Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jonathan Steinberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very well said, John! It pains me to say this but a sense of justice, ethics & basic fairness appears to be in short supply among ACBL Board members and management in Horn Lake.

They call it a D. 22 issue. There are more important bigger issues in the ACBL. I was asked this evening why I don't move on. They look for the fine print and can reach any conclusion they wish. They choose to believe “A” but not “B”.

I would love to be proven wrong and see the ACBL take a stand for the integrity of the GNT event and the game.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, the word pedantic comes to mind as I peruse your never ending posts filled with worldly intimate knowledge of the CoC.

I prefer to look at the BIG picture, examine all the variables, and do what is just and fair. This is a no brainer.

Had the CoC ever been followed (NEVER) or prominently posted (clearly, not) or a VP scale posted onsite for all to see (as is customary), it would be different. But none of the above were done or even close to having been properly communicated to the players.

Not even the ACBL nor D. 22 should be able to change the rules, form of scoring, retract what the players were told AFTER the event is over. Truly mind boggling.

To repeat (since everyone else is):

“If one team scores more IMPs than the other, they win the match.”

“Nobody in the history of the bridge world has lost a 3-way KO when they went 2-0. Nobody. Ever.”

“We played youse guys head-to-head and won by 3 IMPs. But the rules say we tied. The only explanation for the result is that it emanated from California.”

and in Mark Raphaelson words:

“So we can pontificate if this was the correct ruling based on the COC all day, but to many of us, it doesn't matter. We all know the true winner of the event, and until that is corrected, this thread may continue, rehashing the same points over and over again.”
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In that case John K should have followed his rules in previous years and not ignored them. He should have made it clear that 2019 would be scored under different rules… indeed rules that had never been used before in the history of bridge. He didn't.

No apology required.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Utter nonsense Mike. The CoC were the same for several years but it was never scored by VP. I doubt if it was ever meant to be and it sure as hell wasn't. History and precedent.

Nor can you change the scoring method mid-stream or GASP after the players went home. You can't tell a team that it is W/L and they have won and then change the result and scoring method after the players have gone home!

Mike, you & Ray can repeat yourselves until we reach 5000 repetitive comments (and I suspect you will since Eugene told me I am unable to close the thread.. only Bridge Winners can do that). Ray can keep saying a win is a tie or any fallacious statements he wishes to spout.

But the fact remain:

“If one team scores more IMPs than the other, they win the match.”

“Nobody in the history of the bridge world has lost a 3-way KO when they went 2-0. Nobody. Ever.”

“We played youse guys head-to-head and won by 3 IMPs. But the rules say we tied. The only explanation for the result is that it emanated from California.”

and in Mark Raphaelson words:

“So we can pontificate if this was the correct ruling based on the COC all day, but to many of us, it doesn't matter. We all know the true winner of the event, and until that is corrected, this thread may continue, rehashing the same points over and over again.”
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, when the D. 22 CoC have NEVER been followed to the letter… when NOBODY in North America can recall playing a 3 way KO final or GNT final where imps converted to VPs were used, how can you state it was in effect on May 25-26.

NO VP scale posted on site. Changes to the VP scale used after the fact… someone (probably Ray?) pointed out everyone makes errors but corrects them… true but if the “correction” is after everyone has gone home!!!

Only the “winning” team claims to have known the CoC (the “losing” team and 3rd place team beg to differ); the “winning” teams turns in a score of plus 25 (when it was really plus 17) after the other team has gone home. No explanation has ever been given.

But perhaps these secondary non relevant issues are being investigated by other bodies. Or not.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, How much slack? 12 days?

It is now 5:20 PM Memphis/Horn Lake time Monday after work hours. Still no results posted. The link to results would follow the info link. Still blank

May 25-26, 2019 San Juan Capistrano CA Info 22 0 GNT/NAP GNT District Fi…
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ELLIS, yes it was sent to “YOU” along with multiple other people. NOT a private e-mail by any stretch of the imagination.

