Saturday, 27 September 2014
COMMITTEE SPEAK ( Terms and their meaning as used by Bigot-Johnson and his cronies at the Slaughter House Bridge Club )
- Pantopods : dissident club members to be kept under close surveillance and control
- Them : riff raff , club members of no significance or threat
- Strategic goals : Acquisition and consolidation of power
- Long road ahead : Further purges of the membership , the total eradication of the enemy within
- Nothing ruled out : even more drastic measures are on the cards
- Meetings : war cabinet briefings
- Minutes of meetings : dissemination of misinformation and/or disinformation
- Newsletters and reports : invaluable propaganda material
- Club Constitution : A troublesome document to be either amended or ignored
- Checks and safeguards : fanciful concepts corrupting the club's Constitution
- Club's assets : property earmarked for the privileged few
- The future : someone else's problem
- Progress : the gradual elimination and removal of all traitors, dissidents, troublemakers, whistle-blowers and outspoken critics
- Officers : privileged members of the committee who can act and take decisions with impunity
- Agenda for the meeting : a false and deceptive document which distracts all and sundry from the hidden agenda , drawn up by those who prefer to conduct the real business of the day in absolute secrecy
- AGM : a rallying of the troops , lackeys and ardent supporters
- Canvassing for votes : behind the scenes gerrymandering
- Proxy voting : a form of insurance should voting at an AGM go pear-shaped
- Disciplinary hearings : a clever euphemism for foregone conclusions
- Zero tolerance : a wonderful excuse to kick the living daylights out of those who dare to cross the line
- Social and friendly club : a smokescreen objective by which to introduce strict zero tolerance policies and the brutal enforcement of petty and pointless rules
- Required codes of conduct : subservience , obedience, submissiveness and compliance
- Whistle blowing : a despicable practice necessitating severe retribution
- Duty of confidentiality : a wonderfully effective lid on which to cover up all committee shenanigans and wrongdoings
- U-turn : a nightmare scenario to be avoided at all costs
- In someone's pocket : a truth never to be revealed and dismissed as a lie
Friday, 26 September 2014
POWER CORRUPTS : ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY................... ( Article by Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi )
It is very common for long serving committee officers to seize control of all committee matters, expecting the ordinary committee members to toe the line. Handing over any power to elected officers may seem an expedient and essential requirement , if the club is to managed efficiently and effectively. But such a move is highly dangerous.
" Organisations, like daily life itself, MUST be based on firm understandable, topical laws , and their interpretations be required to be fair and just across the board ". Therefore within the Constitution carefully worded rules need to be in place to ensure such noble ideals turn into reality. Without appropriate constraints or limitations on the officers' powers, they will at worst dis-empower the ordinary club members from everything they do, especially when the ordinary committee members themselves are not part of the inner circle.
If club officers end up with too much power and authority, they inevitably see themselves as the ultimate decision-makers, reducing the role of others on the committee to that of nodding dogs.
This situation usually results in the officers making all the major decisions without any action or oversight by others within the club. It might well be the case that officers conduct their affairs on a fait accompli basis , unwilling to even discuss such matters beforehand with any others except their most trusted supporters. Any abuse of power is a deviation of their duty to be fair and just. In fact any single deviation " should be regarded as , at the very least, highly suspect , pointing directly to the involved group in power being on its way to acting tyrannically and nothing more than a not so benevolent dictatorship ".
While it is accepted that the officers must undertake special duties and responsibilities , they must do so subject to appropriate checks and safeguards. The club's Constitution along with other ethical guidelines generally require that the activities and affairs of the club be properly managed, and all executive powers be undertaken with the best interests of the club in mind.
Accordingly, the ordinary committee club members should provide direction and advice to its officers regarding major governance decisions delegated to them , and oversee such decisions as being sound, sensible, rational and fair. If committee decisions still appear to be inconsistent with common sense, values , or goals, then the rank and file club members need power themselves in order to take appropriate and corrective action.
" While life often dictates disagreements among intelligent people, solutions should always be decided in favour of the entire group as a whole, with no segment ( such as the few in charge, ebven with their supporters added ) gaining untoward advantage ". Officers will always be looking to seize opportunities to consolidate their power base , especially, when any apathy and complacency have overwhelmed the wider membership. They will claim there is little reason for them to regularly inform or announce what their intentions are : no one is interested. " We know best " is often the mantra of power crazed officers , who believe that to fully engage with all club members contradicts their notion that they only need to know what we choose to tell them. Keeping members in the dark is a clear abuse of power. In the minds of the officers , knowledge is power and not for sharing. However , by imposing a strict duty to inform , this essential safeguard would certainly direct everyone on committee to meet that obligation , thereby keeping the club's governance on the correct track.
Refusing to listen to or accept contrary advice and guidance not only smacks of arrogance but also abuse. When decisions are challenged, then some form of arbitration should be embarked upon. " Precedents in arbitration should shine their light in everyone's direction , rather than in favour of just the privileged few. To reject offers of arbitration would be another classic example of abuse. "
All officers have a fiduciary duty to the club, and to preserve its long-term survival and financial health. Officers who act in an arrogant and ruthless way , ignoring the advice and guidance offered by others with genuine and valid concerns, could make decisions that harm the club or a third party. Indeed, " when everything is going well , it is relatively easy to be kind, considerate and thoughtful , but when dissension ( as it often does ) enters the room , the quality of theman ( in this case , the officers ) is always determined by how measured in fairness the decision makers remain. Abuse of power often comes with illusive , competitive , negative emotions, which triumph over common sense and fairness. The primary duty of any committee should be to follow " a straight forward path toward equity for everyone , not favouring bias, but instead , the future of the entire group" .
( Footnote : the above quotes were all provided by Bobby Wolff , who I consider to be a man of immense wisdom , understanding and knowledge on all matters relating to this controversial issue and related committee matters. )
It is very common for long serving committee officers to seize control of all committee matters, expecting the ordinary committee members to toe the line. Handing over any power to elected officers may seem an expedient and essential requirement , if the club is to managed efficiently and effectively. But such a move is highly dangerous.
