Bobby Wolff

“What’s To Become of America’s Talented Youth?”

Above is the title of Chapter 23, starting on page 259 of The Lone Wolff.  Again this is a solid joint collaboration by The Wolves but narrated here by me (Judy) at the risk of placing it on my own blogsite and endangering the dropping of Pendergraph Pending to a more obscure location.

I labored over five years re-writing, editing and proofing for acceptance by Master Point Press before TLW hit the shelves.  One of my pet chapters was about the youth of Zone 2 and last night, in one of the most thrilling finishes in ACBL history featuring Diamond v. Meltzer, America’s youth (though now probably considered middle aged) prevailed over the favorite.  The star-studded losing team in the finals of the 2010 Spingold being played at the New Orleans NABC consisted of two ACBL Hall of Famers (Berkowitz and Sontag), two world class foreign title holders (Fantoni and Nunes), and a grown up top notch player, Kyle Larsen (whom I still remember as a promising youngster winning the Teenage Pairs with my good friend Bonnie Brier) partnered with a much improved spirited sponsor, the likeable Rose Meltzer.

Proudly rising to the occasion in a spellbinding ending which came down to the last two boards of a sixty-four board match were:  John Diamond and Brian Platnick; Fred Gitelman and Brad Moss; and Eric Greco and Geoff Hampson.  The margin of victory was exactly three IMPS.  These six young lads played a very large part in the writing of Chapter 23.   All (except Eric Greco who didn’t join the junior program until 1999) were part of the original group.

As Bobby begins his chapter on the youth …

”In the very late eighties I turned my attention to the plight of the Junior Players.  The USA had been fielding a Junior team internationally for a few years, but up until then, and continuing – a pretty sad commentary with such a plethora of rising stars.”

He goes on …

“I conceived and created a Bridge Aptitude Test.   It was presented in a format somewhere similar to the LSAT (the aptitude test used for law school admissions) and afforded me great insight into their talents, resourcefulness and problem-solving abilities.   It amounted to picking their fertile young brains.  From my simple idea of pretesting the candidates, the process took off.   The exams were monitored and the venues were set up all around the country, wherever interest in serious bridge among the Juniors surfaced.   My two best students were a some-time partnership, John Diamond and Brian  Platnick, both from the D.C.-Virginia area.   On a potential perfect score of 99, both John and Brian exceeded 100 on the strength of extra credit gained from on-point answers and suggestions that showed initiative (never prompted or considered by me).”

Just for the record, of last night’s six victorious members, Fred Gitelman and Geoff Hampson originally played under the Maple Leaf and the other four were representing the United States.  I even recall the Trials being played at the Alexis Park, in Las Vegas fifteen years ago where I kibitzed a match in which Norman and Edgar were pitted against Eric and Geoff – and although the youngsters lost, Norman remarked to them what a bright future they had and that the bridge world would soon be standing at attention singing their praises.    What great insight he had, as evidenced by the recent victory at the Reno Open Swiss Teams and last night’s Spingold squeaker!

Chapter 23 details much more about the training preparatory to the Junior Trials (and its eventual much improved results) as well as a practice weekend that Bobby arranged.  Jimmy Cayne and his troops came down to Texas and stayed and played at an upscale Dallas hotel, affording these talented Juniors a healthy workout against his big guns.  What a super way to learn in a prearranged setting and followed up by discussions based on a standard called The Aces Technique.  A great learning method via the graciousness of the Cayne Team putting the youngsters to the test – topping off the weekend at Mr. Kuo’s famed Royal China, the designated site for many years where The Aces held frequent Victory Banquets.

There is so much raw material out there just waiting to be developed.   It would be unbelievably  beneficial if the American School Systems promoted our game, following the examples exhibited by many European and Asian nations – but alas, that has not yet come to pass.

Condolences to the disappointed Meltzer Team whom everyone thought had it sown up as the BBO viewers were about to shut down their computers and turn in for the night.

And – to the amazing Diamond Team – our heartiest congratulations!   You made America proud once again!



NanAugust 1st, 2010 at 10:42 pm

Judy and Bobby:

After reading the above, I spotted Alder’s column with a fabulously exciting description of the unforgettable Board 63. He writes:

“However, after Berkowitz (North) gave preference to spades, Moss (West) found a perfectly timed penalty double.”

