Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Clive Owen
1 2 3 4 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great to see someone trying to promote bridge for the under 30's
Aug. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are 100% right Steven.

There are far too many players who are at best churlish in similar situations and we wonder why fewer people are playing competitive bridge.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have had two situations in my bridge playing career both involving international players which show the good and bad side of ethical behaviour

1.In the first when his partner did NOT lead the suit asked about in his question the questioner berated his partner for not finding the best lead. He got the reply words to the effect ‘well you better find a different partner’.

As he had deliberately led a card which was bound to cost in a close match in a national knockout event I was very impressed by his actions.


2.In the second when I had been asked a question which was clearly designed to affect the correct line of play at the end of the hand I challenged the questioner as to why he had asked the question. What was pleasing his partner said he thought the original question was out of order.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well done Gordon.

When one sees such a clear erudite letter one wonders why it was considered necessary to send it private and confidential in the first place. I am pleased it has now been decided it is sensible to publish.

I think Charles Brenners thoughtful contribution would be worthy of a response or at the very least consideration by the appropriate committee.
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sponsorship is difficult but not impossible. We have had two international events at St. Georges in Darlington. A junior against Scotland and a friendly against Sweden. In the latter case we had a splendid dinner.If my memory serves me correctly the whole cost was covered by the sponsorship but if not the vast majority.

On both occasions we managed to get articles in the local press and an interview on local radio.
Perhaps unsurprisingly this meant the sponsors felt they got good value for their money and indeed one asked us to let them know if we had a similar event in the future.
March 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That surely is right.
March 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul Barden

'The selection committee discussed the issues at length. Then it voted on what to do. Then it published its decision.

No vote was taken amongst those voting for the decision to determine their reasons. So the selection committee is unable to publish the reasons'


To paraphrase Eric Milnes a one time editor of the Bridge magazine ‘We manufacture cloth in Yorkshire it is called flannel’.
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David

You may well be right that the decision was very fair, brave and reasonable but unless you have had a private briefing I don't know how you know that as the reasons for the decision have not been published.

If you are right surely it would be in the best interests of the selection committee to publish it sooner rather than later.
March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hoping -yes

Expecting ??

I think it is in the best interests of everyone to get the matter out of the way sooner rather than later.

I have made it very clear I do not think there is any bias in the decision making process. However the longer it takes to publish the reasons for the decision the more people think there is a conspiracy.

However as I am not on any committee that has any influence in when they are published it probably matters little what I hope for.
March 26
Clive Owen edited this comment March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't accept that ‘ the first 850 posts don’t help'

1.The original post I submitted suggested what I thought was a better way of selecting teams . There have been a number of thoughtful views on either side of the discussion on this point and a few which have not been so helpful. I know Jeremy has a different view to me. I respect his view is sincere and I hope he reciprocates that view. Unlike many who have contributed to this thread neither I or any of my family would benefit one way or the other if these changes were introduced. At no stage have I criticised the EBU Board and anyone who has read my contributions carefully will see the exact opposite. So to be absolutely clear I am not criticising either the Chairman or the Board just suggesting a change.

2.What has happened with the thread is far more comments have been made on the recent selection of the woman's team. I think the one point which would have universal agreement is that a controversial decision was taken. Again there have been a number of thoughtful comments but this time far more not so thoughtful. On balance I would have thought it is useful for the Board ( assuming the thread is of any interest to them) to know there is a range of views .
I suppose I might think differently if I was a member of the board or the selection committee but is it really such a bad thing that you now know there are people who are not happy. Again it is clear that some people disagree with me but I do believe that in the long run greater transparency would help. It is now some three weeks since the trials finished but there are still no draft minutes on the EBU website. If we want the membership to support the national teams then surely it is reasonable to keep them informed of the decision making process.
March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DavidB

If we wanted to determine how ‘anyone would do it’

We would announce how the event would be scored before the event started and

By now have produced minutes showing who made the decision to announce new winners and a brief resume of how that decision was reached.
March 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul
I have already explained why it would be inappropriate for me to be on the selection committee so you have nothing to worry about in that respect. I am surprised you are so dismissive of conference calls a resource used by so many business organisations in the modern world.
I don't know how many members were involved in the decision to change the winners . Are you able to tell us ?
I do know for such a complex decision I would prefer a conference call / Skype ahead of emails.
I would prefer face to face meetings over conference calls / Skype but in this instance that presumably was not possible.
March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have by and large restricted myself to commenting on my original proposal which was to change the present selection committee structure. However the majority of the comments are related to the selection of the women's team following the recent trials. So I have decided to enter the fray!