" Organisations, like daily life itself, MUST be based on firm understandable, topical laws , and their interpretations be required to be fair and just across the board ". Therefore within the Constitution carefully worded rules need to be in place to ensure such noble ideals turn into reality. Without appropriate constraints or limitations on the officers' powers, they will at worst dis-empower the ordinary club members from everything they do, especially when the ordinary committee members themselves are not part of the inner circle.
If club officers end up with too much power and authority, they inevitably see themselves as the ultimate decision-makers, reducing the role of others on the committee to that of nodding dogs.
This situation usually results in the officers making all the major decisions without any action or oversight by others within the club. It might well be the case that officers conduct their affairs on a fait accompli basis , unwilling to even discuss such matters beforehand with any others except their most trusted supporters. Any abuse of power is a deviation of their duty to be fair and just. In fact any single deviation " should be regarded as , at the very least, highly suspect , pointing directly to the involved group in power being on its way to acting tyrannically and nothing more than a not so benevolent dictatorship ".
While it is accepted that the officers must undertake special duties and responsibilities , they must do so subject to appropriate checks and safeguards. The club's Constitution along with other ethical guidelines generally require that the activities and affairs of the club be properly managed, and all executive powers be undertaken with the best interests of the club in mind.
Accordingly, the ordinary committee club members should provide direction and advice to its officers regarding major governance decisions delegated to them , and oversee such decisions as being sound, sensible, rational and fair. If committee decisions still appear to be inconsistent with common sense, values , or goals, then the rank and file club members need power themselves in order to take appropriate and corrective action.
" While life often dictates disagreements among intelligent people, solutions should always be decided in favour of the entire group as a whole, with no segment ( such as the few in charge, ebven with their supporters added ) gaining untoward advantage ". Officers will always be looking to seize opportunities to consolidate their power base , especially, when any apathy and complacency have overwhelmed the wider membership. They will claim there is little reason for them to regularly inform or announce what their intentions are : no one is interested. " We know best " is often the mantra of power crazed officers , who believe that to fully engage with all club members contradicts their notion that they only need to know what we choose to tell them. Keeping members in the dark is a clear abuse of power. In the minds of the officers , knowledge is power and not for sharing. However , by imposing a strict duty to inform , this essential safeguard would certainly direct everyone on committee to meet that obligation , thereby keeping the club's governance on the correct track.
Refusing to listen to or accept contrary advice and guidance not only smacks of arrogance but also abuse. When decisions are challenged, then some form of arbitration should be embarked upon. " Precedents in arbitration should shine their light in everyone's direction , rather than in favour of just the privileged few. To reject offers of arbitration would be another classic example of abuse. "
All officers have a fiduciary duty to the club, and to preserve its long-term survival and financial health. Officers who act in an arrogant and ruthless way , ignoring the advice and guidance offered by others with genuine and valid concerns, could make decisions that harm the club or a third party. Indeed, " when everything is going well , it is relatively easy to be kind, considerate and thoughtful , but when dissension ( as it often does ) enters the room , the quality of theman ( in this case , the officers ) is always determined by how measured in fairness the decision makers remain. Abuse of power often comes with illusive , competitive , negative emotions, which triumph over common sense and fairness. The primary duty of any committee should be to follow " a straight forward path toward equity for everyone , not favouring bias, but instead , the future of the entire group" .
( Footnote : the above quotes were all provided by Bobby Wolff , who I consider to be a man of immense wisdom , understanding and knowledge on all matters relating to this controversial issue and related committee matters. )
Wednesday, 24 September 2014
BRIDGE BOOKS EASILY WORTH THEIR WEIGHT IN GOLD............( Claims by Pun )
- Excuse Me Sir But I've Had A Complaint About Your Rudeness....Candice Knott-Waite
- I Know Damn Well You're Signalling With Your Fingers.................Sawyer Duett
- Just Look At The Way He Commands An Audience ................... .Holden Court
- Yet Another Proposed Change To The Club's Constitution.........Heywood U. B. Leavett
- Why Can't Players Be Polite And Respectful.................................Curtis E. Counts
- Expelling A Member Without Due Process Is Against The Rules... Laura Deland
- Why Not Play Bridge And Thoroughly Enjoy The Experience...........Ava Ball
- I Know It Was You Who Threw That Bridgemate !..........................Noah Diddnot
- I Know What It's Like To Have People Out To Get You..................Ophelia Payne
- The Committee Reached A Verdict Long Before The Hearing........Collette A. Travisty
- What Sort Of Person Bids And Plays The Cards Like That ?...........Sam Pulton
- Tell Me Tell Me You've Got To Be Kidding.....................................Honor Levell
- My Partner Hands Out Gifts To The Opponents All The Time...........Ester Bunney
- My Aim Is To Slaughter The Opponents Without Mercy...................Ivor Meanstreak
- When Partner Gets Over-Excited He Quickly Loses Control............Betty Coombs-Earley
- Don't Worry Partner I'm Planning To Get My Own Back..................Mark N. Thyme
- Proposed Changes To The Constitution Appeared From Nowhere....Lowen B. Holde
Sunday, 21 September 2014
THE LENGTHS SOME COMMITTEES WILL GO TO..... ( An article by Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi )
Every club has members others would like to see the back of......that's life. Waiting for them to resign or to let their membership to lapse may take ages. Expulsions require letters of worthy complaint , evidence of serious misconduct and a proper and fair disciplinary process , which meets the requirements of both the Constitution and rules of natural justice. How much nicer would it be if there was an easier , sweeter and more clinical way of purging the membership of its undesirable elements.
Well there is.....but this ruthless new way requires committees to have unfettered power to determine which members can renew their membership and which members can't. An amendment to the club's Constitution therefore becomes necessary , one which effectively puts all members on renewable one year contracts, putting them at the mercy of the committee's approval and discretion. By giving themselves the power to accept or reject renewal applications for membership , the committee are now in a position to sling out members without any comeback whatsoever. No need to establish wrongdoing. No need to engage in messy protracted disciplinary processes. No hearings required. No appeals to consider. No explanations to be given. No accountability. No risk of any subsequent litigation. The perfect solution to an age old problem : members without rights.
