October 15th, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
44 Comments 
I have never gotten my kicks from playing bridge on line but I know many people who love it! Perhaps one of the turn-offs is the multi-faceted opportunities one may have in the privacy of his or her own computer space (without monitoring or hidden cameras) to perform the impossible and consistently ‘guess right’ (reading partner’s cards without error). The use of the word CHEATING is frowned upon and considered a no-no in certain quarters but I defy anyone to rationally explain what you are about to read.
This was reported by a reliable expert to have happened ON LINE! The expertise of the reporter is not the issue and the result is immaterial, although I must add the defense understandably slipped — misconstruing the opener’s holding when he bid again in the face of an original pass from responder. The facts have been documented by "movies" and preserved — downloaded as evidence. It occurred Monday night on BBO. Board 4, Both Vulnerable, Dealer West. The screen names of all the participants are on record.
Here is the bidding and the Opener’s and Responder’s hands:
N E S W
– – – 1S
P P! 2H P
2S P! 3H 3S
X P P P
THE EAST HAND HAS NOT BID YET!!!!!!!!!!
DUMMY (EAST):
K9X
XX
KQX
QJ87X
DECLARER (WEST):
A7XXX
AX
JX
A108X
Food for thought …..
1) Can anyone JUSTIFY HOW THE EAST HAND CAN PASS (originally and throughout) HOLDING 11 HCP AND A FIT (K9x)?;
AND ….
2) Can anyone JUSTIFY WEST BIDDING AGAIN AT THE THREE LEVEL WHEN PARTNER DENIED 6 HCP?
A CASE OF CLAIRE VOYANT? I just can’t buy that! I REST MY CASE!
October 11th, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
3 Comments
The year was 1962. One of the Jacobys (either Jim or Ozzie) was in the McKenney Race vying for the most master points accumulated in one year. I was the Team Mascot when Norman, Sidney Silodor, Bob Jordan and Arthur Robinson flew out to the Pittsburgh Labor Day Regional to accommodate them. They were in contention and the evening game was running late – so late that it appeared the five of us were going to miss the last plane back to Philadelphia Sunday night.
Ozzie, as you may be aware, was a cryptographer during World War II and had gotten to know several influential people in high places. When he learned of our impending Eastern Airlines problem, he snatched me from my kibitzing spot and hauled me off to a phone booth, asking me for our flight number. I stood by his side and hung onto every word as he telephoned the airline and in an authoritative, booming voice slowly proclaimed: “THIS IS OSWALD JACOBY!” Ten seconds later, he continued: “There are five passengers scheduled to depart Pittsburgh for Philadelphia at 12:05 A.M. and will be running late. Hold the plane and have two vehicles at the terminal entrance to transport them and their luggage to the flight.” He hung up, escorted me back to the table and asked for the claim tickets we received when we checked our baggage. I was also admonished to lose no time when the game ended and to immediately whisk the other four to the front entrance.
When Norman was dummy, he inquired what happened. I was still in a stupor and whispered, “That Jacoby guy may be a great bridge player – but he is some kind of a nut!” I repeated what I overheard and then instructed the Philadelphia-bound contingent to head for the taxi stand as soon as they compared scores.
Ozzie had two cabs waiting, with all of our luggage stowed in the vehicles, kissed me good-bye, thanked the guys for coming and wished us a safe journey. When we arrived at the terminal, I couldn’t believe my eyes. Two huge jeeps with motors idling were preparing to transport us and our luggage to the aircraft standing in the middle of the runway — ready for immediate takeoff. Of course, it was long before jetports and security clearance and we flew up the stairs and entered the cabin. When we boarded, everyone rose from their seats – curious to see the entourage for whom their flight was delayed half an hour. It was an embarrassing moment – but better than taking a ten hour Greyhound bus ride home in the middle of the night!
I later learned that in his travels, Ozzie became friendly with World War I ace, Eddie Rickenbacker, who was instrumental in establishing Eastern Airlines and he may indeed have been able to pull his plan off if it necessitated speaking to “the right person.” However, I guarantee you the individual on the other end of the phone had no idea who OSWALD JACOBY was, but was so overwhelmed by his convincing delivery and impressive persona – spontaneous arrangements were made to honor his command. I marvel every time I recall Ozzie’s effective dictatorial edict that night in Pittsburgh.
