February 20th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 14 Comments 
Whethere it be at bridge, poker, sports (steroids), famous people in the political sphere or any other phase of life, cheating (as in the case of Tiger’s alleged sex addiction ‘putting’ around) always makes the headlines as did his one-sided press conference yesterday. I believe he tried to make amends, but the interview left me totally ‘bleh” as it did many others. Everything seemed to be going along on an even keel when suddenly, he injected into his apology that there was no domestic violence in their home/marriage. Were all these earlier headlines manufactured and figments of the press’ imagination? Why then the need for extensive dental surgery for the cracked and missing teeth he suffered. The Tooth Fairy?
I suppose I am very dense. Can someome out there help me to understand how all the alleged mutilation to his face and mouth occurred?
February 20th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 6 Comments
I’ve been involved in the game (starting at the lowest echelon when I started playing in 1955 before graduating college). It’s a miracle I survived my last semester as I did nothing but play kitchen bridge and duplicate when there were enough people available to hold 52 cards. It was not until the early 60s when I met Norman Kay and after our marriage in ’63, that I actually got clued in to what the ‘real game’ itself was about and the attributes that go into being a world class player. THAT IS WHAT A LEGITIMATE, REVERED, SANCTIFIED HALL OF FAME AND ITS CONSTITUENTS ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT — not the present day charade as evidenced by the current ballot!
Winning a duplicate, sectional, regional or even an insignificant national title doesn’t mean didley-squat. Maybe it was just your lucky day and your basket was overflowing with generous gifts from your opponents. Someone up above deemed it to be ‘YOUR DAY.” Lucky you — but don’t get a swell head, take yourself too seriously or suffer from delusions of grandeur. To consistently succeed with your peers is what determines your ability, outstanding talent and expertise — not playing with a great husband-partner (of which I have been guilty and privileged many times — especially recently). Norman always used to tease me that I was in a NO-WIN position. If we win, the wagging tongues say, “Sure, SHE (that’s moi) is playing with HIM. If we lose, the same blabbermouths, say, What do you expect? HE was playing with HER! I never got the credit — always the blame — but I have broad shoulders and I laugh it off — forever considering the source. I always viewed my game objectively. Did I improve? Of course, but with two children (almost twins — eleven months apart), I had my hands full and played infrequently. However, I never had skewed aspirations or deluded myself that I had special talent. I dedicated myself to the game when I played, watched the experts every time I could, gave it my ‘all’, won a number of decent events, got to be christened a Diamond Life Master (mostly partnered by my peers until Bobby came along), but I was always happy with my station in life — never pretending to be what I was not. Bridge ability comes in all sizes and shapes and there are a miniscule number of ‘tens’ among our ranks.
Sorry for getting off the track, but the point I intended to make is what constitutes a great Hall of Famer (or a candidate for the HOF) is not necessarily succeeding in key events (even world titles) when playing with five well-paid professional huskies who drag you to the finish line first. It proves nothing other than that you or your spouse has an abundance of lucre And, bear in mind, especially in WBF events –you needn’t play anywhere near half the time. Bobby cites an instance where the late Bud Reinhold won a world championship, but was benched by one of the big-wig pros who refused to play one single board in the Finals if Bud sat down at the table (and Bud was picking up the tab). So, just be realistic — one or two (or even five or six) swallows doesn’t make a summer — especially playing with hot shot professionals with big price tags. Winning major events as an acknowledged sponsor in the company of five giants does not afford you the credentials for Hall of Fame Nomination. You must stand on your own two feet — without the aid of a crutch, cane, walker, wheelchair or professional partner. A HALL OF FAMER MUST HAVE LEGITIMATE CREDENTIALS OF HIS OR HER OWN!
I think it is high time the ACBL takes a serious look at the existing farce that the 2010 ballot represents. The ACBL HOF is supposed to house the ‘TENS’ of Zone 2 (possibly conceding the 9-1/2s). Let us not make a further sham of this once-glorious institution. I understand the HOF Selection Committee (which rotates every couple of years) is hand-appointed by the Chairman of the Board of Directors. This very important Committee must have no personal agendas or personal conflicts of interest (like a dear friend or spouse who may or may not be a worthy candidate) and should recuse themselves if either situation is evident relating to the generalization of being a pro or a sponsor who is always scratching each other’s back). I recall when I sat on the HOF Committee myself about six or seven years ago, was horrified to see three members raise their hands to nominate and support a sponsor with whom they were buddies (and one of their husbands was a pro and might have been looking for potential future ties with this ridiculously unqualified candidate). The idea was soon squelched and business went on as usual but it was distressful that the name was even broached in the same breath with the greats of our game.
Another current day annoyance is the time frame. All electors are sent their ballots one month in advance of the deadline. This year it was February 15th. It never occurred to anyone to check the date and realize it is a legal holiday (President’s Day) and our postal service makes no deliveries. Just carelessness — but since the ballots were supposed to be received on the 15th, why, pray tell (for what rational reason) is the HOF Committee (in conjunction with an ACBL administrator) holding the ‘SEALED BALLOTS” (“locked in his office”) — waiting for any other strays to arrive before the final count is tallied ten days after the official deadline on February 25th. It is not fair to the interested public (especially electors who mailed their ballot in a timely manner) and certainly awful for those on the ballot anxious to know if they got the required percentage of votes. What would happen if the polls closed at 7:30 and you arrive at 7:45. So sorry — you are ‘SOL!’ You just lost your right to be heard. If one month is not enough time for an elector to drop his ballot in the mail box, perhaps he or she does not deserve the honor of voting. And — to further avoid any hanky-panky — why is your ACBL number on the ballot (for anyone opening the ballot to check out) AS WELL AS your name and return address pre-stamped on your return envelope. (Strangely, I might add that Bobby’s ballot which was mailed early Saturday, February 6th never reached the ACBL so he was contacted and asked to confirm by email, defiling the confidentiality of his voting rights). So much for the right to privacy. It never reached Memphis nor was returned to us — despite the fact it had been pre-stamped and adorned by a label with his name, street address, city, state and zip — and is somewhere in absentia. Time to straighten up and fly right — and get the kinks out of such a prestigious undertaking.
That’s it for now, but I believe I have given everyone lots of food for thought. I hope others have the gall to speak up about the defamation of the Hall of Fame by even considering average players (at best) to infiltrate the once-hallowed shrine by the use of hired guns to win world titles and use their distorted records as criteria!
February 14th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 5 Comments
Whether at bridge or sports, can anyone argue against ‘SKILL’ reigning supreme when it comes to all-star qualifications (tantamount to the Primary Bridge Hall of Fame)? Regardless of the outcome of the ACBL HOF Selection for 2010, this article is a ‘must read.’ I found it on the computer this morning. The caption is ‘Magic Johnson Runs the Show in All-Time NBA All-Star Squad’ by Evans Clinchy on Feb 14, 2010 11:35:03 AM and I believe the site is called THE BUZZ.
I, personally, ran a sports memorabilia operation for almost twenty years, and was familiar with the names of thousands of sports stars over the two decades. There is a difference between good, very good, super, terrific, excellent, etc. I could not believe some of the potentially glaring omissions in the ‘ONE TIME ALL-STAR GAME FOR ALL TIME’ That, to me, is what any Shrine should be about — the BEST OF THE BEST. I was shocked with the omission of such names as Elgin Baylor (don’t tell Eddie Kantar) or Wilt Chamberlain (our Philly all-time superstar).
Read on for yourselves as I have taken the liberty of highlighting, pasting and copying this hair-raising article for your convenience:
“Especially in recent years, we’ve seen a lot of mediocre players make names for themselves as NBA All-Stars. Wally Szczerbiak, Theo Ratliff, Jamaal Magloire — if everything goes right, practically anyone can find themselves in the big game on All-Star weekend.
So how do you separate the mere All-Stars from the true best of the best? No easy task, that’s for sure. But ultimately, the NBA’s true legends are the ones who stand the test of time. Not the one-season wonders, but the ones who wow us with their abilities year in and year out. The true mainstays of the game.
