SHAM!

Jeff Rubens has taken the leading bridge magazine in the world and made it still better, but having said that, I do not approve of publishing what I consider simple sophistry in trying to win or even provoke a tired argument. In the March, 2010 Bridge World (under the Bits and Pieces section. p. 23), it is mentioned that sportsmanship dumping is alive and well in Texas high-school football.

It then describes a team, down by 4 points, and with little time left to play, but in possession of the ball, stalled out the last minute of the game rather than make an all out effort to win the game outright.

It then went on to say that the rules in that District made it so that if the subject team lost by 8 points or less in that particular game they would be a playoff qualifier beating out two competitors. Nothing could be further than this example being evidence of sportsmanship dumping since the rules made it such that this team had accomplished what it wanted to do which is to continue playing in the playoffs and did so by following the conditions of contest.

Sportsmanship dumping in bridge has only to do with allowing one’s status to not follow the spirit of competiton, either written or not written into the Conditions, but nevertheless playing to do whatever it takes to go on to the next level, keeping in mind that your team is responsible for representing the game as such and not using artificial negative tactics to further another team’s position rather than one’s own.

Yes, that spirit of the game means that even if the team feels that it would be better off if this team or that team could be eliminated by their team not playing up to their capabilities (and so felt justified in throwing that part of the competition), it would, in truth, be thought of rather, as a treasonous, despicable act and subject to severe discipline by the administration.

Sometimes, in the best interest of normal competition, a team may be confronted, usually by their up-to-then success, having to deal with ethical issues, not having any bearing on their direct success, but rather by what might happen down the road. In that event, every team is expected to adhere to fairness toward the rest of the field in general and not succumb to heinous, ugly unethical tactics.

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT!

You may want to check the blog site of Judy Kay-Wolff captioned  “DISGUSTING ‘OLD HAT” where I have responded very candidly to numerous comments about earlier long-buried cheating issues feared by others to be discussed.   They have been presented in installments and I will be posting Installment 4 sometime today.   

RSW

MY FAVORITE 52

Larry Cohen’s newest book “My Favorite 52″ is definitely worth reading!  Larry sets the style, like Jiminy Cricket in Pinocchio, where the reader virtually plays the role of kibitzer, but has the added dimension of having Larry’s voice in your ear acting as a cross between your conscience and your high-level bridge advisor.

Hand after hand (and every one is a treasure) takes the reader through the thought process of adjusting to the unfolding facts and making key decisions whether it be declarer’s play, partnership bidding or top level defense.  Through it all, and I can assure you Larry is a very thorough bridge thinker, he doesn’t relax in his updating the reader on what direction to take to assure success, or, at least not to make a costly mistake.

The hands themselves lend themselves to what one would expect in tales of his favorite 52 hands of all time.  Although 52 sounds like a lot, when one considers all the hands an inveterate bridge player would tackle over 25 or 30 years, the conclusion is that each one of them is very special and worth your undivided attention.  The best part is that Larry has found a way for the reader to experience what other expert players already know, the emotion of mostly playing or defending, but sometimes even bidding, causing the man on the spot much angst, but well worth it, when the player realizes that he did his best. 

This book represents what Larry has always stood for, the best that bridge has to offer.

DR. JOHN FISHER, A REALLY CUTE GUY

One of the most likeable human beings to ever grace the Texas Bridge scene was Dr. John Fisher, of Dallas. Everyone loved him. He was the town doctor and everyone came to him with their aches, pains and bridge hands. We just learned of his passing today after a brief illness. He was a terrific performer with the devil up his sleeve and was so much fun to be around (both at and around the bridge and examining tables as well). In Judy’s short eighteen month stay in Dallas, she played in the Wednesday Country Club duplicates with Marion Weed, Fran Beard and of course John Fisher. Now they have joined the other LONE STAR SUPERSTARS UP ABOVE — A PRETTY SCARY BUNCH TO MESS WITH!!

John, thanks for all you contributed to our local scene as a champion bridge aficionado and a remarkable human being. We shall miss you.