October 6th, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
4 Comments
Rummaging through some old storage boxes, I came across many verses I had penned for special occasions over a fifty-year span. Suddenly I found myself staring at a poem I had hand-written to Edgar shortly after the 1967 Montreal Mixed Pair which I related last week in "REMEMBERING EDGAR." Since it was so apropos, I have succumbed to the urge to post it:
ODE TO EDGAR
‘Twas time for the Mixed – a capacity house
I sat down across from – the ‘pard’ of my spouse
Our system agreed — (mild Kaplanish-Kay)
The opponents arrived – we entered the fray
I told partner dear – (in case he forgot)
To bid his own cards – (cause bashful, I’m not)!!
Before very long – came the first sign of trouble
I made a light call – the opponents screamed double!
To embark on a game – such as this is a pity
But when the smoke cleared – 730 looked pretty.
My style was consistent – throughout the long day
I’d overbid – and he’d overplay
We vied for the part scores – (intrepid – no doubt)
The motto I bore – was NEVER SELLOUT
Never sell out – (you must understand)
Only applies – when HE plays the hand
Precise and so thoughtful – he bids with such grace
And doesn’t go hopping – all over the place
I know what he’s got – (he can’t say the same)
It would take all the mystery – out of my game
So be it by fate – or the luck of the draw
I sure enjoyed bein’ – his partner-in-law.
(Signed) Mrs. Norman Kay
October 1st, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
7 Comments
Perhaps the most controversial issue in all of bridgedom is the explosive topic of sponsorship and professionalism and what it has done for the game and to the game. The differing views range from the cold facts of life to realistic idealism and esthetics.
Professionalism is an exciting carefree way of supporting one’s self – shirking the responsibility of a real job (and it’s great work if you can find it)! It provides convincing rationale for a talented youngster to quit college (even high school) to pursue the cushy dream of becoming a bridge professional (even though it doesn’t enthrall the parents who had greater aspirations for their offspring). It broadens one’s horizons to travel to a different city every weekend and get to see the country (and possibly the world). It bolsters one’s ego to gain recognition en route to mastering a difficult, captivating, intriguing game. It is self-satisfying to rub elbows with the bridge hoi polloi and be thought of as a fellow pro. That is when you know you have arrived! But realistically – the big lure (especially for a young person without a formal education, training or experience) is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. He or she may earn more in a month than they could normally make in a year as some apprentice learning the ropes.
The enticing bottom line is – no 9 to 5 job, no punching the clock, no ‘same old/same old’ routine — far from the ennui of positions held by the bourgeois. Unfortunately, it is a dog-eat-dog world out there and some make it and some don’t. Aside from talent, much has to do with being in the right place at the right time. The top pros are in demand and don’t have to hustle. The others must scratch, claw, grovel and constantly be on the prowl for new clients to make ends meet. Another factor — foreign infiltration has been a killer. And — with the abundance of superstars for hire – the sponsors are in the driver’s seat, having their pick of the litter. End result: The exceptional Professionals have discovered a windfall doing what they do best – and the well-heeled Sponsors can learn, improve and strive for their place in the sun. It is a terrific arrangement! (Besides – the stomping grounds are never-ending — from lowly Club Duplicates to Sectionals, Regionals, Nationals, Grand Nationals, Team Trials and eventually for the lucky ones — World Championships). From there – it’s deja vu! The cycle regenerates itself and they’re off and running again!
However, there is a third factor not to be overlooked — the game itself! How has it changed and where is it heading? Whether or not you care to admit it – it is not the once-elegant hobby that came to the fore in the late thirties and forties with the emergence of our insightful bridge organization. Back then, bridge had an aura of dignity, formality and class and showcased some of the revered superstars of the game. We are indebted to Charles Goren for being such an innovative promoter. If you read The Lone Wolff, you learned that Goren was among the first of the celebrated players to hire expert partners and teammates. However, his purpose was not as much for self-gratification as it was for marketing (and off the record, he was far from what you think of as a classic ‘sponsor’). He could win on his own. His ‘hired hands’ simply enhanced his chances – a safety play, of sorts.
