Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jonathan Steinberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I reported the Robert Todd/Bob Todd error before 12 noon this morning - I was instantly informed that while they would correct the name, they would NOT make any seeding changes! Why not? an extra 10-15 minutes of work?
March 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As one of the technological illiterates my question, as a practical matter: is the work that has been done really useless? Hammond is promoting his software at ACBL Regionals for free, claims the project is 90% complete, the major disagreement is over “ownership”. Is there value in his work? Can it be salvaged?



Sept. 16, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have met and played against Nic Hammond – seems like a very nice man. Clearly, he loves his software. As Adam reported he was demonstrating it in Gatlinburg and most recently at the 2014 Atlanta Labour Day Regional. In Atlanta, he was providing this service for no charge.

My photos #61, #62 & #64 at http://imageevent.com/jon911/2014atlantaregional show his software in action (double click on the thumbnail for a larger view). It looks like an improvement to me. Why should the ACBL throw it all away?

One issue appears to be a dispute over who owns the product. I'm sure there are multiple issues.

It does seem to be a shame after spending so much money. Nic Hammond told me in Atlanta that the program was 90% complete. He also admitted that he had to hire people and the project was costing the ACBL ballpark $25-30K every month. It adds up.

But I am not a computer expert nor a member of the ACBL Board of Directors – I do think we need a lot more information than we have been given and perhaps we will learn more in Providence. Or a new deal will be reached. One can always hope…
Sept. 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps Don can work out the numbers better than I can but at a minimum a Board member usually arrives on Sunday. There are committee meetings on Monday & Tuesday, full Board meets Wed-Thurs. Meetings start between 8-9 AM and usually finish between 4-5 PM. There are often Sunday evening meetings and if required evening meetings.

But the formal gatherings three times a year prior to the NABC is just the tip of the iceberg. Electronic communications are year round, there are numerous committees that must work between meetings, proposing agenda items, discussing them, working on the numbers, etc. I often served on Appeals & Charges – one must do your homework, read all the submissions, think about them well before the Board meets. Finance & budget committees, masterpoint formulas, etc. Lots of committees meet during an NABC…there are special committees such as when the ACBL was investigating a new location for the head office, new CEO search committees, etc.

Don't overlook one's local unit & District. You must report to your local District, write reports, attend local unit & District Board meetings.

The three Canadian Board members must also work with the Canadian Bridge Federation, communicate with them,
and usually attend their annual meeting.

As with any group, some Board members work harder than others. I used to call the position being equivalent to a “full-time part-time job” whatever that means. Some board members are able to continue with full time employment but it does use up a significant (all?) chunk of ones vacation time. Many are retired.

As with ACBL membership, the Board is older, better educated, and wealthier than the average person. That may well apply to most “volunteer” Board of Directors in any field.

Perhaps Don or someone else can add up the hours but I think you get the general ides.

BTW, I'm not aware of anyone who believes “it's a completely altruistic sacrifice to serve on to BoD.” That's going to the other extreme.

As a bridge player, being able to combine the Board meetings with an NABC is a great perk, even if the room and per diem are just for the first three days of the NABC. The free plays throughout are well deserved.
Sept. 14, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The compensation is not overly generous. No one would volunteer to serve on any not-for-profit Board if they had to pay their own expenses to attend a meeting. One would have to be very wealthy indeed to volunteer air fare and hotel rooms nights. Which would be a very bad policy – only the rich could afford to be on the Board!

The actual compensation is for the Board member (not his/her companion), the room (actual cost) and meals (per diem as per govt. rates depending upon the city). From the day of travel up to the first Sunday of the NABC - the ACBL Board of Governors meeting (last paid for room night is the first Saturday).

Board members who do not go home on the first Sunday
(with a few exceptions, the ACBL President, Director of Appeals)are now on their own time, re: rooms and meals. Free plays are a perk (only for the Board member, not a companion)but that just applies to NABCs (not Regional or sectional tournaments).