I beg to differ, that is, if you were watching on BBO. Everyone (including the gregarious commentators) were sitting on the edge of their seats and biting their nails because everyone knew that the Double (v. Pass) by Moss could swing the tide to the Diamond side or retain the status quo.

Since I was in the viewing audience, I held my breath for at least two or three minutes, and finally DOUBLE came across the BBO screen — to decide the match. Hardly what I would consider “a perfectly timed penalty double.”

Perhaps he meant it in the sense of it being crucial v. the phonetic interpretation of ‘timing.’

It was hard to fall asleep after watching such a shocking turn of events. Sorrow for the losers and ecstacy for the winners. A tough fought battle to the finish.

Judy Kay-WolffAugust 1st, 2010 at 10:51 pm


My sentiments exactly! “Perfectly timed….”?

So perfectly, it could have given someone a heart attack.

Whoever said bridge is a relaxing game?????

PaulAugust 2nd, 2010 at 12:26 pm

I believe the Dutch team selectors used a written exam as a component of the selection process for the recent European Open Team Championships.

I don’t know what was tested in the exam, but a young women’s pair came top and they subsequently played in the Women’s team.

Bobby WolffAugust 2nd, 2010 at 4:32 pm

Hi Paul,

Yes, I would definitely recommend a written test to at least glimpse into the status of the taker’s perception of the game.

However, I must first warn others of some of the pitfalls:

1. Some are good test takers, well aware of what the instructor is looking for and prepared to give it to him just that way.

2. Others are not, but nevertheless are well indoctrinated in what is required for bridge success and may, in some cases, go on to even higher levels than the good test takers.

3. However the crucial positive fallouts of understanding the different types of bridge personalities will usually lead to better collective teaching methods, which in turn will greatly aid the eventual results.

4. In case the reader is in doubt, high-level bridge is an unbelievably different experience for anyone who attempts to either teach it or play it. Keep in mind that, at least in my rather large number of years in the game, going back to only about 20 years from the change over from Auction bridge (1927) to the present Contract bridge, there has NEVER been to my knowledge a child protege (genius) in bridge like there often has been in music and art.

The reason for that is undoubtedly because of the illusions in bridge judgment which require experience first before genius can possibly occur. And that experience usually takes years of playing against worthwhile adversaries, not months or weeks.

The Dutch are to be congratulated for, at the very least, of finding a young woman’s pair, who may go on to Championship ability. One thing is for sure, at least to me, that well conceived and written aptitude tests are well worth being included in any program designed to search for young people who at least have the “right stuff” to embark on the bridge experience.

Thanks Paul, for your exciting news.

HBJ ( John howard Gibson )August 4th, 2010 at 8:25 pm

Dear Bobby, the best things about any exam is firstly the pressure situation candidates are put under ( useful guide to assess their potential for future big tournaments ) but more importantly you can test things that really matter ( problem hands which might only turn up once every 5 years or so ). Moreover, everyone faces the same problems against the same bidding intereference, leads, and opponents ‘ play. In actual trials players may play the same hands, but always against different opponents, who may or not assist them in getting a good result. Personally, I would scrap master points for promotions in favour of tests. Masterpoints certainly give an indication to one’s years of experience of playing the game, but not one’s ability to play the game at an expert level. Tests would certainly catch out those who pay big bucks to achieve glory by sitting on the giant shoulders of those they sponsor.

I know for one I’d certainly fail a test where the topic was one on spotting squeeze possibilities by trick 2, identifying which opponent should be exposed to the squeeze, and how that squeeze can be executed with regards to timing and well planned communications. Yours in support of your views HBJ.

Peter GillAugust 5th, 2010 at 3:29 am

Sorry to nitpick, but ….

Being interested in youth bridge and especially in America’s School Bridge League, your post inspired me to have another look at Chapter 23 in full, but I have ended up feeling confused.

On page 262 of Chapter 23 of The Lone Wolff, Bobby writes:

“I also convinced Peter to leave an additional $50,000 to the Vugraph development program, and (unbeknownst to him) it was decided to rename it the Pendergraph in gratitude –

although, come to think of it, I have not heard that name used in

quite a while.”

