April 28th, 2011 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 14 Comments 
I recently learned that a meeting will be held by an ACBL CEO SELECTION COMMITTEE IN Las Vegas this coming weekend to discuss the potential applicants and possibilities for someone to replace the outgoing CEO, likeable JAY BAUM.
How many people do you know who could fend off the challenge of twenty-five sets of handcuffs (that’s my description of the BOD) and stand up to the Directors in Charge, some of whom may not qualify to handle club games – but seems rarely to admit to a mistake in judgment, always protecting their flock.
It is time to do away with all the personal agendas and political issues and be unafraid to set their goal to improving the ethics, morality and high moral bridge standards and stop playing favorites toward professionalism which now seems to have superseded the importance and majesty of the game itself.
Start reading the requirements and mandates below and see if there is any human alive you know whom is so perfectly suited to even begin to meet the goals suggested. The eventual winner is always in the debt of the search committee. The BOD is accountable to their constituents who elect them and sees to it that they get their proper amount of sectionals, regionals and nationals. Too many districts and too much patronage for my tastes. Sounds like a job for Clark Kent!
ACBL CEO Job Description
ABOUT THE AMERICAN CONTRACT BRIDGE LEAGUE
The American Contract Bridge League (ACBL) is a non‐profit organization with a mission to promote and sustain the game of bridge. We support a network of teachers and clubs across North America. We have approximately 165,000 members and generate approximately $15M in annual revenue. Our headquarters is located in Horn Lake, Mississippi (De Soto County), a suburb of Memphis, TN, where we have approximately 70 full‐time employees in addition to approximately 45 full‐time field tournament directors and 125 part‐time field tournament directors.
THE POSITION: Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
The CEO is a full‐time position, hired by and directly accountable to the Board of Directors. The position is responsible for the overall management and leadership of the ACBL, including services, programs and business operations. Areas of responsibility include: planning and implementing strategic goals; policy development; day‐to‐day operations and administration; personnel; financial management; and public relations.
KEY RESPONSIBILITIES
Management and Administration
o Develop, with Board and senior staff, a strategic 3‐5 year plan and annual work plan consistent with the ACBL mission
o Develop and administer operational policies
o Oversee all programs, services and activities ‐ prudently manage and evaluate programs and services and determine their effectiveness
o Oversee business development
o Ensure compliance with regulatory requirements
o Manage anticipated loss of knowledge as key members of the staff retire
Finance
o Demonstrate an understanding of the ACBL funding sources
o Develop, recommend, and oversee the budget process
o Ensure effective audit trails
o Approve major expenditures in conjunction with the Board
o Provide for proper fiscal record‐keeping and reporting
o Submit monthly financial statements to the Board Finance Committee
Personnel
o Create an efficient and positive culture for employees
o Mentor and teach to create strong internal human resources
o Treat all employees with dignity and respect
o Administer Board‐approved personnel policies
o Ensure proper (legal) HR activities
o Provide for supervision, development, and evaluation of all staff
o Build and oversee a senior management team that understands an integrated work plan
Public Relations
o Serve as the chief liaison with people and organizations, and groups in the broader community, presenting a strong, positive image.
o Ensure all employees appropriately represent the ACBL Board Relations
o Must develop a strong collaborative relationship with an actively engaged 25‐member Board
o Assist the ACBL President in planning the agenda and materials for Board meetings
o Initiate and assist in developing policy recommendations and in setting priorities
o Advise and inform Board members, act as a conduit between Board and staff, and facilitate the orientation of new Board members
o Arrange staffing for Board committees as appropriate
QUALIFICATIONS
o Must be willing to relocate to Memphis, TN, area
o Plays bridge and understands the competitive and social culture of duplicate bridge, sharing our commitment to promote and expand the popularity of the game of bridge
o Executive management experience required ‐ At least 20 years management experience with at least 10 years experience in senior management (desired: nonprofit sector)
o Has demonstrated experience in addressing critical issues that have been challenges in the past
o Ability to maintain a revenue generating membership program
o Ability to motivate and build a high‐performance staff team
o Must have demonstrated experience and understanding in Marketing and Technology to meet Board’s related strategic objectives
o Must have experience interacting with large volunteer groups
o Must have demonstrated experience in public speaking (in English)
COMPENSATION
Salary will be competitive and commensurate with qualifications and experience.
