AC Scandals in Maastricht
jan kamras
Can someone pls tell me how to (re-) subscribe to BLML?
After the latest AC scandals at world-level - costing Sweden a place in
the Open QF - again involving the almighty Bobby Wolff (of Lille fame),
I can hardly wait to see the aftermath and analysis in the knowledgable
BLML-community.
From what I hear, "Kojak" and the whole top TD-community is furious with
Wolff and "his" ACs.
Don't expect to see any of these cases in any Bulletin. The Powers have
decided on a black-out time being, allegedly because they are so
embarrased by the matter. It involved not only the AC decisions
themselves but the very make-up of that AC.
What would you think if 3 out of 5 AC members were from the country the
winner will meet in the QF, with the AC knowing that their decision will
decide the winner?
Couldn't happen - right? Wrong!!
What about if 1 of the 5 (a different one than the previous 3!) was a
close friend and longtime partner of the NPC of one of the teams
involved, with that NPC also playing a prominent role in the AC
hearings??
Impossible - right? Wrong!!
If he has an iota of integrity left, Wolff resigns from his position in
the world Appeals/Ethics/Laws body (history has shown he won't be thrown
out no matter how outrageously he acts).
I'm not holding my breath though.
P.S.: It will be *very* interesting to see if "Bridge World" will give
this matter even a fraction of the attention it gave the time-penalty
matter of the VC finals. Both incidents involve important matters of
principle for international competition, and both contributed in
deciding the outcome of a WC KO match (although arguably the VC match
was more important as it was the Final).
I am sure the fact that US interests were involved on the "other" side
of this latest controversy, whereas they were the "victims" in the VC
one, will not make a difference to the "Bridge World" editors, since the
magazine is not named "Bridge USA" or some such. :-)
P.P.S.: I understand these appeals will at a later stage appear on the
internet when the whole package is published (it would just irrevocably
confirm all cover-up theories otherwise). However, based on the
preliminary notes there are supposedly already a few facts that have
been twisted around (guess in which direction) from the actual
statements, so be forewarned when later reading the write-ups!
Stefan Filonardi
<jka...@home.com> wrote:
>
>Can someone pls tell me how to (re-) subscribe to BLML?
To subscribe you have to send a message to this address
in the body you should write
subscribe bridge-laws
ciao stefan
Eric Leong
: Can someone pls tell me how to (re-) subscribe to BLML?
Again you are venting without mentioning actual specific.details of the
appeal. It is difficult to have any sympathy for your position.
Eric Leong
Moscito
: After the latest AC scandals at world-level ...
I don't know about which scandal that Jan is referring to, but it did
strike me that the fact Mrs. Joan Gerard and Mr. Jeff Polisner, of all
the top-ranking WBf bureaucrats that litter the landscape, sit on WBF
appeal committees (deciding world championships) to be a travesty and
a scandal in and of itself. AC's at the world level should consist of
top-ranking bridge players, not top bureaucrats. The above-mentioned
two are *NOT* at a level approaching a majority of players who played
in the final 16 of the Olympiad [they are the only names I'd actually
met over the table and recognize, and I am sure there are others].
Hans Gelders
I read the remarks made by Jan Kamras as well as the other
remarks made in this thread. As I was all the time in Maastricht,
one of the members of the appeal-committee did inform me what really
happened. Bobby Wollf took a strange view in two appeal-cases. I was
told that he felt no sympathy at all for Sundelin, the Swedish player
who lives in the United States. He used all his influence to direct
the other members of the committee against Sundelin. Both cases
ended in a 3 versus 2 vote, something quite special in appeals.
In one case Wolff got what he wanted , in the other case he lost the
vote.
This member of the Appeal-committee mentioned explicit to me that
the committee had decided not to publish these decisions as they were
indeed too embarrassing for the AC. If these decisions will published
later
I don't know , but I have my doubts. If they indeed will be published in
a
decent way, it looks to me that Mr. Wolff has only one option: to resign
from
his functions in the WBF. I'm also very interested in the publication of
these events
in 'The Bridge World' . In their last issues they attacked strongly the
time-penalties
the American ladies received at the Bermuda Bowl. We will see what they
will
write about Bobby Wolff , one of their contributing editors.I can of
course not
give more information about these two appeals, as this would reveal my
source.
However, the points of view defended by Bobby Wolff missed really all
impartiality (if my information is correct), to such a degree that a
serious majority
of the persons working for the appeal-committee felt embarrassed (this I
can confirm,
without going in details as my main source of information did, several
other members
of the AC confirmed their disagreement to me personally)
Kind Regards,
Hans Gelders.
jan kamras <jka...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39BACEA9...@home.com...