Take this proposal to amend a club's Constitution I came across a few years ago : " The committee can refuse to allow a member his or her annual subscription thereby terminating membership and its privileges.....and should the committee withdraw membership and its privileges from a member , either after a specified time or summarily , there is no right of appeal ". This unfettered power was very frightening in that any member who risked upsetting the committee had his or her card clearly marked. Not surprisingly , members at risk were those whose faces didn't fit : dissenters , whistle-blowers , outspoken critics , and thorns in the committee's side. Thankfully , common sense prevailed at the AGM and the proposal was thrown out.
To allow a tiny minority of members to be in a position to exercise such power and control over who is to stay and who is to go , opens the door to the inevitable abuse of power. The Human Condition will always reign supreme.Therefore, clubs need to be aware that in any decent form of government , checks and counter-balances need to be built into the Constitution to safeguard the rights of those at risk. So unless private bridge club members are given constitutional rights to safeguard their membership, then unjust terminations based on personal vendettas , whims and personality conflicts will become the norm.
Every club has members others would like to see the back of......that's life. Waiting for them to resign or to let their membership to lapse may take ages. Expulsions require letters of worthy complaint , evidence of serious misconduct and a proper and fair disciplinary process , which meets the requirements of both the Constitution and rules of natural justice. How much nicer would it be if there was an easier , sweeter and more clinical way of purging the membership of its undesirable elements.
Well there is.....but this ruthless new way requires committees to have unfettered power to determine which members can renew their membership and which members can't. An amendment to the club's Constitution therefore becomes necessary , one which effectively puts all members on renewable one year contracts, putting them at the mercy of the committee's approval and discretion. By giving themselves the power to accept or reject renewal applications for membership , the committee are now in a position to sling out members without any comeback whatsoever. No need to establish wrongdoing. No need to engage in messy protracted disciplinary processes. No hearings required. No appeals to consider. No explanations to be given. No accountability. No risk of any subsequent litigation. The perfect solution to an age old problem : members without rights.
Take this proposal to amend a club's Constitution I came across a few years ago : " The committee can refuse to allow a member his or her annual subscription thereby terminating membership and its privileges.....and should the committee withdraw membership and its privileges from a member , either after a specified time or summarily , there is no right of appeal ". This unfettered power was very frightening in that any member who risked upsetting the committee had his or her card clearly marked. Not surprisingly , members at risk were those whose faces didn't fit : dissenters , whistle-blowers , outspoken critics , and thorns in the committee's side. Thankfully , common sense prevailed at the AGM and the proposal was thrown out.
To allow a tiny minority of members to be in a position to exercise such power and control over who is to stay and who is to go , opens the door to the inevitable abuse of power. The Human Condition will always reign supreme.Therefore, clubs need to be aware that in any decent form of government , checks and counter-balances need to be built into the Constitution to safeguard the rights of those at risk. So unless private bridge club members are given constitutional rights to safeguard their membership, then unjust terminations based on personal vendettas , whims and personality conflicts will become the norm.
Thursday, 18 September 2014
LAW REPORT : ARCHER and BOWMAN v. BIGOT-JOHNSON 2014
( A landmark case in which the competition winners sued Bigot-Johnson , the tournament promoter for breach of contract . Bigot decided after establishing widespread cheating that the results were null and void . Subsequently , both the trophy and the prize money were retained by the promoter as there was no way of establishing who the true winners were. )
Counsel for the plaintiffs (CP ) : Is it true Bigot that you promoted and organised this competition ..... charging each of the 200 pairs £100 in entry fees ?
B-J : True...
CP : And from the £20,000 you received in fees , you had promised to pay out prize money totalling £10,000........ of which 50 % would go to the winners
B-J : Yes big prizes pull in big fields......plenty of big hitters......many of which were likely to resort to cheating in order to get their greedy hands on the dosh
CP : But none of this allocated prize money was ever handed out ?
B-J : Too bloody right......the results were completely undermined and corrupted by the level....... and the extent...... of cheating that was going on
CP : So Archer and Bowman were denied their trophy and the £5000 prize money because all the results were declared void ....and therefore scrubbed ?
B-J : Absolutely.....and although I had no evidence of foul play on their part, the cheating that went on elsewhere forced me to declare the event a non-event......with no way of determining who the real winners were
CP : So why not reimburse the participants with at least half of their entry fees
B-J : Well, no way was I going to reimburse the cheats who sabotaged the competition.....and moreover.... there was no way I could identify all the pairs who were cheating...... and all those pairs who were not
CP : So tell me Bigot ....how many times have you promoted competitions which turned out to be non-events because of alleged cheating ?
B-J : Dozens
CP : No doubt that in these competitions all the prize money and trophies were withheld ?
B-J : Of course...
CP : So what's the point then in promoting further competitions if cheating continues to be so widespread
B-J : Players want them .....but more importantly..... I have an expensive life style to maintain.... not to mention a string of mistresses with lavish tastes
CP : But can't you see that non-payment of any prize money represents a breach of contract... given the fact that participants enter the competitions on an agreed understanding that a good performance will earn valuable rewards in some shape and form. In legal parlance...... this is known as consideration.....and there is no doubt in my mind that they have entered into a legally binding agreement, where both parties intended to create legal relations
B-J : Not so..... entering bridge competitions come down to nothing more than gentlemen's agreements.....binding in honour only.....but honour , I might add , is a personality trait I do not possess.....or ever will
Judge : Yes....I must agree with you Bigot on both counts.....
B-J : Why thank you my lord......so does that mean I'm free to go ?