I saw on Judy’s blog recently that she wisely requested a copy of Peter Pender’s will. Has that copy arrived? Or is there some other reason that Judy seems to believe that Bobby’s words “unbeknownst to him” are wrong?

Bobby WolffAugust 5th, 2010 at 2:21 pm

Hi Peter,

I talked to Peter Pender about his possible endowment at the Boston Summer Nationals around early August of 1990. At that time, plans were formulated between Peter and the ACBL for both his $50,000 gift which was more or less agreed to be used to establish a superior viewgraph for very important bridge events in addition to his donating $27,500 in order to award continuous individual trophies to the winning Junior Trials team, (scheduled to be held every other year at that time and still, 20 years later, the same) and both in honor of their victories and, of course, to perpetuate his name by being the benefactor.

He had already arranged to award the Peter Pender trophy for the winning Junior Trials Team.

Peter then died in November and, if my memory serves correctly, sometime around that time or perhaps a bit later, the name Pendergraph emerged. It is not clear to me whether or not Peter ever learned of the proposed name before his death.

I am sorry and apologize for the confusion, but, of course, at that time I did not realize, and actually still do not, the importance of that fact. Perhaps, in a court of law it might be considered important in order to determine damage and perhaps even liability, but, even if so, I would not be able to honestly answer that question.

Knowing Judy, I am sure that she will answer your other question(s).

Bobby WolffAugust 5th, 2010 at 2:58 pm


Just to let you know that, in spite of your self-denying lack of expert bridge knowledge and ability, you more than make up for it with, at least in my opinion, an unbelievable perception of what the ordinary high-level bridge mind is like and what is important and necessary for it to be successful.

In order for one to cut it as a formidable competitive bridge player he needs to:

1. Be ultra competitive

2. Love the basic nuances of the game

3. Understand arithmetical influences

4. Have (as Steven Potter has written) ability in Gamesmanship and Oneupsmanship

5. Be blessed with entry to high-level bridge teaching

6. Be doggedly determined to slay the dragon

7. Have the precious time to get it done

Nowhere do I think that one must be able to be a good test taker, nor a political yea sayer, nor a good loser, but the ability to be an excellent compassionate partner (and teammate) certainly will make the task easier.

The role of sponsors in high-level bridge defies all logic and common sense. It is almost like a good wife (is good an oxymoron), one cannot live with or without one. Without an ability to earn a living one cannot continue or exist and to include sponsors on International teams is a total contradiction to world class competition.

And so it goes, but you Mr. HBJ are a significant and valuable addition, whoever you decide to bless with your inclusion, and whether or not you ever execute a bridge squeeze. Save your knowledge and execution of squeezes for the ones near and dear to you.

Judy Kay-WolffAugust 5th, 2010 at 3:36 pm


I very much appreciate your interest in the Pendergraph debacle.

You must bear in mind that all this took place over twenty years ago. Peter was months away from drawing his last breath. For many who knew only the name and not the person — let me tell you, as his good friend back in Philadelphia before he headed West — Peter Pender was indeed special. Not only was he a sensational, intuitive, honorable bridge player, but an exceptionally kind and giving human being.

As you can imagine, knowing he was seriously ill from AIDS (which was no secret to the public), it was a very delicate and sad time for him to be discussing his wishes with his death being imminent. However, he was level headed and objective and wanted to see his money used wisely to promote the game. Of course, at the same time, Peter was desirous of being remembered by something specific and important so that decades later, he would not become the proverbial forgotten man.

Several options were discussed and the vugraph was one of the possibilities. We are uncertain who named it THE PENDERGRAPH. However, one fact of which we are certain is that it disappeared off the face of the earth a long time ago. Whether it was obsolete and replaced by BBO is another story and not the real issue — and clearly BBO has no responsibility in this matter.

However, the day The Pendergraph went the way of all flesh is the day the money supply should have stopped as well. The ACBL/EF has a responsibility to honor Peter’s memory BIG TIME instead of burying their heads in the sand and should have made a concerted effort IMMEDIATELY upon the disappearance of The Pendergraph to select one or more worthwhile projects to celebrate his life and honor him in death.