David desJardins
> I can of course not give more information about these two appeals, as
> this would reveal my source.
You misspelled "undermine my slurs".
David desJardins
Nikos Sarantakos
<de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
In any case, the hard facts (i.e. deal No X, North bid this,
director said this, AC decided that) would be appreciated.
ns
jan kamras
Eric Leong wrote:
> Again you are venting without mentioning actual specific.details of the
> appeal. It is difficult to have any sympathy for your position.
I don't understand the "Again" but, believe me, I don't need your
sympathy.
Furthermore, I was not the victim. Bridge was.
jan kamras
Based on what do you conclude they are slurs?
Thomas Dehn
Definitely. There have been so many rumours now,
we want to see at least the hand, the bidding, and
the director's and the AC's decision.
Thomas
John (MadDog) Probst
<de...@math.berkeley.edu> writes
cast slurs when the report is true. If they are not true then the author
will have to apologise, nay grovel. I doubt that this will happen as I
have every confidence that the authors' sources are less peachable than
the subject of this thread. We shall see what we shall see and no doubt
there will be those who will continue to defend the indefensible and
apply high rhetoric in favour of the unspeakable.
cheers john.
--
John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947
451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou
London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m jo...@probst.demon.co.uk
+44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk
Eric Leong
: Eric Leong wrote:
:> Again you are venting without mentioning actual specific.details of the
:> appeal. It is difficult to have any sympathy for your position.
: I don't understand the "Again" but, believe me, I don't need your
: sympathy.
"Again" means you don't provide much specifics only your opinions. But,
you are right. I shouldn't have used the word "sympathy". Change that to:
"It is hard not to laugh at you." I was entertained by your bellows of
injustice.
: Furthermore, I was not the victim. Bridge was.
I am sure Bridge will survive in spite of you.
For a moment there, I thought it was Sweden. with you as its spokesperson.
Eric Leong
Peter Clinch
jan kamras wrote:
> Can someone pls tell me how to (re-) subscribe to BLML?
>
Well now you know, please do publish the particular decision in this forum.
In advance I offer a couple of comments. I have read with enjoyment and some
bemusement the excellent ACBL AC booklets. Increasingly in those tomes,
views have become entrenched and I think it's fair to say that Bobby Woolf
has been the most divergent of the regular panel. His views on how penalties
should be implied (most notably around the concept of "convention
disruption") are interesting, but bear little resemblance to the agreed
procedures of the ACBL. They are often stated without context, giving the
impression (to this reader) that they are increasingly coming from a set of
values that are his own and belong to few others.
I hope that this isn't pertinent to this particular debate. I have
admiration for Bobby's championing of "active ethics" and would hate to see
him associated with an ugly incident at this stage of his distinguished
career.
I agree about the "Bridge World" 's over-egged editorial on the Venice Cup
incident. I seem to recall that at least one World Championship has been won
in the past on a carry-over score, the arbitrariness of which received no
such vehement editorializing.
Maybe, as in tennis, bridge matches should be won by a margin (say 10 IMPs)
rather than (like showjumping) 0.25 of a timefault or a dicey appeal?
Peter.
Frans Buijsen
For starters, we haven't been given anything at all here.
--
Frans Buijsen
You, on the other hand, are obviously crazy. This is a scientific fact
that is instinctively and intuitively obvious to all peoples of all
races, creeds, and colors, and in all walks of life. Your opinions are
not relevant to the issues of your mental capacity, but rather are
dead horses which are *N*O*T* to be flogged.
(MC 900 ft Jesus, Tiptoe through the Inferno)
David desJardins
>>> I can of course not give more information about these two appeals, as
>>> this would reveal my source.
jan kamras <jka...@home.com> writes:
> Based on what do you conclude they are slurs?
I used a dictionary.
slur n. 1. A disparaging remark; an aspersion.
David desJardins
David desJardins
> They are slurs if and only if they are not true.
Wrong.
> If they are not true then the author will have to apologise, nay
> grovel.
Fat chance. Have you ever seen anyone apologize for the drivel they
post here? What would force them to do so?
David desJardins
jan kamras
Hans Gelders wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I read the remarks made by Jan Kamras as well as the other
> remarks made in this thread. As I was all the time in Maastricht,
> one of the members of the appeal-committee did inform me what really
> happened. Bobby Wollf took a strange view in two appeal-cases. I was
> told that he felt no sympathy at all for Sundelin, the Swedish player
> who lives in the United States.