In the next two decades, others followed suit (namely — the Dallas Aces and the Precision team). They differed from the teams of today (mainly in caliber) whereas both sponsored teams from the seventies featured all top professional players minus a paying/playing sponsor. The motivation of the non-playing sponsors differed as the teams reached their heights. Ira Corn’s goal was for The Aces to win a world championship (which they accomplished in 1970 and 1971) and C. C. Wei had a profound interest in promoting his Precision System. Madame LaVazza’s current star-studded Italian Championship Team is unique in its sponsorship aspect as the team’s popularity and success are her primary rewards – not dismissing that it keeps the name of her coffee company before the public! Her role is strictly as a non-playing sponsor as she roots from the stands – a fitting gesture!
Today (especially in the States) it is a different ball game. Mega-rich sponsors have turned the game into a contest that old timers have trouble recognizing. American currency (though worth much less these days) has become like Monopoly Money – plentiful when bridge sponsorship looms on the horizon. Big Money is in first place – while Bridge has been relegated to a prominent back seat. Our U. S. bridge events have been infiltrated by foreign top professionals who have been mesmerized by the color green – and why not? There is no question their inclusion has made for much healthier competition, inspiring improved bridge – though the foreigners have displaced a horde of U. S. pros who held their own until the immigration process began. Many of our guests have acquired dual citizenship and some have taken up permanent residence in the States in order to ply their lucrative trade. Encouraging individuals to improve their lifestyle and economic standing is what America is all about! But, let us be objective! What has professionalism (both U. S. and Foreign) done for (or to) the game?
There are diverse schools of thought about the infusion of big bucks into the bridge economy — but the equation itself is quite simplistic: The luxury of high-priced pay dates, first class hotel and flight accommodations, fine cuisine, etc. in exchange for professional players’ expertise at the table and their availability to dine and socialize with their clients when invited. It is an ideal reciprocal arrangement. The professionals earn their keep and the sponsor who lusts for stardom (which may not have ordinarily been achieved playing with peers) has purchased his or her supporting cast. If the story ends there, no adverse repercussions occur.
However, in the major ACBL Team Events, if the group includes foreign players, it presents a major moral problem in the aftermath – namely, the Trials. I challenge the process when successful finishes in NABC team games with foreign (non-resident) participants influence the issuance of seeding point qualification for the United States Team Trials. Frequently those in the decision-making capacity have vested interests in the outcome. So much for impartiality! Since non-residents are ineligible to play in our Trials, how can anyone really justify the awarding of Trials seeding points to their erstwhile teammates who must seek replacements. In the absence of the participation by the foreign superstars, the scenario and results may have been far different. Let us examine some of the alternative possibilities:
What assurance is there that they would have made it out of the starting gate (without them)? What assurance is there that they would have fared as well against other teams along the way (without them)? And – the sixty four dollar question — what assurance is there that the U. S. performers would have finished in the money (without the foreign magic makers)? Surely no one can object to foreign participation in a U. S. championship (pairs or teams) whether they be amateur, expert or professional. On the other hand, no one can justify the unwarranted issuance of seeding points to a team with one or more individuals who do not meet the Conditions of Contest for the Trials to represent our country (zone). Besides — foreign experts who don’t live to see the Trials may have a great impact on determining who eventually represents our country.
Turning away from the outsider issue – let us address an equally touchy subject: Participation by an acknowledged non-expert in a World Championship.
When a sponsor purchases the services of professionals to form a team to hopefully represent the United States of America, I (and countless others) believe that it distorts the majesty of the game. It detracts from the glory that was once bridge. Maybe my naïve, old-fashioned view stems from the delusion that representing one’s country is indicative of the ultimate in bridge playing – not bridge paying!