Bobby and Judy Wolff

DEAD IS DEAD

Regarding Appeal #4 which happened during the 2d qualifying session of the Von Zedtwitz Life Master Pairs during the Washington DC, Summer Nationals, I would like to take time to discuss the verdict and though, in my opinion, reached in order to following the current rules, is still a grave strike at the heart of our game. With the following facts:

Dealer: East Vul: E/W		North
		♠	A 9 8 6 3
		♥	J 10
		♦	Q 10 7 4 3
		♣	J
West				East
♠	K Q			♠	5
♥	8 6 4 3 2			♥	Q 9
♦	A J 9			♦	K 8 6 5
♣	K 9 7			♣	A Q 10 8 6 3
		South
		♠	J 10 7 4 2
		♥	A K 7 5
		♦	2
		♣	5 4 2

 
Opening Lead: King of Spades

* Strong
** After a 1NT opening or a direct 1NT overcall, minor suit Stayman.

Our rules now state that normally the type of adventure which occurred on this hand would be labeled misinformation rather than just a misbid and so, consequently, caused the initial TD to cancel the result of 3 spades doubled making nine tricks (NS +530) and allow EW to score 3NT making nine tricks (+600). However the NS convention cards stated clearly that, after passing, a 1NT overcall was a takeout for the unbid suits.

It is past time for us, in the interest of fairness and equity, to make what happened, Convention Disruption (CD), an official offense, to be penalized accordingly, which hopefully, in the fullness of time, will force conventioneers to either learn their conventions or exercise their other option of not playing them and, if necessary, scratch them off the convention card.

Let’s examine the plight of their opponents:

When East was informed that his RHO’s 1NT overcall was strong he naturally passed since to consider rebidding a minimum opening, while vulnerable, when clubs figured to be well stopped had to be, at the very least, a very dangerous and hence not a compelling option. On the other hand if East would instead have been privy to 1NT being a TO for the other two suits he should be interested in telling his partner why he opened the bidding in the first place, in this case not to show a balanced opening, but to offer his good club suit as a possible contract. After all the design for bidding in our game is merely a language to convey what we have and, by that inference, what we don’t have. WHEN CD OCCURS, WHETHER INTENTIONALLY OR JUST ACCIDENTLY, AWAY GOES ALL SENSE OF WHAT OUR GAME IS ABOUT ON THAT HAND! It should then occur to our lawmakers that when particular conventions are designed to be defensive, meaning trying to find a successful sacrifice or sometimes just designed to drive the opponents higher, that forgetting the meaning(s) all too often unilaterally penalize the opponents while at the same time and all too often, not create the risk that other forgets, usually constructive bidding ones, would.

With that in mind it becomes necessary to establish discipline to those who legally want to disrupt their opponents or at least want for themselves to be considered tough opponents to play against. All well intended and perfectly legal, but NOT SO when conventions are forgotten. It then naturally follows that all CD’s should be recognized as very unhealthy for the game and if possible, penalized out of existence.

As a final thought, on this hand I would give NS a zero on this board. After all, the unbelievably talented Michael Jackson is dead at an all too young age, possibly because of an error made by his prescribing doctor, but nevertheless as dead as he would have been if he had instead, been brutally murdered. Second I would only give EW an average on that board since they are not entitled to a windfall result simply because their opponents were unlawful. It is very important in a pairs tournament to Protect the Field (PTF) so that matchpoints are not distributed like candy from a candy store to those who have not earned them. As corroborating evidence NS should have made an overtrick in 3 Spades doubled, one which would not risk the contract, therefore showing evidence of poor play which, IMO would give them a zero instead of a result up to 1/4 of a board. On the other hand West did choose the wrong call when he doubled them in 3 spades even though I can suggest nothing more logical, therefore restricting their result to an average rather than an average plus. Mental toughness is a necessary prerequisite to be an able appeals committee member.

