November 19th, 2009 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
4 Comments 
Over the last couple of years (since the release of The Lone Wolff), Bobby has received hundreds of emails, personal letters and handshakes applauding his candor for discussing a flood of subjects deliberately passed over and buried at the time by those at the helm. However, in fairness to the public and to set the record straight for posterity, he boldly unearthed dozens of incidents which had been cloaked — some for over half a century. Because Bobby felt a responsibility to the bridge loving public, some thirteen years after he began the manuscript, he produced TLW in an effort to set bridge back on its rightful, honorable course — as intended by its founding fathers. The early ‘protectors’ of the game feared a scandal (and/or litigation which they were not prepared to deal with) and that may well have been the reason for their passivity, but if addressed at the time, perhaps many of the shenanigans of earlier years would not still be prevalent sixty years later! And today, the beat continues with current issues: alerts, failures to alert, private conventions, non-disclosures, club owners playing favorites, personal agendas, etc. New problems always arise and there is no doubt our sport must be policed by qualified and fair-minded, objective people whose sole goal is to protect the honor and dignity of the game. Easier said than done!
What prompted this blog was an email Bobby received yesterday (in response to an earlier correspondence) congratulating him for finally unlocking the skeletons from the closet and sweeping the dirt out from under the carpet. I am withholding the identity of the writer — but it is a mixture of queries and humor and I felt it worthy of sharing:
Dear Bobby,
Thank you for taking the time to write to me. If the ACBL management was asked by a newcomer to the tournament trail 3 questions:
1. “What assurances can you give me that the bridge game will be of high ethical standards?”;
2 “Do you aggressively pursue wrongdoers or do you believe that it is better for your organization to shy away from potential litigation?”;
3. “If the answers to both 1 and 2 are not a resounding vote of confidence for a fair contest, why should I be a member and spend many thousands of dollars chasing masterpoints just to lose an event to someone who knows when to cough or how to lay a pencil on the table?”
Please continue to look out for the game that we both love.
With much respect,
/signed/
I feel the above is a very provocative email and certainly serves as food for thought!
November 11th, 2009 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
21 Comments
Growing up as children, the words of my own parents and those of my friends still echo in my ears: Mind your manners! It’s different strokes for different folks. Strangely, it applies to all walks of life — particularly sports — and I have become increasingly cognizant of similarities in bridge!
Let’s address how it surfaces in sporting events — particularly football (especially college games).
Everyone loves to see their team intercept a pass, or make a dramatic tackle causing their opponents to turn over possession, or sack the opposing quarterback , or run back a kickoff for a touchdown .. or .. or .. or ..!! Get the picture? It is fine for fans to cheer wildly and brandish flags but to witness chest-thumping and conclaves of players patting each other on the back and jumping upon one another on the field in a wild display of ecstasy for ‘besting’ their opponents, I find rather revolting. In professional sports, stringent rules are in place to stop what they call unsportsmanlike conduct and keep the game on a civil plateau.
It is really not very nice to ‘do the other team in’ via a fumble, interception, tackle — whatever –and then rub their noses in it with jubilant celebration. It happened Sunday to my beloved Eagles and, even so, I have to confess I was glad to see the referee drop the yellow flag on them. These are not kindergarten children who know no better — but allegedly respectable, extremely highly paid extra-talented professionals in their field (who in some cases are qualified for little else) and being on nationwide television should be even more of an incentive to ‘mind their manners.’
And now let’s turn to our common favorite pastime — bridge. I have been playing close to fifty-five years and the scene has changed rather dramatically — not only in bidding styles but in technology with the invention of screens (in high level events), of bidding boxes and more recently electronic scoring devices. Screens and bidding boxes, I personally believe, have served their purposes well — as long as people observe and honor the protocol of bidding in tempo, etc. It is no longer a matter of ‘the devil may care’ or ‘anything goes’ as the majority of directors (I would like to think) pride themselves on running a ‘clean’ game and abiding by the rules of the ACBL. After all, as long as master points are being issued, the club management has a responsibility to the League to honor the game by playing it the way it was intended (knowing your own system, alerting when necessary, explaining when asked, not taking advantage of partner’s huddle, i.e., bidding based on your own thirteen cards, etc.).