If you could only have one All-Star Game for all time, who would make the cut? Only the very best.
Only these 10.
Eastern Conference
Point guard: Oscar Robertson. A 12-time All-Star and a three-time MVP of the February game, Oscar was the most dominant point guard in the game in the 1960s and ’70s. Statistically, he was off the charts — he was a statistical machine in his early years, even averaging a triple-double (30.8 points, 12.5 rebounds, 11.4 assists) for an entire season at age 23. He still sits fifth on the all-time assist list. One of the most incredible players in NBA history, and he put up numbers unlike anything the NBA had ever seen until… well, the next guy on this list.
Shooting guard: Michael Jordan. What can you say? The single greatest star in the history of American sports. Jordan was the ultimate competitor, the ultimate winner, the ultimate athlete. He commanded the attention of everyone in the room, everyone in the arena, everyone on the planet. MJ revolutionized the game of basketball, and he ushered in a generation of fans that will never, ever forget him. A six-time champion, a five-time MVP, a 14-time All-Star — Jordan had it all. He was the greatest.
Small forward: LeBron James. Don’t call him the next MJ. But he is the best in the game today, and it’s scary to think that he’s still only 25 and hasn’t stopped getting better. His athleticism is freakish; his basketball acumen is amazing. He hasn’t won a championship yet, but he’s about to make the sixth All-Star Game of his career, and he has the potential to be the best player in the NBA for the next decade. Will he ever be considered the greatest ever? Maybe not. But LeBron is the King right now. Don’t you forget it.
Power forward: Larry Bird. Larry Legend wasn’t just a fantastic individual scorer and rebounder; he was the ultimate teammate. He made stops on defense. He made game-changing hustle plays. He made perfect passes when the situation called for it. He rose to the occasion and carried his team in big games. It was never about himself, but he did manage to earn himself 13 consecutive All-Star appearances, and that’s no small feat. Bird was a great team leader on the 1980s Celtics — he could play that same role on the East’s all-time team.
Center: Bill Russell. When you think of winning, you think of Bill Russell. Eight straight titles and 11 out of 13 — it’s difficult to grasp just how incredible a feat that is. No one cared more than Bill Russell. No one wanted it more. No one dedicated himself to winning championships the way he did. He was extraordinarily gifted physically and had all the talent in the world for the game of basketball, but what truly set Bill Russell apart was a desire to win and a desire to be the best. And for more than a decade, he absolutely was the best.
Western Conference
Point guard: Magic Johnson. Magic was what a point guard should be. He revolutionized the position in the 1980s – at 6-foot-8, he had the bulky frame of a power forward, and he could not only run the floor but also dominate against bigger, tougher defenders. Like LeBron, Magic had the physical gifts to play any position he wanted, but at the point, he was able to carry his Lakers teams by becoming a vocal leader offensively and stepping up to make things happen in big games. He was never the dominating individual force, never the “leading scorer” type, but always a superstar and always a winner.
Shooting guard: Kobe Bryant. How many times can one player reinvent himself? Kobe began his career as a sidekick to Shaquille O’Neal; he then alienated Shaq and became a frustrated loner on a disappointing Lakers team; he then brought the Lakers back to glory as the leader of a team that won the Finals in 2009. He’s been through a lot in his career, on and off the basketball court, but there’s no doubt that he’s always cared more and always worked harder than everyone around him. That’s what makes him one of the all-time greats — love him or hate him, he’s earned his place in the conversation.
Small forward: Charles Barkley. Sir Charles is the only player on this list to retire without an NBA championship ring. That hurts his case, definitely, but the 11-time All-Star belongs in this lineup because he accomplished so much with so little. Barkley was listed at 6-foot-6, but many would tell you he wasn’t a hair taller than 6-foot-2 or 6-foot-3. He became one of the best rebounders in NBA history on heart, tenacity and hard work. Some would hesitate to place Barkley among the game’s all-time legends, but he earned this spot. He was one of the greats.
Power forward: Tim Duncan. Duncan has been so amazingly reliable, so amazingly consistent, that he sometimes forget he’s still there. And we certainly don’t pay enough attention to how good he is. He’s not just a guaranteed 20 points per game every season — he’s also a great rebounder, a great defender, a great facilitator, a great leader, a great teammate and a great winner. Duncan is about to start his 11th consecutive All-Star Game, and we’ve taken him for granted all this time. Someday, we’ll look back and realize how amazing he really was.
Center: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Nineteen All-Star selections. Six MVPs. Eleven All-Defense selections. More points (38,387) than anyone in the history of the game. He was a truly great NBA big man for two decades, he won six titles with two different teams, and he always dominated when his teams needed him most. Kareem wasn’t just a legend — he was a pioneer. Basketball was never the same after Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
A lot of great players have graced the All-Star Game with their presence over the years. But only a few stand out as the true best of the best. If only we could see these mythical teams go five-on-five in an All-Star Game for the ages… that would be truly special. But instead, you’ll have to settle for the game Sunday night. Enjoy it.”
February 14th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 17 Comments
Stoney was one of the first great bridge personalities to whom Norman introduced me when I set foot into the real world of bridge (as opposed to my ‘kitchen bridge escapades” and Monday Night suburban duplicates where most players fancied themselves as experts). Norman had played on teams with Stoney and his partner, Alvin Roth, long before I came along. As I perused the list of present Hall of Famers, I assumed Stoney might be the eldest, but counting was never the best part of my game (not sure what is!) and I immediately realized I was in error as Edith Freilich has him beat by a few years. Edith, living in Florida, is long retired from the game but will forever be regarded as a true legend — and one stunning, terrific lady!!!
For those of you who are new on the scene, Edith (nee Seamon/Seligman/Kemp/Frieilich) was probably the top American woman player of my day. She also sported exceptionally good bloodlines. Edith is the sister of the late Billy Seamon and Anne Burnstein (both formidable players in their own rights) and Billy and his wife Rita’s kids are nothing to be scoffed at either — Janice Seamon-Molson and Michael Seamon. Sensational bridge genes run in that family! Anyway, now that we’ve resolved that Stoney is the second oldest living creature in the HOF, we can move on.
A new Yorker by birth, he attended CCNY (City College of New York) and a couple other famous bridge players (coincidentally HOFers too) were enrolled at the same time — sometime in the mid-thirties. One was Harry Harkavy (who settled in Florida) and the other was Stoney’s fast-talking regular partner for umpteen years, the ever-visible and forever-heard Alvin Roth who passed on in 2007 at 93. Stoney fondly recalled going up to Syracuse for their first National about 1940 (that’s 70 years ago) and not only did he remember winning, but credited Harry Fishbein and Waldemar von Zedtwitz finishing right behind them. What a memory! Cool!
Stoney lived in New York most of his life, spending many evenings at the famous P. J. Clarke’s entertaining hosts of after-hour frequenters as a premier raconteur. His mind was (and still is) very sharp and Norman and Bobby (both very knowledgeable) would never challenge him on his recall of sporting records. He was a great card player and lived by his wits, but the days of the Big Apple are history. He moved to Vegas about twenty-five years ago and was active (successfully) until recently at the gaming tables and sports book when his eyesight began to fail and he was forced to give up his daily pleasures. We reminisce often on the phone and his power of recall is incredible.
The “Stoney Stories” are endless. Bobby credits him as being one of his bridge mentors. In addition to the game, they shared a passion for sports and would often compare notes on “odds.” His dry sense of humor was unbeatable. Bobby still laughs when he recalls Stoney asking him in 1960 “if television had reached Texas yet.” On a former blog about his trip to the Cavendish Club in Philly when he came down to practice with Norman after Sidney Silodor died, I told the story of his playing to a packed house of kibitzers. After every hand, there was always background chatter about coulda/woulda/shoulda, when abruptly Stoney arose from his chair, very calmly scanned the audience and in an extremely serious tone inquired, “Do any of you people play bridge?” — then smiled and sat down. Everyone was stunned — then mass hysteria followed. That was my Stoney.