April 24th, 2011 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 12 Comments
Just as the theory of learning to crawl before you walk, one must test the bridge waters — usually at the neighborhood club. Some are beginners; others enjoy simply the socialization of the game; some are die-hards and others are experienced, serious, good players who use the sessions to practice for the big time. Clubs serve many beneficial purposes. In bridge, unlike many other games, you have many options in which a situation may be handled. Let’s try some of the subjects below for size as I would like to hear the varying personal opinions from the bridge gang.
1. At a club game, do you like duplicated boards? I would suspect the majority would feel positive about it because hand records could be distributed after the game for analysis and discussion– but I could be wrong for other reasons such as better security.
2. What is your feeling about a person habitually walking up and down the aisles within eyeshot of boards not yet played? I remember one old-timer known for his eagle eyes who caused someone to jestingly suggest that when he rose from his seat, he should wear a cowbell.
3. If you noticed someone looking at an opponent’s hand, would you have the guts to tell the victim to hold his or her hand back? It’s like those who sit on one leg, elevating their height to get a bird’s eye view. I always laugh when I think about the first time I heard someone say "Breast your cards!"
4. What is your feeling about a director filling in to make half a table when someone chances arriving without a partner? Should the director accommodate the individual by filling in and making a half a table while the other direction suffers the inconvenience of the cascading effect of sit outs? Also, when the director (who may be dummy) is called for a ruling, the customer now has to play her or his own dummy. In fact any time the director is called away, the game is held up in general. Last, but not least, what if the director is called to a table to rule upon a hand he or she has not yet played?
5. Should master points be awarded for inferior performance such as 35%-40% games or for that matter — even a little under average?
6. When directors are not qualified to make judgmental calls (other than reading from the bridge bible), should there be a voluntary expert appeals standby committee for a short tete-a-tete after the game or should the customers simply fall prey to an unqualified director’s opinion?
7. Should the use of cell phone rules be enforced at club games (even at reduced volume)?
Lots of food for thought. I’m not trying to lead the witness — just pointing out some of the flaws (minuses and plusses) of our present day operation.
April 21st, 2011 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 5 Comments
a twenty-six year long member of the illustrious Board of Directors, has made the following statement:
"The Peter Pender issue is a sad one but one that I think will be solved in what Peter would have considered ok given that there was a screw-up … at least his good friends Peter Rank and Jeff Polisner think we are doing ok .. Not perfect but ok.”
Such an outrageous, wimpy cover-up is beyond the wildest of imaginations. I knew Peter from Philadelphia since 1955. We (Norman Kay, my late husband, and Polly and Bobby Jordan) were very close friends of Peter when we lived back East). He adored the game and was a super player in his own right, getting even better as he got older. He moved to California and we stayed in touch and visited him while on a trip out there. The last time I saw him was in Memphis at a trials where he knew he was dying of AIDS and it was important to him he not be forgotten. He expressed that very thought to Bobby (and Becky Rogers) shortly before his death in 1990 and the naming of the vugraph after him was one of the considerations.
And what has the ACBL done with his separate bequests of $27,500 and $50,000? The first to the Juniors was ignored after the first two years when I bought it to Jay Baum’s attention last year and he did a lickety-split job and brought it up to date. The second grant to the ACBL (according to a letter I have from Jeff Polisner to the ACBL on his legal stationery, dated October 21. 1991 to Steven Signaigo, then managing director of the ACBL) states:
“Dear Steve
Enclosed is a check in the sum of $50,000.00 from the Estate of Peter A. Pender, dated October 18, 1991 payable to the ACBL Education Fund. “
Also from the minutes of the ACBL EF Board of Trustees Indianapolis, IN, November 23, 1991:
[Page Two] The Foundation has received a bequest of Peter Pender in the amount of $50,000; These funds are to be used to purchase VU-GRAPH equipment.”
There is no doubt Peter’s intention was to be remembered VIA THE VU-GRAPH and indeed was done so until 1998 when the Pendergraph flew into outer space never to be seen or heard from again.
UNLIKE JOAN, PETER AND JEFF’S FEELINGS ABOUT PETER, I DISAGREE THAT PETER WOULD HAVE PASSED OVER THE PENDERGRAPH SCREWUP LIGHTLY and it is a disgrace that the ACBL/EF are trying to wheedle their way out of this one.
ALL MONIES AFTER THE PENDERGRAPH CEASED (circa 1998) plus the $11,400 taken in 2004 and 2005 were sheer thievery and should be ADDED to the meager balance of about $10,700 which remains now.
