debrose

Thank you, Fred. That is, and always has been, kind of you to say. When I say "for the most part" there was never any chance of my being considered as just a bridge player, you are always one of the exceptions I think of.

I did read Justin's entire post, and I do not disagree with his basic premises, as summarized at the end. A couple of the details which I question: What if Rose Meltzer did not wish for her rank as a "woman player" to be acknowledged? Perhaps she feels her great accomplishments as a bridge player are even more meaningful without that reference - or maybe it just has no relevance. Personally, when I used to play exclusively in open events, I cringed when people described me in terms of how good a "woman player" I was. At the time I felt there was no more justification for this than discussing who was the "best left-handed player", or best "Chinese-American player", etc. Yes, there existed separate women's events, but I didn't play in them. I really wanted a chance to be evaluated as "a bridge player", not "a woman player", and I found it very frustrating when I learned that for the most part I had no chance of that happening. We have no objective ranking system, and most people would always think of me as a "woman player." Once I started playing in women's events, I certainly could no longer dispute the characterization. Of course I'd already resigned myself to the fact that I was going to be thought of as a "woman player" whether I played in those events or not. However, if I ever have a year in which I play exclusively in open premium events at the Nationals, I for one will prefer to have whatever "titanium point" rank I achieve acknowledged without reference to the fact that I was born female. Justin's suggestion regarding mixed points counting towards the women's ranking, reminded me of something I recently learned. In the WBF, points earned in mixed events count for a man toward his open ranking, while for a woman they count toward her women's ranking. This is relevant to me in that I am a "Women's Grand Master", but in the open not even a "World Master." From my reading of the conditions of contest, this would mean I couldn't enter a semi-final or final round of the World Open Pairs with a partner who had been eliminated from the Rosenblum too late to play the qualifying round. If I continue to play only WBF women's and mixed events, I'll have no opportunity to earn open points, while the man in my mixed partnership will get those points for the same achievement. This also seems wrong for a woman who does not participate in WBF women's events - only open or mixed. Shouldn't she be able to choose to have her mixed points count the same way they do for her male partner? I confess, I have not appealed to the WBF on this, and for all I know such a request would be readily granted.

I agree that 5N should be pick a slam in the contested auctions mentioned by the last two posters, even when our side has bid only one suit. Certainly we'd have to have at least agreed the suit to even consider using GSF in comp. I was thinking no interference, and also that it would be a jump, and should have said so. However, I would think 4S-P-5N would be a clear GSF auction, so I wouldn't make the rule that we must always have agreed a suit. Nigel, I believe Standard American does say 1N-5N or 2N-5N means "bid 6 or 7" I learned that when starting out 25 years ago, so it's not just a British thing. That said, while I try to teach my int/adv students everything that's "Standard", I don't bother discussing that auction with any level of player anymore, since I've never seen it come up. If the appropriate hand did get dealt, and neither that nor some sort of relay response were available, there would be no scientific way to determine whether to bid 6 or 7. So in theory it is a useful treatment.

I'd recommend starting with the default that 5N is always pick-a-slam except where otherwise agreed. Possible specific exceptions might include: 1) Grand Slam Force when your side has bid only one suit and no notrump 2) When part of an ace/keycard asking sequence (how defined depends on those agreements) 3) Directly over a natural notrump bid, including 4NT (quantitative). Note: I play this with some partners - that 5N is stronger than 4N when 4N is quantitative - but I think most experts don't, and would treat it as pick a slam in those auctions

Oh, and I meant to say that I was born after 1920, at least as far as I can remember.....

1) Yes 2) Could go either way. Never bidding could be very wrong, but also very right. There's a good chance that LHO is rebidding some number of spades, and I don't especially want a diamond lead. But a club may be worse. I also don't want them to play me for short spades.

I would wholeheartedly support a requirement that CC's be exchanged at the beginning of the round, whether it be a 2-board pair round, a swiss match, or a knockout segment. Though most of the bridge I've played has been in the US, so I should be used to it, I'm still nonplussed by how jealously many players guard those cards. In WBF tournaments, the personal scoresheets available do not fit inside the convention card, and I think that does tend to have players more inclined to make their CCs readily available. However removing the printed private score from the inside of the ACBL card, and having a separate scoresheet available, might not help much with the problem. The private scores would have to be a different size and shape. The way it is now, many players have a separate card for scores, but they keep it inside their filled out convention card anyway. And I find the players most reluctant to give up their cards usually have one of those plastic holders, with the system card (often a fancy colorful computer card) on the outside, and a score sheet in the inside. At the last NABC my partner asked her opponent to remove the outside card for the sixteen board segment, rather than keeping it in the holder on her lap (where, by the way, it would be quite easy for the player to look at it herself, but necessary for her opponent to ask for it each time). The director needed to be called to make this happen. In a women's trials a few years ago, the director supported my opponent's right to keep her convention card under her coke can, with her private score inside it, and for me to have to ask for it each time. I didn't like it, but it was that or stop the match and call for a committee so I played on. We could definitely use some clear regulations in this regard, though frankly most experts in the US don't seem to care about any of this, and prefer to just ask questions.

