jonottawa

Indeed. Voting to make a complaint demonstrated a complete lack of judgment. No judgment whatsoever. If you're going to start micromanaging behavior in parking lots, hotel bars, elevators, etc., I suggest you start with the folks who voted in favor of this absurd so-called complaint. I saw this Hamman guy participating in some sort of sexual innuendo at the site of the Spring 2006 Dallas NABC. I found that sort of sexual innuendo very inappropriate for a bridge championship. It was in the context of something described as the 'not so newlywed' game. Please launch an investigation immediately and file the appropriate complaints so that the issue can be presented in a fair and complete way to an impartial panel for decision.

I did not vote for Beatty, Gerard, Hamman or O'Rourke.

I totally concur with this. The ONE bad rap that Bush has gotten has been over Katrina (ironically, that bad rap probably did more damage to his approval ratings than all the valid criticism/outrage put together.) Hurricanes in the southeast, tornadoes in tornado alley, blizzards in the north, earthquakes/fires in the west, flooding in cities built below sea level. You choose to live somewhere and you assume the risk of recurring natural disasters that that particular area is prone to. It's not my problem that you were too stupid to hire enough firefighters and too lazy to clear the brush around your house in a wildfire zone. Cry me a river that your multi-million dollar house burned down. Next time buy insurance.

I totally concur. Biassedness. Or perhaps septiassedness in this case. Edit: Sorry, I may have misinterpreted. Perhaps you meant that each MEMBER suffers from biassedness. Yes, that wouldn't surprise me at all.

The decision to abstain certainly smacks of cowardice to me. I'm appalled at the lot of them. This is the worst ruling I've seen since the 'Oh *****' decision. (Oops, sorry Fred. :rolleyes: ) If you consider it a close decision, you should either: Choose the more lenient alternative and give the 'accused' the benefit of the doubt. or Vote in such a way that the overall vote reflects your belief. In other words, if you think it's a close call and you know the vote is going to be 4-0, you should vote to make sure that the final vote is not unanimous. Groupthink is a very common, almost universal, phenomenon. If experience has taught you that you don't have what it takes to resist it, you should avoid serving on such committees.

I'm saddened and disgusted but not surprised by this decision. So much for letting the whole thing blow over.

Aaaaaahhh, I see said the blind man. Fred, who is a very nice guy, on some level doesn't like it that he has been forced to adopt an "almost no signs" rule on his online bridge site and experiences cognitive dissonance with the idea expressed by others that the WBF ought to not legislate in this area in spite of the recent behavior of the USA 1 ladies at the closing ceremonies in Shanghai. "If a nice tolerant congenial guy like me has been forced to lay down the law, certainly a bunch of stuffy old suits running an international bridge organization will reason similarly." To me, the 2 situations aren't remotely analogous. Fred's running a FREE site, filled with ANONYMOUS people and hands out a Sharpie and some posterboard to everyone who walks in the door. Setting limits to what the anonymous mob will do with the Sharpie and posterboard is eminently reasonable, and indeed, necessary. I agree with the sentiments expressed by mycroft. Banning all signs, for fear that once in a great long while someone will show up with an offensive sign, or requiring that all participants wear a blindfold, for fear that one of the teams will use the opportunity to recreate the Aristocrats joke for the audience's enjoyment, is overkill.

No need to examine returns etc. Teams should registered for team trials as a "pro team" (3 or more paid players) or non-pro (very hard to represent a pro team as a non-pro team). If a pro-team wins the team trials, then: a) if they want to use one or more clients as a player on the team they get no subsidy dollars, and they get to pick their own NPC, coach etc. and make arrangements as they see fit (their decision on NPC etc. can only be changed by first providing subsidy dollars); b ) if they convert all clients on the team into non-players, such as into NPCs, coaches, etc., and then allow for the team to be filled out with other top players, then they get the full subsidy dollars. I wouldn't go quite as draconian as officeglen, but I'd only give the rich guy (ya, I know, irony) a subsidy (and only his share,) since he's the only 'amateur'. Edit: ... Actually, upon sober reflection, I don't think that's workable. I'd just discontinue all subsidies for US non-juniors. If the home unit or home district of the team (or just of some members of the team) want to hold a charity game and designate that team as the charity (similar to what was done in Ottawa for local members of Canada's BB and VC teams) that would be fine. Excluding pros from receiving subsidies would be too much like a "some signs" rule. Having a policy of always giving subsidies funded largely by people whose greatest bridge aspiration is to consistently break average in a club game and having the recipients of those subsidies being pros and well-off clients 95%+ of the time is a fundamental misallocation of resources. Let the teams pay their own way (or raise the funds for a subsidy from the entry fees for the qualifying event.)