(The next two stories I blogged on last year, so if they look familiar, just skip over them — but worth repeating for new readers);
Stoney spent much time in California and Vegas and knew a lot of people in high places. When Norman and I were planning our honeymoon ‘out west,’ Stoney played a key role. First he got us totally comped at The Flamingo for four nights (a big deal 47 years ago), then on to SF and finally ended up in Los Angeles where he took us back stage at one of the studios where everyone knew and fell all over the very likeable Stoney. We met Phil Silvers,watched Stuart Whitman on the set of “The Mark” and then Stoney got us permission to watch the filming of “What a Way to Go” (if you are old enough to remember that great flick). We got to shake hands and exchange pleasantries with Gene Kelly and Shirley MacLaine. I was a big movie buff and collected autographed pictures so I was in awe. (Oh, how I wished my mother hadn’t given away my collection to my cousin to “get rid of” at the flea market! No telling what they would have been worth!)
Another remembrance (not so wonderful – but quite breathtaking) was when Stoney offered to motor at night to a great spot where we could see the lit-up HOLLYWOOD sign high in the hills Unfortunately, it was a one lane highway and you had to be careful what was coming the other way. I always suffered from acrophobia and at fifty miles an hour on a circular, winding one-way road, I screamed out for him to turn around. No problem. At the top of a hilly turn, he reversed, whipped the vehicle around and headed back. Thank heaven nothing came tearing down the other side!
The following evening I was looking forward to a more relaxing night with Alfie Sheinwold, a warm, soft-spoken gentleman, who graciously invited us to his house for a drink, after which we would head out to a lovely restaurant ten minutes down the L. A. Freeway. Sounded like a plan to me! Soon we were in Alfie’s car and I went ballistic. It appeared like Déjà vu. He weaved in and out of every lane at about 65 m.p.h. Stoney’s driving was looking better and better, when finally Alfie took his eyes off the road, proudly turned around to us (his guests in the back seat) and asked, “How am I doing?? I haven’t driven in twenty years and just passed my test today.” When we returned to Philly, I made a charitable contribution in gratitude for our safe return.
I could go on and on about this incredibly amusing gentleman who always provided a laugh a minute (but not in the mountains). In addition to countless bridge victories, he is the holder of a backgammon title as well and, of course, made valuable contributions to the famous Roth-Stone System in the fifties. His record is phenomenal, but you can check out his stats in the Bridge Encyclopedia for yourselves. It was this fun-loving, good humored rascal, Tobias Stone, I wanted to introduce to you. Stoney is one in a million and Norman, Bobby and I have been so lucky to claim him as a dear friend.
February 11th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 4 Comments
Every time the name of Sam Stayman is mentioned, to most players, it calls to mind Forcing and Non-Forcing No Trump Treatments. To me, Stayman is reminiscent of something entirely non-bridge related and a near-harrowing personal experience for yours truly. My remembrance emanated over forty years ago. Sam and Tubby (his perfectly charming and loveable wife, otherwise known as Josephine) hosted an elegant late Saturday evening after-session soiree at their penthouse in New York and Norman and I were among the honored guests. The entourage read like a Bridge Who’s Who but could not compare to the atmosphere, the rooftop view of the Big Apple and especially the cuisine. I was a relatively new bride and Norman was so enchanted with the food and presentation, he asked the caterer for his card — with the dream of importing him to Philly one day — to treat our family and friends to a special outing. The caterer was Norman Sorg — a name which I am sure means nothing to anyone reading this — nor did it ring a bell with either of us. We later learned he was the former celebrated White House Chef. No wonder!
Norman and I were married in 1963 before a mammoth audience. However, after all of Norman relatives, bridge partners, teammates, cronies (with wives, ex-wives or significant others) were placed on the guest list (numbering 400 — with only 325 showing up, thank heavens) plus all the employees of Kay’s Pharmacy (his parents’ drugstore) — many of my cousins, old friends, lifelong neighbors, work associates and untold others were excluded because of space problems — and besides my dad was not a rich man! However, right about the time of the Stayman shindig, we had just bought a beautiful home in the Philadelphia suburbs with a fifty foot living room/dining room. That was the good news. The accompanying bad news was that, after the down payment, we had no money left to furnish this magnificent marble terrazzo floored showplace (the way I would have wanted it decorated). However, here’s where Norman Sorg’s business card came into play. Wouldn’t this desolate site be perfect for a buffet and an opportunity to invite current friends and family to that long overdue get-together and at the same time try to make amends to all those who were ostracized in 1963. Perfect! We thought a beautiful spring day like Easter Sunday would be ideal. The list of invitees totaled 150 but because there was such a weird mixture of groups (bridge buddies, ‘normal’ friends, Norman’s Merrill Lynch associates, his family and my side too (many of whom had never met Norman), our “horse friends” with whom we attended the trotters, and various and sundry other misfits, etc, — we decided to stagger the groups, starting from noon until five.
I neglected to mention that Norman Sorg was known worldwide as The Omelet King and it was quite a simple procedure to play the roles of gracious host and hostess when the big day was about to arrive. The caterers provided the chairs, silverware, fancy cloth napkins, metal folding cooking tables, pots, pans, etc. My only responsibility was to purchase the food, have electrical outlets available plus lots of trash bags (You certainly wouldn’t expect such an exclusive chef to supply those). Thus, my Saturday shopping list included thirty dozen eggs, globs of butter, tons of onions, tomatoes, mushrooms, spinach, celery, cheeses of all varieties, avocados, olives, salami, Nova Scotia lox, shrimp, sauces, bagels, rolls, rye bread, coffee, tea, cream, sweeteners, desserts, etc, etc. However, my chore was simple enough in comparison to the job that lay ahead for the cooks the following day. Norman and I were very enthralled and proud at the clever aspect of hosting such a unique event by such an elegant caterer — and be able to simply mingle among the crowd of guests smiling, chatting, kissing, hugging and shaking hands. However, not everything goes according to plan. In my mind, the unexpected turnabout was even worse than the sinking feeling of reneging before defeating a grand slam that was destined for failure.
I was so excited that I could hardly sleep and when I finally alit from my bed at 6 a.m. and opened the front door to fetch the Sunday newspaper, I was greeted by a picturesque scene from a Christmas Card — a grotesque 8 inch snow accumulation — and still descending at a rapid pace upon Penn Valley. The whole East Coast was buried with snowflakes and my hired guns were not local — attempting to motor in from somewhere in Upstate New York (if indeed any of the interstates were open). Here I was in the throes of a breakdown — scheduled to feed 150 hungry people and I could barely boil water. Cooking was hardly my forte (although at this stage in my life, I am not sure what is)! At 7 a.m. the phone rang and my heart sank. Mr. Sorg was on the line and I could anticipate in advance his apologies and regrets. All I could envision were the Kays eating eggs for the next several years.
Wrong! He and his crew had left at 4 a.m. but found the New Jersey Turnpike was closed near Trenton, so they were forced to exit, were following Route 130 down to a Pennsylvania intersection and believe it or not were at my house by 9 a.m. What was more astounding — of the 150 people expected, despite the blizzard, 125 showed up ravenous and never stopped stuffing their faces or gullets. Luckily, I didn’t come close to running out of food or booze. We originally anticipated the day would go off simply as a passing parade but the crowd gathered momentum — without anyone ever seeming to reach for their coats or boots or head toward the door.
So, you can now understand when someone mentions Stayman, why visions of eggs (rather than pasteboards) dance around in my head.
February 9th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 6 Comments
On January 19th, I posted a blog entitled “From the Sublime to the Ridiculous,” discussing many controversial issues concerning how I and many others thought our once illustrious Hall of Fame was now being defamed and denigrated. Many chimed in with comments, totaling 49 in all. Although three weeks have passed since it hit the blog site and some have moved on to newer issues, I happened to glance back and saw some very humorous comments which I ‘copied’ and am passing them on for your amusement.