Since the introduction of Bridgemate (and similar scoring mechanisms), I have seen many ugly situations envelop over the course of the last several months because unlike the travelers, beside the score itself, an actual percentage glares at you (from 0% to 100%) which in many cases evokes bad blood because of untimely, inappropriate remarks and retorts. You will hear something volunteered, such as “We got 100% ” (which means their devastated opponents got a zero); also “Would you believe we only got 92% for making the slam” (like that wasn’t good enough?). It goes on and on — tantamount to diarrhea of the mouth — and makes for acrimony which would certainly be avoided if a score (absent of a percentage) was merely printed, a button pushed and a result approved and already en route to the director’s monitor for immediate scoring at the close of the game.
Cheating is the worst — but to my way of thinking — gloating runs closely behind and is caused in almost all cases by the percentage being posted for everyone’s perusal. Thought should be given to removing visible percentages from the Bridgemates which would eliminate extraneous conversations and undoubtedly serve to expedite the game by electronically routing the results to the director’s monitor for a quick final score to be posted.
Bobby’s main objection, when asked by the League for a critique of Bridgemate, responded to the following effect. He fears a better knowledge of one’s score as the game proceeds will cause clever, attentive pairs to change their strategy, thereby affecting the normal equity of random pairs who are oblivious. Keep in mind always that some twosomes don’t look or care how their game is going; they just like to play for the sake of just playing bridge. Others are more calculating and take advantage of every edge provided.
Another relatively minor objection of Bobby’s is that usually South and one of their opponents (either East or West — because in different partnerships — one partner agrees to do the okaying) are not privy to the score and if a board has been erroneously scored, two of the four are unaware of it. When asked, most reply by calling out the percentage. It is customary for North to be the scorekeeper and often because of favoritism to regulars or perhaps because of either physical or age handicaps, they are blessed with N/S positions although North is not necessarily qualified to enter the score.
By the way, just for the record (though I find it hard to fathom), it has been reported and verified that some clubs using Bridgemate have permitted a procedure to allow a player/s to research their score from earlier rounds and learn their current percentage. Might as well just post an updated burner on the wall to suggest how to handle your last round. Play down the middle or shoot for a top? Amazing how modern science has affected this once sacred game and turned it into a circus?
November 4th, 2009 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
13 Comments
There is nothing more insulting to the public than to make erroneous authoritative statements. To me, it is even more unconscionable to make so many incorrect ‘statements of fact’ in one paragraph — let alone an article, professing to be so knowledgeable. I strongly urge if you are giving statistics, you do some research beforehand and get your facts right! First, Bobby has won ELEVEN (not ten) world championships; Second, he has won SEVEN (not six) Bermuda Bowls; and Third, he did not play and win ALL of his world championships with Hamman. One was the Mixed Teams and the other was the Seniors. Furthermore, it may interest you to know he has the distinction of having won world cups in FIVE different categories — something that has never been done before or since.
November 3rd, 2009 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
15 Comments
As many of you more serious bridge players are aware (primarily those who participate in the U. S. Trials to select the team to represent our country), there has been a recent to-do about how to handle the pre-qualifying rounds of the event. The UNITED STATES BRIDGE FEDERATION (USBF) is considering inaugurating a preliminary event for the first time to be held via internet and there is much to be said for saving time and money for those who do not make the initial cut, thereby being able to not have the expense of traveling to the eventual playing site. It would involve monitored internet inner-play among the designated weaker teams and the emerging losers would have saved air travel, room rates, food and other extraneous expenses by competing from their own computers — and would not necessitate assembling the entire entourage to the tournament site early to enter the regular event as it has been held in the past. Incidentally, since monitoring would be 1,000% mandatory, it is mind boggling to envision how so many monitors would have to be screened and selected to act as watchdogs if this new concept is approved!
I personally think bridge internet has been one of the greatest innovations of all time and believe it is an incredible method of partnership practice, playing to pass the time of day and best of all, being able to sit in the comfort of your home and kibitz on your own screen serious competition such as Nationals and even World Championships at all times of day or night. However, the above do not address many of the problems suggested below.
I recently read an impressive email to those involved in the decision making, authored by Hall of Famer Kit Woolsey. Kit has been a respected figure on the bridge scene for many decades and is recognized not only for his bridge prowess and analytical genius, but for being objective in his appraisal of problematic issues. With Kit’s permission, I am quoting his views on using the internet for the preliminary round of the U. S. Trials for 2010:
There are many issues involved with having an online match be part of the trials which the committee members may not have fully considered.
Security: Even with a monitor present, there are still plenty of ways for an individual to cheat. Even worse than actual cheating may be suspicion of cheating. Suppose a player takes some anti-percentage play to make a slam. If this happens at the table against us, at least we know that he didn’t see our hand. In an online match we don’t know that at all — he may very well have found a way to see our hand. There may well be such accusations, and there won’t be anything we can do about them one way or the other.