Judge : Yes.....so long as that cheque you gave is more valid than your claims of " prize money to be won "
B-J : Indeed it is......indeed it is
( A landmark case in which the competition winners sued Bigot-Johnson , the tournament promoter for breach of contract . Bigot decided after establishing widespread cheating that the results were null and void . Subsequently , both the trophy and the prize money were retained by the promoter as there was no way of establishing who the true winners were. )
Counsel for the plaintiffs (CP ) : Is it true Bigot that you promoted and organised this competition ..... charging each of the 200 pairs £100 in entry fees ?
B-J : True...
CP : And from the £20,000 you received in fees , you had promised to pay out prize money totalling £10,000........ of which 50 % would go to the winners
B-J : Yes big prizes pull in big fields......plenty of big hitters......many of which were likely to resort to cheating in order to get their greedy hands on the dosh
CP : But none of this allocated prize money was ever handed out ?
B-J : Too bloody right......the results were completely undermined and corrupted by the level....... and the extent...... of cheating that was going on
CP : So Archer and Bowman were denied their trophy and the £5000 prize money because all the results were declared void ....and therefore scrubbed ?
B-J : Absolutely.....and although I had no evidence of foul play on their part, the cheating that went on elsewhere forced me to declare the event a non-event......with no way of determining who the real winners were
CP : So why not reimburse the participants with at least half of their entry fees
B-J : Well, no way was I going to reimburse the cheats who sabotaged the competition.....and moreover.... there was no way I could identify all the pairs who were cheating...... and all those pairs who were not
CP : So tell me Bigot ....how many times have you promoted competitions which turned out to be non-events because of alleged cheating ?
B-J : Dozens
CP : No doubt that in these competitions all the prize money and trophies were withheld ?
B-J : Of course...
CP : So what's the point then in promoting further competitions if cheating continues to be so widespread
B-J : Players want them .....but more importantly..... I have an expensive life style to maintain.... not to mention a string of mistresses with lavish tastes
CP : But can't you see that non-payment of any prize money represents a breach of contract... given the fact that participants enter the competitions on an agreed understanding that a good performance will earn valuable rewards in some shape and form. In legal parlance...... this is known as consideration.....and there is no doubt in my mind that they have entered into a legally binding agreement, where both parties intended to create legal relations
B-J : Not so..... entering bridge competitions come down to nothing more than gentlemen's agreements.....binding in honour only.....but honour , I might add , is a personality trait I do not possess.....or ever will
Judge : Yes....I must agree with you Bigot on both counts.....
B-J : Why thank you my lord......so does that mean I'm free to go ?
Judge : Yes.....so long as that cheque you gave is more valid than your claims of " prize money to be won "
B-J : Indeed it is......indeed it is
Wednesday, 17 September 2014
A BRIDGE WORLD GONE MAD........ ( Article by Carp )
Can you imagine turning up for a tournament only to be told by the organisers " Sorry, we're not having any winners this year , you're only here for the ride ". Such an action represents in my mind a flagrant breach of contract , which is both immoral and unjust. A competition must never be allowed to become a non-event by virtue of having no winners.
So in the event of stripping a trophy from a pair of cheats , and then having the audacity to declare that there are no substitute winners , the same degree of injustice , insanity and incompetence is there to be seen.
In any other sport , when title winning cheats have been stripped of their honours , the runners up are declared as rightful winners. On that basis alone , competition organisers are under a contractual and moral duty to all those paying participants, to apply a just and equitable way to find alternative winners.
However , because bridge is not a race where all the participants actually get the opportunity to compete against each other , there are good grounds for not automatically promoting the runners up as trophy winners , when the cheats have been exposed. Those who played against the cheats may have suffered adversely : those who missed out against the cheats were obviously unaffected by their antics.
Therefore , any pairs in the top six are all legitimately in with a chance of being declared the new winners. Let's imagine , for instance , the second pair were blessed at not having come up against the cheats : their final score will obviously still stand. Yet unfortunately the 3rd , 4th and 6th placed pairs did encounter the cheats , perhaps falling victim to their shameless antics.
On the premise that none of matches in which the cheats participated can the scores be allowed to count , revised scoring becomes mandatory. Consequently, these three other pairs are all given a substitute score based upon their overall average from their other results. A similar situation to when pairs arrive at a "sit out " table.
So when the 3rd placed pair re-score the " miss out " table , their 30% result against the cheats is now substituted with their 60% average. This may ( if margins were tight ) leapfrog them over the runners up. Similarly , the 6th place pair who obtained a 10% result against the cheats will also benefit substantially by being awarded their average of 58%, which might again leapfrog them above all the others in the top placings. A small problem arises say if the 4th placed pair actually beat the cheats gaining an 80% result , then it might seem unfair to substitute that score with their inferior average of say 59%. Nevertheless , if all boards against the cheats are to be scrubbed , then the universal application of the rule lends itself to providing a level playing field , justice and equity.
Although this simple approach to determining new winners might not be perfect , then so be it.
But I firmly believe it is a far far superior option : a proper , decent , honest and genuine attempt to overcome the sheer madness , abuse and shame brought about by those who feel that doing nothing and having no winners is ok.
( Yours comments are welcome and are best sent by ticking the anonymous box option )
Can you imagine turning up for a tournament only to be told by the organisers " Sorry, we're not having any winners this year , you're only here for the ride ". Such an action represents in my mind a flagrant breach of contract , which is both immoral and unjust. A competition must never be allowed to become a non-event by virtue of having no winners.
So in the event of stripping a trophy from a pair of cheats , and then having the audacity to declare that there are no substitute winners , the same degree of injustice , insanity and incompetence is there to be seen.
In any other sport , when title winning cheats have been stripped of their honours , the runners up are declared as rightful winners. On that basis alone , competition organisers are under a contractual and moral duty to all those paying participants, to apply a just and equitable way to find alternative winners.
However , because bridge is not a race where all the participants actually get the opportunity to compete against each other , there are good grounds for not automatically promoting the runners up as trophy winners , when the cheats have been exposed. Those who played against the cheats may have suffered adversely : those who missed out against the cheats were obviously unaffected by their antics.