Incidentally, Bobby has been having many (hopefully productive) emails back and forth about the hardcore issues involved with present Chairman of the Hall of Fame Committee, Steve Robinson (an inductee himself). The subject itself is no laughing matter — but I wanted to share with you some of the messages that may have gotten lost in the shuffle from both my site and John Howard Gibson’s.
On January 30th, the following came from humorist, Danny Kleinman, who was (and always is) kidding on the level. He is not only a terrific player, writer, author, teacher, theorist, etc., but one who cares so much for the the beauty and honor of the game:
We need many more Bridge Halls of Fame. How about a Clients’ Hall of Fame? We can start with some of the best: Charles Goren (a client, as noted by Bobby in THE LONE WOLFF), Barry Crane (an inference from the fact that a much better player, Grant Baze in his prime, deigned to play with him), and Sam Stayman (an inference from my personal observation of his bidding and play some fifty years ago). I might even make it if I ever scrape up enough money to hire a World Champion like Rose Meltzer. How about a Huddlers’ Hall of Fame? We’d better interview the former denizens of the Cavendish West Club for nominations. How about a Revoker’s Hall of Fame? Beside the most obvious candidates, Lewis Himmell and the late Harold Guiver, we can include the more obscure Steve Lake, who invented the Revoke Obligatory (a rare legal revoke) some forty years ago. The possibilities are endless.
Today, February 8th, John Howard Gibson (who pokes fun at himself by renaming himself John Bigot-Johnson) had the following to say:
Dear Judy and Bobby,
Please read my latest blog ………aka HBJ….. my alter ego. I have volunteered my version of a what a World’s Best Bridge Players Hall of Fame should be about in terms of gaining recognition and entry. In amongst the tongue-in-cheek humour I’m sure I’ve stumbled upon some useful ideas on a fair and just process. Would love to hear your views…..even if they are all bad.
Yours,
John Howard Gibson
From Howard Bigot-Johnson’s Bizarre World of Bridge
HALLS OF FAME ?…….BIGOT-JOHNSON HAS HIS SAY:
As you know, or may not know, the Yanks have set up a Hall of Fame to honour those who really know how to play the game. At present it seems to be an American HOF, because only Americans were selected to enter it by the front door. Apparently, Canada felt that two of their best players were overlooked, and after voicing concerns, justice was eventually served, when they were later added to the list by decree…..or should I say ” allowed in by the back door” . However, some criticism has been made from various quarters (even from within the Hall itself) , that a few too many players have sneaked in at the expense of more deserving cases. These questionable selections apparently concern a small group of big money sponsors, who by regularly hiring professionals have achieved success on the big stage. Success which some observers believe results from being “carried ” on the shoulders of giants. Well, hopefully all that is about to change, because I’m going to set up Howard Bigot-Johnson’s World’s Best Players Hall of Fame. And I can assure you that there’s going to be (1) no secret bulging brown envelopes, (2) no mutual back-scratching societies , ( 3) no secret cabals, ( 4) no unhealthy conspiracies, ( 5) no nepotism, and (6) no despotism. In other words, players who get into this Hall will have to meet the following stringent conditions:
They have never ” hired” players to be their partners, or to play in their team. Successes by virtue of this practice are discounted against them ( but not their partners or team-mates).
Nominations by regular partners and/or team-mates are out of the question, in that mutual back-scratching societies are banned.
Nominations only count if made by highly placed OPPONENTS involved in the same big stage or world stage competition ….. who are not of the same nationality . Moreover with each nomination, evidence of hands must be provided where the player nominated really showed his/her genius at work.
Players with the most nominations over a given period can qualify for a ” player of the year award ” confined to their own particular country.
Players, who achieve several player of the year awards, can be put forward by their country to be considered for Howard Bigot-Johnson’s World’s Best Players HOF.
Those nominated to get into this great Hall will have to fit Howard Bigot-Johnson’s ” Lets see the final proof of how good you are ” examination. This will consist of a five 90 minute papers covering the following topics: (1) bidding on awkward hands, (2) opening leads and defence, (3) awkward contracts for declarer, (4) declarer squeeze play , and (5) reading the cards. Scores below 90% will be deemed ” a fail” … earning them the big “F” certificate and ” better luck next year” condolences. Those players who pass will be allowed to join Bigot ( who of course is an Honorary member ) in the Big Hall for a badge of merit and a slap-up meal. Now if any tosser can think up a better system than that, then either send me a post, or submit your views on some other blog ( and advise me where to look ). Or if it’s your wish, where to get off …..Yours full of cracking ideas Howard Bigot-Johnson.
Bobby couldn’t let that one slip by, so here was his reply:
Hi Howard,
You have an intriguing writing style and an impish personality. Those qualities plus a demanding subject (especially tuned to the high-level world bridge community) will get at least a measured response from me. Please understand that this particular subject is important (in my eyes) and far reaching — so be prepared for some agreement and some not so.
Possibly because of what seems to be a world-wide movement to objectivity (instead of that naughty word, subjectivity), we are all paying a price in performance. Objectivity, as defined, by many (mostly idiots) is 100% conformity to only written or proven facts with no deviation allowed, since, at least according to them, judgment can be manipulated to suit the writer or better spoken by the one who has an evil agenda. The real “skinny” is that some of your above rules cannot be implemented.
1. Sometimes, and in the not so distant past, the best player on a team was the paying sponsor, who in order to get a team of his choice, at least paid the expenses of his chosen group, who otherwise could not afford to attend.
2. Sometimes it is a natural and positive happening for a regular partner/teammate to nominate a qualified nominee. It is then up to the various built-in protections to make sure that nominee is up to snuff.
3. This world has become smaller in that some of my current, closest and most respected (at least to me) friends live in all corners of the planet making it so (what in past times would have been a good idea) that being nominated by another nationality results in howling at the moon.
4. Almost 20 years ago I trained 2 USA Junior Teams to play in the Junior (25 years old or less)World Championship held in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1991. At that time no North American team had ever cracked the top 4 places in any previous Junior World Championship. I created Bridge Aptitude tests (which you are now suggesting) which possibly (with all due respect), even then were more sophisticated than what you might provide. They helped me greatly in choosing the two teams who went on to finish 1st and 4th and ever since then North America has been a major factor, so I am agreeing with you on your idea.
All of the above which worked, didn’t just encourage, but rather demanded subjectivity, in moving forward and eventually bearding the lion.
Without someone with hoped for superior judgment in control, we and thus the whole project, is born dead. Can it be done and the answer is not only Yes, but rather HELL YES, but purity of performance and honesty of effort is required rather than the sacred but impractical straight objectivity package.
Strong letter to follow.
Respectfully and with appreciation,
Bobby Wolff
To which HBJ immediately replied ….
Dear Bobby,
Many thanks for your reply. I stand in awe of someone who really knows what they are talking about. The article of mine was an invitation by Linda Lee to do a Bigot slant on this whole tricky issue. But underneath my amateurish attempt to show Bigot up for what he is, I had hoped to put across ideas on raising the selection bar towards one of objectivity, total lack of bias, and impartial judgement. I agree not all sponsors are the weak link in a team, but the fact remains that if they, then to be given the same masterpoint accreditation as the others does invoke an element of injustice. Anyway, many thanks for your comments again but always remember Bigot only sees the bizarre aspects of the world of bridge.
Yours,
John Howard Gibson
The matter is so grave, to my way of thinking, (perhaps because I feel personally involved since I have two husbands enshrined in what once was an elegant body thought of as The Best of the Best) — that I had to turn to the humorous side to assuage my anger and soothe my wounds.
February 4th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 6 Comments
(Editor’s Note: This blog was originally published on December 8th, 2010.)