Inexperience. There are players who simply don’t have any or much experience playing online. These players will be at a severe disadvantage. In addition, even for experienced online players there are many who simply don’t play as well when looking at a computer screen as they do when at the table with the cards in their hands. Do we want this to be a factor in a match which determines who continues in the trials?
Physical disability. There are players who find it very difficult to maneuver a mouse properly and efficiently. For these players, playing online would be a big distraction.
Table presence is a real part of the game — nobody can deny that. An online match loses all such table presence. Do we want this?
Accessibility. Not everybody has a computer, and not everybody who has a computer has internet access. Granted computers and internet access can be supplied if necessary, but it is a potential problem.
What happens when somebody misclicks? I have played a lot of online bridge, and I occasionally misclick a bid or a play. Naturally I request an undo when this happens, get one from my opponents, and the game continues. But in a trials match it can’t be so simple. We would either have to say that if somebody misclicks it is too bad (and do we want a trials match to be determined by this), or we would need special rules for dealing with this situation.
Bridge is a timed event. When playing at the table, a director or monitor can see who is playing slowly. That is not true in an online match. There may be connection problems which are causing delay. Due to this, it would be impossible to enforce any kind of time restrictions on a match.
There are computer glitches. What if somebody’s computer has a glitch which causes them to make a bid or play they hadn’t intended to make. What if somebody’s computer simply locks up in the middle of the match. What if there is a power failure at the locality of one of the players in the middle of the match. Or what if … well, any of the unexpected things which might go wrong with a computer.
Internet connection can be quirky. What happens if somebody loses connection in the middle of the match and it cannot be reestablished?
These are just some of the potential difficulties I thought of off the top of my head. I’m sure there are other possible pitfalls. I am all for technological progress. But it isn’t just a matter of saying: Let the preliminary matches be played online. There are many things which would need to be worked out very carefully.
Kit really offers up food for thought and it will be interesting to see how these potential multi-problems will be addressed before a decision is made by the ruling body, the USBF.
October 22nd, 2009 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
10 Comments
I am not as avid a football fan as baseball and am anxiously awaiting my Phillies to take on their humongous assignment against the Yankees (almost surely) in the World Series. However, I was overwhelmed reading the article below. Perhaps bridge (at all levels) could garner some advice from the admission of those at the helm in taking strong steps to prevent recurrence of obviously erroneous official decisions and going all-out to make certain sub-standard rulings called to the attention of the public as well as the officials making an effort to restore equity to its game! I am totally in awe that the Conference would succumb to the public announcement, embarrassment and displeasure of such below-par officiating. Nobody’s perfect, but this decision goes a long way toward putting one’s best foot forward!
SEC suspends Florida-Arkansas crew
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP)—The Southeastern Conference has suspended officials from last weekend’s Arkansas-Florida game after the crew was involved in its second controversial call of the year.
Referee Marc Curles’ crew called a personal foul on Arkansas defensive lineman Malcolm Sheppard in the fourth quarter as the Gators were rallying for a 23-20 victory. The league said there was no video evidence to support the call.
The same group of officials called the LSU-Georgia game earlier this month, which included a late unsportsmanlike conduct penalty the league said shouldn’t have been called.
“A series of calls that have occurred during the last several weeks have not been to the standard that we expect from our officiating crews,” SEC commissioner Mike Slive said Wednesday. “I believe our officiating program is the best in the country. However, there are times when these actions must be taken.”
SEC associate commissioner Charles Bloom said this is the first time the league has publicly suspended a football crew like this.
The SEC says the crew will be removed from its next scheduled assignment Oct. 31 and will not be assigned to officiate as a crew until Nov. 14.
The league said the crew’s bowl assignments could also be impacted.
“The entire crew shoulders responsibility for each play. I have taken this action because there must be accountability in our officiating program,” Slive said. “Our institutions expect the highest level of officiating in all of our sports and it is the duty of the conference office to uphold that expectation.”