RAY, A better question might be: Who made the decision that a formal e-mail from the D. 22 Board explaining the results of an ACBL event should be confidential or private?

RICHARD, YES, you are correct. While I omitted all the recipients and their e-mails (I'm told one does not post personal e-mails on BW), it was sent to multiple individuals – I think to all the members of all 3 teams and probably D. 22 Board members, some ACBL folks, etc. And, YES, one should not edit but rather post the entire D. 22 response.

Obviously it was forwarded to me by one of the parties involved who received it. Best to be made public by someone who does not have a dog in the fight.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ellis, why would I ever ask for your permission to publicize a public decision by a District Board? Mike C asked earlier in this post "Or this thread Jonathan created to discuss the ruling is just Open Season License to Bitch Time?

I will repeat my response.

Mike, given the unprecedented D. 22 GNT fiasco where the winners are named and posted… then removed… then there are NO results for almost two weeks… the huge publicity and opinions… are you suggesting that the decision of D. 22 as to its GNT Winners should be confidential, not open to the public and hidden in some safe under lock & key?

This thread was created to inform the bridge community of the D. 22 decision. If it leads to (IMHO) well justified criticism of both the ACBL and the D. 22 decision, so be it.

Maybe the powers that be will learn something and do better in the future. One can always hope.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good Monday morning from Greenville, SC where their outstanding Regional is about to begin.

I just checked ACBL Tournament Results web site and found the May 25-26 D. 22 GNT Finals listed with links to tournament flyer but still NO RESULTS posted.

Could the D. 22 decision have been a mistaken communication? An accidental click on the send button? Are the results still not officially recognized by the ACBL? No masterpoint awards?

One cam always dream.

Back to the bridge table…
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At one time, there was… but it has been out of whack for decades. Today you have very small Districts both geographically and membership wise that should clearly be merged. Less than 3,000 members! Other Districts have 10,000+ (D. 9 Florida must be over 15,000).

Yet EVERY attempt to restructure/reduce the size of the Board has been defeated. Even an excellent modest proposal to reduce from 25 to 19 many years ago failed. Just as the current proposals to restructure the ACBL Governance model has no chance to reach fruition.

The retirement at the end of this year of progressive reformers such as Jay Whipple and Russ Jones leaves little room for optimism.

The 25 member Board of Directors governance model has been a failure. One might laugh today but it took more than a decade and multiple defeats before the ACBL Board belatedly raised the Senior age from 55 to 60, grandfathering all those in between!

The $800,000+ Bahar financial debacle (a product of the ACBL Board of Directors) was just the latest in a long list of examples. Has anyone taken responsibility? Has the Board apologized or even acknowledged its mistakes?

Only excuses and finger pointing. Yet a majority of the elected 25 politicians will never give up their perks or power.
June 10
Jonathan Steinberg edited this comment June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One major problem is Tournament Chairs scheduling new KOs every day when attendance isn't strong enough. It creates so many problems. Better to start new KOs every second day with a Swiss, Bracketed Swiss or Compact KO on the days in between.

I am not a fan of Soloway style KOs. They were originally designed for Bracket One ONLY when there were not enough teams strong enough to conduct a normal 9+ team KO.

No reason to use Soloway format when you have enough teams to run a normal KO. If you Q, great. If not you have options (take evening off, play in Losers Swiss) but now you are forced to play at least two sessions even if you have no hope of qualifying at the half. Some call it a cash grab.

Some guidance from the ACBL would be helpful to Tournament Chairs. Suggested schedules for tournaments of a certain size would be a great start. What works and what doesn't. The ACBL has info from all over the country. Why not use it to improve tournament schedules?
June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, in your diatribe above towards me, if you click on YOU it takes you to ACBL Live where it shows a team I was on that won a Swiss event in Gatlinburg. Walt was a member of the team. Did it take you a long time to research my partners and teammates? What's your point? Because Walt was a teammate at a Regional that I am biased in his favour?