Therefore , any pairs in the top six are all legitimately in with a chance of being declared the new winners. Let's imagine , for instance , the second pair were blessed at not having come up against the cheats : their final score will obviously still stand. Yet unfortunately the 3rd , 4th and 6th placed pairs did encounter the cheats , perhaps falling victim to their shameless antics.
On the premise that none of matches in which the cheats participated can the scores be allowed to count , revised scoring becomes mandatory. Consequently, these three other pairs are all given a substitute score based upon their overall average from their other results. A similar situation to when pairs arrive at a "sit out " table.
So when the 3rd placed pair re-score the " miss out " table , their 30% result against the cheats is now substituted with their 60% average. This may ( if margins were tight ) leapfrog them over the runners up. Similarly , the 6th place pair who obtained a 10% result against the cheats will also benefit substantially by being awarded their average of 58%, which might again leapfrog them above all the others in the top placings. A small problem arises say if the 4th placed pair actually beat the cheats gaining an 80% result , then it might seem unfair to substitute that score with their inferior average of say 59%. Nevertheless , if all boards against the cheats are to be scrubbed , then the universal application of the rule lends itself to providing a level playing field , justice and equity.
Although this simple approach to determining new winners might not be perfect , then so be it.
But I firmly believe it is a far far superior option : a proper , decent , honest and genuine attempt to overcome the sheer madness , abuse and shame brought about by those who feel that doing nothing and having no winners is ok.
( Yours comments are welcome and are best sent by ticking the anonymous box option )
Tuesday, 16 September 2014
Saturday, 13 September 2014
CONVENTION DISRUPTION : THE PROBLEMS OF FORGETFULNESS , IGNORANCE AND CONFUSION....
( An article by Dr. Sigmund T. Schukelgruber )
Irregular and infrequent partnerships. Regular partners who all choose to play a different system. Playing with complete strangers by virtue of partners not turning up , or the operation of a stand-by system. Welcome to the world of duplicate bridge.
Even agreeing to play stayman might not that simple of straightforward. Is it promissory , non-promissory or what? And if there's an intervening bid what does a double mean? " Yes , I can play the multi-diamonds.... but as to a full understanding of the responses , and/or what to do after the opponents stick in an obstructive overcall , I'm not so sure ". Welcome to the world of duplicate bridge.
Passes, forcing passes, take-out doubles, penalty doubles, 4NT asking bids, 4NT sign offs : the scope for ambiguity and uncertainty is infinite. Questions about bids which confuse opponents often confuse partner, who inevitably can only answer their questions " We have no agreement ! ". Yes , this is a world riddled with convention disruption.
Whether CD occurs because of lack of pre-match discussion, ignorance or poor grasp of conventions, loss of concentration or forgetfulness , the offended or injured partners get frustrated , irritated and angry. The problem is so serious it blights the game , often leading to allegations of cheating , which in some cases are well founded.
Take for instance the four scenarios which can occur when the opponents ask for an explanation of an alerted convention bid . It might be (a) woefully incomplete, (b) muddled or confused, (c) misleading by default , and (d) hopelessly incorrect. So why do players elect to play conventions they don't fully grasp or understand ? God only knows.
Yet the forms of CD seem endless. Pairs can be at cross purposes as to what situations a convention should be used or not. Many players wrongly believe a convention has been included into their hastily agreed system , or has been left out. In some instances , despite agreeing on a convention , they completely forget about it , or worse still forget to alert the bid. Sometimes when asked about a convention bid , the realisation that they don't know what it actually means suddenly dawns upon them. Add to that the possibility they might invent an answer they think is correct , the auction can then descend into a complete farce.
However, one must never overlook the fact that the opponents , by raising questions about convention bids , alerts and doubles , are themselves looking to pass on unauthorized information , or seeking to gain an unfair advantage. "2C stayman ? "....." Yes.... so is it promising a major ? " often comes from an opponent who is holding one or both majors himself.
Sadly , duplicate bridge with its dozens of irregular pairings, players who love to toy with new and exciting conventions they don't fully understand , and players who are genuinely forgetful or prone to lapses of concentration , the problem of CD will never go away.
( An article by Dr. Sigmund T. Schukelgruber )
Irregular and infrequent partnerships. Regular partners who all choose to play a different system. Playing with complete strangers by virtue of partners not turning up , or the operation of a stand-by system. Welcome to the world of duplicate bridge.
Even agreeing to play stayman might not that simple of straightforward. Is it promissory , non-promissory or what? And if there's an intervening bid what does a double mean? " Yes , I can play the multi-diamonds.... but as to a full understanding of the responses , and/or what to do after the opponents stick in an obstructive overcall , I'm not so sure ". Welcome to the world of duplicate bridge.
Passes, forcing passes, take-out doubles, penalty doubles, 4NT asking bids, 4NT sign offs : the scope for ambiguity and uncertainty is infinite. Questions about bids which confuse opponents often confuse partner, who inevitably can only answer their questions " We have no agreement ! ". Yes , this is a world riddled with convention disruption.
Whether CD occurs because of lack of pre-match discussion, ignorance or poor grasp of conventions, loss of concentration or forgetfulness , the offended or injured partners get frustrated , irritated and angry. The problem is so serious it blights the game , often leading to allegations of cheating , which in some cases are well founded.
Take for instance the four scenarios which can occur when the opponents ask for an explanation of an alerted convention bid . It might be (a) woefully incomplete, (b) muddled or confused, (c) misleading by default , and (d) hopelessly incorrect. So why do players elect to play conventions they don't fully grasp or understand ? God only knows.
Yet the forms of CD seem endless. Pairs can be at cross purposes as to what situations a convention should be used or not. Many players wrongly believe a convention has been included into their hastily agreed system , or has been left out. In some instances , despite agreeing on a convention , they completely forget about it , or worse still forget to alert the bid. Sometimes when asked about a convention bid , the realisation that they don't know what it actually means suddenly dawns upon them. Add to that the possibility they might invent an answer they think is correct , the auction can then descend into a complete farce.