When I was on the ACBL Board, the total ACBL expenses on “governance” have always compared favourably to industry standards. I doubt if that has changed.
Sept. 14, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard W, you are one of the more outspoken contributors to BW (is that possible?) but just because you state something, does not make it a matter of fact. In my mind, your credibility has been hurt because of past history. For years when I was on the ACBL Board, you were adamant about your theories/facts/? that ACBL demographic would fall off a cliff when the average age reached 66? 68? 70? 72?. you have been predicting the demise of the ACBL for years/decades. It hasn't happened nor do I think it will. Your theories did not materialize. That is a historical fact.

I prefer the glass half full rather than half empty. Regarding the motion, I see no effect on online growth and recruitment of new players. But that's just my view.
Sept. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JoAnna, you are correct – the motion is not about cheating. The history of the game, sadly, makes it clear that there will always be unethical players. Sometimes the reasons are psychological, other times it is all about money – the pressures and payoffs for winning are enormous. But at the moment, the controls while playing online at home are very different than the controls in F2F play. Just one of many differences which is why I believe lifetime online points should be compared against online points while F2F are compared against F2F.
Sept. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard W, you are one of the more outspoken contributors to BW (is that possible?) but just because you state something, does not make it a matter of fact. In my mind, your credibility has been hurt because of past history. For years when I was on the ACBL Board, you were adamant about your theories/facts/? that ACBL demographic would fall off a cliff when the average age reached 66? 68? 70? 72?. you have been predicting the demise of the ACBL for years/decades. It hasn't happened nor do I think it will. Your theories did not materialize. That is a historical fact.

I prefer the glass half full rather than half empty. Regarding the motion, I see no effect on online growth and recruitment of new players. But that's just my view.
Sept. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fred and everyone,

I am back home from the almost 3000 table Atlanta Regional. A great week for me and my partner, Daniel Korbel, who became a Grand Life Master. We won 2 KO's, an Open Pairs, KO 2nd and 105 points. Maybe even more points than Leo won online last week :)!

There were multiple jokes about online bridge and separate masterpoint lists. How about a list for hearing impaired Canadians over 50 :)?

I met a nice pair of ladies from Knoxville who told me they enjoyed the Speedball Pairs – it is fun to play in your PJ's and while watching TV. But they don't take playing online seriously.

FULL DISCLOSURE: unlike many others, I have zero financial incentive in the motion to separate online and F2F lifetime masterpoints. I have no financial interest in BBO, ACBL, online bridge nor any F2F bridge club (although many have told me that online bridge is one reason for the declining F2F club table count).

Fred has criticized me for not having won a National event (sorry, only three seconds). And believes because I choose not to spend my time playing online bridge, that makes me unqualified to comment or propose motions. Even Fred must realize how incorrect that line of thinking is. I do talk to people, I do listen – some of our best bridge teachers will never compete at the NABC level, I'm told there have been world class coaches who could not play the sport they were in charge of - its not relevant, Fred.

FULL DISCLOSURE: According to My ACBL, as of today I have
18,470 points; 1,245 Platinum, 10,382 Gold, 1,603 Red, 1,360 Silver, 3,879 black, 0 online. Some of you may not be aware but Platinum points were an ACBL marketing invention (late 1980's, 1990's?). So my earliest NABC successes were Gold points, not Platinum.

What must be clear from all the comments (many repeated over and over again) is that the world of F2F bridge is different from the world of online bridge. Leo may call it the superior form of the game; others may differ.

In Las Vegas two young collegiate players were suspended following an examination of their online play (sadly, it was unmonitored). As we know most Junior and GNT online competitions are strictly monitored under controlled conditions. You are not playing in your PJ's or while executing a double squeeze on the can a la Danny Miles!

Hold your fire, folks! I know that club players are as unethical as online players. But it is different. And all the motion does is recognize that fact.

Even one of Fred's comments said that this motion is really a minor change – he was worried about the future.
No one can predict the future.

I keep reading “the Steinberg motion”. Maybe I should feel honoured that so many of you give me such powers but the reality is that it was the Board of Governors motion, about 55-60 in favor, 3 or 4 against.