THE FACT IS THE EF AND ACBL WERE SLOTHFUL AND NEGLIGENT AND LEFT NO ONE MINDING THE STORE. IT WAS MORE THAN A “SCREWUP”!!!!! AND, BY THE WAY, JOAN … FOR $50,000, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MANAGED “PERFECTLY,” – NOT MERELY O. K. PANDERING TO STEALING FROM A DEAD MAN IS A BIT MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT’S TIME THEY STOPPED TALKING ABOUT IT AND TOOK SOME DEFINITIVE ACTION AFTER I CALLED IT TO THEIR ATTTENTION A YEAR AGO. THE TIME HAS COME TO STOP PASSING THE BUCK AND HONOR PETER PENDER IN SOME LASTING EXCEPTIONAL MANNER TO MAKE AMENDS FOR THEIR FAILURE TO LET ALL THIS TIME LAPSE IN LETHARGY.
April 16th, 2011 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 9 Comments
I received the following email but since I am not qualified in this area (nor do I want to broach the subject after my outrageous ruling and AWMW later revoked several years ago), I passed it on to Bobby for impartial expert advice.
Here is the questioner’s letter followed by Bobby’s response:
Player calls the director during auction for hesitation by opps, Director makes usual ruling, call me if you feel you are damaged. In the meantime Director looks at the hand records and sees he has obvious adjustment, but original player never calls director back to say they have damaged. Is the Director duty bound to give them the adjustment ? or is he supposed to let it pass, and allow the hesitators the advantage they gained by the pause?
This happened today at the local club, and I was later asked what should have happened. I WAS STUMPED…. On the one hand the original callers should know enough to call director back, on the other hand they didn’t , but it still rankles that the hesitators should gain from the hesitation.
Bobby’s answer:
You’ve brought up an off-shoot challenging the responsibility of what a tournament director should do as a follow-up to a director call.
The TD was correct in what he told your table, before he left, and so followed the rules. However, depending on what he thought and therefore felt, after he saw the magnitude of the possible ethical violation to which he was called to your table.
It would have normally required at least one or more players to have called him back, for him to further rule on the possible violation, but if the TD was sufficiently inflamed by what he saw in the hand records, there is no doubt that he should have enthusiastically returned, if for no other reason, than to discipline the possible wrongdoer and try and convince him to never do that or anything similar again.
All officials of the administrative part of bridge tournaments have an unwritten (at least to my knowledge) DUTY to make sure the game is serviced properly and to have a violation of the special and unique ethics of the game severely violated, should require TD’s to issue disciplines to the possible culprit or else the game is not being directed properly.
Of course, it is mamby pambyish behavior of the worst category for the aggrieved party(s) to not call the TD back if they thought they were damaged, but two wrongs never make a right and each wrong needs to be reported individually.
Please take this advice in the spirit it is given and that spirit is only to do the best thing possible for the future of our great game.
Sincerely,
Bobby Wolff
April 10th, 2011 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 4 Comments
Most of my information about the ACBL is gotten second hand as Jay Baum, outgoing CEO, has responded neither to Bobby’s nor my emails. Guess he is just counting the days till his sentence is over and who can blame him? We hear neither the Head of Field Employees (TDs) nor the newest Chief Financial Officer plays bridge. How can that be? .. but we must allow for an error in the transmission. Also, we learned that nine loyal people got the hatchet (some after forty some years of service) during the week of the Philadelphia WBF Convention last Fall. We thought the firings could be because of financial deficits but we heard from a couple of reliable sources, the ACBL is in tip-top financial shape, perhaps the best it has ever been.
If that is true (and we have no reason to believe to the contrary), why don’t they kick over some of the money picked from Peter Pender’s pocket from a total of $77,500 donated ($22,500 to the Junior Fund which was neglected for sixteen years until I got on someone’s back)– and the $50,000 also given by Peter to help commemorate his name (after his impending death from AIDS) – which caused the name of the Vu-graph to be changed to the Pendergraph, using the second grant. However, by 1998, with the introduction of more modern venues, the Pendergraph was put to sleep quietly, never to be re-awakened, although in 2005 and 2006 about $11,000 additional was lifted from the fund – reducing it now to around $10,700. What a work of stealthy illegal handling of a dead man’s money. The CEO does not respond, the Board of Directors does nothing about revitalizing his memory and they close their eyes to the pleas to replenish the misused funds taken about seven years after the disappearance of the Pendergraph.