Summing up, I think the committee presiding on this case was made up of fine bridge players and also well balanced people who were only trying to follow the law. However, I think the time has come to conduct an environment of a Bridge Meritocracy rather than an outdated law forum and as bridge is constantly changing, I think our bridge administrators should also follow suit and update themselves.

The harsh penalties suggested apply not only to the crafty foxes always seeking a free chicken sandwich, but also to the totally honest animals whose only crime is forgetting a used convention.

ANATOMY OF LEADERSHIP

Among the PRIME QUALIFICATIONS OF LEADERSHIP should be: effectiveness, supremacy, skill, initiative, foresight, energy, influence, authority and power.  All of those qualities help describe, but do not necessarily adequately distinguish, the difference between a leader and a politician.

Ah, there’s the rub!  To add another difficult hurdle to becoming a leader, one quite often would be required to endure the political process in order to be enabled.  Exceptions, of course, would encompass individuals, while during fierce battle, lead (or attempt to lead) their group out of harrowing, sticky situations by showing the way as to what needs to be done to achieve victory or, in a less threatening environment such as a court room, finding a way to convince the judge and/or jury the way for them to think in order for them to reach a just decision.

The type of leadership that I want to discuss concerns itself with basics, likening the concept to parents setting examples for their children to do the right thing.  Also similar is the concept of the clergy reciting various disciplines which in all cases serve mankind and try to guide us all to behave properly — setting a high standard which we should all like to follow!

When discussing the leadership necessary to run an organization, that organization is the focal point, and there is NO OTHER CONSIDERATION! 

Leadership 101 (if there were such a course in college) would demand that the one in charge employs the following guidelines:

(1) Never think what would be the best for an individual, or a group of individuals, or a subset of any other considerations;

(2) Always consider what will best serve that organization in the long run, continually being extremely careful to only set positive examples!   Quite often this involves the deprivation of others along the lines of  convenience and material advantages, but  the one in charge should never lose sight of the only goal  —

BEING FAIR TO THE ORGANIZATION, ITS PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES AND THE REALIZATION THAT IF EVER IT WAS THOUGHT BY ANYONE THAT THOSE GOALS WERE BEING COMPROMISED — WHATEVER WOULD RESULT WOULD BE A SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE GROUP.

It now is probably time to discuss some specifics!  An organization which features competition must avow that after the Conditions of Contest HAVE BEEN WRITTEN AND APPROVED, THEY MUST BE FOLLOWED EXACTLY AS WRITTEN.  The caveats involved revolve around competency by the individual or group doing the writing.   IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT ADEQUATE proofreading BE GIVEN TO THE DOCUMENT BEFORE APPROVAL, AND ONCE APPROVED, CAN NEVER BE CHANGED OR EVEN MODIFIED — OR ELSE IT WILL BE SEEN (BY AT LEAST SOME) AS A POLITICAL MOVE IN ORDER TO SERVE A LESSER GOD AND BE IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE GOALS OF THE ORGANIZATION.

FOR ANYONE SERIOUSLY ASPIRING TO BE A LEADER THIS MUST BE HIS OR HER CREED, RELIGION AND REASON FOR BEING; OTHERWISE, WE WILL HAVE NO LEADERSHIP AT ALL — A CONDITION WHICH IS NOW EXISTENT AMONG THE ONES WHO CONTROL US — our international bridge organization, THE UNITED STATES BRIDGE FEDERATION (USBF).

TRYING TO RESTORE CREDIBILITY

Quite often a relatively unimportant event may trigger a positive turn which, to some, may affect their specialized world. On this possible full sea on which we are afloat, we must take the current when it serves, or instead — continue to veer far off course.

In this case, the specialized world is the game of worldwide tournament bridge and the full sea is the just completed Team Trials to determine who represents the USA in the upcoming Bermuda Bowl, to be held in Sao Paulo, Brazil the end of August, through the middle of September, 2009.    The USA, because of its mighty tradition in bridge and its uncanny depth of very top players is the only country in the World Bridge Federation (WBF) to be granted two teams.  In the recently completed Open Team Trials, held in White Plains, NY, the Steve Robinson Team came from almost nowhere to dominate the event and finish First, an unlikely upset which has not happened often during the Trials History.