Since every rule has exceptions, allow me to qualify the above reference. There is one individual (Nick Nickell) who, though a recognized sponsor, has continually upheld his end as a player (not to overlook his winning several world championships). His consistent individual bridge record for over a decade substantiates his reputation as a respected partner, teammate and opponent. According to several authoritative individuals, notwithstanding his generosity, his performance in itself negates his relegation to a sponsorship role.
In a recent blog by Ray Lee (ray.bridgeblogging.com. dated September 23, 2008), he addresses the issue of sponsorship in general. I feel compelled to share an excerpt from his article entitled “In Defense of a Free Press…. “ It stems from his earlier criticism and open displeasure with the performance of a U. S. sponsor during a world championship last year. Replying to some flack received from the player’s spouse, he elaborates …..
“…………… I’m not saying these nice folks are bad players — indeed some of them are quite good — just that they’re in almost all cases not world-class. How would those who watched the Ryder Cup last week feel if the first foursome had included some 4-handicapper who was funding the US team? That’s almost always the situation in bridge, and I think it’s a pity that world events aren’t contested among teams of the very best players. ….. “
Amen! You echo my sentiments.
September 30th, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
1 Comment
This week I was reminded of Barry Crane’s solution to bearing the brunt of being at the mercy of the directors’ match-ups for Swiss Team pairings. It didn’t take a brain surgeon to come up with a master plan. Barry would simply pull his chair up to the Directors Table and observe how the pairings were decided — especially when team standings were bunched and the victory points were close to indistinguishable. Amazing how quickly the match-ups became more equitable.
I attended a recent tournament where the knockout bracket match-ups were advertised as ‘random.’ And — that may be indeed what happened. However, if that is the policy and format decided upon by those in command, I would like to introduce a new concept! Rather than await your team’s table assignments being posted on the wall sheet – there should be no objection if the participants watch as the directors draw the team numbers from the hat. I promise you no rabbit will appear!
September 29th, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
1 Comment
In my most recent blog of yesterday (9/28/08), I exuberantly approved of the Zero Tolerance concept instituted by the ACBL. However, as Danny Kleinman noted – it appears to be a gray area (“…..Unlike the Laws in the rule book, Zero Tolerance is undefined….”). Check out his entire Comment in response to Going to Hell in a Hand Basket (No. 1) which he posted this morning.
Danny’s remarks gives me pause for reconsideration and I must amend my original praise of Zero Tolerance – definitively qualifying my thoughts to take into account that no individual (club director, tournament director, et al.) has the authority, power or right to abuse his official status to threaten or punish players because of personal dislikes, past history or prejudice .. or be blinded by bias and favoritism to friends, partners and ‘good customers.’
The incidents Danny cited are worthy of discussion and perhaps my naivete clouded my thought process –giving people in authority more credit than they deserve. Rebuttals like Danny’s are what makes blogging such a fabulous venue for bridge lovers to share their thoughts with others.
Thanks, Danny. You get no argument from me.
September 28th, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
6 Comments
The above entitled cliché has been heard recently, especially regarding the current stock market debacle. It can be interpreted in a multitude of ways by different interest groups but basically alludes to rapid deterioration – easily and without hope.
Unfortunately, age has its own rewards – giving this writer fertile grounds for comparison. Reflecting upon the bridge panorama over the last five decades, the decay is apparent to me in varying degrees — encompassing the entire hobby. However, the contentment and status quo by those now at the helm seem to be in favor of gaining momentum and not looking back.
How do I disagree? Let me count the ways.
It seems reasonable to start at the club level where most bridge players get their feet wet. The general aura, which I have perceived from a personal vantage point, is for management to make their paying guests comfortable, happy and create a burning desire to return again and again, supporting and paying allegiance to their newfound home. That is certainly not out of line and a wonderful way to encourage the future of the game.
However – many (and certainly not all) directors and club owners deliberately place other considerations on the back burner. What, you ask? Bridge is (or should be) a game of sanctity and honor. What does that mean? Each player (at the get-go) should be taught manners and ethics (but probably in the reverse order). In the manners department, the deportment of many individuals were so out of line that Zero Tolerance became a mandatory regulation at all levels of the game. What is Zero Tolerance? It is treating both your partner and opponents with respect, not reprimanding or giving lessons or criticism – and last but not least – not gloating or rubbing your opponents’ noses in it when you receive a good board. If you refuse to meet the standards – out you go! One of the best moves ever by the ACBL!