The world has major problems, but so does the ACBL. Someone suggested posting a Petition signed by those friends of Peter still alive for the disgusting mishandling and probable negligence exhibited by those officials pretending to be conscientious and also fighting for the betterment of bridge. Delusions of grandeur by them -– to be sure!!!
April 4th, 2011 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 1 Comment
Almost three years ago I wrote a blog called Tales from the Bridge Crypt, but there have been so many since then, to be truthful, I had forgotten. Today, in reviewing my comments (which all appear on my same private page regardless of the time of the blog), I found the following from the popular New York director and player, Alan Messer, a lovely gentleman and friend of Norman’s and mine from days gone by. He must have been looking through some of my ancient blogs and this is what I found (written last night):
Submitted on 2011/04/03 at 11:30pm
Strange as it may seem, Stoney and I became buddies and teammates many years later. In fact, we won the NYC Reisinger knockout (1967 or ‘68). I visited Stoney briefly (he was playing Texas Holdem in Las Vegas) around 1998 or so. (/S/ Alan Messer)
Alan’s comment gave me pause for thought as Bobby and I just visited Stoney (the inimitable Tobias Stone) in a facility called St. Joseph’s Rehab Center, 2035 W Charleston Blvd, Las Vegas, Nv 89102. He could not handle living alone in his apartment down near the Strip (at 92 years old) and with no family here, he was forced to get help at St. Joe’s. Bobby and I saw him Tuesday and he was so happy when we walked in His hearing and vision are failing but he is doing well with his walker and allied therapy. However, with no family nearby and few friends left, it is obvious he is lonely and yearns for the good old days.
It would be so nice if any of you old bridge friends can take a brief moment and drop him a note; it would mean so much to him. Being isolated, he feels like the forgotten man. I might add – with all his other physical failings, his mind is still sharp so he would remember you and love hearing from old buddies of yesteryear. Please take a moment today and send him a note of cheer. It will go a long way. Thank you.
April 2nd, 2011 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 64 Comments
The auction has proceeded 1S 2H P* followed by a pass to the opener. Your opponents are experienced, better than average club players. Obviously the (*) indicated a noticeable huddle. As the opening spade bidder in second seat, do you think your action is automatic (V vs. NV) – holding:
AKQ84 4 J62 AJ109
Coincidentally, in conjunction with the upcoming season, I have FOUR QUESTIONS for you
1) What would YOU DO?
2) What do you think THE FIELD WOULD DO?
3) Would your partner’s NOTICEABLE hitch AFFECT YOUR OWN CALL?
4) Do you think YOU ARE ENTITLED TO AN INSURANCE POLICY knowing your partner wanted to do something?
Just asking!!!!!
March 26th, 2011 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 15 Comments
Thanks to a group, of which I never heard before – the FPAB (Foundation for the Preservation and Advancement of Bridge), they have presented on their website (http://www.fpabridge.org) incredibly detailed biographies of the winners of (1) The ultimate Hall of Fame Award (called the “Open” for some reason); (2) The von Zedtwitz; and (3) The Blackwood. The biographies are only up to date as of the year inducted. (Some of them were inducted in the flesh and sadly others posthumously).
It is also of interest that many who were inducted starting in 1995 in the “Open” category would have made the original list started in 1964 had it not been discontinued three years later. Examples would be Becker, Blackwood, Crane, Crawford, Sobel (1995); Josephine Culbertson, Victor Mitchell and Sam Stayman (1996), etc., etc. Word is on the street that the late Grant Baze will be getting the von Zedtwitz award after the required time passes to be inducted after one’s death.