When I first learned of this, I tried to obtain a copy of the original will, but being probated twenty years ago, it was no easy matter so I researched other sources. From a good friend, I not only got the name of Peter’s caregiver (whom we have not been able to locate), but also the name of his attorney, whom we understand is out of the country till the end of the month. We have solicited the help of legal counsel who has been in touch with the office of Peter’s attorney and hopes to get more detailed information when he returns.

In any event, no one can dispute the fact that in addition to the irresponsibility and laxity of failing to follow through on the $27,500 left for the Junior Trials Trophy replicas until called to the ACBL’s attention — the larger issue of the dropping of The Pendergraph about ten years ago with no renewed effort to honor Peter’s memory, is absolutely unforgivable.

Regardless of the actual wording in the Will, no one can deny the pathetic lethargy that followed the welcome acceptance of the $50,000 endowment and then the abrupt abandonment of the program devised and approved to promote bridge and perpetuate the name of Peter Pender!

Judy Kay-WolffAugust 5th, 2010 at 4:08 pm


Though humor (sometimes quite subtle) always pervades your writings, you really hit this one on the head:

“Masterpoints certainly give an indication to one’s years of experience of playing the game, but not one’s ability to play the game at an expert level.”

When we all started out playing bridge sometime in the dark ages, we were sooooo mesmerized by the almighty Master Point. However, as we got older and wiser (and now with the easy availability of those once coveted buggers), I’ve heard people say, “Yeh, that and a dime will get you a cup of coffee.” Unfortunately, with the witnessed inflation of today, at Starbucks that is a huge underbid!

Peter GillAugust 7th, 2010 at 9:55 am

The top American tournaments have names like Vanderbilt, Spingold, Reisinger and Jacoby Swiss Teams, although I admit not knowing who Spingold and Reisinger were.

Does it make any sense for the ACBL or USBF to name the Junior Trials the Pender?

Bobby WolffAugust 7th, 2010 at 2:49 pm

Hi Peter,

Yes, it certainly does make sense, at least to me, for either the ACBL and/or the USBF to suggest naming the Junior Trials the Peter Pender Junior Trials.

“Little by little and together we can do great things”. Your suggestion has both an apt cause and a rhapsodical sound.

Curt Reisinger was a great grandson of both Anheuser and Busch, of famous American brewery fame, and a noted philanthropist of both bridge and larger than life world causes. In 1953 he was named ACBL Honorary Member.

Nathan Spingold, a noted patron of the arts and motion picture executive was the most influential man in bridge administration during the years, 1937-1943. Active in bridge from its earliest days, Spingold donated the famous trophy which bears his name and in 1936 he was named “The ABL Honorary Member’. The ABL was the forerunner to the ACBL, basically formed in 1936, and became President of the newly formed organization in 1938. He was also president of the Cavendish Club in New York.

Now you know, and the idea you suggest sounds right on. Thanks for contributing in what could be, a mighty way.

Judy Kay-WolffAugust 7th, 2010 at 7:07 pm

Yes, Peter, it is a great suggestion to add Peter Pender’s name to the Event as well as the Trophy.

However, bear in mind, the Junior Trials endowment of $27,500 is separate and apart from the second bequest of $50,000 involving the apparently negligent abandonment of the Pendergraph and the lethargy in not finding another venue of like publicized and recognized importance that would bear Peter’s name.

The first donation by Peter was specifically earmarked for the Junior Trials Trophy (replicas, engraving and presentation). It was the first of two discovered failures of the responsibilities of the ACBL to Peter Pender. The winners (every two years) were never recognized by the replicas or any other remembrance until Bobby and I got on the ear of the ACBL. It was CEO Jay Baum, who, after investigation, agreed to our charge of the team’s dropping the ball, and agreed to it being picked up, offering to research the long list of winners and reviving the ceremony, bringing the public up to snuff. End of $27,500 donation story.

However, though your suggestion of naming the Junior Trials The Peter Pender Junior Trials would enhance the concept of the replicas with engraving and presentations, it only addresses half the issue.

When the updated presentations are made to the long string of unrecognized Junior winners), it will only satisfy the …. ONE DOWN AND ONE TO GO theory!

No one should confuse the two separate bequests.