The second phase of the educational process should delve into ethics – which is many faceted (and undoubtedly the one with the most far-reaching and constructive influence on the game). Among the ugliest of unacceptable tactics are hesitations and/or subtle tempo variations (and partners taking advantage of related hesitation breaks), playing unapproved conventions, using bidding methods that are deliberately confusing to the opponents without offering suggested ways of combating them – and the worst of all – failure to fully disclose their meanings and innuendos (known as ‘private understandings’ to which others are not privy)! Of course, body and hand movements, facial expressions, gratuitous comments and other gyrations and histrionics are no-nos as well.
However, the bottom line in our society – is the almighty dollar. That is the American Way – and wanting to keep their customer happy by not criticizing or detailing their violation of basic bridge rules is a sure way to keep them coming back. That is not what bridge should be about. If the grass roots players would be taught the amenities and be told (in a courteous and genteel manner) that the game was intended to be played by ladies and gentlemen on a level playing field (with equal advantage to all) – bridge would return to the way its founding fathers intended it to be played.
Before departing from the initiation at the club level – you must exercise some insight into the future of these players. As they improve, they will move on to sectionals and regionals – and in many cases – nationals as well. Let them not be in for the shock of their lives as they ascend to higher levels and play with the big boys. They will learn fast enough that their ‘bad habits’ are totally unorthodox and unacceptable and will be dealt with by some formal type of put-down (behavioral warning, score adjustment or even be subjected to an appeals process which is fraught with admonition to enable the culprit to see the error of his or her ways). It should never reach that point and it is the responsibility of club directors and owners to nip the problems in the bud!
Now let us turn to the individuals who rule the game – the tournament directors. They are accountable to higher beings: perhaps the Chief Tournament Director as well as their ultimate superiors — the twenty-five people who hold the esteemed positions as your ACBL Board of Directors. My disappointment is that, in my opinion, both the Directing Staff and many of those serving on the exalted Appeals Committees, have not been properly trained and educated. The stumbling blocks are time and money. My husband Bobby (whom no one will contest is the most experienced person ever to administer the game) offered to fly down to Memphis (on his own dime) and speak to the Directors, explaining their duties and responsibilities and answering any and all questions and dilemmas. However, his gracious offer was declined as the individual in charge felt it was an imposition on the directors to use their own time for such a format. This was hardly the moment for a bleeding heart to look a gift horse in the mouth and not own up to his own responsibility for the furtherance of directorial advancement and be so obsessed with the inconvenience of his flock.
As far as the Appeals Committee, though many are top players and quite familiar with the laws and the rules, there are others who sit on their high haunches and do not make impartial decisions (because of either bias or prejudice) and should be automatically recusing themselves. That seems to be a dirty word and you rarely witness self-recusals.
Let’s move right along to the Administrators and their Committee Members who make far-reaching decisions on Conditions of Contest, International Events, etc. Many appointees are beholden to their designators who often formulate and recommend certain measures they would like effected. It is difficult for said appointees to not display loyalty to their designators. When I was in school – they called it The Spoils System. There are husbands and wives, pros and sponsors joined at the hip, teammates and others who represent the classic foxes in the henhouse. Also, patronage (pros recognizing and favoring sponsors) has been a recent factor in committee appointments which makes a travesty of the composition of certain groups. It is humanly impossible to produce a fair, impersonal, rational judgment and cast a vote objectively when personal agendas and conflicts of interest interfere. Everyone has their own dance card. Translated into bridge terms – it simply means that an individual will do what is in his or her best interests – not necessarily what will benefit the future and preservation of our once-pure and spectacular game that has gradually disintegrated into a three-ring circus with accompanying side show attractions.