Although all of my Trips Down Memory Lane have featured those playing in the tables in the sky, I had to make one exception – LARRY COHEN, very much alive – but temporarily semi-retired from the hectic tournament scene as the demands in his daily routines are so compelling. Larry is, IMHO, much more adjusted than other bridge fanatics of our day or yesteryear. His adorable wife, Maria, is a non-player and they enjoy many non-bridge activities together, most recently incredibly focusing on well-attended cruises and seminars all over the country. They live in Boca Raton, Fl but also spend a lot of time in Utah as they enjoy traveling and the outdoor way of life. Golf is his true passion but he is forced to put that on the back burner.
Larry, a former computer programmer and options trader, learned to play bridge at the tender age of 6 as he watched his grandparents. He started playing duplicate at 14, in tournaments at 15 and became a life master at 17. He won his first National Championship at age 22, capturing 26 nationals including the Vanderbilt, 2 Spingolds, 2 Reisingers, 2 LM Pairs and 4 Blue Ribbon Pairs. Larry was a two-time winner of the Cavendish Invitational Pairs and Winner of the 1990 Cap Gemini World Top 16 Pairs Tournament in the Hague. He was also winner of the Silver Medal in the 1998 world championships, the 2000 Bronze Medal in the Olympiad teams, 2002 ACBL Player of the year and just this week was named the coveted Honorary ACBL Member of the year for 2011. Much of his success was accomplished with David Berkowitz with whom he played as a partner for umpteen years.
Besides being the author of To Bid or Not to Bid (the Law of Total Tricks) which sold over 80,000 copies and was translated into six different languages, his sequel, Following the Law, was also a best seller. Larry is the author of six books, many magazine articles, wrote and published CDs — Play Bridge with Larry Cohen, 1999 Life Master Pairs – Days 1, 2, 3; My Favorite 52 (2005); and The Real Deal (2010). He also publishes a free monthly newsletter for everyone who joins from his website (www.larryco.com — which is incidentally full of 100’s of free bridge articles, features, practice deals, etc.).
(I’m already exhausted .. but it continues): Larry served as Director of the prestigious Bridge World Master Solvers Club, is adored as a worldwide lecturer on land and sea, appears on Nationals Appeals Committees and is a casebook panelist. Add to those .. a Member of the Conducts and Ethics Committee, Hall of Fame Committee Chairman and writer of ACBL Instant Matchpoint Game Booklet since 2007. He does VuGraph commentary live and online.
His accomplishments are not hearsay, believe me. When he and Marty Bergen had their Reunion Seminar here in Las Vegas at the Wynn in June of 2010 with over 140 attendees, I came down and helped out with some of the nitty gritty and believe me, it was a smash. In late June of 2011 he will be doing a repeat performance with Audrey Grant and Jerry Helms. Vegas is a great tourist attraction so the attendees can enjoy the lectures, duplicates, great cuisine and in their spare (?) time, enjoy the gambling.
Larry Cohen is a tremendous credit to our game – but of more significance, he is one of the most modest and unassuming individuals I ever met and I love him dearly.
February 1st, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 11 Comments
This may appear to be a strange title from someone like myself, who has made it abundantly clear my views on guns for hire — especially buying your way onto a winning championship team and being surrounded by five king kongs. Don’t misunderstand, it is an incredibly sensational way of learning, understanding and changing one’s formerly inferior methods of play, defense and perhaps hap-hazard, innocuous treatment of a very difficult game. However, I still believe it is irrational to consider achievements in such a manner as qualifying one as an expert to be honored among the Best of the Best. Allow me to tell you about the upheaval in my bridge mind set in the last six wonderful years.
I have played the game for about fifty-five years (although some may not consider it playing — and for the earlier part of my exposure, it may have been viewed by some as just tossing the pasteboards). From the time I met my late husband, Norman Kay, in the early Sixties (and was married to him from 1963 until his death in 2002), I rubbed shoulders with what I would consider the elite of the bridge world, both stateside and abroad. I witnessed bridge at its ultimate — both by and against Norman and his partner. I have written blogs on my early life in the company of the Big Boys. The heroes at that time, whom I got to meet and socialize with often were Johnny Crawford, Oswald Jacoby, Eddie Kantar, Sami Kehela, Lew Mathe, Eric Murray, George Rapee, Bill Root, Alvin Roth, Howard Schenken, Helen Sobel, Tobias Stone, Alan Truscott, et al. Goren even took the train from New York to Philly to attend our wedding. Though he had made a fortune through the game, he was never big on luxuries such as limousines or picking up checks for guests In fact, I remember Norman arranging to have someone meet him as he alit from the train at 30th Street Station and chauffeur him directly to the ceremony. And, yes, he was a ‘sponsor,’ of sorts, always surrounding himself with the elite of the bridge world to keep a high profile. Bridge was his business and keeping his name before the public was part of ‘selling’ the game (for which we are all grateful as I often wonder what I might be doing today if bridge had not availed itself to me). Somewhere I have a reel of film of my wedding, long before the VHS, DVD or VCRs appeared on the scene. Charlie was a handsome man, a quite imposing figure and thrilled my mother’s bridge ladies no end. The bride and groom took second billing on the occasion of their wedding nuptials — with Mr. Bridge himself as the star attraction — but it was a day to remember and the thrill of a lifetime to a starry-eyed fledgling to the game.
My present husband, Bobby Wolff, and Norman (though they were good friends and always sought each other out at the Nationals to discuss their shared love of sports) had quite different views of bridge. Norman, who worked 24/7 as an Account Executive for ML was one of the miniscule number of top players who actually worked for a living and never played professionally (except with an occasional brokerage client when he got trapped and had a tough time saying ‘no’). Yes, he had a real job and I don’t believe he ever accepted or got paid one red cent for playing! Bridge was strictly a beloved sideline and hobby and he played only on Friday evenings, Saturday and Sunday (except for the three NABCs each year and some world championships). He was a natural player, having been recognized by the ACBL as Player of the Double Decade (1957-1977) and had the pleasure of having only two regular partners during his nearly-fifty year career — Edgar Kaplan (starting in the fifties with a brief break from him when Sidney Silodor asked him to play on the “big team” in 1960 till Sidney’s death in 1963 — two weeks before our wedding). Norman was distraught over his dear friend and partner’s death eventually from brain cancer — and took a year off — concentrating more on his Merrill Lynch real-life responsibilities, until his best friend, Bobby Jordan, reunited him with Edgar about a year and a half following Sidney’s death. Kaplan/Kay enjoyed one of the most successful and respected partnerships the world has ever witnessed — playing together (except for the three year hiatus for about forty-three years), with countless scalps on their walls. When reminded of his great record with Edgar, Norman always modestly countered with, “Yes, you might be right, but we probably have lost more pair events together than any other twosome in the history of the game.”
Bear in mind, Norman rarely played with ANYONE but Edgar. He was not a ‘social’ bridge butterfly and played his heart out every moment of every event — all in the hopes of winning the right to represent our country with the eventual goal of seizing one world championship — but that was not destined to happen. He was extremely successful on the home front, but because of the obvious stumbling blocks (which the top players worldwide shared), he never had a real shot at a world championship. By the time Bobby came along, the problems had been eliminated (thanks to the hardcore position taken by WBF luminary Jimmy Ortiz-Patino), and he was able to find his place in the sun which Norman sadly never got to enjoy. Norman preferred playing only with Edgar (rarely with other superstars), but I had my regular woman’s partners — Betty Kaplan, Helen Smith (the Philadelphia version — not Helen Sobel Smith), the great Barbara Brier, and my present dear friend and partner, Jane Segal. I never tried to convince Norman to give up watching his sporting events (his second love) to play with me. However, we did have an equitable pact. Any time, for any reason (a mixed pair or charity game or something else important to me), he was always at my disposal. However, I was happy with my regular partners, so It worked out marvelously. If I had to venture a guess, in forty years, I may have played with Norman about 150 times — to our mutual satisfaction. Maybe that was the reason we were happily married for almost forty years — but I had the lifelong privilege to pick his brain at will and often discussed theory and the whys and wherefores for hours on end. Believe me, I had no complaints and was content to bask in the shadows of two great players — being the ‘little wife’ (though not so little now)! I did enjoy some novel triumphs on my own — winning a Mixed Pair with Edgar in Montreal in 1967 (as an absolute know-nothing relative novice) and another weird happening, winning the National Thursday Night Charity Pairs — once with Norman in Hawaii and another with Bobby in Atlanta a few years ago, in addition to quite a few women’s events in earlier years.