The dropping of the Pendergraph and the use of Peter’s money ($50,000) to enhance some other viewing project IS ISSUE NO. 2 and Bobby and I are actively investigating the morality and other issues of the monies spent on another program in which Peter’s name was dropped although much of the $50,000 was allegedly spent on the development of such.

The solution is a simple one and we are hoping the ACBL will reconsider their present position and honor Peter’s bequest and intention.

It is never too late to right the wrong.

Fred GitelmanAugust 7th, 2010 at 8:48 pm


What is the “other program” you are referring to?

It was certainly not BBO. BBO required no money at all for its initial development and, as best I can remember, the development of BBO did not even start until at least a couple of years after I stopped sending the ACBL bills for the long and hard work I did on the Pendergraph software.

I do not remember the exact details, but I suspect I received a sizable % of the $40K or so that was spent out of the original $50K. I am certain that, whatever the exact amount I was paid, I earned that money. I also like to think that the ACBL Educational Foundation received good value for the money they spent, but of course this is a subjective (and biased) opinion with which of course you have the right to disagree.

However, I don’t think your opinion on these matters is worth very much (in all seriousness, no offense intended).

You yourself have admitted that your computer knowledge is limited. It is fairly clear to me that your knowledge pertaining to the business of software development is basically zero. In particular, here is something very basic that I think you don’t understand:

Developing, improving, and maintaining complex custom software over a multi-year period in the face of rapid technology change takes significant time and significant expertise (and this was even more true in the early 1990s than it is today). It should come as no surprise that the dollar cost of doing this is not trivial.

The money that I received was certainly not “misspent” as you have repeatedly (and wrongly) alleged. Furthermore, it was certainly not spent on anything other than to pay for the very large number of hours I put into the development of the Pendergraph software (as you seem to be alleging, wrongly again, in your latest blog entry).

If the “other program” you were referring to is/was something other than BBO, then please accept my apologies for putting words in your mouth.

Fred Gitelman

Judy Kay-WolffAugust 8th, 2010 at 12:13 am

Whoa, Fred. Let’s back up a moment. No one has accused either you or BBO of accepting any money wrongfully or not living up to the expectations of lending your expert knowledge and advice to the expected development of The Pendergraph as requested.

That is not, and was not, EVER my contention — and I think you know that. I respect your integrity and your genius but those are extraneous issues!!!!

Let’s start with the actual financial accounting. As of December 31, 2009 the balance was $10,716.58, including interest accrued since the original grant was $50,000 and the total interest accumulated interest accrued as of 12/31/09 was $5,997.78. Therefore, If I am not mistaken, the Peter Pender fund totaled $55,997.78. The current balance is $10,716.58. If my arithmetic is correct, that means the expenditures were $45,281.20.

No one seems to be able (or wants) to state with certainty when the name of the Pendergraph disappeared. THAT IS THE ISSUE! However, let us examine the disbursements from the fund according to an official accounting I received on July 2nd, 2010, I assume emanating from the EF.

Date Activity Expense Income Balance

GIFTS TO FUND 03/31/93

Estate of Peter Pender $50,000.00


1998-2004 Interest Income $5,025.33 $55,025.33

2005 Interest Income $248.17 $55,273.50

2006 Interest Income $410.88 $55,684.38

2007 Interest income $492.95 $56,177.33

2008 Interest Income $453.93



06/02/92 Bridge Base

$963.00 .. $55,667.76

06/08/92 Nolan’s Audio Visual

$6,004.95 .. $49,662.81

07/31/94 ACBL reimbursement

$4,190.87 .. $45,471.94

03/27/96 Nolan’s Audio Visual

$4,360.00 .. $41,111.94

03/27/96 Tech. Support Systems

$3,914.32 .. $37,197.62

11/01/98 CDW Computer Center

$15,437.36 .. $21,760.26

09/15/04 Nolans Audio Visual

$0.00 .. $21,760.26

10/07/04 PC Mall, Inc.