I believe a "no signs" rule would harm nobody. I believe it would be only a matter of time until a "some signs" rule would harm everybody. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com I agree that a "some signs" rule would harm everybody. That's why nobody who voted "some signs" argued that there should be a "some signs" rule. They argued that if and when a nutty enough person decided to do something egregious enough to merit sanction, they would be met by the: No f***ing lunatics allowed! rule. That trumps the 'some signs' rule, anyway.

Aight mrdct, it was a dumb question. That doesn't mean everyone has to answer it like it was the meaning of life. Go set some alarm clocks or something. Or answer the 'real' question: Should we subsidize a rich guy and some pros to pay in the Bermuda Bowl?

I can think of a few others but having played against Fred a few times I don't recall anything at all unusual or abnormal about how he or Brad played the cards. One that comes to mind is Pratap, he plays them all in a very distinctive slow and deliberate fashion (obviously an effort on his part to play every card in exactly the same way.) The most unusual I think I ever saw was Doug Doub. Hanging out by an event in which I wasn't playing I noticed he holds his entire hand completely upside down, and pulls his cards up through the top, meaning I have no idea at all how he knows which card is coming up! I tried holding mine the normal way and pulling them out through the bottom and it was not easy, so his is truly unusual. Josh, I don't know how to describe it other than 'throwing the cards at the table.' I considered it very distinctive behavior. Very UNobjectionable (certainly not obnoxious.) (It wasn't snapping cards, it was just 'I mean to play this card and I am playing this card.') I guess I was imagining things...

I don't know Jon - I am not aware of it either. Zia is the only famous player I can think of that has (sometimes at least) a distinctive mannerism when he plays his cards. I will try to pay closer attention to myself and let you know. I purposely do not pay attention to Brad's mannerisms at the table (sometimes a challenge) so I am afraid you will need to ask someone else about him :) Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Sorry, it's Friday night and I've had a few. You guys are incredibly ethical players (that goes without saying) and the only person to commit a faux pas during that match was me (I once pulled a card prematurely and Brad rightly called me on it.) But surely you must be aware that there is an intensity to the way you play your cards (on every trick.) If you'd rather not say why, that's cool, but at least let me know that I'm not imagining things ...

And now for something completely different ... Fred, when I played against you and Brad, you guys had a very distinctive way of playing your cards, almost throwing them at the table. I'm curious what the motivation for that is, or if I was just imagining it. Is it a common thing among world class experts that I'm just not aware of?

Truer words ... I hate all the 'High-Five Fred' type posts around here but ... High-Five, Fred! :P

Accused of made-up crimes? Like what? Marijuana possession? Good thing they don't do that here. Here they don't accuse you of anything, they just lock you up and throw away the key. Much tidier that way. And do you think that letting Cheney/Bush invade Iran will make your students' families' lives easier?

Aight, quibble noted. But surely we can agree that among Western nations, Scandinavian countries have traditionally been among the most socialist (in the sense of "unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done") and that attitudes in the United States tend to be considerably different? The point being that whether or not the ACBL/USBF should raise money from little old ladies to subsidize a team of professionals and a well-to-do client really has nothing to do with Scandinavian attitudes towards subsidizing groups of people 99% of whom are amateurs and the other 1% of whom are taxed up the ying-yang and may as well be amateurs. To put it in sharper contrast: Do you want $1 of your green fees or your PGA membership fees to go towards Tiger Woods playing in the Ryder Cup? Do you want $1 of little Timmy's Little League dues to go towards A-Rod playing in the Olympics?

We haven't heard from the "rebels" (my invention in this context). Sometimes silence is golden, but I am wondering if this silence means that they concur or object to the decision. I have a feeling what Richard thinks (perhaps he is looking for a more diplomatic word as we speak), but the rest of you? Is Han right when he wrote "I imagine that most people who posted here can live with this"? Roland I'd have to read the letter. "We regret that the sign wasn't bigger, more professional-looking and translated into more languages."