Just for the record Hans, as far as I know P-O Sundelin does not live in
the US, but in Sweden. To my knowledge, the only player on the swedish
team living in the US is Björn Fallenius.
jan kamras
detailed pieces of info I have collected so far. They might anyway be
perceived as biased at this stage, since the WBF is attempting a
cover-up (at least temporarily) and corroboration is therefore not easy.
By the time I'm back I suspect this will be fully out in the open, and
those thinking I'm just blowing lots of hot air will see the light.
If it isn't I'll post whatever details I have, at that time.
Until then, stay tuned (and accept that sometimes a "slur" is well
deserved).
Julian Lighton
Stefan Filonardi <jkl...@gmx.de> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 23:57:26 GMT, jan kamras
><jka...@home.com> wrote:
>>Can someone pls tell me how to (re-) subscribe to BLML?
>
>To subscribe you have to send a message to this address
>
>majo...@octavia.anu.edu.au
majo...@rgb.anu.edu.au, actually. octavia was retired recently.
(The name will still work IIRC, but rgb is the correct alias.)
>in the body you should write
>
>subscribe bridge-laws
--
Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com
(This signature unintentionally left blank.)
tob...@my-deja.com
Well guys, here is the case. Remember, this is second hand information
K9xxx
Qx
Txxx
AJ
Aqx 8xx
Atxx 9xx
QJx Kx
xxx KQTxx
JT
KJxx
A9xx
9xx
W N E S
- P P P
1H 1S 2C P
2NT P 3S P
3NT P P P
Sweden North-South, Austria East-West
2NT was alerted by East to North and explained as 14-16 with 5+ hearts.
The 2NT-bidder did not alert his bid.
Diamond spot was lead to small, Ace, small. Spade jack was taken by the
ace. A club to the jack and king. Queen of clubs to small, small and
Ace. North now knew that South had QJx in diamonds, three spots in clubs
using count signals. With at least 5hearts in wests hand means that Q of
spades now is singleton. If the spades are not cashed right away there
may be 9 tricks (4C, 2D, ace of spades and ace-king of hearts. North
played the king of spades and the contract was safe.
The TD after consulting other TD’s and interviewing numerous top players
ruled 3NT-1 because of wrong explanation. The 2NT-bidder thought that
14-16 with 5 hearts only was applicable after 1H-1S-2NT and 1H-1NT-2NT.
His apprehension agreed to their system notes. Before the AC said their
captain that it was obvious that the 2NT-bidder had bidden wrongly and
that his partner had explained correctly. The AC ruled wrong bid and
correct explanation.
Tobbe9
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jens Brix Christiansen
I understand. I wonder where we could get first-hand information.
> The TD after consulting other TD’s and interviewing numerous top players
> ruled 3NT-1 because of wrong explanation. The 2NT-bidder thought that
> 14-16 with 5 hearts only was applicable after 1H-1S-2NT and 1H-1NT-2NT.
> His apprehension agreed to their system notes. Before the AC said their
> captain that it was obvious that the 2NT-bidder had bidden wrongly and
> that his partner had explained correctly. The AC ruled wrong bid and
> correct explanation.
I will just try to summarize the important points, to make sure that I
understand your version of this case:
1. West intends 2NT as fairly natural, showing no additional values and
suggesting stoppers in spades.
2. East thinks that 2NT is conventional, 5+ hearts, 14-16, and alerts
and explains it that way.
3. West, when asked, thinks that the conventional agreement is off in
this auction.
4. The system notes basically support West's testimony that the
conventional agreement is off in this auction.
5. The AC rules "mistaken bid", no grounds for adjustment.
Before expressing any kind of opinion about the ruling, I would like to
make sure that those who criticize the AC's ruling agree that these five
points are to be understood as well-established facts.
NOdav...@pdnt.com
<j...@dksin.dk> wrote:
>
>I will just try to summarize the important points, to make sure that I
>understand your version of this case:
>
>1. West intends 2NT as fairly natural, showing no additional values and
>suggesting stoppers in spades.
>
>2. East thinks that 2NT is conventional, 5+ hearts, 14-16, and alerts
>and explains it that way.
>
>3. West, when asked, thinks that the conventional agreement is off in
>this auction.
>
>4. The system notes basically support West's testimony that the
>conventional agreement is off in this auction.
>
>5. The AC rules "mistaken bid", no grounds for adjustment.
>
>Before expressing any kind of opinion about the ruling, I would like to
>make sure that those who criticize the AC's ruling agree that these five
>points are to be understood as well-established facts.