That F2F players want this change must be a given. I hear it all the time, in person, from private e-mails and in my travels to F2F tournaments. Two different worlds. Why force the points to be combined?

The motion before the ACBL Board is simple. No one loses any masterpoints. No one loses their rank. The requirements ongoing for LM, etc do not change – online points still count. The ONLY change is that lifetime masterpoint lists will separate online and F2F points, the IDENTICAL way that yearly masterpoints lists and races are separated.

Marketing bridge? No young player will stop playing or refuse to start because online and F2F points are tabulated separately. Lawsuits? What a joke: Well, yes your Honour I still have my points and my status but they are now on a separate list. Yes, your Honour, masterpoints have no value. Why are you laughing at me, your Honour?

It's great to be back home. Life is good. May I invite you all to visit my photos from Atlanta at: http://imageevent.com/jon911/2014atlantaregional

Cheers and good night!
Sept. 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fred and everyone,

I am back home from the almost 3000 table Atlanta Regional. A great week for me and my partner, Daniel Korbel, who became a Grand Life Master. We won 2 KO's, an Open Pairs, KO 2nd and 105 points. Maybe even more points than Leo won online last week :)!

There were multiple jokes about online bridge and separate masterpoint lists. How about a list for hearing impaired Canadians over 50 :)?

I met a nice pair of ladies from Knoxville who told me they enjoyed the Speedball Pairs – it is fun to play in your PJ's and while watching TV. But they don't take playing online seriously.

FULL DISCLOSURE: unlike many others, I have zero financial incentive in the motion to separate online and F2F lifetime masterpoints. I have no financial interest in BBO, ACBL, online bridge nor any F2F bridge club (although many have told me that online bridge is one reason for the declining F2F club table count).

Fred has criticized me for not having won a National event (sorry, only three seconds). And believes because I choose not to spend my time playing online bridge, that makes me unqualified to comment or propose motions. Even Fred must realize how incorrect that line of thinking is. I do talk to people, I do listen – some of our best bridge teachers will never compete at the NABC level, I'm told there have been world class coaches who could not play the sport they were in charge of - its not relevant, Fred.

FULL DISCLOSURE: According to My ACBL, as of today I have
18,470 points; 1,245 Platinum, 10,382 Gold, 1,603 Red, 1,360 Silver, 3,879 black, 0 online. Some of you may not be aware but Platinum points were an ACBL marketing invention (late 1980's, 1990's?). So my earliest NABC successes were Gold points, not Platinum.

What must be clear from all the comments (many repeated over and over again) is that the world of F2F bridge is different from the world of online bridge. Leo may call it the superior form of the game; others may differ.

In Las Vegas two young collegiate players were suspended following an examination of their online play (sadly, it was unmonitored). As we know most Junior and GNT online competitions are strictly monitored under controlled conditions. You are not playing in your PJ's or while executing a double squeeze on the can a la Danny Miles!

Hold your fire, folks! I know that club players are as unethical as online players. But it is different. And all the motion does is recognize that fact.

Even one of Fred's comments said that this motion is really a minor change – he was worried about the future.
No one can predict the future.

I keep reading “the Steinberg motion”. Maybe I should feel honoured that so many of you give me such powers but the reality is that it was the Board of Governors motion, about 55-60 in favor, 3 or 4 against.

That F2F players want this change must be a given. I hear it all the time, in person, from private e-mails and in my travels to F2F tournaments. Two different worlds. Why force the points to be combined?

The motion before the ACBL Board is simple. No one loses any masterpoints. No one loses their rank. The requirements ongoing for LM, etc do not change – online points still count. The ONLY change is that lifetime masterpoint lists will separate online and F2F points, the IDENTICAL way that yearly masterpoints lists and races are separated.

Marketing bridge? No young player will stop playing or refuse to start because online and F2F points are tabulated separately. Lawsuits? What a joke: Well, yes your Honour I still have my points and my status but they are now on a separate list. Yes, your Honour, masterpoints have no value. Why are you laughing at me, your Honour?