Now to Bobby Wolff, who needs no introduction to the world of bridge. Bobby, to my way of thinking, (contrary to Norman) never had what most would call a ‘real job’ As a young man, he served in the Intelligence Branch of the Army and when he returned to San Antonio resumed the fancy he had taken to the game (which he had learned by his twelfth birthday, watching his parents and their friends on a round trip train excursion to Chicago). At an early age, he was in demand as a professional player at the local duplicates for $5 a session (eventually graduated to ten bucks — and so on up the line), accumulated many happy customers and became accustomed to playing with (what in many cases were) mostly ‘weak players.’ He was going to law school at the time, running a bridge club (of which he was part owner with Joe Musumeci), playing pro primarily with the LOLs and their male counterparts (known as LOM) — so his involvement in bridge at the teaching level became his chief means of earning a livelihood. Later, he became an instrumental part of forming the Aces (Ira Corn’s brainchild and money) and after they demoted Ira from a team player to NPC, the Dallas Aces became the first truly all-expert-professional bridge team in the world. Madame Lavazza, of Italy, recently followed suit. She does not contaminate the team — but is content to merely root from the sidelines for the team bearing her famous name (as the Lavazza Coffee Queen). Bobby’s long list of successes followed at the table and in administration with both the ACBL and WBF — but that is all in the record books, so why elaborate?
I married Bobby on Pearl Harbor Day in 2003 (getting engaged after a three day cartridge courtship by exchanging emails on the computer). Believe me, I harbored no great expectations of playing with him on a regular basis — if at all. However, when he came to Philadelphia (before our marriage), he humored me as a polite groom-to-be and asked me to play at some silly sectional in Reading, Pa and we came in second in the Open Pair followed by a Sunday Swiss Team Win. Since he was reviled by my Kaplan/Sheinwold style of bidding (as opposed to his”right where it’s at” Bobby Wolff methods), my game underwent a total overhauling. You must understand, when I met Norman my bridge game was what was termed “kitchen bridge.” I did play in duplicates, sectionals, regionals and a national or two — but not being a ‘natural’ bridge player, it was a struggle although I held my own playing with good female partners in the late fifties and early sixties. When I met Edgar, he became my mentor. Being a great theorist, he afforded me crutches and a cane — and a system I eventually learned and knew (almost as well as Norman — judgment excluded, of course). It gave me a firmer ground from which to operate and I had most of my partners accommodating and adopting this new system I had latched onto. K/S provided me a security blanket — and oops, along comes Bobby Wolff who turns my bridge style upside down and causes me to trash my convention card!
The only K/S gadget to which Bobby has been converted is playing Weak No Trumps (but insists ONLY NON-VULNERABLE — which is the only way I ever played them). While on the subject, let me digress a moment and tell you what led to the mild revision of that segment of KS. It stems from a widely publicized hand from the annals of Kaplan/Kay. Playing WNT (vulnerable), not only did Norman get doubled and when left in, went for 1400 (against a part score), but he made the January 1st Headlines of the New York Bridge Column. I think it was Florence Osborne’s column in the now defunct NY Herald Tribune, but wouldn’t swear to it. It so happened we were attending a New Year’s Day party of a bridge playing friend and Norman never stopped hearing about the hand. Norman smiled, adhering to the grin and bear it concept, but that evening, he returned home, headed for the phone, called New York and unlike his usual warm, sweet salutation, spouted out, “EDGAR, either we play WNT NON VULNERABLE ONLY, or you should start looking for a new partner.” No more minus fourteen hundreds for Norman Kay! Thus, the change in system of the traditional handling of the Kaplan-Sheinwold NT variations depending upon vulnerability.
If I wanted to enjoy a happy marriage as Mrs. Wolff, which included keeping company at the bridge table as one of its components, I realized I would have to alter my style to jive with Bobby’s — which at 69 was no easy turnabout. But, how do you argue with an eleven-time world champion? I learned early on — the answer is: You don’t! So, I went along tongue in cheek and although occasionally I get a systemic senior moment, all in all, we consistently fare pretty well (through little credit to me). Bobby’s theory zeroes in on no bidding misunderstandings, coupled with his belief that it’s a bidders game. He advocates jumping into the fray early and leaping to would-be final contracts rather than attempting to scientifically explore other contracts which, without fail, always allows the opponents opportunities to direct unfavorable opening leads — not overlooking the possibility, if given time, to communicate and take profitable sacrifices. Like they say — different strokes for different folks — and it sure has worked well for him during a long career. It was a difficult adjustment from my rigid, stilted KS guidelines and theories, but I have eventually succumbed to his wining style — even converting one local partner and my regular Philadelphia soul mate of twenty-five years to change most of our existing ancient 1960s style to the ones now employed by The Wolves.
Bobby and I are fortunate that we are able to have such a beckoning and successful bridge club to play in (usually twice a week on Tuesday and Friday) while loving our general lifestyle in Las Vegas. The local games have risen in attendance to average over 20 tables and we have each noticed that the caliber of competition seems to be one step up from both of our previous experiences and is getting better and better. The duplicates are directed fairly — without pandering to rulings which are customer-friendly, but rather toward satisfying bridge equity and treating new and old customers alike. Possibly because of that fact, coupled with the proliferation of very good players indeed (and many visiting celebrities either on vacation or here for other bridge events), that causes an uplifting feeling which permeates the atmosphere. Neither of us are suggesting that all bridge to-dos are eliminated. Far from it. But, we both agree that the one word which looms large is RESPECT which seems to trump the highly competitive nature of all bridge contests.
I’ve often been quoted, saying my bridge dates with Bobby are like dying and going to heaven, but I kid you not! Sometimes watching his play and defense is surreal as it appears he is performing magic by the use of invisible mirrors. This six-year experience has been the thrill of a lifetime and I have learned so much about theory and tactics which were foreign subjects that were light years from me before Bobby came upon the scene.
Playing with a Pro is quite an enhancing lifestyle, though it does nothing toward bolstering one’s ego. However, I don’t mind the ‘comedown’ as it is an unprecedented learning experience and … what’s more … the price is right!
January 19th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 51 Comments
Just about every sport imaginable has established their own Hall of Fame, celebrating the Best of the Best. Isn’t that really what a Hall of Fame is all about? The individuals earmarked for this unequaled, prestigious honor should stand head and shoulders above the rest. Let’s just look at some of the fields and call to mind what these individuals have accomplished. Off the top of my head, but with input from others, the following (who are either dead or inactive) immediately flashed before me: (Baseball: Hank Aaron, Sandy Koufax, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams); (Basketball: Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Bill Russell); (Football: Jim Brown, Dick Butkus Joe Montana, Johnny Unitas); (Golf: Bobby Jones, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Sammy Snead); (Hockey: Wayne Gretzky, Gordie Howe, Mario Lemieux, Bobby Orr); (Soccer: Pele, Ronaldo); (Tennis: Bjorn Borg, Rod Laver, John McEnroe, Pete Sampras). Many others, very close in accomplishments and the miniscule number of female greats (such as Babe Zaharias, Steffi Graff, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova who excelled in the field of golf or tennis) were deliberately excluded for the sake of simplicity and space saving. Those cited were absolutely at the zenith of their sport, whose successes survived the test of time. No flashes in the pan or Johnny Come Latelys! They were well deserved to be mentioned above the other standouts who may be right behind them. But, no doubt their performances were as close to perfection as possible in their chosen field.