If only ...

Well really what people are intending to do is smear the politician(s) leading a country, not the people who reside in it. But it's true, the peanut galleries are often careless or thoughtless and end up smearing the innocent people as well, even those who also hate the politician. It almost makes one think that if one despises an unpopular politician who leads ones country, that one should make sure the world knows not to make the mistake of necessarily associating the people with the leader. ..... Perhaps by a small sign held up during the only time in their lives that there is a worldwide audience to actually receive the message? Oops, sorry. Blasphemy. I wasn't referring to the ladies, Josh. I was referring to the folks in the other thread who decided to take a completely off-topic, gratuitous and baseless swipe at the Iranian people. One person presented a hypothetical situation: "So Robbie Fissure, America's greatest bridge player, wins (with his team) the BB held in Chicago, and holds up a sign stating: "Jews are scum. Shame they were not exterminated long ago like rodents. Hitler was right."" Another person said: "... But I bet he'd be welcome in Iran." To which the first person responded: "May be right about Iran !!" I seem to be the only person here who found that offensive and completely inappropriate for this type of forum. I wouldn't want something similar said about either of my native lands and while I don't know anyone who lives in Iran or who is from Iran, I'm quite certain they would feel the same way. If this were a political forum, wingnutty flatulence such as that would be completely acceptable, of course, but it's not.

Yes, let's do keep howling about the 'idiots' comment. Anyone else want to weigh in? Smear an entire country? No problem. Make a comment like 'Some members of Congress are idiots' or 'Some Texans (my state of residence, btw) are idiots' or 'Some members of this or that board are idiots' and all of a sudden the sky is falling. And just who exactly DID start airing dirty linen? Adam, or Eve?

I don't know how familiar you are with conditions in Europe, but that is exactly how it works. Everyone pays for the elite teams through their membership fees to the respective federations. It doesn't matter if it's football (soccer), handball, basketball, volleyball, ice hockey, field hockey, and of course bridge. At least in Scandinavia we don't hear significant objections although everyone knows that only a tiny percentage makes it to the national teams. Denmark had two teams in Shanghai (women and seniors) and they were funded by the 26,000 members of the Danish Bridge Federation. Roland And the players on these 'elite' teams are professionals? (I wasn't really referring to Europe (Scandinavia's governments are usually socialist, no?) but that's fine as long as we're comparing apples to apples.) Some are, some are not, but we don't distinguish. The members contribute to the *team*. As far as governments in Scandinavia are concerned, I think it's fair to say that your knowledge is not world class. Norway has a social democrat prime minister (Jens Stoltenberg), Sweden a conservative (Fredrik Reinfeldt) and Denmark a liberal (Anders Fogh Rasmussen). Roland Helene, could you please explain to Roland the difference between 'usually' and 'currently'? Thanks.

I don't know how familiar you are with conditions in Europe, but that is exactly how it works. Everyone pays for the elite teams through their membership fees to the respective federations. It doesn't matter if it's football (soccer), handball, basketball, volleyball, ice hockey, field hockey, and of course bridge. At least in Scandinavia we don't hear significant objections although everyone knows that only a tiny percentage makes it to the national teams. Denmark had two teams in Shanghai (women and seniors) and they were funded by the 26,000 members of the Danish Bridge Federation. Roland And the players on these 'elite' teams are professionals? (I wasn't really referring to Europe (Scandinavia's governments are usually socialist, no?) but that's fine as long as we're comparing apples to apples.)

Are you a special education teacher by any chance, Helene? At any rate, you're doing a smashing job in this thread and the other one. As far as whether little old ladies in Topeka or Boise or Chattanooga ought to be paying extra in order to play bridge so that a gaggle of professional players and well-off clients can have their world championship experience subsidized, I think the answer is no. Is there another sport where mediocre amateurs with no hope of ever becoming more than that are expected to fund the national teams? Junior bridge is a different story (because juniors are mostly amateurs and it certainly would be an outrage if financial considerations alone prevented a gifted junior from competing in a junior championship.)

We folks from Ottawa have a pretty good track record on this subject. EDIT: Link added subsequent to officeglen's post.

Who's that guy over on the far left wearing white sneakers? Wow, if Fred ever catches up with him I'll bet he gives him a piece of his mind on what appropriate decorum at an awards ceremony is. :)