It's great to be back home. Life is good. May I invite you all to visit my photos from Atlanta at: http://imageevent.com/jon911/2014atlantaregional

Cheers and good night!
Sept. 4, 2014
Jonathan Steinberg edited this comment Sept. 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry about the spacing – it looked good on my computer but the columns are not separated when it is posted.
Aug. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry Tracy, but your comparisons and numbers are flawed. Online bridge is generally compared to ACBL club bridge. Masterpoint awards are limited, the competition is much weaker than in a bracket one Regional or any NABC+ event. So your comparison of Meckstroth vs Lasota is not valid
(certainly not fair).

If you examine the top 2013 online club winners compared to the the top 2013 F2F club winners you can see that online players (the right hand column) win significantly more points than F2F club players.

1) 676.38 2,179.51
637.23 1,384.29
586.77 1,296.37
568.33 1,286.14
482.07 1,239.87
459.40 1,162.77
442.15 1,062.70
425.01 1,047.87
399.58 915.91
10)385.27 896.58
385.20 883.79
383.21 882.17
380.46 874.83
379.21 863.34
379.17 844.18
378.26 842.94
368.19 829.91
366.76 806.64
363.24 797.32
20)352.11 796.79

50)297.66 549.32

100)262.14 408.79

Is this a tsunami of masterpoints? Open to interpretation. I kind of liked the word tsunami(I also like gobsmacked - thanks, Mario).

Fair comparisons is what F2F players want. We believe comparing online players to other online players for yearly and lifetime masterpoint lists is fairer than combining them.
Aug. 25, 2014
Jonathan Steinberg edited this comment Aug. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Danny,

Your multiple public personal attacks towards me and complete misrepresentation of the motion in play (which does not stop online games from awarding masterpoints – one may argue the opposite – a new online lifetime list for people who like to see their names in lights and will play more)are getting tiresome. The fact that some members of this community enjoy personal attacks saddens me.

I found this message you sent me in 2012. Amusing. Perhaps even ironic since you are so opposed to separate lifetime lists today.
____________________________________________________

From: Danny Miles (e-mail removed)
Subject: Re: The Home Stretch
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:44:57 -0500
To: Jonathan Steinberg <jonathan.st@sympatico.ca>; (e-mail always welcome)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2012 03:45:15.0143 (UTC)

“Phone calls and emails?? F that, I play robot tournies on my iPhone when I'm on the subway, waiting in line for food, at the gym, and yes even on the can. Gives new meaning to trying for the double squeeze!”
_____________________________________________________

Bravo! But surely some of the BW readers can understand why F2F players believe that online and F2F masterpoint lists should be separate.
Aug. 24, 2014
Jonathan Steinberg edited this comment Aug. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Leo,

This is not a marketing motion – the ACBL attempts to market the game in multiple ways. This motion is to correct the current inconsistency between yearly and lifetime masterpoint lists. Nothing else.

I do not believe this motion will have any significant effect on the number of people playing bridge. “Lifetime” lists have little interest for new players. But it would be fairer and more consistent than the current combined method – although I do believe many online players will be interested in seeing where they stand if Lifetime Online masterpoint lists are created and publicized. It may even increase the amount some people play. Only time will tell.
Aug. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apple Pie, Motherhood, Kissing babies. Sweet sentiments, Peg, that we all agree with. The many positives of BBO and the Online world are not the issue and have no relevance to the actual BoG motion which is to create “two categories of lifetime lists: Online points and face-to-face points”.

If you check the ACBL web site/masterpoints and results, you will find there are multiple lists – Ace of Clubs (F2F) in multiple categories (0-5,5-20,20-50,50-100 and so on until 10,000 plus). Ditto for Online points in the identical multiple categories. Separate lists.

The only place where online points are merged with F2F points is in the Lifetime lists. The BoG motion would make the lifetime lists consistent with all the other ACBL masterpoint lists.