Another sore spot is the Appeals Process. It is apparent to me after reading a couple of the extraordinary decisions involving some of the ‘big guns’ – that the Punish the Guilty and Protect the Innocent Theory is gone with the wind. Perhaps ego is the driving force. Every decent player wants to be in the ‘inner circle’ and thought of as a high caliber player. If you sit on an Appeals Committee and don’t concur with the actions of the high echelon players on the hot seat – it is a put-down. Thinking like they do and ruling in their favor (though they may have stepped out of bounds) may afford you the misconceived notion of conducting yourself like an expert regardless of the possible improprieties evidenced. Perhaps it is known as the comfort zone, convincing yourself that great minds think alike. Rubbish! Exercise your independence and don’t be influenced or conned into compromising your values.
To be continued……
September 22nd, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
4 Comments
Suffice it to say – Edgar requires no further identification. There was only one Edgar — who earned his reputation as the classic prototype: A Man for All Seasons.
The first time I met Edgar Kaplan was in 1964. Norman had played with him during the fifties but begged off when he was invited to partner Sidney Silodor on the ‘big team’ (Crawford, Becker, et al.) in 1960. It was a wonderful opportunity for Norman, and Edgar graciously released him but after Sidney’s sudden death in 1963, they were reunited and stayed married – for what seemed like an eternity. Their subsequent record earned them a reputation as one of the most victorious partnerships of all time (spanning over forty-years) — ending when Edgar succumbed to cancer in 1997. However, when admirers would remark to Norman about their distinguished track record, he would modestly remind them that their partnership no doubt also laid claim to losing more events than any other twosome in history!
Edgar was a very private individual — adored and idolized by those whom he allowed into his own little world and respected by the rest (who knew him casually or from afar). He excelled equally with tongue and pen and captivated vu-graph audiences for decades. He had a charming, soft-spoken sophistication and was a maven on the finer things in life – travel, great cuisine and exceptional wine. His marriage to the former Betty Sheinwold in 1963 was tantamount to the icing on his cake. He had it all! What I loved most about Edgar was his trigger-fast mind, unparalleled sense of humor and delightful wit. However, my fondest remembrance of Edgar was selfishly a personal one – a memory that I still savor over forty-one years later!
In 1967, I flew to the Montreal National in mid-week, preparing to play with Norman in a two-session secondary Mixed Pairs scheduled on back-to-back afternoons. When I arrived, I learned from my apologetic husband that he would not be able to play the following day as he shockingly qualified for the finals of a six-session event with a dear friend and client. That evening when we adjourned to Edgar’s suite for a nightcap, Norman explained his predicament, knowing I was crushed by my reversal of fortune. You must understand – I was practically a novice – enthusiastic but inexperienced — and it was a relatively new groom’s duty to play with his bride. Norman questioned if Edgar knew anyone who could fill the bill (qualifying quickly by adding … ‘they don’t have to be that good’). “I certainly do,” offered Edgar. Betty (his wife) already had a partner and he volunteered his services. Norman never anticipated Edgar’s altruism and was about to graciously decline his magnanimous offer, when (much to Norman’s chagrin and embarrassment) I jumped up and hugged Edgar, adding, “You’re On!” It was a done deal.
To give you an idea of the caliber of my rookie game – here were my ground rules (which I still find amusing): If Edgar led a suit, he strongly suggested I return it unless there was undisputable evidence to the contrary (huh?); if Edgar bid a suit, I had to raise as many levels as my hand dictated (whatever that meant); and if I could only count one suit, I was instructed to concentrate on trumps. We were leading at the halfway point and when the smoke cleared, we trounced the field by half a point. My scrapbook of congratulatory greetings bears the caption “Miracle in Montreal.”
Years later when interviewed for the ACBL archives by Dorothy Frances about bridge milestones and cherished moments, I can only paraphrase Edgar’s reference to our shocking victory: “ ….. Most events that I enter, I expect to win. This one, I just hoped to finish…” Indeed he did! Is it any wonder I will always love Edgar???