The second team which qualified, however is the prime subject of this discussion and it is the tried and true Nick Nickell team (composed of two professional pairs)  by every standard, four of the very best players in the entire world.  Further, one duo is probably considered the best partnership in the universe and the second newly formed pair heading toward eventually challenging for that hallowed reputation.  The third pair, Nick Nickell and Dick Freeman are a very good pair and have been the namesake for this dominant team for around 18 years. 

Nick, the President of Kelso & Co., an ultra successful leverage buyout firm located in New York City, also serves as the sponsor of the team seeing to it that his teammates are happy — providing the financial support necessary to enable his group to think only about how to play bridge in the most effective world class manner. It needs to be added that Nick is one of the most respected members of the bridge community, being highly ethical and conducts himself in as close to a perfect manner as possible.  Not long ago he was asked by the current WBF President, Jose Damiani of Paris, France, to succeed him as President of the WBF, but Nick declined because accepting would take far too much time out of his already crammed schedule not to mention his devotion to his family.  It would not be a stretch for me to suggest that Nick is revered in the Bridge World as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates (coincidentally both enthusiastic bridge players) are in the Financial World.

Having said the above, it is time to get into the nitty-gritty issues at hand.

The Nickell team, having been granted a bye into the semifinal round of the Trials by virtue of their year long, excellent qualifying performance, lost their first match sending them into the repechage (an opportunity for a losing team to get back into the event) which is used to determine the Second USA team.  They then won their next two matches which led to them playing in the Finals of the repechage and creating a rematch between them and the Fleisher team, the team that beat them in their opening match.

Dick Freeman, Nick’s partner, who was suffering from pancreatitis was too sick to continue playing and departed for home.  This left the Nickell team with only five players and Nick without his favorite partner.  Their team then decided to play only four in the final. Nick had in the past played often with Bob Hamman, one of the front four players, but their team decided that their best chance was to continue to play the original two partnerships in the Finals.

That did not bode well for the upstart Fleisher team and although the match was virtually tied at the end of 60 boards (out of the total of 90 to be played) the Nickell team broke it open and wound up winning handily.

Now to the problems caused by the sudden change of team composition. 

Bridge is not like other professional games where in team sports, teams have many more players on their team than are required to be on the field during the actual playing.  In the NBA, each team has twelve, although only five at a time are on the court; in Major League Baseball each team has 25 active players — although only nine are on the field at a time;  and in Football each team has 50+ although only eleven are legally allowed on the gridiron at any one time. 

All substitutions are at the behest of the Coach or Manager.  In bridge, most teams have three partnerships (even though only two are playing at any one time), because of the lack of spectator interest (which in turn denies TV coverage, the source of most of the rather large amounts of money associated with the major sports).   It has caused sponsorship in bridge to be created consisting of two expert pairs and usually the third pair is composed of an experienced top player who plays with the sponsor.  In effect,  the sponsor buys his or her way onto a particular team, in order to play the required number of boards to be eligible to be declared part of the group in the event of emerging triumphantly.

Now to the rub ……………….

Sponsorship serves as an enabling mechanism to bridge pairs who soon find out that in order to compete effectively, they must devote more time than expected to develop and hopefully keep their partnership world-class.  For club games, followed up-the-line by sectional, regional and then national games, no one should care much about who plays with whom or, for that matter, who eventually wins.  Although all of the above events are hotly contested and very competitive, the country’s bridge reputation and nationalistic feelings matter not.    Sure, there are many foreign (usually top-class sponsored) players who come to our three annual Nationals to compete, but in those events no one looks on the competitive side as crucial similar to foreign players in the major TV sports who join US teams as full fledged players.  However, when the WBF puts on their annual world tournament similar to the Davis Cup (Tennis), Ryder Cup (Golf), America’s Cup (Yachting) or the various Olympiads — competitive blood runs hot and we, like other countries around the world, all strongly pull for our home country.