However, one must never overlook the fact that the opponents , by raising questions about convention bids , alerts and doubles , are themselves looking to pass on unauthorized information , or seeking to gain an unfair advantage. "2C stayman ? "....." Yes.... so is it promising a major ? " often comes from an opponent who is holding one or both majors himself.
Sadly , duplicate bridge with its dozens of irregular pairings, players who love to toy with new and exciting conventions they don't fully understand , and players who are genuinely forgetful or prone to lapses of concentration , the problem of CD will never go away.
Tuesday, 9 September 2014
THE IDIOT'S GUIDE ON HOW TO BEAT THE EXPERTS ....by Bigot-Johnson
PASS ON EVERY HAND NO MATTER WHAT !
Where you will gain :
1. If the HCPs are evenly divided then (a) you will certainly lose out in a competitive auction, and (b) fail to make the part score you were pushed into. By avoiding a minus score there is every chance of picking up some match points.
2. If and when you are blessed with the majority of HCPs then you will feel compelled to bid to game or slam. Given that the experts all always likely to restrict your tricks to a minimum for a well below average score , you will beat pairs who fail to make their contracts simply by passing out the hand.
3. If the experts are not provided with any information about where your HCPs might be , they have less to go on when they bid their way to slim games and frisky slams. Although in defence you might not find partner's suit or make a killing lead, the opponents might not make the right decisions, giving you in the process some unexpected match points.
Where you will lose :
1. By missing rock solid contracts, games and slams, you might well be doomed to a bad score. Nevertheless against experts ' slick defence please recognise that being in these unbeatable contracts , the chances of getting gift overtricks are nil, and so what does it matter if a bottom just replaces a near bottom.
2. Your defence ( see point 3 above ) will be very hit and miss, with nothing to go on other than the opponents' bidding. Consequently , any inferior leads or switches may hand the opponents the contract , plus welcome overtricks. However, since their superior declarer play was always likely to hand them a top, you might only lose out on rare occasions.
3. You will miss out on bidding hands on whch the layout and bidding favours you in every respect. Yet would you seize these opportunities provided by such good fortune ? I very much doubt it , and so once again it's will only be the few rare occasions that you inflict upon yourself an outright bottom.
So the underlying logic of this strategy is as follows. Against experts should you try to play sensibly , you will be slaughtered by their superior bidding and defence , and destined to notch up a string of galactic bottoms. By electing to pass on hands every time you encounter the experts , you will without doubt sneak home a few surprise results , especially on pass out auctions. Indeed , by scoring a few averages , or even below averages , these results will certainly put you ahead of all the real idiots , who are foolish enough to bid their hands against such formidable opponents.
PASS ON EVERY HAND NO MATTER WHAT !
Where you will gain :
1. If the HCPs are evenly divided then (a) you will certainly lose out in a competitive auction, and (b) fail to make the part score you were pushed into. By avoiding a minus score there is every chance of picking up some match points.
2. If and when you are blessed with the majority of HCPs then you will feel compelled to bid to game or slam. Given that the experts all always likely to restrict your tricks to a minimum for a well below average score , you will beat pairs who fail to make their contracts simply by passing out the hand.
3. If the experts are not provided with any information about where your HCPs might be , they have less to go on when they bid their way to slim games and frisky slams. Although in defence you might not find partner's suit or make a killing lead, the opponents might not make the right decisions, giving you in the process some unexpected match points.
Where you will lose :
1. By missing rock solid contracts, games and slams, you might well be doomed to a bad score. Nevertheless against experts ' slick defence please recognise that being in these unbeatable contracts , the chances of getting gift overtricks are nil, and so what does it matter if a bottom just replaces a near bottom.
2. Your defence ( see point 3 above ) will be very hit and miss, with nothing to go on other than the opponents' bidding. Consequently , any inferior leads or switches may hand the opponents the contract , plus welcome overtricks. However, since their superior declarer play was always likely to hand them a top, you might only lose out on rare occasions.
3. You will miss out on bidding hands on whch the layout and bidding favours you in every respect. Yet would you seize these opportunities provided by such good fortune ? I very much doubt it , and so once again it's will only be the few rare occasions that you inflict upon yourself an outright bottom.
So the underlying logic of this strategy is as follows. Against experts should you try to play sensibly , you will be slaughtered by their superior bidding and defence , and destined to notch up a string of galactic bottoms. By electing to pass on hands every time you encounter the experts , you will without doubt sneak home a few surprise results , especially on pass out auctions. Indeed , by scoring a few averages , or even below averages , these results will certainly put you ahead of all the real idiots , who are foolish enough to bid their hands against such formidable opponents.
Monday, 8 September 2014
THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY REVISITED.......
