Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Allan Bloom
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Have sent e-mails to OK Bridge and ACBL requesting status but no response from either. Question why ACBL waited until January 16, 2016 to warn its members that OK Bridge was in default regarding payments to ACBL. IMO ACBL had an obligation to its members to protect them from joining OK Bridge or making payments to OK Bridge following suspension. 16 days much too long to alert members knowing that OK Bridge was running purported ACBL master point games. Why the delay?

Jan. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Without explanation at 4:30 PM PST on January 19 purported ACBL master point games reappeared on OK Bridge.
Jan. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Monday before receiving e-mail from ACBL OK Bridge was listing ACBL master point games including January 2016. Posting were made on OK Bridge of master points earned in January 2016 as high as the 40's for certain persons. I renewed my yearly membership on the basis of ACBL master point games having being satisfied with its terms and conditions of play. Have had no communication from OK Bridge and noticed as of today there are no ACBL master point games on OK Bridge but continue to post ACBL master points totals earned by individuals during January 2016.
What gives? When did OK Bridge learn of the suspension and did it continue to sell memberships after notification of suspension by ACBL?
Jan. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming OK Bridge can make “peace” with the ACBL, I will continue my membership with OK Bridge. From a cost perspective for most bridge players, it is a better value than BBO. Daily it has 7 ACBL masterpoint games with a yearly cost of $148, including non-master point tournaments.
Jan. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To some “the good old days were the only rank was Life Master” and there was no online bridge.
Times have changed. IMO for the better.
Jan. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is truth in jest. Certain posts seek to be humorous but are in fact cheap shots at bridge players who are goal oriented in striving to move to a new ranking. What motivates such posts is not comprehensible to me. New rankings are not about seeding but celebrating and honoring personal
achievements.
Jan. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Making fun of persons like myself who are thrilled to have toiled to become a ruby life master is demeaning and child like. Based upon my life expectancy it is highly unlikely that I will ever make gold but I am proud to achieve a rank above silver. Is anyone harmed by the new categories? Like others, I appreciate being recognized by many of my peers as having attained a worthy goal. To those who consider new categories of peer rankings and the quest for master points as meaningless, so be it. But for myself, I am goal oriented and reaching a goal is satisfying.
Jan. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am In my 80's and would look forward to a new category between slm and gold. Being realistic, presently being silver I have little chance of reaching gold. However, Ruby is doable. What is the harm of creating a new category which is attainable for bridge players like myself who seek recognition by their peers during their lifetime? To some, masterpoints by category do not matter. For others, such as myself, they do matter and I would enjoy such recognition if I was able to reach a ruby category. I would forward to playing at tournaments rather than just on line if I had a realistic goal. It would be exciting. No valid reason exists for opposing players such as myself to obtain personal satisfaction in being able to obtain a new recognizable level. There are others who had to work and raise a family to the exclusion to playing bridge to the extent that they desired. Again, why be opposed to a good thing as many see it?
Nov. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I started playing at Paul's Bridge Club in Culver City. The fields were tough. On a normal night, there were A and B sections and of course I was relegated to the B section. For example, one night Paul Soloway had returned that day from the World Championship and played that night at Paul's. I understood that Paul had retired to Leisure World but I lost track of him. After awhile, I played at Karla's While Whist in Westwood and had the pleasure of playing against Mary Jane in the afternoon games; She was always gracious and offered advice on a play if requested. Her passing is a great loss.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I surmise that there is no necessity for a hearing based on the truth having been established by the evidence. Wow! L-F must defend themselves on Bridge Winners. It is not necessary to have a properly constituted forum set forth by the rules. According to Gene forget the rules. This case is an exception to the rules. L-F are not entitled to a hearing. Gene has spoken.
Sept. 7, 2015
Allan Bloom edited this comment Sept. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, due process is more important than any implication one might derive from an allegation. Due process is a fundamental right. It cannot be placed in the background no matter the allegation or how many support the allegation. The vast majority may support the allegation prior to any hearing but due process suspends judgement unless it is validated after hearing. What about this do you not understand?
Sept. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sathya Let the hearing decide the issues. Certainly, each poster has a right to comment but allegations are just that allegations.
The videos will be presented as evidence at the hearing. Till then as with other proffers of evidence, they may be rebutted. Although your conclusions may be proven. Until then they remain allegations and Lotan has right to be heard before the IBF before judgement is rendered.
Sept. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unlike others who would jump the gun and convict without a hearing, you have voiced sanity. There wan no necessity to rush to judgement Let the situation proceed in an orderly fashion and a hearing conducted in an organized fashion. The truth will win out.
Sept. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge Winners has done a great service in providing a forum for presenting evidence and discussion of this matter. However, according to your post Lotan has made an unsuccessful effort to present his position. Until such time as the matter is heard, common decency dictates that our system of justice precludes guilt or innocence judgement. Let this matter take its course without a “lynch” mentality.
Sept. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unlike other comments, Gary's comment convicts without a hearing the thinly veiled “two-man wrecking crew”. Being an American, and believing in our system, I will not rush to judgment until a forum gives the “two-man wrecking crew” an opportunity to be heard. Then and only then, after reviewing all the evidence, and a decision having been rendered can this matter be concluded. Fairness dictates no other course. Unlike Gary, I will wait.
Sept. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, unlike Gary, I believe F-S have the right to be heard before a court or properly constituted tribunal before rendering a decision. Rush to judgement is not necessary. Now, Gary's hubris has quantified the alleged cheating as 50 imps per match. All cheating is “sordid” but we do not need Gary's numerous posts to hit us over the head with his repeated comments convicting F-S without a hearing or an admission of guilt or finding (other than Gary's finding). Why go any further because Gary must be right?
Sept. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gary–Unbelievable without a hearing and having F-S testify, you have convicted F-S. This is not the USA way. We pride ourselves on having a full and complete hearing based on evidence. You are different. Your view is that no hearing is necessary and there is no need for a hearing before a tribunal. Shame on you.
Sept. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are assuming the opponents are not bidding and do not interfere. If they bid, they are taking up your bidding space and you are forced to make decisions at a higher level. You may be required to make a bidding decision prematurely.
Aug. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lebensohl. It gives the opponents plenty of room to bid and keep your from getting to the right game or partial
Aug. 27, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top