This is what the WBF conditions of contest say: "D. If a player takes more than a normal amount of time to decide upon his call neither player on his side of the screen shall call attention to the fact." I have always assumed this prohibition applies only before the hand is over. That makes sense, since a director call can draw attention to a break in tempo, or clarify who was thinking, so is inappropriate when such information can be relevant to the bidding or play. After the hand is over, I can't see what the problem is with any player calling the director. It does seem a disputed contention that there was a noticeable break in tempo should have more weight if the call comes from the other side of the screen. But I don't see any reason to automatically discount the claim just because it came from the same side of the screen.

I believe, ideally, only the responder's second bid of 3 of a major (showing the other major), should be alerted, so as to give the defender whose partner will be on lead a chance to double. It is extremely unlikely that the hand over the NT bidder needs to make a lead directing double of opener's bid, and the potential UI from responder's alert can help opener understand partner's next bid, without anyone even realizing they've used unauthorized information. On the other hand, opener alerting responder's second bid doesn't provide much useful UI. If responder had forgotten through this point that she were playing puppet Stayman, it seems unlikely she would have an easy way of taking advantage, at least without it being obvious she'd done so. The alert of 3C can create a problem even for ethical players. Suppose responder isn't focused, at the moment they bid 3C, on the fact that they are playing puppet Stayman. However, they usually play it, and it's something like 90% that they would have realized it when partner responded, even without an alert of 3C. Do they now have to proceed as if their partner were responding to ordinary Stayman? I rarely play Puppet Stayman, but I've encountered comparable problems. I have sympathy for the idea that having specifically responder's second bid of a major be alertable is too complicated, and I would greatly prefer no alerts in Puppet Stayman auctions to the way it is now, if those are the choices. Of course everything that might be relevant to the defense should be alerted at the end of the auction, before the opening lead.

Just to add one thing to the corrected version in today's bulletin, and to answer the point some of you are wondering about, there was never a director's ruling that we knew of. The deal occurred in the second quarter, the information was given to the director after the deal (they wrote down the hands, since it was shuffle and play), and we went to dinner not having heard any more about it. After the break, before the start of the third quarter, the opponents and I discussed what we thought was fair and then went to the directors (who happened to be looking at the hand at the time) and told them what we'd agreed to be fair. They changed the score to reflect this. If they had already made, or were inclined to make, a different ruling, I was not told of it.

Hi Roland. Regarding your statement that you try to follow the ten commitments, and would do the same when an atheist, I wonder what list you are referring to. You grant that, as an atheist, you would make an exception for the first one, but since the first four on any "ten commandments" list which I am familiar with all have to do with "god", it seems unlikely an atheist would try to follow any of these. There are many interpretations out there, and I don't believe there is a specific list of ten anywhere in the text of the Bible. Is the version you try to follow something like this one I found on Wikipedia? 1 - I am the Lord your God . You shall have no other gods before me 2 - You shall not make for yourself an idol 3- You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God 4 - Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy 5 -Honor your father and mother 6 - You shall not murder* 7- You shall not commit adultery 8 -You shall not steal*** 9 - You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor 10 - You shall not covet your neighbor's house You shall not covet your neighbor's wife Speaking as an "atheist" (though I agree with Sam Harris that a word to say someone doesn't believe something ought not be necessary - just as we don't refer to people as "non-astrologists"), here's how I relate my own lifestyle and standards to the above list: Numbers 6, 8, and 9 on that list are rather important to me Numbers 1-4 are meaningless to me Number 5 I'm not sure about. Perhaps we should "honor" all fellow human beings unless they prove undeserving, and a mother or father should be no exception. To whatever extent I might try to follow #7, it would already be covered by #9 (which I read to mean "be honest"). Finally, while one would probably be happiest following number 10, it seems relatively unimportant (as compared with murder?), and also impractical to try to judge anyone's morality by their thoughts rather than their actions. Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion, offers a set of "New Ten Commandments", which he says he happened to find on an atheist website. I'd like to share this: 1- Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you 2- In all things, strive to cause no harm 3- Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect 4- Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted 5-Live life with a sense of joy and wonder. 6- Always seek to be learning something new. 7- Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished believe if it does not conform to them. 8-Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you/ 9- form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others 10- Question everything Perhaps this would make for a good BBO thread - an invitation to come up with a list of "Ten Commandments" to live a rewarding and ethical life. I wonder how many would include PLAY BRIDGE!