Now let us turn to our common pastime … the game of Bridge. For those not familiar with the Bridge Hall of Fame, it was designed to commemorate the achievements of outstanding living bridge personalities for their long range sensational feats with the pasteboards. It was the brainchild of Lee Hazen and inaugurated in 1964 by Sonny Moyse, then owner, editor and publisher of The Bridge World. The first three elected were Ely Culbertson, Charles Goren and Harold Vanderbilt; In 1965, Oswald Jacoby, Sidney Lenz and Milton Work were named; and in 1966, the honorees were Howard Schenken, Sidney Silodor and Waldemar von Zedtwitz. The inductions came to a screeching halt and the process was not resumed until 1995 when the acting CEO, Roy Green, came upon the scene and resuscitated the dormant Hall of Fame.
Naturally, almost thirty years had elapsed and many worthy candidates were deservedly waiting in the wings so there was much catching up to do. In addition to the primary Hall of Fame (decided by ballot), two other divisions were added and the recipients were selected by a Committee. The Blackwood Award (named after Easley Blackwood) was established to honor bridge players, living or deceased, who contributed to the game in areas outside of bridge-playing expertise (writing, devising conventions, teaching, promoting bridge, acting as good will ambassadors, directing, administrating, etc.) and the second was the Von Zedtwitz Award (named after Waldemar von Zedwitz), established to honor a deceased person who contributed to bridge as a player.
In 1995, the primary electees to the reactivated Hall of Fame were Edgar Kaplan, Alvin Roth and Bobby Wolff; in 1996 — Eddie Kantar, Norman Kay and Alfie Sheinwold; and in 1997 were Edith Freilich (a/k/a Seligman/Kemp), George Rapee and Bill Root. Bear in mind at the same ceremony as the HOF presentation, The Blackwood and von Zedtwitz honorees were inducted as well. Whereas the original inductees in the Sixties were the only honorees to join the HOF, by the time it was resurrected in 1995, the other two categories were in focus and as many as eight individuals were honored at one time. The original HOF’s intention was not to salute that year’s Best Personality, Most Endowed Sponsor, Most Entertaining Bridge Player, Most Popular Bridge Player, the Winningest Master Point Achiever, etc. The primary design of the Hall of Fame was to recognize SUPERIOR BRIDGE TALENT of living members — period!
At one point in the early 2000s, it became apparent there were some obviously egregious oversights of top players not achieving Hall of Fame Status. In 2001 Sami Kehela and Eric Murray (from Canada. which is part of Zone 2) and in 2002 Tommy Sanders were inducted. These were honors long, long overdue but I am trying to justify the classification into which they fit. The Von Zedtwitz honored top DECEASED players (so that rules out the Von Zedtwitz) and the Blackwood recognizes players (living or deceased) who contributed to the game in areas OUTSIDE BRIDGE PLAYING EXPERTISE (so how did these bridge icons fly under the radar)? Thank God they did and all lived to see the day (and are still with us in 2010) but can someone tell me how the electors could veer so far off course??? When I asked Bobby about the inconsistencies, he volunteered: “I doubt if there is a player alive who wouldn’t take those three as a partner or teammate and play any honest team in the world a long match.” And, if you know Bobby, he is not one to toss compliments frivolously.
As I look at the ACBL site on the computer, I note a list of Hall of Fame Members inducted from 1964-2009, but there is no distinction made (except between 1964-1966) as to those actually voted in and those selected. However, there is a significant difference in accomplishments and talent and, like many other phases of bridge these days, most things zoom out of control or get lost in the shuffle (no pun intended). There is no public differentiation between the three presentations — all of which have vastly different criteria (the latter two often spoken of in hushed tones). On the ACBL site each year’s electees are listed in alphabetical order — indicative of the Age of Misinformation. It appears as one big melting pot, separating the recipients by year of induction only — not delineating the category.
Admittedly, it took some time to officially recognize those not in the original group (’64-’66) because of the twenty-nine year hiatus, but after the “automatics” were inducted, it seemed like a free for all. I am not necessarily alluding to this year’s list of candidates as there are indeed some worthy names listed, but in the last ten years or so, it seems like the flood gates have opened up. There are tremendous gradations in performances of players. I feel strongly there is an unparalleled distinction between an exceptional expert/world class player and a good sponsor. Also, there are so few top women players who hold a candle to Helen Sobel, Sally Young and Edith Freilich (and perhaps one or two others) who set the standard for female superiority, holding their own against the best of the opposite sex. The Hall of Fame might reconsider branching out and having separate categories for the female sex (which suggestion I know was voted down before as it thought of as very chauvinistic) as well as one for successful sponsors who have achieved impressive records playing with professional partners. But, let’s not pull any punches and call a spade a spade. The Hall of Fame Shrine (as distinguished from other recognized award categories) should strictly house the most BRILLIANT, HONEST, SUPERIOR, DISTINGUISHED PERFORMERS (who also, not surprisingly, have countless scalps on the wall) — not merely those who have won ‘x’ number of championships (nationally or internationally) with or without the help of paid professionals.
Incidentally, those responsible for placing the nominations on the ballot are the Hall of Fame Committee and with all the close ties in bridge, it is virtually impossible not to have favorites and/or conflicts of interest regarding some of the proposed nominees. At one time (in 2002) I was appointed to the HOF committee (which I considered a great honor) but, in retrospect, I really question why I was selected other than as a tribute to my late husband, Norman (who also served on the Committee immediately before his death). At that time, I did not feel qualified to judge who were worthy candidates. However, it is amazing what one can learn in eight years. I ended up resigning about a year after I came on board (though I really enjoyed the company of some of my constituents), but I did not like the way friendships blatantly played their part in the proposed nominations. Besides, we were overruled on a few issues by the BOD who meddled in areas where they had little expertise. Finally, our current President, Rich DeMartino, then on the BOD, acted as a liaison between the HOF Committee and the Board (actually running interference) and resolved several controversial issues, thereby allowing the HOFC to function more smoothly and effectively — and, above all, became scrupulously independent.
I believe the time has arrived to put a halt to the absurd defamation of the ACBL Hall of Fame and honor it by the induction of only OUR VERY, VERY BEST — emulating the superb judgment exercised in the sports field to revere their legendary all-time greats mentioned in my introduction. To do otherwise and elect even one player with credentials substandard to those of our top bridge heroes and heroines would undermine the lofty ideals of its founders!
January 17th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 12 Comments
Next on my list are Appeals Committees which IMO are frequently too inept and unable to get to the crux of the matter and produce the equity of which our game is badly in need.
I have never served as a defendant and only one time earlier (perhaps 15 years ago) did my partner and I appeal a ruling. I have better things to do after a game than to offer myself up as a guinea pig before an often incompetent committee — with few exceptions. However, I witnessed one group in all their glory (about three years ago) during my infamous case which appears in The Lone Wolff (An Appeal to Remember). Knowing in advance that this would be my next subject in the blog series, I wrote to one of the Committee members (who for obvious reasons will remain anonymous) to confirm what he stated during dinner one evening a few months ago. We heard him admit that he never saw the hands involved, which was hard for Bobby and me to believe. How can an Appeals Committee Member not get to see the four hands? It is a virtual impossibility! I recall vividly Bobby and I discussing it at home that evening. So before posting this blog I wrote to him again to confirm that he did not see the hand in question. His opening words were (this time) “The Committee saw the hand” — to which I replied, ” YOU were on the committee. Make up your mind..” His original words were refuted by both him and later his wife who got herself involved to defend her husband’s denial. Perhaps he is just getting older and had a memory lapse or had a drink or two before dinner and did not remember protesting his unfamiliarity with said hand record.
He further offered the following unsatisfactory explanation which I found totally meaningless Following are both his reply to me and Bobby’s outraged response suggesting how my case (or any other case that goes before an AC) should have been handled.
The committee saw the hand. The basic problem for the committee was that the director made a decision based on the testimony of those involved, at the time and at the table. He also conferred with other directors. When the case was brought to the committee, the director stated that no new information or argument had emanated from you to make him reconsider. At the hearing, there were no new arguments presented by either the opponents or your partner or you. The reality is, the committee may or may not have made a correct ruling. Having said that, you should realize the committee tried to make a fair ruling based on the evidence presented to it. Committees don’t always get it right — but they try very hard to be impartial and not be swayed by the presence of notables. [Who was the notable? Certainly not me!] Every time you go to court (law suit) you think you will win. You don’t always win — but that doesn’t mean you were wrong. It just means you didn’t win.”