In world bridge, very simply, we do not send our very best three partnerships.  Usually, with a few exceptions, every team represented, whether it is the Open Division, Women’s Division or even the Senior Division, showcase many players of less than world-class stature who have earned the right to represent their country (almost always accompanied by two World Class partnerships). 

While Nick is partnered by Dick and together are way above average for a sponsor and his partner, there are many sponsors who are way down the list in ability and frankly should not be remotely considered to be trusted to play well enough to have a decent chance to win, nor, of course, even to have deserved the honor to represent our great country.  It is imperative for our administrative heads to have at heart the best interest of fielding a USA winning team.  In those other sports mentioned, at least to me, and currently illustrated by the Ryder Cup, it is extremely competitive with our best golfers bonding and going out as a team in search of making the USA proud and defeating their worthy European opponents.

After all — what are world sports all about (symbolic in our Olympiad competition, and for more years than many of us have been alive), except rooting for one’s home country and hoping for glorious victories from our world class individuals and teams. For that matter, when we are glued to our seats watching the Olympics on TV, isn’t it inspiring to watch gold medal winners whether or not it is one’s home country or not?  Is that not one of the thrills of living in this day and age of seeing who is supreme at what he or she does?

World competition should be about superlatives!!!!

With all of the above in mind — you may ask, what is the problem and, if so, what is the solution? 

First of all, our administrators (in charge of the team selection process and the validation of our players) CANNOT have a conflict of interest.  Being a sponsor, per se, is a conflict since being a sponsor may well entail writing and enforcing the rules for lesser than world class players still being in the running for international team selection.

Professional players should also not be in on the selection and validation part of the process since their mere relationship with their own sponsors (plus possible ones on the horizon) is too much to overcome.  Obviously, there are quite a few on the periphery of both taboos and must be ruled off-limits.  Our current USBF BOD is unfortunately made up of almost exclusively these classes of people with only one or two exceptions.  What happens reminds everyone who knows, just how awful the current political process has become. Being part of the tabooed majority is a real power move by the individual doing it.  He or she not only rule for himself or herself, but becomes a good person for almost everyone in the process to know and with whom to cultivate a friendship.

What, then, is a possible solution?  How about setting up a Commissioners Office where all topical conversations and actions are always clearly transparent!  Open votes and no secrets!  The primary objective for international selection and play is to create as good a team for the USA as can be selected while at the same time doing everything possible to fund the event and provide the necessary props (coach, logistics, training procedures and TLC) to give our teams the tools to be as good as they can be, keeping in mind that the players are not starting from ground zero … far from it.

Some of our better players would no doubt drop out claiming poverty.  If so, what have we really lost?  The good news is that everyone worth their salt will want to play for the USA which has always been, at least for me (and I’d be surprised if not for everyone), the thrill of a lifetime.  Also the right amount of pressure will be brought to bear, by making each individual responsible for his/her own actions which, no doubt, will be his/her resume for future championships. 

Younger players will get better much more quickly since our attention should always concentrate on our youth.  They require experience to be the great players of our coming generation — seeking out a compatible partner of their choice.  It is time that the zoo becomes run by a well intentioned wise, animal-loving zookeeper rather than turning it over to the resident mammals.

The decision made here will have a powerful affect on the game in the future.   I caution those who may be optimistic to not expect miracles.  Most leopards do not change their spots and politicians, at least to me, are even more predictable than leopards.  What we should all hope for is eventual change, but in order to have a chance for that to happen most of the readers must be unabashed to join in with their comments, suggestions and involvement in a timely fashion before any irreversible decisions are made.  We should all want what is best for bridge!

Before closing, I would appreciate your attention to the pertinence of the following……..

1.  Selecting the best team possible to join with the winning Robinson team to complete the roster of our two teams. Keep in mind that the team which defeated Fleisher in the USA2 final was significantly different from their proposed team for Brazil.

2.  Keep in mind that the Nickell team did not try and mitigate the playing circumstances after Freeman’s departure, by having Nickell play with Hamman (a former partnership) at least some, trying to validate Nick’s presence on the current team.