I'd just like to clarify that my posts were in no way an attempt to provide an all-encompassing viewpoint, or even particularly a viewpoint at all. I was not attempting to present a version of "the story", with or without detail, or to answer all the questions I thought people might have. What I was doing was responding to certain errors and speculations that I found myself reading over and over, which I believed I could shed some light on, so chose to do so.

Jan Martel: USBF President Jan Martel has been vilified in many articles, blogs, and on television in the US. While I won't say she is not deserving of criticism for her handling of this matter, the personal attacks are both disturbing, and I believe most are extremely inaccurate. And while I find some of the actions of the USBF shocking, especially given that I've known them to be thoughtful and reasonable people, I am virtually certain that any assumption that they have been acting on some sort of right wing agenda is false. In Jan's case, I am certain it is false. I'm going to bed now. Have a good night all.

Misquotes, and misunderstandings: Gail Greenberg is a longtime friend and business associate of mine, who served in the thankless job of non-playing captain in Shanghai. It is not surprising to me that her experiences there, in the role of captain rather than player, were quite different from the rest of ours. She has spoken to the press, and while I believe she has stressed that she is speaking only for herself, naturally some of her quotes have been taken out of context, giving the appearance that she is speaking for the team. In particular, I noticed at least one column online mistakenly attributing the following to me: So I’d like to clarify, that while I feel a heightened awareness of the world’s mostly negative opinion of current US policies when I travel abroad, based among other things on reading different newspapers from my usual, I do not recall any bridge player giving me a hard time while I was in Shanghai. I have had critical comments made directly to me in other recent travels, but I don’t believe anyone at this tournament questioned me about Iraq policy, or torture, or anything of the kind. As far as I know, the other team members, aside from our captain, did not have this happen. Again, it makes sense to me that a non-playing captain has different interactions, spending more time with fellow npcs, and with spectators in the vugraph room, than the players do. When Gail speaks of receiving such questions, she is speaking of her own experience.

Still more on Olympic Charter: I understand and agree with the general principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” so perhaps this next point of mine is not relevant from a “defense” perspective. However, since some have speculated on this, I would like to mention that nobody from the USBF, ACBL, or WBF ever suggested to me that I familiarize myself with the USBF conditions of contest, the WBF requirements, or the Olympic Charter. Also, it was pointed out to me tonight that most players who participate in WBF events (or watch the Daily Show, or read the Bridge World), are familiar with the drug testing requirements that the WBF enforces. It is widely recognized that these requirements are related to attempts to get bridge into the Olympics, so it was put forth that this should have made me aware that we were expected to follow the Olympic Charter. I was certainly familiar with the drug testing requirements before this tournament, so perhaps I was remiss in not researching and investigating the charter further.

More on Olympic Charter: Another significant point was made by Giulia Nastase, a relatively new bridge player who attended the tournament in Shanghai as an observer: “The Olympic Charter argument is that [No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas] This is correct; however further down, Article 56 of the same charter clearly requests that [During the entire period of the Olympic Games, including all ceremonies, no speeches of any kind may be held by any representative of any government or other public authority, nor by any other politician, in any venue placed under the responsibility of the OGC]. Now, this puts the entire opening and awards ceremonies in Shanghai, as well as the WBF, in violation of the Olympic charter, as I recall a good number of Chinese government representatives/politicians delivering speeches at these ceremonies]. Guilia Nastase