Had you digged deeper, you would have discovered that I played on a Vanderbilt team in Memphis with Finn's dad. Not too long ago at a Regional, Sherman Gao, on the “winning” D. 22 GNT team, was a teammate of mine. Going further back in time, I have played on teams with Ellis. I guess that covers all three teams.

As an experienced player I have played with and know hundreds of bridge players. Does that make me biased, unqualified to state an opinion… or perhaps does it make me more knowledgeable than people who don't know any of the participants?

RE: communicating with the ACBL President and Executive Director. Do you think the ACBL should NOT be aware of all the problems, confusion, allegations, changing CoC and winners, etc that went on in the D. 22 GNT?

My belief is that in order to prevent future fiasco's, the ACBL must provide better guidance, recommendations, “best practice” to Tournament Chairs and Coordinators.
June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, given the unprecedented D. 22 GNT fiasco where the winners are named and posted… then removed… then there are NO results for almost two weeks… the huge publicity and opinions… are you suggesting that the decision of D. 22 as to its GNT Winners should be confidential, not open to the public and hidden in some safe under lock & key?

This thread was created to inform the bridge community of the D. 22 decision. If it leads to (IMHO) well justified criticism of both the ACBL and the D. 22 decision, so be it.

Maybe the powers that be will learn something and do better in the future. One can always hope.
June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, as has been pointed out several times, despite the written CoC, in reality it has never been done that way. The only precedent is to do what has always been done in a 3-way final. Win two matches and you win. Otherwise total imps decides 1st, 2nd, 3rd. That is the history & precedent in D. 22 and commonplace throughout the ACBL.

Two respected lawyers, the USA's Marty Harris & Canada's Nick Krnjevic have made cogent arguments as to the flaws in the D. 22 decision.

You can be argumentative and debate every point raised and every objection to the D. 22 decision with all the lawyers and experienced players in the world. There are few restriction on Bridge Winners but at this point, it is just repetitive. You will not change our minds nor will we change yours.
June 8
Jonathan Steinberg edited this comment June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Same CoC in 2016 and in 2019. But in 2016 “on Sunday, beat both of their opponents to finish in 1st place.”

What changed?
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please refer to: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/gnt-d-22-gnt-fiasco-the-official-ruling/ for the official ruling. Time for a new thread.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ACBL Tournament page still has no result posted. If there was a ruling someone must have issued it. It must be in writing. Is anyone able to post it here?
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Really, Sympathy for the D. 22 Board? Why? In my years of serving on various Boards, the worst are the individuals who volunteer or campaign to get elected and then do absolutely nothing! Why did they want the job in the first place?

The CoC were poorly written, confusing and apparently not followed (W/L, then imps converting to VP) until belatedly this year (first posting imps, later changing to VPs, later changing the VP scale used!). Unbelievable!

Someone posted they had been playing 30+ years and never heard of using an imp to VP formula for a 3 way final. I have been playing for 43 years and concur. Nor have I ever seen a VP scale that calls a 3 imp win a tie. The world changes…

But poor CoC, inept DIC, no VP scale available/posted on the wall for the players to see, multiple allegations of rudeness to the players…

Putting aside all of the above, it has now been almost two weeks since the event ended. There is no official winner. Unprecedented.

The ACBL And the D. 22 Board have acted as poorly and ineffectually in resolving the various disputes as they have in creating them in the first place.

It's truly embarrassing, bad for the game and as Peg posted, will only turn off more young players like Finn and hasten the demise of tournament bridge as we know it today.

Day 12 and counting…
June 7
Jonathan Steinberg edited this comment June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the update, Rick. It has now been TEN days since the event ended and there is still no winner. Unprecedented! ACBL = A Model of Efficiency (NOT). I had been communicating with Joe Jones on FB Messenger but he is on vacation this week and has gone mute.

Perhaps in Las Vegas, they will put a sign on the chairs where the D. 22 team members would have been sitting: Awaiting Results…
June 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Try Cotton Candy & Peanuts!
June 4
.

Bottom Home Top