3.  Consider the very unlucky plight the Fleisher team had to overcome, through no fault of their own, playing straight through against two of the best partnerships and four of the best players in the world. Caveat #2 above may have served to reduce the advantage the Nickell team had accrued, to which many may think that they did not deserve.

4.  The strong character, table ethics, and behavior of both Nick and Dick should be given every possible positive consideration. Just knowing who they are — would immediately preclude any of what happened being thought of as bogus.  Not so with many others.

5.  Above all — whatever happens will automatically create an important PRECEDENT which will not go away.

6.  Regardless of any other relevant factors, those who are totally indoctrinated with the theory ONCE A TEAM — ALWAYS A TEAM should urge them to reinstate Nick and Dick.

7.  Seek candid responses from the professionals how they would feel playing without their sponsor (should that be the Committee’s ruling) and how this decision will affect U. S. bridge over the next large number of years.

8.  Administrative decisions often have much more meaning than the playing results of any competition.  The goal here is to make not only the players have confidence in what is being done for them and with them, but face the reality that all the caring bridge players in the ACBL who help fund the teams, have at least some stake in what will be done.

9.  Let objectivity rule and we’ll all be happy with the result.  Deny it and we will forever be in a political hand tying morass.

Real life politics takes many shapes and forms such like in bridge when a person in the important decision making process seeks to be a future Captain or Coach of a certain team or teams.  If one thinks that doesn’t influence his decision on where he distributes the largess, there is a well-known bridge I would like to sell you.

IT’S TIME FOR A CHANGE

I find it compelling to explain the dire necessity for the ACBL to markedly improve their alert procedures and update their bridge knowledge to effectively and fearlessly deal with modern problems concerning essential alerts.

The “Need to Know” Theory (introduced to me by Andy Robson, my favorite bridge authority from the United Kingdom) is what I use as my guide to familiarize innocent and/or inexperienced opponents about what is going on regarding the use of certain relatively common topical conventions in practice across the ACBL. The outstanding superiority of the Andrew Robson Bridge Club focuses on and strives to keep extraneous information at a minimum and insists upon mandatory alerting only when necessary and appropriate.

The primary convention under scrutiny in this blog concerns itself directly with the popular Forcing 1NT Response to partner’s one of a major opening bid. The expected and most common treatment of this convention is that 1NT is forcing for one round and the standard practice is usually employed with a hand which most often features somewhere in the vicinity of 6 to a maximum of 12 high card points? Those who depart from the generally accepted norm of 6-12 and use the forcing NT to show somewhere between zero and 5 high card points should be obligated to share this information with their opponents. It is not the standard method and often intimidates the opponents from balancing, suspecting the opening side has a combined minimum of eighteen HCP — deterring them from entering the auction. Employing the 0-5 point method of keeping the bidding open (and forcing — especially with a four piece trump fit — which you will bid at your second call) is a form of controlled psyche and thus should be alertable. It sounds like a reluctant effort to support partner (while in fact it is a method of misleading and discouraging your opponents from entering the auction, thinking you have a misfit despite the fact the hand may well belong to them)!

While some prefer the use of unannounced surreptitious sub-minimum responses (0-5) with which most partnerships prefer to pass, others have tipped the scales in the other direction — allowing the 1NT RESPONSE to exceed the standard upper limit (perhaps as high as 16 points) and with no conscience or legal obligation to inform their unwitting opponents of their private understanding. At this point in time, I see no prohibition in ACBL land to outlaw undisclosed sub-minimum or above standard maximum point spreads.

If playing that the forcing NT may be beyond the standard 12 point upper range, it needs to be alerted in order for an unsuspecting opponent to be aware that he or she may be at risk entering the auction at this stage. Needless to say, the opponents know (or at least should) what they are doing and are now in a position to nail an unwary opponent making a call at the wrong time. (See Judy’s medical assessment in her blog “I’ve Got A Secret.”)