Pearls of wisdom! In any event, that did not appease me in the least and for fear of losing my cool and using profanity, I turned it over to a very knowledgeable individual, especially in the area of appeals — my husband Bobby. I felt I hadn’t been screwed — but rather raped by the opponents, the director and the Committee. Bobby totally agreed with me, and in fact, he pleaded our case before the Appeals and Charges Committee Hearing at an ensuing National to revoke the outrageous AWMW (Appeal Without Merit Warning). Just for the record, after Bobby spoke, the AWMW was immediately vacated unanimously, approved by the BOD and finally laid to rest but not before sixteen months of getting the runaround and not being advised of my right to go before the A&CC earlier. You will find it of interest to note that the embarrassment and humiliation suffered by the Appeals Committee for having the AWMW reversed, was taken care of by the cunning Board Directors. In order to prevent a recurrence, they cleverly passed whatever it is they “pass” — making appeals of AWMWs no longer fashionable. How’s that action by the governing body of the American Contract Bridge League? Disgusting! Thus, (1) YOU CAN’T APPEAL AN APPEAL; and (2) YOU CAN’T APPEAL AN AWMW, SO WHAT OTHER RESOURCE IS AVAILABLE OTHER THAN TO ENGAGE AN ATTORNEY AND SUE THEM IN A COURT OF LAW FOR IMPUGNING YOUR GOOD NAME. I can’t think of any other resolution. Can you?????
Here was Bobby’s eloquent reply, trying to educate the pathetically misguided Appeals Committee Member who (like his fellow committee-mates) had no clue as to proper procedure before making a judgment call:
“Rehashing Judy’s appeal only has merit if the appeals process cares enough to be sure they get it right next time. Judy gave me your email and it smacks from the truth. As a matter of fact I would bet you are recounting what happened very accurately. However, what I just said could have been said about the OJ Simpson murder trial. That does not cut it with me, nor should it with you.
The committee should not have to follow up by ratifying a terribly flawed TD decision (it matters not if it was corroborated since most other TD’s, including too many of our senior ones, really have no idea how to rule or the reasons for it). The first thing that should be done, first by the TD and then, of course by the committee, is to look at the hand and then determine whether a huddle was likely. Then some logic should be used such as when the accuser called the director, 1. Was it after the hand was over or was it, timely; 2. at the time of the huddle and then the possibility of partner being privy to UI and then deciding to act? Finally the hand that the balancer had in order to consider balancing as well, of course, as the hand the accuser was speaking about had enough values to make her position tenable. The rules as you state them are similar to a person scratching his left ear with his right hand.”
As an aside, for the record, I might describe the time scenario before I called the director: (1) I opened the bidding 1S; (2) Lefty studied at least 30 seconds and passed waving his hand in noticeable despair; (3) My partner who had her head down was filling in the pickup slips, unaware of the time lapse and pulled out a green card; and (4) After Righty studied for a very long time, finally balanced over my 1S bid with 2C (holding a 2/3/3/5 with two queens and two jacks. (5) IT WAS TIME FOR ME TO CALL THE DIRECTOR — never having seen either of the opponents’ hands). Looking at all four hands, every expert I peddled the hand to (obviously not on the committee) thought I had them dead to right and was 100% in the right because I had been disadvantaged and should have been allowed to play 1S for minus 50 (an average board). However, it was beyond the realm of reason why the Committee chose to take a different view — rebuking my plea and giving my partner and me an AWMW. Incidentally, many have asked after the 2C balance why did the original huddler (Lefty) not bid 2NT to show an opening bid (which he had passed). That’s an easy one! He had already shown his values earlier as was evidenced by his huddle!!!
Continuing with Bobby’s response ….
“Without even considering the possibility of my pulling rank, I have chaired so many Appeals committees with the WBF (perhaps 200+) with most being important enough so that the result could even directly affect the tournament. Never have I heard such abominable rules as the rules you described on that ill fated evening.
It seems to me that with the intelligent legal talent available that it would be impossible to know so little about what happened during that appeal that the other members of the committee could sit around, do nothing, and just let it happen. By the time that committee was reviewed (I was there) by the ACBL Appeals and Charges Committee, they were downright embarrassed by having to listen to what happened.
While, to repeat, there is no doubt, at least to me, of your accuracy in reporting, but how could you be part of letting it happen? It seems that you and the rest of your group would have more pride than that, but perhaps it was late at night and the mood was that of total apathy. In my long tenure I, at times felt guilty about taking control and making sure equity (at least 80%) would rule and a couple of times over a 30 year period I got careless and turned what I thought was a simple case over to others so that they could determine that decision and I must say that on one occasion the lovely lady (about 80) turned to me and said, “Mr Wolff, I have always heard that you were very fair and knowledgeable, but this decision proves you are not”. She was as right as she could be and I never, after that case, relinquished my duty again.
I am relating the above story to try and acknowledge that many people who serve on committees would be better off discussing nuclear physics than attempting to make justice triumph in our rather weird bridge world.
Finally, I am through discussing this case, and promise to never bring it up again, but perhaps you could show some leadership and make sure that future committees are responsible for at least some intelligent decisions. For the most part, at least the ones regarding some of our leading players, the decision, while not as bad as Judy’s, are still off the wall.”
/s/ Bobby
End of MY story! You can now understand my overwhelming despair with the way some committees operate because their composition (from past performance) is very indicting that so many are unqualified (as in the subject case) and have no clue how to handle routine disputes. I don’t care how good the committee experts are in the field of play — in many instances, appeals are not necessarily their forte, but they enjoy the prestige of seeing their names in lights as judge and jury over bridge misdemeanors.
Many times I look over Bobby’s shoulder (when he is serving on a committee which reviews cases which have already bit the dust in the previous NABC) and it is horrifying to witness the many injustices that have been perpetrated by individuals who haven’t the foggiest idea what appeals are (and should be) about. It is a great learning process for me and helps me to understand the general distaste for many of the decisions made and the accompanying disrespect for the members who served on specific Appeals Committees.
I do not stand alone in my abhorrence at how these committees operate. Perhaps, just as the directing staff, it would serve the best interest of the members of appeals committees that instead of being coddled and having their egos stroked, some knowledgeable person came to Memphis (which Bobby offered to do on his own dime but was refused) or an NABC (perhaps for a day or two) and hold a seminar with both directors and appeals committee members, prepping them how to handle these ever-important situations (what to look for, what to ask, etc. which will eventually lead to more equitable decisions and rulings). The status of our bridge jury system today is nothing to write home about.
Incidentally, Bobby cited “The Precedent” which occurred a few months before my appeal. It, in no uncertain terms, alluded to the fact that if a complaint is made to a director by a reputable individual who is not known to frivolously call for an adjustment, one must assume something untoward occurred at the table worthy of calling it to the director’s attention.
Obviously, neither the Committee Chairman nor any of its members either knew about it or thought of it in a timely fashion. However, the following day, when confronted by Bobby, the Chairman did come clean he DID remember “The Precedent.” Too little too late. It was too embarrassing to go back and reverse both the ruling and the AWMW (probably an unheard method of repenting and undoing the wrong for which they were responsible).
Another appeals issue that bothers me is when a top pair (and almost every top pair plays professionally today) appear before a committee, the members usually succumb to them, mainly for two reasons:
(1) They don’t want to appear stupid to the public not to agree with them, making them look unknowledgeable; and (2) Since the tournaments are rampant with professionals and many serve on appeals committees, the last thing they want to do is antagonize the big guns thereby losing the chance of being recommended for some later pay date if the occasion arises.
Too many inflated egos, personal agendas, conflicts of interest and politics for me! Taking better measures for recruiting trained committees would be a good place to start!
|
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related