Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jonathan Steinberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, the world miscalculates, puts scores on the wrong side of the ledger, gets the vulnerability wrong, not sure if a contract was down 1 or 2 or even made!

That is why teams COMPARE scores and imp differences with the other team before turning in an official result. Really, not a difficult thing to do even in short time sensitive Swiss matches and even simpler in a long KO match!
June 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray… you play a long match. When it is finished you compare scores and verify with the losing team. The margin was 17 impos. The losing team went home. The winning team turned in a score of plus 25!

Several days later the losing team discovered that the score posted was incorrect. The “winning” team quickly agreed. Several DAYS later.

Those are the facts. Draw your own conclusions.

Perhaps you can call that “caught and corrected”. In my mind if you wallow in mud, it sticks! Or do you prefer to be willfully blind?

Several years ago, I played in a two session Regional Swiss during an NABC. Comparing scores we asked how teammates failed in 3NT. He claimed if the the spades break I have 9 tricks; otherwise, down 1. The two professional opponents both said, not breaking, down 1 and folded their cards. The suit was 3-3!

My team “caught and corrected” the error before the next match. My furious teammate went back to the other table where both pros quickly agreed and said my team had made 3NT. A corrected score was reported.

I duly filed a Player Memo/Recorder form on the incident. Several days later, one of the offending pros came up to me whining “Why did you complain to the ACBL Recorder? You got the win!”
June 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Russ, just saying that the ACBL “deeply regrets the confusion” doesn't cut it. Does the ACBL Special Events Department actually READ the proposed CoC before rubber stamping them? Where was the VP scale that was going to be used mentioned?

The ethical issues surrounding the “winning” team are beyond the scope of this thread. But multiple other issues are valid.

Even Mike C agree that there is a discrepancy between the ACBL KO Team Conditions and the D. 22 GNT CoC. What is the ACBL's position?

The ACBL is the governing body that runs the GNT Finals at the Summer NABC. Should they not have the final decision in any disputes that would affect the GNT Finals? Does the ACBL not recognize the losing's team right to go to Binding Arbitration? If not, why not?

The GNT D. 22 CoC have not changed in several years and by all reports have never been followed. Only the “winning” team claims to have known the formula for the final day. The “losing” team that WON BOTH MATCHES and the 3rd place team with no reason to be dishonest, both claim otherwise.

No one disagrees that no VP scale was posted on site. That the “losing” team was told they had won. That the “winning” team turned in an incorrect score from one of their final day two matches. That the decision to change the results was made AFTER the event had ended and players had gone home!

Is this not an ACBL problem? It is a cop out and a very sad one for those of us who believe that fair play, justice and ethics should always prevail.

Only in the ACBL fantasy land of masterpoints and legalistic mumble jumbo does winning both matches in a 3 way final mean losing. And an organization that just doesn't care.
June 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, from reading the above it appears (to me at least) that your original position of “pedantically” ;) upholding a literal reading of the CoC (despite never having been followed before, not clearly communicated to the players, and no VP scale posted on site) has evolved into recognizing the injustices that were perpetuated and recognizing the need to “do what is just and fair in making a decision consistent with the spirit of these CoC.”

For that I applaud you and share your hope that there is still time “to DO THE RIGHT THING!”
June 16, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment has been marked as inappropriate by the moderator(s).
June 13, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Jonathan Steinberg edited this comment June 10, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Jonathan Steinberg edited this comment June 8, 2019
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, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top