One more:
6. The captain of the offending side testified before the AC that it
was obvious that West's 2NT was a misbid and that East's explanation
was correct.
steve...@my-deja.com
the facts of the case.
However, just on the facts that are stated, it seems valid to object to
the composition of the AC.
In article <8pflel$4ae$2...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
Stephen Pickett
Sounds like East may have missed the overcall altogether? That would account
for the available data, wouldn't it? Where is the screen? In other words, is
he on the same side as the 1 Spade bidder or on the opposite side?
--
Stephen Pickett, PO Box 44538, Vancouver BC Canada V5M 4R8
Telephone: (604) 874-7327, Fax: (604) 874-7326, ICQ UIN#212132
Go see Microtopia! at http://www.microtopia.net
Glen Ashton
NOdav...@pdnt.com wrote:
> One more:
>
> 6. The captain of the offending side testified before the AC that it
> was obvious that West's 2NT was a misbid and that East's explanation
> was correct.
>
It would be interesting to know what the captain said what West's rebid
should have been, if 2NT was a misbid as stated. I understand that 1h-
1s-2NT (no comp) can be 14-16 since 1NT is available, but over 2c?
--
Glen Ashton
Today's joke: www.fastnewsdigest.com
Bridge stuff: www.bridgematters.com
Email to xGlenA...@yahoo.com.invalid (remove two x and .invalid)
Hans Gelders
Hi,
Before I confirm the information given by Mr. Tobbe, I just
have a few questions for Mr. desJardins. As mr. desJardins
used some very strong words , I expect him to be very well
informed about the Sweden vs. Austria case. So I tried to find
out who is this Mr. desJardins. That was not very difficult, mr.
desJardin
has his own WebPages, including some pictures. As I could not remember
to have seen Mr. desJardin in Maastricht (but I can be wrong here, there
were a lot
of people in Maastricht), I nevertheless would like to ask Mr.
desJardins a few questions:
a. Did you go to Maastricht?
b. If not, can you give us a hint what is your source of information? I
expect
that people who are stating that my remarks are 'slur' would be well
informed
themselves.
C. I remarked that Mr. desJardins plays a game called 'Titan'. I saw
that
one of the leading players in that game is a certain 'Bruno Wolff'.
Is that a relative of Mr. Wolff? Can Mr. desJardin
confirm that Mr. Bruno Wolff is not a relative of Mr. Bobby Wolff?
Now about the Austria versus Sweden case. First, the result of the match
was
153-149 for Austria, so this appeal was very important as it decided
which
team would go to the next round. The winner of the match had to play in
the
quarter-finals against the United States (the United States did won
easily against
Austria, Sweden would indeed have been a much more difficult opponent)
Nevertheless this appeal was not published , very strange.
Also in the Belgium versus England match there was an appeal that was
decisive
for the outcome (appeal 16). I personally considered the decision of the
appeal committee as being correct (and I consulted a few leading
tournament
directors, they confirmed that they also did agree with that decision).
Nevertheless the fact that nobody in Belgium has doubts about this
decision, I asked a member
of the appeal committee if it could not be published as it was a quite
interesting case ( a claim based on a double squeeze)
and many people in Belgium were interested. This appeal was not
immediately
published but after I asked it, it was published later (Daily Bulletin
issue 13, page
16). The AC made no problem about publishing it. This was not at all the
case
in the Sweden-Austria match, the appeal has never been published, one of
the
very few.
Then, decisions of the appeal-committee are not private information,
they are
public information. As a journalist you have two very easy ways to
consult
them: 1. You can contact the AC, normally there is no problem if you
follow this way.
2. You can ask one of the involved parties to inform you. All parties
receive a copy
of the decision of the AC. Showing this copy to a journalist is not
unethical at all,
decisions of the AC are public information. In such decisions the
members of that
specific appeal-committee are mentioned, including the name of the
chairman and the
name of the scribe. If Mr. desJardins thinks that I did not read the
decision, he is
wrong. By the way, the decision was not taken by consensus as is
normally the case.
No consensus could be found , so it went all the way to a vote (a 3-2
vote, who
vote in favour is never mentioned in the official decision - however ,
looking
at the members of that appeal-committee I can guess it. Do also take in
consideration
that Mr. Wolff, as chairman of the appeal committee, is responsible for
the composition
of all appeal-committees, something very strange but that's the way it
works. Why
he choose in this case for 3 members from one single country, I don't
know , I suppose
that all other available members were suffering from constipation).
The information given by Mr. Tobbe about the appeal is correct.