Top : the missionary position so preferred by English bridge players when in congress with
female partners
Unbalanced : the state of mind of members eager and keen to take up posts on the
committee
Overtake : a clever manoeuvre by the player who is firmly in the driving seat : this involves
winning his partner's trick in order to be on lead
Partner : the player on which all blame for defeat can be placed at his/her door : an ideal
candidate for being the scapegoat , whipping boy , punchbag and/or fall guy
Frigid : ( a) an alternative term of reference for a contract that can't be beaten , and (b) an
apt description of a woman who has given up on sex for the pleasure of bridge
To pick up a queen : The sole preoccupation of men who are members of a gay bridge
club
To shaft an opponent : a callous and ruthless act by a player who comes on very hard and
strong when up against the weak and helpless
Down two : ( a ) a statement made by a player when the contract fails by two tricks , and (b) a statement made by a committee member when a couple of undesirable members have been booted out of the club , often followed up with the words " three to go ! "
Consolation Pairs : a bottom tier non-event for all those devastated and distraught players
who would otherwise go home as abject first day losers , but for the opportunity to
regain some pride by winning a completely meaningless trophy
Defensive error : the failure to duck when a flying bridgemate is heading one's way at speed
Top : the missionary position so preferred by English bridge players when in congress with
female partners
Unbalanced : the state of mind of members eager and keen to take up posts on the
committee
Overtake : a clever manoeuvre by the player who is firmly in the driving seat : this involves
winning his partner's trick in order to be on lead
Partner : the player on which all blame for defeat can be placed at his/her door : an ideal
candidate for being the scapegoat , whipping boy , punchbag and/or fall guy
Frigid : ( a) an alternative term of reference for a contract that can't be beaten , and (b) an
apt description of a woman who has given up on sex for the pleasure of bridge
To pick up a queen : The sole preoccupation of men who are members of a gay bridge
club
To shaft an opponent : a callous and ruthless act by a player who comes on very hard and
strong when up against the weak and helpless
Down two : ( a ) a statement made by a player when the contract fails by two tricks , and (b) a statement made by a committee member when a couple of undesirable members have been booted out of the club , often followed up with the words " three to go ! "
Consolation Pairs : a bottom tier non-event for all those devastated and distraught players
who would otherwise go home as abject first day losers , but for the opportunity to
regain some pride by winning a completely meaningless trophy
Defensive error : the failure to duck when a flying bridgemate is heading one's way at speed
Sunday, 7 September 2014
A BRIDGE WORLD GONE MAD........ A very very nearly true story by Bridgemeister Gibson
( Not so long ago , locked inside a closed room , a committee of ill-repute reached a totally incomprehensible decision , which to the outside world beggared all belief. The following
extract is based on a secret recording of what took place at that meeting. )
Chairman : Well, what's next up on the agenda ?
Secretary : The new competition which will be advertised as a " memorial event ".....
Committee member : Is whose name ?
Secretary : Well , private discussions have been taking place between myself , the chairman ,
vice-chairman and treasurer...... only to arrive at one possible nomination....
Committee member : And who is that ?
Secretary : Lana " Cooking's my game " Stevenson
Committee member : What !.....have you all gone completely mad....the woman is a self-confessed cheat....who has cheated her way to winning several prestigious trophies.....none of which she ever intends to hand back......trophies which no one seems prepared or willing to take off her
Secretary : Ah ...but she's still a likeable person who has been a loyal member of this club for many many years
Committee member : Hold on....you mustn't lose sight of the fact that she's a filthy , low down , dishonourable cheat......and so why in God's name didn't you name someone else ?
Secretary : Listen you....the club officers know best.....why the name on a memorial trophy must be a person ( dead or alive ) who everyone knows and HAS A MEMORY OF.....how on earth can a memorial event be named after someone who has never won a thing , a non-entity , a faceless anonymous individual.....because let's get real here LANA IS A LEGEND
Committee member : But the woman's a cheat.......and ought to be shot..... not revered. You're all scared to do the right thing ....you spineless , gutless, miserable sinners
Chairman : How dare you insinuate that we are scared of this woman.....or have misplaced loyalties towards her.....I'll have you know that as long serving members on this committee ....with vast experience of climbing up greasy poles , cuddling up to the rich and powerful , operating from inside the pockets of others , taking back-handers and bribes , and feathering our own nests.....we know what's right
Committee member : Oh I'm beginning to understand now from where you are coming from....
Chairman : That's good ....and perhaps by taking this bulging brown paper envelop home, your understanding will be that much greater ....
Committee member : Indeed it will.....indeed it will
( Not so long ago , locked inside a closed room , a committee of ill-repute reached a totally incomprehensible decision , which to the outside world beggared all belief. The following
extract is based on a secret recording of what took place at that meeting. )
Chairman : Well, what's next up on the agenda ?
Secretary : The new competition which will be advertised as a " memorial event ".....
Committee member : Is whose name ?
Secretary : Well , private discussions have been taking place between myself , the chairman ,
vice-chairman and treasurer...... only to arrive at one possible nomination....
Committee member : And who is that ?
Secretary : Lana " Cooking's my game " Stevenson
Committee member : What !.....have you all gone completely mad....the woman is a self-confessed cheat....who has cheated her way to winning several prestigious trophies.....none of which she ever intends to hand back......trophies which no one seems prepared or willing to take off her
Secretary : Ah ...but she's still a likeable person who has been a loyal member of this club for many many years
Committee member : Hold on....you mustn't lose sight of the fact that she's a filthy , low down , dishonourable cheat......and so why in God's name didn't you name someone else ?
Secretary : Listen you....the club officers know best.....why the name on a memorial trophy must be a person ( dead or alive ) who everyone knows and HAS A MEMORY OF.....how on earth can a memorial event be named after someone who has never won a thing , a non-entity , a faceless anonymous individual.....because let's get real here LANA IS A LEGEND
Committee member : But the woman's a cheat.......and ought to be shot..... not revered. You're all scared to do the right thing ....you spineless , gutless, miserable sinners
Chairman : How dare you insinuate that we are scared of this woman.....or have misplaced loyalties towards her.....I'll have you know that as long serving members on this committee ....with vast experience of climbing up greasy poles , cuddling up to the rich and powerful , operating from inside the pockets of others , taking back-handers and bribes , and feathering our own nests.....we know what's right
Committee member : Oh I'm beginning to understand now from where you are coming from....
Chairman : That's good ....and perhaps by taking this bulging brown paper envelop home, your understanding will be that much greater ....
Committee member : Indeed it will.....indeed it will
Wednesday, 3 September 2014
EVEN IF THIS ZT NONSENSE IS GOOD FOR THE GAME. IT'S CERTAINLY BAD NEWS FOR THE STORY WRITERS !
True life stories about bridge hands and the characters involved really come to life when there is a baddie. All good stories need nasty, mean , outrageous evil sorts to add spice, fear and suspense to the plot. Where would a good story be without someone to revile and hate ?
So why not see for yourself how a bridge story automatically becomes a riveting read when one of the characters demonstrates the depths horrendous table behavior can sink to. The chosen extract comes from the beautifully written , highly entertaining Men, Women and Bridge ( Startling Tales Of the Bridge World ) by Richard Crawford....