Olympic Charter “Violation”: The claim by USBF attorney Allan Falk, on Fox News Channel and elsewhere, that we agreed to follow the Olympic Charter does not seem credible to me, but I’ll allow you to judge for yourself. Here’s Bermuda Bowl silver medalist Michael Rosenberg’s take on the subject: THE “OLYMPIC CHARTER” ARGUMENT All a person would need to do to know the occurrence in Shanghai was a violation worthy of USBF sanction was to discover “the USBF’s General Conditions of Contest, Part VII of which provides: ‘Each player in a USBF Championship, by entering the event, agrees that in the event the player represents the United States in a WBF Championship, he or she will comply with WBF requirements for the championship.’”, THEN, discover among the many pages of WBF conditions that “section 4.1 of the WBF General Conditions of Contest, which reads: ‘To be eligible for participation in the World Bridge Championships a competitor must comply with the Olympic Charter as well as with the rules of the WBF, and must be entered by his NBO. He must notably respect the spirit of fair play and ethics, and behave accordingly.’ ” AND THEN look up the Olympic Charter (more than 100 pages), and find: “Chapter 5, Rule 51, Section 3 of the Olympic Charter in turn specifies: ‘3. No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas.’ ” No problem. Could anyone but a maniac really think that it is appropriate to bring charges based on this purported “violation? This isn’t just a technicality. This is a technicality within a technicality within a technicality. Using the USBF “violation route”, the number of violations by USBF members might be in the millions. I don't know how many players in the trials HAD ever read the USBF conditions for the trials (probably two, me and Michael Becker). I don't remember the words "WBF requirements" jumping out at me - surprisingly, they were not emblazoned on my mind. I just now looked at the WBF requirements. This is what I found (there may be more): Thing to Study No. of Pages WBF General Conditions of Contest 34 WBF Supplemental Conditions of Contest 29 Anti-Doping Regulation 6 Convention Card Rules 76 Systems Policy 10 Alerting Policy 2 Psychic Bidding 2 Total 159 There were also many requirements that we could only learn about on-site. Each page would tend to have several items (some short some long). For example, there were about 140 items in the Supplemental Conditions of Contest. There were about 50 items in the Anti-Doping regulations. When I saw there were 76 pages on Convention Cards, I stopped counting the number of items, and just did pages. So, somewhere, in the General Conditions, is that one line about the Olympic Charter (I had actually skimmed the General conditions (probably the only one to do so since Michael Becker was not present), but I somehow missed it. Obviously, had I seen it, my first thought would have been to break off from reading the other stuff and peruse that. Had I done so, I would have found a 105-page document with I have no idea how many items. Now, if I could just be certain of the definition of propaganda...... Michael Rosenberg

Separation of Powers: The USBF Board and the Hearing Panel are not one and the same, as seems to be a common misconception. One of the USBF Board Members, Rose Meltzer, who is also the chairperson of the Grievance and Appeals Committee, followed USBF procedure and formed a panel by selecting people on that Committee to become the Hearing Panel. According to the USBF, only one standing member of the committee was free of conflicts, so four temporary members were appointed, and a five-person panel formed. Rose Meltzer herself is not on that panel. Normally, the complaining party would be a USBF member or members. In this case, the complaining party was the USBF Board itself.

Response from the World Bridge Federation (WBF) and Chinese Contract Bridge Association (CCBA): Despite implications to the contrary, there has been no evidence of a negative reaction from the World Bridge Federation or the Chinese Contract Bridge Association. Indeed, I am fairly certain that there was no response whatsoever before the USBF’s unsolicited apology letter. Subsequent communications from the WBF indicated that, as far as the WBF and the CCBA were concerned, the matter was at an end. If you look on the www.worldbridge.org website, you will see that they have chosen to publish a photo of the winning Venice Cup team, which includes “the sign”, albeit not all that legible without a magnifying glass. There were many photographs taken while we are on stage, and the sign was only visible part of the time. This last part is not fact, but speculation on my part, but if the WBF were worried about their “sponsors’ reactions, as the USBF implies would be the case, I think they might have chosen a different photo for their site.

Signing Statements: Contrary to some rumors, my team was not given any document to sign, by the USBF or any other bridge organization, before going to Shanghai, or before playing in the USBF Trials. Until today, not one of the 20 or so players I have spoken to, who have qualified this past year or before for a world championship through a USBF trials, clearly remembers ever signing anything. Today Fred G. told me he thinks he remembers signing something a couple of years ago when he went to play in the Bermuda Bowl, but that he could be wrong. A couple of weeks back, I read an email in which a player who also qualified for Shanghai in the USBF team trials, claimed that the members of US teams who qualify for world competitions must sign a document. I never saw that assertion repeated, and I believe it to be false.

I'm new to posting, so forgive me if the formatting is poor. This thread is being started to address some of the erroneous or misleading statements going around the internet about this matter; in newspaper articles, forums, blogs, and elsewhere, and to answer some of the many questions. Perhaps I can also point readers to the right place to find further data. Regardless of one’s sentiments regarding the actions of the United States Bridge Federation Board (USBF), or those of the winning Venice Cup team, I hope this information will be of some use to those of you engaging in thoughtful discussions about the matter. My purpose here is NOT to “plead my case”, as I am soon expected to do at a disciplinary hearing, though I’m sure some of what I say will come across as self-interested. I seek only to promote truth, justice, and the American way (sorry, couldn’t resist).