There is one important sentence: the apprehension of the 2NT-bidder in
the bidding
sequence was correct, this was proved by looking at his system-card. Why
his 2NT
was now considered as a wrong bid , considering the information on his
system
card, is beyond common sense. This was also the interpretation of the
members of the
appeal-committee who had direct interests in who was going to win this
match.
It's not very difficult to understand that if the appeal-committee had
decided
that his 2NT-bid was the normal bid in their system, the interpretation
of
3 of the members of appeal committee could not be defended, it would
have been
a correct bid and a wrong explanation (and not way the other way
around). A correct
bid and a wrong explanation would of course have changed immediately the
outcome of the
appeal and the decision of the TD would not have been changed.
About publication of this appeal. The best way to receive an impartial
interpretation
of this appeal is of course not reading my explanations, the best way is
simply to read
the original decision including the presentation made by the TD
involved. Will this decision be published? I'm quite sure it will be
published, including of course the composition of the appeal committee.
I'm sure for 2 reasons: a. appeals are nowadays always published a
short time after the end of the tournament, it would be very suspicious
if all decisions would be published except one or two. b. Too many
leading personalities within the WBF were upset by this decision. They
are not going to accept that an exception will be made in this case.
May I ask mr. desJardins to stop with his accusations till he has read
the decision,
coming from an unsuspected source, the WBF?
Regards,
Hans Gelders
----- Original Message -<tob...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pikbq$5vo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
David desJardins
> As mr. desJardins used some very strong words , I expect him to be
> very well informed about the Sweden vs. Austria case.
No. One doesn't have to know *anything* about the case to know that
it's wildly inappropriate to post random slurs against people without
any evidence.
The only fact that I definitely gathered from your posting was that
three of the five committee members agreed on a particular ruling in a
particular case. I'm curious: why didn't you attack the other two?
David desJardins
Charles Blair
>Before I confirm the information given by Mr. Tobbe, I just
>have a few questions for Mr. desJardins. As mr. desJardins
>used some very strong words , I expect him to be very well
>informed about the Sweden vs. Austria case. So I tried to find
>out who is this Mr. desJardins. That was not very difficult, mr.
>desJardin
>has his own WebPages, including some pictures. As I could not remember
>to have seen Mr. desJardin in Maastricht (but I can be wrong here, there
>were a lot
>of people in Maastricht), I nevertheless would like to ask Mr.
>desJardins a few questions:
>a. Did you go to Maastricht?
>b. If not, can you give us a hint what is your source of information? I
>expect
> that people who are stating that my remarks are 'slur' would be well
>informed
> themselves.
>C. I remarked that Mr. desJardins plays a game called 'Titan'. I saw
>that
> one of the leading players in that game is a certain 'Bruno Wolff'.
> Is that a relative of Mr. Wolff? Can Mr. desJardin
> confirm that Mr. Bruno Wolff is not a relative of Mr. Bobby Wolff?
I was not at Maastricht and have never met Bobby Wolff, nor, as far
as I know, any of his relatives. I have only met David desJardin via
this newsgroup, and have at times disagreed with him strongly.
However, you seem to feel that only people who were at Maastrict are
allowed to participate in this discussion, and wish to exclude anyone
who has had any contact with anyone named Wolff.
Such a preposterous attitude makes it difficult to judge the merits
of your case in an impartial manner.
Hans Gelders
You are asking why I did not attack the other two?
This looks evident, the other two members supported the decision of the
TD, a decision I also consider as correct. There opinion was based on
the fact that, in
their opinion, a wrong explanation was given and that thus an adjusted
score was normal.
I agree completely, why should I attack the TD or these two members of
the AC if I think
they are right? Too difficult to understand?
Regards,
Hans Gelders
David desJardins <de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:vohaede...@yuban-c.math.berkeley.edu...
David desJardins
> You are asking why I did not attack the other two?
Yes. The two committee members who voted the same way as Bobby Wolff.
Surely they should all be publicly flogged, if they all engaged in the
same deliberately dishonest conduct that you accuse Mr Wolff of.
I also don't quite understand how it can be the case that a majority of
the AC felt "embarrassed" by the ruling, if in fact a majority of the AC
voted in favor of it.
David desJardins
Matthew L. Ginsberg
You guys should chill out. : )
As I understand things, the question is whether a player misbid (which
he's allowed to do), or if his bid was misexplained (which you're not
allowed to do). Unfortnuately, resolution of this question determined
which of two teams would go on to face USA in the Maastricht round of
8. With three Americans on the committee deciding the appeal, the
arguably weaker team won the appeal and went on to lose to USA.