So yes , it is my contention that great bridge stories need real baddies , if they are to amuse, startle, shock and entertain. Therefore , the idea that ZT policies might well remove such characters from the current bridge scene is not which one modern bridge writers will relish. Hells bells...... their true life stories will become as dull as ditch water.
True life stories about bridge hands and the characters involved really come to life when there is a baddie. All good stories need nasty, mean , outrageous evil sorts to add spice, fear and suspense to the plot. Where would a good story be without someone to revile and hate ?
So why not see for yourself how a bridge story automatically becomes a riveting read when one of the characters demonstrates the depths horrendous table behavior can sink to. The chosen extract comes from the beautifully written , highly entertaining Men, Women and Bridge ( Startling Tales Of the Bridge World ) by Richard Crawford....
So yes , it is my contention that great bridge stories need real baddies , if they are to amuse, startle, shock and entertain. Therefore , the idea that ZT policies might well remove such characters from the current bridge scene is not which one modern bridge writers will relish. Hells bells...... their true life stories will become as dull as ditch water.
NEWSFLASH : HUNDREDS OF UK BRIDGE CLUBS ARE NOW RENAMING THEMSELVES AS CENTERS OF APPROVED CHEATING...............
Yes, the awful reality of what the current state of bridge is like in the UK has forced the EBU to ask clubs , where approved cheating goes on big time , to change their names as a part of a program to distinguish genuine bridge clubs from those where ethical and moral behaviour has ceased to exist.
Twenty four clubs have since signed up to announce themselves as centers of approved cheating , by adopting such revealing names as :
Slick Practices
Free Reign
Screw Ethics
Coffee Housing
Anything Goes
Infinite Tolerance
Turn A Blind Eye
No Restraints
The Pits
Moral Vacuum
Rum Goings On
Anarchy Rules
No One Gives A Damn Here
Head In The Sand
Open Season
Dodgy Systems
Nothing Is What It Seems
No Holds Barred
Liberty Taking
The Three Monkeys
Do Unto Others
Keeping Stum
House of Sin
So Bloody What If I Did
Yes, the awful reality of what the current state of bridge is like in the UK has forced the EBU to ask clubs , where approved cheating goes on big time , to change their names as a part of a program to distinguish genuine bridge clubs from those where ethical and moral behaviour has ceased to exist.
Twenty four clubs have since signed up to announce themselves as centers of approved cheating , by adopting such revealing names as :
Slick Practices
Free Reign
Screw Ethics
Coffee Housing
Anything Goes
Infinite Tolerance
Turn A Blind Eye
No Restraints
The Pits
Moral Vacuum
Rum Goings On
Anarchy Rules
No One Gives A Damn Here
Head In The Sand
Open Season
Dodgy Systems
Nothing Is What It Seems
No Holds Barred
Liberty Taking
The Three Monkeys
Do Unto Others
Keeping Stum
House of Sin
So Bloody What If I Did
Tuesday, 2 September 2014
A CONCRETE EXAMPLE.......................
The other day my partner ( not known for his tolerance of cheats ) objected quite vocally , when a lady player with years of experience stepped out of line. She opened the bidding 1S to which her partner jumped to 3S. At this point she bid 4H......only to shout out in horror " Oh No ! ". Not surprisingly her opposite number dutifully bid 4S to end the auction.
My partner quite rightly felt this " 4H oh no " carried unauthorised information. In a more normal auction 4H could have been a cue bid with a mild interest in a slam. Clearly it wasn't. Did the " oh no " carry the message I meant to pass 3S , or I meant to bid 4S , wishing to sign off from her side. Certainly , something was meant by this comment, which in my view is one of many concrete examples of soft cheating where " unauthorised information of some sort " is being passed over to partner.
Where my partner went wrong was his instinctive reaction to reprimand her over this comment , rather than call the TD over to register his concerns. Nevertheless his verbal scolding could well give rise to the pot putting in a complaint about the kettle , with the ZT rule book being thrown against him.
And what's my take on this ? Well , if the TD had been called over , the lady in question would have repeated her denials of wrongdoing and guilt , making numerous excuses to justify her claims of innocence. Would her behaviour be noted and recorded as " soft cheating " I very much doubt it, but as for my partner's unforgiving remarks they were far more likely to receive a severe rebuke.
So I will leave you with this thought. If club committees had the guts to clamp down on soft cheating first , then many instances of rude behaviour at the tables would disappear overnight. To apply zero tolerance to rudeness ( when caused by provocation ) and not soft cheating smacks of double standards and gross stupidity.
The other day my partner ( not known for his tolerance of cheats ) objected quite vocally , when a lady player with years of experience stepped out of line. She opened the bidding 1S to which her partner jumped to 3S. At this point she bid 4H......only to shout out in horror " Oh No ! ". Not surprisingly her opposite number dutifully bid 4S to end the auction.
My partner quite rightly felt this " 4H oh no " carried unauthorised information. In a more normal auction 4H could have been a cue bid with a mild interest in a slam. Clearly it wasn't. Did the " oh no " carry the message I meant to pass 3S , or I meant to bid 4S , wishing to sign off from her side. Certainly , something was meant by this comment, which in my view is one of many concrete examples of soft cheating where " unauthorised information of some sort " is being passed over to partner.
Where my partner went wrong was his instinctive reaction to reprimand her over this comment , rather than call the TD over to register his concerns. Nevertheless his verbal scolding could well give rise to the pot putting in a complaint about the kettle , with the ZT rule book being thrown against him.
And what's my take on this ? Well , if the TD had been called over , the lady in question would have repeated her denials of wrongdoing and guilt , making numerous excuses to justify her claims of innocence. Would her behaviour be noted and recorded as " soft cheating " I very much doubt it, but as for my partner's unforgiving remarks they were far more likely to receive a severe rebuke.
So I will leave you with this thought. If club committees had the guts to clamp down on soft cheating first , then many instances of rude behaviour at the tables would disappear overnight. To apply zero tolerance to rudeness ( when caused by provocation ) and not soft cheating smacks of double standards and gross stupidity.