There is nothing in the motion about cheating, second class citizens, robot games, patriotism, marketing bridge, conscription, the value (or not) of masterpoints. No points are removed. No ACBL rank changes are affected.

I received a private e-mail saying: “Sounds like a losing battle to convince online players. It is the F2F players that want the change and they do not need convincing.” Apparently so.

The ACBL recognizes that online points are different from F2F points in its multiple yearly category of races. But inexplicably combines them for lifetime races. That is inconsistency that the BoG motion addresses.
Aug. 24, 2014
Jonathan Steinberg edited this comment Aug. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed! Many believe that playing against robots is more skillful than playing against humans. Who am I to argue? I am a lowly human - Canadian, eh? F2F club bridge sucks. Humans get confused at the bridge table and even (gasp!) revoke. What an inferior game.

Clearly, online performance is the ultimate test of skill. Given that, why would any online player want to taint their hard earned online points by combining them with F2F points?

Anyone for separate masterpoint lists :)?
Aug. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I served on the ACBL Board from 1994-2008. The number of e-mails I received from members regarding ACBL Board motions was tiny – occasionally there would be a flurry of comments over some controversial issue, but it was rare.

My online reports from Board meetings had a loyal following of a few hundred people. My photos of bridge players http://imageevent.com/jon911 gets thousands of hits.

Most players want to enjoy the game but have little interest in bridge politics (notwithstanding this forum!). The ACBL is lucky to have so many unpaid volunteers behind the scene of successful tournaments.

The ACBL Board should welcome input from its members – it is easy to scan and delete or file. If an individual abuses his/her privilege of writing to the full ACBL Board, it is easy to block abusers.

Eliminating an easy to way to contact the entire ACBL Board is a step backwards. You can still do it – see the ACBL Bulletin for contact info - but it would require 25 e-mail addresses - do it once, save the recipient list, and repeat. But most won't make the effort.

Don: as the one Board member commenting on this thread (I know other Board members are reading it), is this true? Why would the ACBL Board take such a reactionary position?
Aug. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fred, the “select handful” that you summarily dismiss includes the entire 75+ year history of live ACBL F2F play.

There is no question that the easy availability of online games at home, the frequency of available games, and the speedball aspect all make it much easier to accumulate online points. Online point winners will overwhelm F2F – just do the math. That is all the more reason why online points should be compared to other players who play online and not with live F2F players.

When I was on the ACBL Board computer technology and masterpoint lists began to proliferate. The original lifetime masterpoint lists were presented to the ACBL Board with only living people! I had to fight to persuade the Board that the accomplishments of the deceased do not disappear when one passes on! Can you imagine any sport that would only rank the living? I won that battle as the deceased (at the time some complained they felt “uncomfortable” seeing the names of dead people!) do appear on all lists, and rightfully so. History should not be summarily dismissed as a “select handful”.

As Melanie M. wrote: “It is my impression (please correct me if I'm wrong), that there has been strong advocacy/lobbying by online bridge interests, every time anything comes up before the Board that affects the online bridge community.”

Understandably so. This is Big Business with potentially millions of dollars in play.

It is not discrimination nor treating anyone as “second class” citizens to want to keep separate lists and have separate masterpoint races. There is no need to choose between any fictitious Group “A” or Group “B”. You may do so if you wish, but I would recommend embracing both.

I personally have no problem with robot bridge – if that's what the customers want and enjoy, why not let them have it? True, it is very different from human online bridge but as many have pointed out F2F club bridge is very different from F2F NABC play (Platinum Points!). The F2F bridge world is as varied as its members and their different needs and goals - so is the online world. But online and F2F are not the same.

Online may be the future but it would be tragic if live F2F tournaments and bridge clubs died. The Europeans, far better with promoting junior players than North America, recognize the importance of getting the kids outside and away from their computers. No one can predict the future but I hope the travel and sociability aspects of the game remain.