October 15th, 2009 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
5 Comments
Although this is primarily a site where the ‘card holders’ are bridge players, this admonition is directed at all individuals who use credit cards. I am embarrassed to admit I was the target of a scam and wanted to share my experience with you. My accountant was going over my credit card statement and spotted three repeated monthly charges of $14.95 to innocuous sounding businesses and quite frankly, when the monthly statement arrives, I scan it for unusually high charges and then usually turn it over to Bobby for payment. At one time we were doing a lot of traveling so the bills were exceptionally high and I paid little attention to the smaller items — that is — until my accountant asked me what these three separate monthly charges represented ($14.95 times three) in 2008 and changed to ($17.95 times three) in 2009. I suppose in 2010 it would be raised to $20.95. I had no clue so I asked him for the telephone numbers beside the names of each company which I could not identify or recall dealing with. Sometimes a major company does not use the same billing name under which it is known. In any event, I was dumbfounded after discovering the ruse.
When I spoke to the representative of the first company, she told me I had signed up for some service through a printing company and these were the charges for my receiving discounts. (Apparently the first company must have been tied in with the other two as she immediately knew to what I was referring). I was clueless about what precipitated the charges as I had signed up for nothing. I am not a “gopher” kind of individual and I am very cautious about getting involved with such “sign up schemes.” Without an argument she told me she would “stop the service” (how kind!) and discontinue the charges (which I never authorized in the first place) and turned me over to her superior. As soon as I expressed my outrage, she put me on hold and within a couple of moments was rattling off some figures– telling me she was giving me a credit of almost $1200 which would appear on my next statement. From the tone of her voice, I surmised that I was not the first person who had fallen prey to this triple whammy. Not taking her word as gospel, I alerted my credit card company, related the story and they are going to contact me when the credit comes through.
It is no doubt just another kind of rip off with everyone trying to make a fast buck in this economy — and had it not been for an astute accountant, I would never have picked it up. Being busy 24/7 is no excuse for my carelessness in scrutinizing each charge and felt it would be a public service to share my humiliating experience. Luckily, mine will have a happy ending as the credit is really ‘found money’ that was temporarily sitting in someone else’s pocket. Don’t you be the next potential unsuspecting victim! Take the time to check out EVERY CHARGE!
September 21st, 2009 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
4 Comments
Much of the subject matter you find on this site is usually serious and controversial. I have always been a proponent of telling it like it is — with no soft soaping or sugar coating. However, recently Bobby received an email from his good friend, Jeff Polisner, who passed down some rather humorous quotes that I want to share with you. Many of the original creators were unlisted but I used the names of those which were credited with the remarks when available. So, here goes …
“I think we’re all a little masochistic. Otherwise, why would we continue to play bridge?”
“I’d like a review of the bidding with all the original inflections.”
“If you play bridge with your wife as partner, you need at least 20 points to open, and it wouldn’t hurt to have 25.” (Joe James)
“A fellow had made a bad bid and gone down for 1400. ‘I’m sorry,’ he said to his partner. ‘I had a card misplaced.’ ‘Only one card?’ ” (Charles Goren)
“The real test of a bridge player isn’t in keeping out of trouble, but in escaping once he’s in.” (Alfred Sheinwold)
“Bridge is a great comfort in your old age. It also helps you get there faster.” (Rueful Rabbit)
“The trouble with women is that they treat bridge as a game. They do not realize it is a war.”
“Where’s the hand you held during the auction?” (a comment Jan Janitschke has made when dummy hits)
“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.”
“One advantage of bad bidding is that you get practice at playing atrocious contracts.” (Alfred Sheinwold)
“I’m not sure whether glory or masterpoints is first on the list, but I know learning to play is definitely last.” (Eddie Kantar)
“I favor light opening bids. When you’re my age, you’re never sure they’re going to get back to you in time.” (Oswald Jacoby at 77)
….. and my own personal favorite I witnessed at a rubber bridge game at the Cavendish Club in Philadelphia back in the sixties:
“When I play with you, you expect me to play like Charles Goren. When I play against you, you want me to play like Melvin Savitz!” (Melvin Savitz)
September 20th, 2009 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
92 Comments
The following blog (from Bridgevaria by Ed Hoogenkamp) appeared on our bridge blogging site
Forcing pass? ***
Sunday, 20 September 2009 07:00
The 1957 World Championship for teams in New York, USA vs. Italy. No one knew this was to be the beginning of an era, the era of the Italian Blue Team. It won its first world title that year and was virtually unbeatable until the early 1970’s. ……………………….
… and it follows with a hand deifying what I vehemently and sarcastically call “The Exalted Blue Team.” True, they featured three of the very best players in the world (Garozzo, Belladonna and Forquet) but I am getting sick and tired of the lionizing of a team that the world of bridge knows cheated for well over a decade, resulting in their fourteen consecutive dirty world championships. THERE IS NOT A TOP PLAYER (who has not self-deluded himself) IN THE WORLD ALIVE THEN OR NOW WHO WOULD NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FACT. Blame it on their culture, their ego or the fact that their captain Albert Perroux told them in no uncertain terms that if they did not ‘help’ their partner, there were others waiting in the wings to replace them.
