In my partnerships, Avon, we are required to “get it off our chest” immediately. That means anything that moves. So, virtually all the hand and hand-types suggested upthread would merit immediate action.


We also have a corollary: don't make an “impossible bid”. This X qualifies in our standards, and the onus would be on the bidder to justify any results that came forth.


(I've seen opponents make this kind of X with some frequency, and think inwardly to myself “the 1-suited takeout double”. They typically end up with a non-descript strong hand).

This may be the “birthday probability”, where, in a room of 30 random people, the odds are over 50% that two will share the same birthday anniversary. I've never researched why this is.

Still don't know if you had to sleep on the couch, a bit unfair of course with an 11-bagger :)


My guess is not, because you generally state immediately if it was a “couch hand”!

Edgar Kaplan and I had a discussion of 9-card suits as live VuGraph Commentators at the 1991 World Junior Championships. His final statement was, essentially a “you do whatever you believe best” and “there are no rules for 9-card suits.”


I once had a 10-card ♥ suit in 4th chair, P-P-P and I sensed that a real preempt was in order, so opening 5♥ and bought it, making. LHO would have overcalled 4♠, making, but went quietly.


Is a 5♥ jump in your repertoire, David, and did you have to sleep on the couch :)

Thanks, Steve, for this comprehensive report.


I immediately noticed something quite troubling, that Management refused to answer important questions posed at both the Membership Meeting, and at the BoG Meeting. The absence of transparity was glaring, to say the least.


Massive financial losses and settlements were essentially hidden, or obfuscated.


Legal proceedings leading to settlements were ineptly handled, as some of Chris Compton's comments made clear.


Sadly, this portends extremely poorly for the ACBL going forward.

It was on our KO team at the Great Lakes Regional in Kalamazoo (or was it Grand Rapids), MI, when Jakob went over the top.


I captained and partnered Bill Arlinghaus, Zeke and Sharon Jabbour were another partnership, and Jakob played with Disa.


(Jakob and Disa doubled a 2NT contract; the opponents would not double me at the other table, despite that, all other great boards led to a resounding win in the final match).


(Sorry to mention this in a congratulatory article, but it was my only Regional where I won 3 KO titles, and with 3 different teams and partners. This was well before the proliferation of daily KOs).

The normal procedure, when I was an active VuGraph Op, was for the TD to tell the table that boards would be removed from the set, one or two to start, or more to get the segment finished within the time limits.


The TD would first ask, of course, who was to blame, and precisely like this situation, nobody would truly speak up.


It's amazing how much faster the play would become, no player wanting to miss a board on which their partners had scored heavily (and possibly be blamed for losing the event) :)


Did that happen in this case, Jan?

Completely agree with you, @JoAnn Sprung, very well said!

If the options included “0-10,000” as ineligible after a major NABC win, I would vote that way, particularly if adding “won a world championship” was also a disqualifier.

Hi Nic -


I'm guessing that your question was rhetorical :)


It's clearly among the absurdities of all absurdities, just as our NABC's are now completely dominated by foreign nationals whose vastly different bidding systems and treatments gives them a huge advantage. (Note: for those aspiring to World Championships, and only, those handful, this is an advantage, to compete against these before facing them in the WC).


How many North American citizens were there in the late rounds of the Spingold, or winning titles?

Mike, I begged for this duplication, on the firing line as a VuGraph Op. The TD at the time, well known and respected, told me that they always have the capability, because they have many duplicate boards available, but choose not to use them for the security reasons, even when cubicles were 50 feet apart.


After numerous requests, I finally gave up . . .

Edgar Kaplan complained bitterly about 32 board matches in the Spinderbilts. I wonder what he'd say about the 16-board matches now used when necessary.

@A.J. Stephani: As suggested above, the portion of the previous definition that refers (my approximation) to communication “not in accordance with the Laws of Bridge”, would seem completely definitive and superior to the term “illicit”.

@Ray - I also “attended” the Las Vegas BoG Meeting, it's awesome that they now live stream it! To my recollection, no mention was made of this new definition in the Meeting.

Ray, the crossout (“line through”) indicates that the paragraph was the original motion, which was withdrawn. The underlined paragraph is the substitute motion, which passed.

The previous, but insufficient definition, did mention “communication outside the Laws of Bridge” (approximate wording), and while this is a vast improvement, I'm not sure why a phrase similar to the previous was totally deleted.


Yes, I understand that longer definitions lead more quickly to possible trouble, and it's apparent that the just passed definition was given careful consideration.

Ken Van Cleve worked most Michigan tournaments for many years. He was the epitome of grace and professionalism, and consummately fair and thorough. A model for the title of TD. All accolades are very well deserved.


I was sorry to hear from my friends, Dave and Patty Fred, who reside where Ken retired, and called me almost immediately of the sad news.

At the just concluded BoG Meeting, the vote to vacate titles and second placings for pairs convicted of collusive cheating was explained to some extent:


“The date of August 22, 2015 is symbolic (of a new era in catching collusive cheaters).


”We have less confidence in ethics due process which took place prior to August 22, 2015“.


Using ”symbolic“ is an insufficient criteria to keep 17 NABC Titles and 9 NABC Second Placing on the permanent record, when the proofs of collusive cheating of Sion-Cokin and Katz-Cohen are solid and iron clad.


This appears to be an admission that nobody was protected until August 22, 2015! Further, that some were allowed redress (the GNT match where Sion-Cokin were called out), while others were not (refusal to grant a Committee Hearing in the 1979 Norfolk BAM).


Sadly, it would appear that due process is available to some, but ”symbolically“, not to all. The vote here clearly reflects that those polled desire that all such derogatory ”titles" be removed.

In 2015, Peter Boyd made a quick compilation of NABC+ Titles held by the four pairs that were the centers of the controversy.


Boyd came up with 30 NABC Titles, now to be forever vacant!!


Second placings were not counted at the time, but will also be vacant.


This doesn't count the fact that STEVE SION WILL RETAIN EIGHT (8) NABC+ TITLES AND SIX SECOND PLACINGS, FOREVER EMBLAZONED IN THE LEAGUE'S ANNALS.


Richard Katz may have up to NINE NABC+ Titles with Cohen, and up to 3 Second Placings, again forever enshrined!!