It seems that there are now three separate questions:
1. Was the makeup of the appeals committee appropriate? I would
imagine that here the answer is clearly "no", since three members of
the committee had a vested interest in the result.
2. Was the decision of the appeals committee correct? We have to see
the facts, hopefully as reflected in the ruling itself.
3. Was the behavior of the appeals committee appropriate? This we
will probably never know; if there was strong-arming involved, it is
unlikely to have been recorded. Given that, it seems to me that
accusations of strongarming are inappropriate.
It is in no one's interests to have the tone of this discussion fall
to the level that it has. For what it's worth, I think that the first
of the three questions is arguably the most important and here, I
agree with the original poster based on the evidence already at hand.
I wasn't in Maastricht. I know Bobby but don't have a strong
impression of him.
Matt Ginsberg
axman
Thanks Tobbe9
I do think it is eccentric to find as fact that the written system
notes deny the systemic meaning of 2N to be 5+ hearts with 14-16 hcp;
while also finding as fact that the system was indeed that very thing.
I would conclude that it is likely that the case presented may not
recount all of the facts, such as the basis for resolving the
contradiction. I would not convene a jury just yet.
On another front, it seems that here exist several elements
illustrating a significant part of what is 'wrong with bridge'.
First, a pair that has undertaken a system that is beyond their
capacity to remember, and perhaps apply. And this example is followed
by the putzers.
Second, the system as asserted by the captain appears to be not very
workable. I too am curious what the systemic call is for the hand. I
would think that only 3C makes sense [2S, nor 2D, nor 2H, nor 2N does
not seem like a good idea given the kind of values 2C promises; and for
that matter, 3C does seem to be a bit much in light of what 2C
promises.] That is to say, the system creates so many problems in
practice that players are continually having to deviate from it in
order to avoid exceeding the indicated capacity of the hand.
axman
Robert Nordgren
<de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
I really dont thnk it is to unknown that the USA team HATES to play vs
Sweden and would rather take 216 boards against the former blue team
than facing Sweden.
Could this have been done thru the AC this time, it sure makes you
wonder when the makeup of it looks very partial and with many many
members from one singel country that is at part involved in the
outcome of the appeal since they have to play one of the teams in
there next match.
I hope for the good of bridge that AC's like this isnt made up
anymore. There must be some guidelines in creating a AC that of the 5
members in the AC Maximum 1 member should be allowed from a country
that faces either team of those in the Appeal in there next match or
having a possiblity of facing them in there next match.
Example
Team A
vs
Team B
Team C
vs
Team D
Team C and D have an appeal and the outcome of the A and B match is
still not known than Each of the countrys A and B is only allowed to
have maximum 1 member on the AC in the C and D match.
And at any point regardless of involvement any single country should
not have more than 2 members on a AC ever.
Robert
to reply via e-mail, remove "gogators" from above address
Hans Gelders
Please try to inform yourself before asking all these questions.
I'll be short. Before the tournament starts an appeal-committee is made.
Members in Maastricht were:
Bobby Wolff (Chairman - USA)
Joan Gerard (USA)
J. Polisner (USA)
David Stevenson (UK)
Grattan Endicott (UK)
Herman de Wael (Belgium)
E. D'Orsi (Brazil)
J.P Meyer (Fra)
John Wignall (New Zealand)
---------------------
Jens Auken (Den)
Nissan Rand (Isr)
Dan Morse (USA)
Richard Colker (USA)
For each appeal an appeal-committee is made (including a chairman and a
scribe, with 3 till 5 members, normally it's an unpair number (not
always) for the case it comes to a vote).
The scribe (often a leading TD, in Maastricht Herman de Wael or David
Stevenson, once Grattan
Endicott) makes the final report of the decision.
The make-up of an appeal committee is the task of the general chairman
(Wolff).
Mr. Ginsberg remarked quite correct
"Was the makeup of the appeals committee appropriate? I would
imagine that here the answer is clearly "no", since three members of
the committee had a vested interest in the result".
The make-up of the appeal-committee is indeed the most important job. In
Maastricht
it was Bobby Wolff's job. The chairman must take in consideration
principal and
practical matters.
The basic principle is that members may not have any interest in the
result.Thus
an appeal committee will never have members from a country that's
involved in the appeal.
When the situation is more complicated, it's up to the judgement of the
chairman (Wolff) to decide if a person has a vested interest. Thus the
general chairman is very powerful.
The general chairman also decides who will be the chairman in one
specific appeal.
When Wolff was a member of a committee, for reasons unknown to me, he
made himself always chairman.