September 21st, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
2 Comments
Philadelphia is known the world over as the Cradle of Liberty and the City of Brotherly Love. In the bridge world, however, it lays claim to an even more prestigious distinction: During the fifties and sixties The City of Philadelphia allegedly was the home of more bridge superstars than any other city in the country (per capita) … including New York and L. A.! In fact, at the NABC in 2003 in Philly, the organizers unveiled a spectacular wall mounting which displayed the portraits of fourteen individuals who distinguished themselves, primarily in the play of the game. They were either native born or had been raised or settled in Philly, considering it their home. This impressive Who’s Who included: B. J. Becker, Johnny Crawford, Bobby Goldman, Charlie Goren, Bobby Jordan, Norman Kay, Peter Pender, Olive Peterson, Arthur Robinson, Sidney Silodor, Helen Sobel, Charlie Solomon, Dave Treadwell and Sally Young. Twelve are deceased, the two surviving honorees being Arthur Robinson and Dave Treadwell.
New York and neighboring areas also produced many big guns and the strength of the GNYBA tournaments was easily comparable to our Nationals. In the mid sixties, I was merely a carefree kibitzer – watching Norman playing with Edgar Kaplan against an intimidating array of what seemed like Murderer’s Row. The players’ roster in the Big Apple appeared to feature one bridge giant after another just lying in wait for their prey to arrive. The cast included such locals (and out-of-town partners) as Feldesman, Fishbein, Hayden, Harmon, Leventritt, The Mitchells, Root, Roth, Rubin, Schenken, Sheinwold, Stakgold, Stayman, Stone, Truscott and a host of other rising stars. One funny incident stands out in my mind and perhaps is the reason few husband and wife partnerships stand the test of time.
A world class NY Hall of Famer who shall remain nameless was playing in a prestigious event – with his wife by his side. Making a particular contract hinged on a two-way guess for a random queen. After studying for a considerable length of time, he started to detach a card from his hand, which portended which way he was taking the finesse. Simultaneously, his kibitzer (perhaps involuntarily) flinched – giving declarer second thoughts. He balked, put the card back in his hand, reconsidered his options and followed his original instinct —successfully locating the missing card and and making the contract.! Later he was overheard chiding his wife: “Even after you see the opponent’s hand, I can’t trust your judgment — or even your eyesight.” Whether he was teasing or not – we will never know as they are both gone now.
Stay tuned.
September 20th, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
1 Comment
One of the blackest days in bridge annals occurred in Bermuda in 1975 when an Italian partnership was accused of playing footsie under the table, transmitting unauthorized information to each other. Though there was little doubt about their guilt, the two (facetiously referred to as The Foot Soldiers) were not expelled or even reprimanded as the WBF officials did not want to embarrass or humiliate the host country which had expended a great deal of money to sponsor such a publicized bridge extravaganza. There was quite a brouhaha following the incident and despite the gravity of the disgraceful mishandling of the problem – it was difficult not to smile in the aftermath because of the funny literary footwork that ensued!
Walter Bingham, A Senior Editor of Sports Illustrated, was actually at the site at the time of the scandal and wrote a classic article for the magazine, cleverly entitled “I Get a Kick out of You.” Canadian Internationalist, Eric Murray (who also played on several United States Teams) and who is known for his sensational sense of humor, sent a telegram to the U. S. Captain, Alfred Sheinwold. When play resumed, Murray’s brief message was delivered via the Vu-Graph Room microphone. It was read in English and met with uproarious laughter. When translated into Italian, the humor was unappreciated. Judge for yourself. It simply stated:
Dear Mr. Sheinwold:
I would like to volunteer for the North American Team. I play a reasonable game of bridge and take a size 14 shoe.
Sincerely,
Eric R. Murray
———————————————————————————————————-
On a much lighter note, Bobby related another amusing story in which he was personally involved. Pedaling hands is not an uncommon practice and one day he was accosted by a lovely lady who told him that Harold Rockaway, stationed in San Antonio while serving a stint in the Army, had referred her to Bobby for his opinion. Her initial thrust was, “I held six spades to the Ace, king, queen, jack. What do you open”? Bobby was taken back and explained that until he knew the rest of her high cards and distribution, it would be difficult for him to provide an objective answer. No response was forthcoming so Bobby pressed her again to collect her thoughts. She stood motionless gazing at the ceiling, shrugged, then nonchalantly blurted, “Oh ……. I think I had seven little diamonds too.” Details!!!!!
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related