$2,001.06 .. $19,759.20

10/27/04 Dell Computer

$4,359.31 .. $15,399.89

11/22/04 Nolan’s Audio Visual

$577.93 .. $14,821.96

10/12/05 BOA-Epson Multimedia Projector

$625.00 .. $14,196.96

10/12/05 BOA- Targus Notebook Security

$256.35 .. $13,940.61

10/19/05 Nolans Audio Visual —

fast fold screen

$1,633.29 .. $12,307.32

10/27/05 Dell 1200 Laptop

$1,957.76 .. $10,349.56

Balance at December 31, 2008 $10,349.56

12/31/08 Interest income for year


Balance at December 31, 2009 $10,716.58

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify ACBL immediately by replying to the message by e-mail or fax and deleting it from your computer.

I have two questions to those who accepted the money from Peter’s Estate and are responsible for the Pendergraph being perpetuated (or after its abandonment seeking some other way to honor Peter Pender)?



Fred GitelmanAugust 8th, 2010 at 12:36 am

In your previous comment you said:

“The dropping of the Pendergraph and the use of Peter’s money ($50,000) to enhance some other viewing project IS ISSUE NO. 2 and Bobby and I are actively investigating the morality and other issues of the monies spent on another program in which Peter’s name was dropped although much of the $50,000 was allegedly spent on the development of such.”

Please note the word “development” in the last sentence. I was the “developer”. Writing software is “development”. Buying computers, projectors, etc, is not “development”. Your word “enhance” in the first sentence could arguably be interpretted in the same way.

Furthermore, in a previous comment you (or maybe it was Bobby) explicitly suggested some kind “coverup” involving “BBO and its partners”. That comment disappeared (thanks), but regardless I very much resented seeing such a baseless allegation appear in public forum (especially since most of my partners had nothing to do with BBO until 2007).

So intentionally or not you have said some rather slanderous and untrue things about me, my company, and my partners. I will take your word for it that this was not intentional and that you don’t believe I/we are guilty of any wrongdoing in these matters, but if that is the case then PLEASE be more careful with your choice of words.

Hopefully you can now understand why I felt the need to defend myself.

Fred Gitelman

Bobby WolffAugust 8th, 2010 at 12:38 am

Hi Fred,

While I have no doubt of your accurate reporting, very difficult expert programming work, fair cost for your services, and all other morality involved, none of that is what I am concerned with since I would always expect that from you.

What troubles me is the non-existent protection of a dead man who had taken the trouble to donate a significant sum for the betterment of bridge, knowing at the time that he wouldn’t be present for its completion, but trusting the organization to look after his interest in taking at least some credit.

Whatever was done at your end and at your behest seems perfectly above board, but how is it possible that the ACBL representative involved (or whomever was in charge) allowed Peter’s name to be forever removed from any credit that his considerable endowment was entitled.

It would have taken someone to speak up for Peter’s interest to be protected but isn’t that what life is all about when the person in need definitely needs support.

As the facts are unfolding, it becomes clearer as to what happened. You did nothing wrong, BBO did nothing wrong, but the ACBL or someone in ACBL management either had malicious intent against Peter (unlikely), had other mysterious reasons for letting happen what did happen, or by far the most likely excuse, was just too stupid (sorry but no better word comes to mind except the euphemistic word naive) to understand what was getting ready to occur.

How this unknown person or people could not understand how Peter’s money was going to come to an end, with absolutely no recognition for what he did, is a question that will forever haunt me, as it should to all of the many people involved in this sad event.

Only the ACBL can now remedy the wrong and from their response (so far) it does not appear on the near or even distant horizon.

Judy Kay-WolffAugust 8th, 2010 at 1:24 am


After both my comment and Bobby’s were sent, we spotted a second comment of yours which slipped in between our replies. So, again, just for the record ….

It never occurred to either Bobby or me, regardless of your interpretation, that you did (or would do) anything wrong. We know you too well and too long — and we both pride ourselves on being pretty good judges of character. (And — your company and your partners were never an issue either).

Our beef is with those running the show and issuing the orders from the homefront where Peter’s money was being held. I think Bobby’s heartfelt plea capsulizing both the sadness and anger that a dead man cannot protect his own interests says it all.

Your introduction on the scene got the ball rolling. You did what you were paid to do. We are challenging why and when the Pendergraph was dropped and the failure to see Peter’s name commemorated on another celebrated venue as he intended. We fault the laissez faire attitude of those responsible for not seeking an immediate remedy to flash Peter’s name before the public in lieu of the disappearance of the Pendergraph.