A practical problem can be : is a certain person available? For example
Jens Auken
did also play for Denmark, he can not play and be member of an
appeal-committee at the same time. That's why I inserted a line in the
above list: the persons above the line were
frequent members, the other personas only a few times.
I hope that this clarifies the situation.
Regards,
Hans Gelders
Colin Ward
L. Ginsberg) wrote:
>
>You guys should chill out. : )
Always good advice. :)
<Snip>
>3. Was the behavior of the appeals committee appropriate? This we
>will probably never know; if there was strong-arming involved, it is
>unlikely to have been recorded. Given that, it seems to me that
>accusations of strongarming are inappropriate.
It may be worth opining that, since Mr. Wolff CHOSE the
committee members, strongarming would likely be unnecessary.
Taking 3 committee members from ANY single country may be
considered unwise; taking 3 committee members from a country with
a vested interest in the outcome is bound to draw criticism. I
don't know what role availability played in his decision, though.
The consensus of opinion seems to be that the U.S. team did
not want to play the Swedes. I remain unconvinced that the U.S.
team and its supporters would or should be jumping at the chance
to play Italy instead. :)
I, too, look forward to seeing the official report on
this controversial decision.
knee...@my-deja.com
"John Probst" <jo...@probst.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <vohaedg...@yuban-c.math.berkeley.edu>, David
desJardins
> <de...@math.berkeley.edu> writes
> >"Hans Gelders" <hans.g...@chello.be> writes:
> >> I can of course not give more information about these two appeals,
as
> >> this would reveal my source.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >You misspelled "undermine my slurs".
> >
> > David desJardins
> They are slurs if and only if they are not true. Reporting facts
cannot
> cast slurs when the report is true. If they are not true then the
author
> will have to apologise, nay grovel.
I don't think that this is true by itself. I think that in US law
you have to prove your statements against an allegation of libel, but I
may be wrong. A slur is a slur is a slur, true or not. Similarly I
disagree with Babe Ruth when he said, "It's not arrogance if you can do
it."
> I doubt that this will happen as I
> have every confidence that the authors' sources are less peachable
than
> the subject of this thread. We shall see what we shall see and no
doubt
> there will be those who will continue to defend the indefensible and
> apply high rhetoric in favour of the unspeakable.
>
> cheers john.
"Kitsch is the absolute denial of shit." -Milan Kundera
As bridge is a Gentleman's game (sic, in the sarcastic sense),
defamation of character is probably the single best insult you can
deliver a person. This is why accusations of cheating are taken so
seriously. So much so, that the laws themselves and AC's dance on
eggshells to avoid doing such a thing until the evidence is
overwhelming. After all, the second best insult is the one you deliver
yourself by participating in the defamation.
Horseshit. Not horsepucky. Not nonsense. Fuck-all horseshit.
As the Olympic movement spreads forth, people should reconsider
how bridge will be seen in relation to the sports it is trying to bring
itself on par with. (I make no claim that this is either a step up or
a step down, or even a step in the right direction.) Competitors in
Olympic sports are commonly found doing things they can be publicly
shamed for and circumventing any rule they feel they can manage. Count
the doping disqualifications that have already happened and will
continue to mount through the next few weeks in Sydney.
Why does anyone think that bridge is immune from the rule-breaking
problems caused by over-ambitious competitors? Is it because the
average bridge player does not have enough testosterone to maintain a
relatively lean body, let alone be agressive in sport?
To merge the antiquated beliefs of the Victorian bridge players
among us with those who can't find the bowl, let alone the cherries,
and everyone in the spectrum found inbetween, the authorities in the
game should start taking care that situations indiscernable from
cheating are either impossible or treated as cheating. Treated as
cheating does not require accusing anyone of cheating. Misplaced
kitsch^H^H^H^H^H^Hsensibilities be damned.
So here we have a slur. An AC was questionably constructed,
delivers a curious ruling, and few people can bring themselves to
request that the matter even be investigated for cheating, let alone
labeled such.
> there will be those who will continue to defend the indefensible and
> apply high rhetoric in favour of the unspeakable.
There are at least two more classes of people. Those who defend
the indefensible in the venacular and those who disagree but are too
timid to speak the "$@&#ing unspeakable."
As a sometimes gay-activist (which is different from "sometimes-
gay activist"), I find that we will often not see what we will see
unless an unignorable public accusation is made. Bridge, really,
should not be so vested in saving face that such measures are needed.
-Todd
David Stevenson
>On 10 Sep 2000 10:36:47 -0700, David desJardins
><de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>>"Hans Gelders" <hans.g...@chello.be> writes:
>>> I can of course not give more information about these two appeals, as
>>> this would reveal my source.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>You misspelled "undermine my slurs".