I'm 63. My personal goals for the next, with luck, 20+ years of my life are to stay healthy, active and competitive. How my bridge record is perceived when I'm gone does not concern me in the least but I don't believe it should disappear under the Online Tsunami of masterpoints!
Aug. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm listed under my pseudonym “VACANT” :)
But I am legitimate – the ACBL even sent me a Board of Governors badge.
Aug. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, I know I said goodbye several days ago but I feel compelled to state the obvious.

There is an awful lot of money in the world of bridge today. Some of today's top clients are listed in Forbes Top 1000 wealthiest people in the world! Professional bridge at the highest levels creates incentives for unethical behavior, perhaps more so to foreign players who arrive from poorer countries, perhaps not. But I digress… that is a topic for a different post.

There is also an awful lot of money associated with the selling of masterpoints online – for the ACBL, it is several hundred thousand dollars per year. For Fred and BBO who knows? Their financial statements are private. Some posts in this forum suggest that it may be in the millions. There is a lot of money in play. BBO has been great for bridge and the ACBL. But the ACBL and masterpoints have also been great for BBO.

Gavin honestly admitted that he gets paid to play online. So do a lot of other people. They have a clear self interest to protect their livelihood.

The reality that I see in my travels is that people love all the good stuff about online bridge and BBO but they recognize the differences. Separate masterpoint lists is not discrimination – it has always been that way with “colorless, unpigmented” online points. It has always been that way with yearly masterpoint races where online players compete against online players. F2F players compete against F2F players.

Why should lifetime lists be any different? They shouldn't be. The motion - if people actually read it carefully - does not comment on the quality of online play, it does not take away anyone's masterpoints nor their ACBL ranking.
It denigrates no one. Nothing would change except that lifetime online and F2F lists would be separate. Why would people call this a second class list or discrimination? It isn't. The “separate but equal” posts comparing this action to the famous US Supreme Court ruling is BS.

The vociferous uproar on this online forum amazes me - the discussion re: robot games and how to market the game of bridge is very interesting but not relevant to the actual motion. The motion is very specific and limited in scope.

People say masterpoints have been devalued and inflated. True, but irrelevant. Who was the best heavyweight fighter of all time? Comparing greats from different eras will always be problematic. But live F2F bridge and online bridge are very different animals. We should recognize that.

Playing against 3 robots (your score is compared to humans also playing against 3 robots) requires skills but it is a very different type of skill from F2F. The Laws Commission has even ruled it to be an “illegal” form of bridge.

Human to human online bridge has been compared to bad club games – some argue that is false, other say it is even worse. But what is clear is the you can play several games online for the same (or less) money and in much less time than would be involved to drive to a F2F bridge club. Thus online players have far more opportunity to win masterpoints. They can win 1000+ plus points much easier than if you had to only play F2F.

We have the best of both worlds – we can play both forms of the game as much as time, money, and/or inclination allow. But the points should be separate.

What is crystal clear is the lack of controls while playing online at home - perhaps with your notes in front of you, with a book on suit combination play, with your partner in the next room, with a telephone next to you, with your spouse or some friends visiting who may suggest a bid or play… and so on and so forth. Or perhaps not.

But it is clearly different. Thus the need for monitors when it is a GNT event or a junior team trials that is played online.

No one is downgrading the value or importance of online bridge for multiple reasons. Clearly people are paying money and like to win points. The only thing the BoG motion recognizes is that playing online at home is very different from playing live F2F bridge – one has been around for 75+ years, the other for perhaps ten.

Both have value. Both should be celebrated. All masterpoints count for rank advancement and seeding purposes. But just as the yearly masterpoint races are separate, so should the lifetime lists.
_________________________________________________________

On a personal note I take strong exception to Bob H. (who apparently was one of the 4 negative votes in the 50-4 Board of Governors vote – even if he was not authorized to vote) who wrote: “Lesson: when you make a really bad proposal, you are going to be attacked.” Four people actually “liked” that comment. I think it was reprehensible.

Regardless of whether a proposal is “good or bad” (surprise: not everyone will agree), no individual should be subject to personal attacks on this forum. Maybe I'm dreaming…

I will now return to hibernation and will once again resolve to say no more…“The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”…

Aug. 19, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top