I hope that clarifies the subject for you with the reassurance you were never thought to be ‘the bad guy.’ It was the sloth that followed that created the problem that exists and the continuing refusal of those responsible to not actively present a timely, realistic and equitable solution.

Fred GitelmanAugust 8th, 2010 at 2:55 pm

Thanks to both of you for clarifying your positions (and thanks also for your congrats re the Spingold and for Bobby’s interest in and contribution toward youth bridge when I was more youthful).

Fred Gitelman

ChuckAugust 8th, 2010 at 6:11 pm

Addressing Judy monetary chart, why was there a six year lapse for expenditures from November ’98 until August 2004?

If the Pendergraph was no longer being used, why be spending monies for computers, laptop, security, a projector, audio visual, etc.?????????????????

What exactly do these costs have to do with the dead and buried Pendergraph?

Someone has some explaining to do.

Judy Kay-WolffAugust 8th, 2010 at 8:44 pm

Sorry, Chuck. I don’t have the answers — but somebody (who isn’t talking) does!

It is obvious the ACBL wants no part of this as it was handled by the EF. I would imagine the EF is accountable to the ACBL — but everyone is strangely silent on the use of vast sums of money spent — ending in 2005. However, the Pendergraph met its maker long before that.

The last entry was the purchase of a Dell Laptop on October 27, 2005 for $1,957.76. Why was Peter Pender’s endowment from 1990 footing the bill for a non-existent tribute to him?

Another question, though going backward — If Peter died in 1990, why was the first disbursement in July of 1992, a year and a half later. Why did it take a year and a half to get moving on a project perpetuating Peter’s name from a generous $50,000 bequest? Seems like a rather tardy effort.

Can anyone explain any of this to me?? I am all ears.

HBJ ( John howard Gibson )August 9th, 2010 at 5:00 am

Dear Judy, as we all know most institutions have no conscience, places without a heart and a soul. They crush the spirits of the individuals who work inside them. These individuals become ” institutionalised ” so to speak. And because insitutions are so powerful, corruption runs rife. Do institutions ( like companies ) care fors its employees, its customers and its small shareholders ?……………I think not. This might explain how easy it is to swallow someone’s money…….and then putting their needs ahead of the person who generously gave it. Yours HBG

Bobby WolffAugust 9th, 2010 at 5:07 pm


Your letter to Judy capsulized the Pendergaffe brouhaha in no trump.

Learning from its past can be a great educational experience, but the ACBL (the subject institution) is apparently not ready to rectify a significant injustice.

That the ACBL, because of mammoth dues increases in the past, along with, to their special credit, more judicious spending, we now are currently flush with the money necessary to right the wrong and consequently float the boat, and that fact alone should, at least, help ease the pain.

Why then, must others have to persuade them to do what they automatically should be volunteering to do and that is to re-establish the status quo with Peter Pender, but instead, they apparently are opting to take advantage of his death and basically pretending his generous, well directed endowment (with only minor, easily instituted caveats) never existed?

Yes, John Howard, your apt description of heartless institutions running rife and out of control is one thing, but to see that giraffe in our own living room, gives me a terrible pain in my neck.

Let this zoo-like atmosphere end with a little tale of “put paid to that”, and let the result show a positive correction, even if only done for posterity.

Again, always thanks for commenting. Bobby

Judy Kay-WolffAugust 9th, 2010 at 10:35 pm

Hi to my Man with many names and initials:

Your comment above is a masterpiece. It is a real life apppraisal of what goes on when the inmates are running the asylum (or the animals running the zoo). Take your choice! It all boils down to the same thing — lack of leadership.

[…] Pending”, there is also much about the above on my husband Bobby’s site entitled “What’s to Become of America’s Talented Youth?”  Someone interjected the subject of the Pendergaffe and from that thread there emerged many […]

David GoldblattApril 13th, 2011 at 10:38 pm

In your column of March 29, 2011, you said if spades split at trick 3, pull trump and claim the slam. Would you not want to try the heart ruffing finesse anyway at that point for the overtrick, while you still had the diamond entry?

Leave a comment

Your comment