I speak from personal experience as my late husband, Norman Kay and many dear friends and partners who have since passed on always fought a losing uphill battle at their mercy — but there was not an iota of doubt the game the Italians were playing was hardly cricket. True, they were never charged, tried or convicted because the Powers-That-Be feared a scandal that would rock the world and knock bridge off the map and so nothing was ever done. If in doubt, get the gory details of the Burgay Tapes from the Father of Bridge, Jamie-Ortiz Patino who was the President of the WBF at the time. (Jimmy verified the famous Burgay Tapes by using his influence at the CIA which officially confirmed their authenticity!)
At one period in the seventies, Patino told them not to appear the following or any other year as their credentials would not be accepted. (P. S. they did not show up although he relented twice a few years apart and allowed Garozzo and Belladonna to participate in 1979 and 1983). It is time the truth was accepted and if you have any doubts, read The Lone Wolff or write to my husband Bobby Wolff who was in the thick of things and has many more details than I care to reveal now. It is time the Blue Team’s camp followers woke up and accepted what really happened starting half a century ago. It is a disgrace the bridge world will apparently never live down, continually exacerbated by bridge writers who shamefully deny the truth.
September 16th, 2009 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
9 Comments
You are defending 4S in the fourth round of a duplicate where lefty opens 1S and rebids 4S like a shot over a 1NT response. Partner cashes two rounds of clubs and gets the third one ruffed.
Declarer’s hand is solid, excepting the trump suit. He crosses to the diamond ace (and holding SEVEN to the AKQ6432 opposite a single 10), plays the 10. I smoothly played low and he let it ride, smothering my partner’s 9 while I sat there with my teeth in my mouth holding J875. It certainly can’t be right to cover as declarer could have AKQ9XX or AKQ9XXX. In fact, I think it is absurd to even consider covering — but what do I know?
How do you explain it? Am I paranoid or am I missing something? (And by the way, I do ‘breast’ my cards). I guess instead of bitching, I should arrange to chain him to the seat and play a set game on a slow boat to China, leaving tomorrow.
September 15th, 2009 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
17 Comments
I have never picked up a tennis racquet in my life … and some days I have trouble counting trump. Don’t we all? However, I can tell you from personal experience that someone who is seriously immersed in any game gives 200% of oneself — regardless of the final result. It is apparent I am alluding to Saturday’s unfortunately disgraceful incident involving Serena Williams at Forest Hills. At such a crucial stage in a match, unless a foot fault is so indisputably obvious which upon later scrutiny (IN FACT, AFTER BEING REVIEWED ON TAPE) WAS NOT EVEN CLOSE, how dare an unyieldingly confident official change the course of destiny. A tennis official is not unlike a bridge tournament director who has a responsibility to himself (herself) to be 100% familiar with the rules of the game and not take it upon oneself to make an arbitrary call — especially with so much riding on it. Serena’s reaction, although unladylike, was certainly no surprise. A true champion (whether tennis or bridge) knows when she has been ‘had’ and I, for one, can understand her inherent reflex, uncontrollable outburst and passion with so much at stake.
The guiding forces, perhaps in these instances, are those hiring the officials presiding at such a prestigiously watched TV event. Those at the helm should have been more attentive, cautious and conscientious in the selection of the employees, especially those who have the responsibility of being on the firing line.
The shameful responsibility of the outcome falls squarely on the shoulders of the woman calling the foot fault for being in such a rush to judgment. Perhaps the Chair Umpire (or whatever you call her), knowing how crucial the call was, should have stopped play and made an exception, reviewed the call, before awarding the point. Champions play with all their heart and soul and it is no surprise that Serena lost her cool when she felt she had been violated by a ridiculously outrageous fallacious call that could have been justified and reversed by a tape review. No one is infallible — certainly not Serena — but especially the official who turned out to be off the charts in the area of incompetency. Rules are made to be broken — and if ever there was a need for a review and/or reversal — this seems to be the standout tennis case of the century.
I find it hard to abide by irreversible decisions and just as in bridge, perhaps it is time, to examine and review — and keep examining and reviewing the laws, rules and guidelines as often as necessary until we get it right. We are mere mortals.
NOTHING IS ETCHED IN STONE! WE CAN ALL LEARN FROM OUR OWN MISTAKES.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related