I now want to digress for a moment to let you know how the logical theory of this treatment originated (in the days of Roth-Stone, later Kaplan-Sheinwold, Walsh and Eastern Scientific). Some players felt that in order to make a game-forcing 2 level response in another suit, that player needs to have a good 5 card suit (AQ10xx) or good four-carder (AKJx) which would lend itself, after finding at least a 3 card fit for the five-bagger from partner, to a better suit game or slam contract (in preference to 3NT or 6NT). These were recognized as standard treatments, nothing extraordinary and the bids meant exactly what they sounded like.

Enter the new breed: The Foxes! They recognized that 3NT contracts were far more common than slams and began applying their cunning in order to achieve better results. They altered their heretofore prosaic bidding sequences which were natural because they provided the disadvantage of tipping off the opening lead and subsequent defense of their opponents to the detriment of the declaring side. These crafty bidders found it inadvisable to bid 2 of a suit such as AQ10x(x) or KQ10x(x), but rather would opt for 1NT forcing in all safety (with no maximum range) in order to have a better chance to get that suit led since the opponents would not have the benefit of hearing that suit being bid against them. However if the eventual declarer, usually in 3NT, would have been dealt A653(2)or, worse yet, 7653(2) then the suit would be bid, again advantageously used to try to deflect its lead and direct a favorable defense for declarer. Surely, in order to play that way, the 1NT response had to raise its upper limit several notches over the normal 12 high card points now in vogue by a good many players.

I am not suggesting that this chicanery (sometimes called a tactical bid) be declared illegal or barred, but rather I am prevailing upon the ACBL to wake up and ask that unusual not-to-be-expected type treatments be alerted, both as to possible high card points held and, more importantly, the tendencies of that particular partnership to what they are doing (i.e., style). If bridge warrants the dignified description of being a Gentlemen’s (or Ladies’) Game, it needs to have rules worthy of that distinction. Let us try to encourage total disclosure and at the same time make it much more difficult for pairs to raid their sections and events by practicing subtle (and perhaps not so subtle) questionable tactics. These methods over the years have cleverly been concocted in poison gas bridge labs with the sole intent of plying their trade, advantaging themselves over counterparts sitting in the same direction — similar to shooting fish in a barrel.

Perhaps the most frequently asked bridge question after my book, THE LONE WOLFF was released, was “Why would anyone want to cheat when all one is stealing is ego?” My stock answer: In these days of increasing professionalism, money has entered the equation, making for enticing incentives; and the risk is so minuscule compared to the gain because of the lax policing position assumed by our parent organization which constantly seems to take a Hands Off Policy to avoid dealing with controversial issues (and in some cases the fear of law suits).

Many of our convention card regulations must seriously be reviewed, amended, rewritten and reprinted. Lines should be inserted to designate varying point count ranges; the propriety of pre-alerts and timely alerts should be stressed — including other nonstandard treatments which are assumed to be normal. COMPLIANCE SHOULD BE DEMANDED — from the lowly club levels up to the ultimate sphere of the NABCs and THE TRIALS! Otherwise, there is no deterrent for clever players to add questionable gimmicks to their repertoire, though not necessarily illegal, because the ACBL has allowed them to call their own shots.

The brewing coffee needs to be smelled and safeguards must be seriously reviewed, revised and updated. NAIVETE AND LAISSEZ FAIRE ENFORCEMENT MUST STOP! If not, we will be no better off than the inhabitants in “Lord of the Flies” — the allegorical novel of marooned British teenagers who assumed the running of an island to the detriment of everyone in the confinement of their realm.

REPONDING TO PAUL BETHE’S DEC. 22 COMMENT TO LINDA LEE’S BLOG

I had commented Linda’s blog entry on the issue of appeals, and only recently saw Paul’s response. I would like to draw your attention to my reply.

RESPONDING TO LINDA LEE’S APPEALS BLOG OF NOVEMBER 29TH

Linda cites a challenging appeal issue and I elaborated on my views and suggestions relating to the whole process.   See my Comment “Unseen and worse fallouts of appeals transgressions.“