The detailing of each individual winner is fascinating, starting with the “OPEN AWARD” (1964-1966)
1964 – Ely Culbertson, Charles Goren, Harold Vanderbilt, Waldemar von Zedtwitz
1965 – Oswald Jacoby, Sidney Lenz, Milton Work
1966 – Howard Schenken, Sidney Silodor
The elections were halted after the original NINE inductees (1964-1966), until resurrected in 1995 by CEO Roy Green with the following. Obviously, they had a lot of catching up to do with the twenty-nine year hiatus. The “Open” Electees are …
1995 – B. J. Becker, Easley Blackwood, Barry Crane, John Crawford, Edgar Kaplan, Alvin Roth, Helen Sobel, Robert Wolff
1996 – Josephine Culbertson, Eddie Kantar, Norman Kay, Victor Mitchell, Alfred Sheinwold, Samuel Stayman
1997 – Edith Freilich, Richard Frey, James Jacoby, Lewis Mathe, George Rapee. William Root
1998 – William Eisenberg, Mary Jane Farell, John Gerber, Alphonse Moyse, Peter Pender, Dorothy Truscott
1999 – Robert Goldman, Robert Hamman, Theodore Lightner, Alexander Sobel. Margaret Wagar
2000 – Lou Bluhm, Harry Fishbein, Sidney Lazard, Ira Rubin, Charles Solomon,
2001 – Richard Freeman, Peter Leventritt, G. Robert Nail, Lew Stansby, Sally Young,
2002 – Hermine Baron, Sam Fry, Jr., Emma Jean Hawes
2003 – Hugh Ross, Paul Soloway, Fred Hamilton, Edward Manfield, Jacqui Mitchell, Steve Robinson
2004 – Peter Weichsel
2005 – Betty Ann Kennedy, Kit Woolsey
2006 – Michael Becker
2007 – Zia Mahmood, Kerri Sanborn, Alan Sontag
2008 – Frank Nickell, Mike Passell
2009 – Mark Lair
2010 – David Berkowitz
2011 – None
The second prestigious award (the von Zedtwitz) is for living or dead who have achieved prominence in the game of bridge with an outstanding tournament record but may not have been recently in the limelight: The recipients are:
1996 – P. Hal Sims
1997 – David Bruce (Bernstine)
1998 – Alvin Landy
1999 – Michael Gottlieb
2000 – Meyer Schleifer
2001 – Sami Kehela, Eric Murray
2002 – Carol Sanders; Tommy Sanders
2003 – Tobias Stone
2004 – Harry Harkavy
2005 – Percy Sheardown
2006 – S. Garton Churchill
2007 – NONE
2008 – NONE
2009 – Agnes Gordon
2010 – Paul Hodge
2011 – Russ Arnold
The third award is the Blackwood Award given to individuals who have contributed greatly to the game but were not necessarily world class players (although a few are). Incidentally, the “Open Award” is decided by ballot (with certain detailed requirements) while the von Zedtwitz and Blackwood are hand selected by the Hall of Fame Committee members.
Read the rest of this entry »
March 24th, 2011 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 10 Comments
When I learned that Russ Arnold and Eric Kokish were elected to the ACBL HALL OF FAME Blackwood and von Zedtwitz categories respectively, I did a double-take that that no one received enough votes in the Primary Hall of Fame Category.
I scoured my computer’s ACBL Site to see if this had ever happened since its reincarnation in 1995 (after a hiatus of almost 30 years) when they listed three categories: The elite Hall of Fame Award honored its top heroes primarily for exceptional expertise, adequate sportsmanship and extremely honorable ethics. The von Zedtwitz Award (for living or dead candidates) was for those who did not get voted in earlier, although in the opinion of some, having the necessary playing credentials, but for the fact that the current group of conscientious electors did not have enough information on them. A third award for basically a different reason (although the recipient may have been a successful player) was for outstanding contributions outside of being a world class player.
Nowhere to be found was a breakdown of the three Awards. They were all garbled together so no one could distinguish a Hall of Famer elected on the world class player ballot from the others … either players overlooked earlier or merely hardworking contributors to the game in so many other important areas. What is the reason? Politics? Carelessness? Indifference? Not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings? After all, the public is entitled to know who received which awards and not set it up as a free for all when they look over the recipients. I believe the ACBL site should revert back to the three distinguished categories rather than place them altogether, making them like a pig in a poke.
March 21st, 2011 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 11 Comments
After a well-fought 2011 Vanderbilt final match, the FLEISHER Team (Kamil, Levin, Weinstein, Stansby and Martel prevailed over the GRUE Team (Cheek, Delmonte, Bahkshi and Amoils). Fleisher fought from behind but rose to the occasion in a very tight finish.
The Grue team provided some exciting results and was ahead most of the way, leading when I left to go out to dinner. Much to my surprise, when I returned, the Fleisher team had gone ahead with a few boards remaining. I knew most of the Fleisher Team as young hopefuls (at least in my eyes) and followed their careers for decades as they were just starting out and saw them rise into a first class team. To have them play in the TRIALS and possibly represent Zone 2 would be an honor.
|
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related