1.We should not lose sight of the fact that this unfortunate situation arose because of exceptionally bad weather conditions. It seems to me that we should congratulate Yvonne Wiseman foreseeing the problem.
Immediately this creates an issue. If we are going to allow anateur players to participate in trials we surely cannot expect Yvonne to do any more than she did. It seems eminently reasonable to me that in these extreme circumstances the selection committee decided a substitute should be allowed.

2.Under the current conditions of contest this seems to have caused a major problem. If you read above Richard Fleet and Andy Bowles interpret these conditions completely differently to each other.

3. David Burn has told us that he has been asked to re-write the conditions of contest and doubtless this is one of the issues that he will consider.

4. Back to the substitute issue. It would appear that the selection committee decided that it was in order to allow Kay Preddy to play as a substitute. It also appears that the participants in the trials were not informed of precisely what effect this would have on the final result.

5.it is also unclear who made the decision that Yvonne Wiseman had to sit around for half the first Round Robin before she was allowed to play. Did that conform with the conditions of contest?

6.Sally Brock now tells us that she had no communication with the acting chairman of the selection committee in the run-up to the trials but information was passed to her by the selection committee chairman who was participating in the trials. Would it not have been better for the acting chairman or a suitably delegated member of the committee to undertake this task.

7. Once the trials were over the selection committee decided to analyse the results. Again surely not unreasonable. Correspondence was by emails and with the greatest respect I do not think this is the best way to have a robust discussion. Surely in the 21st-century a conference call of some sort could've been arranged.

8 . Again to me it seems perfectly reasonable for the selection committee to have analysed the results. For example I was speaking to one of the open trialists last night and he mentioned a board from the open trials where the opposition bid 4 clubs - 6 clubs. The slam depends on the fitnesse and one pair is 22 imps ahead of the other with no particular bridge merit. However unless I am mistaken we do not know what the analysis revealed. Presumably it was significant as it resulted in a different team winning the trialls.

9. I feel there has been a lack of transparency in the whole procedure.I think I'm right in saying that David Burn who has put his head above the parapet In this thread disagrees with me on this point. That is fair enough because as I have said previously I believe he is an excellent member of the committee and has demonstrated he takes his responsibilities very seriously .

10. David Burn says above that a vice president said' ‘ Do they really believe that the selection committee thinks to itself’ let's try to sneak the chair of the committee on to the team without anyone noticing.'
I'm not quite sure who the ‘ they ’ are . I think the ‘ they ’ do NOT think any such thing. I think the ‘they ’ think the process has been flawed .
March 23
Clive Owen edited this comment March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom

I expect a conscientious member of a committee would canvas views as part of his/her fact finding.
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tony asks how long ta meeting would take if I chairedthe selection committee. Putting aside briefly I would not accept the post as being both too old and too far away from the action.

If I was able to write the rules amongst other things

1. There would be less people on the committee

2. No one participating in trials would be allowed to serve on the committee

3. We would use a more efficient method of communicating than emails

4. Minutes would be published within 7 days of the meeting

Given those conditions it is unlikely in the current climate anyone would ask me in the first place
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JL

Your point is well made and taken . However also consider tha last post from DB - being close to a team does give you insights which can be invaluable. If you have read previous posts you will have seen I do not have the problems with perceived conflicts of interest that some do.

What I have learnt from this thread are there are conditions of contest which are either poorly drafted or too restrictive.
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard

Your comments above underline why we need the whole process to be reviewed. I am now of the opinion a sub committee should be set up with a remit to review the whole process of selection and submit recommendations to the EBU board. Ideally the chairman would have a background in law.
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that reasoning is sound.
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It has been interesting following the interchange between David Gold and Sarah Teshome. I do hope the analysis which led to the change in the result was much more detailed. We have all played in events where our Butler score looks good but the truth is the opposition have been very kind and vice versa.

I can remember playing in the Tollemache final a few years ago where after the first session amazingly me and my patner were leading the Butlers by a mile. We then had 6 small slams and a grand bid against us all cold and finished nowhere.,
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeremy

For what it's worth I think your contribution does add clarity to the situation.

You clearly understand there are two distinct points in this thread.

I do hope you will consider it ‘necessary’ to let your fellow board members who are unaware of this thread that there are some of us who think there is a better committee structure and not confuse this with the current ‘local difficulties ’. This is a constructive suggestion.If the combined wisdom is the present system is better sobeit.
March 20
1 2 3 4 5
.

Bottom Home Top