records and avoid public attention.  Shockingly, some of the colloquial ‘bad guys’ are in our exalted Hall of Fame and another is still a panelist — going about business with nonchalance.  This ‘hush/hush’ position taken by the League was to prevent a brouhaha or possible lawsuit and took the low road — by not exposing some of their unjustified victories.  I remember an incident long ago in a famed overseas money tournament where the first three finishers had their hands in the till — and several in-the-know contestants (with tongues in cheek — and grins on their faces) joshed by congratulating the fourth place pair.  Sad but true!  I remember another twosome who in earlier days probably ‘helped’ each other ‘casually’ (if there is such a thing) and were riled by the suspicions of a teammate, which caused personal havoc.  Yet the grizzly situation ebbed.   In bridge history, "virtue is its own reward."  Conversely, often a cover up become its own monster. 

Another situation (which exists as we speak) is where honest expert twosomes succumb to teaming up with a pair (or pairs) who are acknowledged by qualified, experienced judges as ‘Cs.’  Perhaps their rationalization is "if we can’t beat ’em — join ’em."  It is difficult for me to accept that the brilliant ‘good guys’ are not aware of what is going on.  They are too astute and adept in their own right with the pasteboards — so I must assume they are conveniently wearing blinders.  This charade may serve a useful purpose in their scheme of things (victory-wise and financially), but surely not an asset to the perpetuation of the game or its image.

The above zeroes in on major, deliberate crimes.  Stay tuned as I go into other lesser indiscretions which in most cases are unintentional but nevertheless cause standards to be lowered — for practical reasons.