>>
>> David desJardins
>
>director said this, AC decided that) would be appreciated.
The actual appeals will be published.
I do find the slurs interesting, but they do seem slightly at variance
with everything that happened.
Of course, the decisions may be wrong: I am not defending them.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @
<bri...@blakjak.com> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )=
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~
David Stevenson
Actually, as I have read this thread so far, you seem to have
completely missed the facts that really governed the decision, ie
6. The AC had three Americans on it.
7. The Americans would always rule for Austria not Sweden.
8. Two of the Americans were unsuitable because they are the wrong type
of people.
9. One of the Americans was unsuitable because he was Bobby Wolff.
10. The full details will not be published even though they will be.
David Stevenson
>I hope for the good of bridge that AC's like this isnt made up
>anymore. There must be some guidelines in creating a AC that of the 5
>members in the AC Maximum 1 member should be allowed from a country
>that faces either team of those in the Appeal in there next match or
>having a possiblity of facing them in there next match.
>And at any point regardless of involvement any single country should
>not have more than 2 members on a AC ever.
These rules are not necessarily that easy to follow simply because the
USA has so many bridge players.
Furthermore, it takes a strange sort of mind to think that AC members
consider future opponents for their teams.
The actual pool of AC members had a number of Americans, naturally.
Add the fact that not all the pool was always available, and there are
practical difficulties in avoiding future opponents where Americans are
concerned. Furthermore, it is easy to say this afterwards, but it would
never occur to me to assume that an AC might be biased because of future
opponents. Are you sure this is not sour grapes because of the effect
of the decision?
Note: I am not suggesting that either decision was correct: I just
dislike the accusations of bias which seem totally unfounded to me.
David Stevenson
>Also in the Belgium versus England match there was an appeal that was
>decisive
>for the outcome (appeal 16). I personally considered the decision of the
>appeal committee as being correct (and I consulted a few leading
>tournament
>directors, they confirmed that they also did agree with that decision).
>Nevertheless the fact that nobody in Belgium has doubts about this
>decision, I asked a member
>of the appeal committee if it could not be published as it was a quite
>interesting case ( a claim based on a double squeeze)
>and many people in Belgium were interested. This appeal was not
>immediately
>published but after I asked it, it was published later (Daily Bulletin
>issue 13, page
>16). The AC made no problem about publishing it.
The delay in publishing this appeal was practical, and the timing had
nothing to do with Hans' request. The publishing of appeals was
generally left to the two scribes. Since one was Belgian, one English,
neither sat on the Belgium-England appeal, and the scribe that was used
did not follow correct procedure by mistake. Once this was realised the
appeal was duly published.
> This was not at all the
>case
>in the Sweden-Austria match, the appeal has never been published, one of
>the
>very few.
Of 21 appeals, 15 were published in the Bulletin.
[s]
>Do also take in
>consideration
>that Mr. Wolff, as chairman of the appeal committee, is responsible for
>the composition
>of all appeal-committees, something very strange but that's the way it
>works. Why
>he choose in this case for 3 members from one single country, I don't
>know , I suppose
>that all other available members were suffering from constipation).
Bobby Wolff does not choose Appeals Committees any more than Jose
Damiani works out the rota for TDs. The actual choice of ACs was done
throughout by Grattan Endicott [as he also did at Lille].
David Stevenson
>Please try to inform yourself before asking all these questions.
>I'll be short. Before the tournament starts an appeal-committee is made.
>Members in Maastricht were:
>Bobby Wolff (Chairman - USA)
>Joan Gerard (USA)
>J. Polisner (USA)
>David Stevenson (UK)
>Grattan Endicott (UK)
>Herman de Wael (Belgium)
>E. D'Orsi (Brazil)
>J.P Meyer (Fra)
>John Wignall (New Zealand)
>---------------------
>Jens Auken (Den)
Not so. He was added later after Denmark was eliminated from all
competitions.
>Nissan Rand (Isr)
>Dan Morse (USA)
>Richard Colker (USA)
>
>For each appeal an appeal-committee is made (including a chairman and a
>scribe, with 3 till 5 members, normally it's an unpair number (not
>always) for the case it comes to a vote).
>The scribe (often a leading TD, in Maastricht Herman de Wael or David
>Stevenson, once Grattan
>Endicott) makes the final report of the decision.
Once Rich Colker.
>The make-up of an appeal committee is the task of the general chairman
>(Wolff).
No, Grattan Endicott.
>Mr. Ginsberg remarked quite correct
>
>"Was the makeup of the appeals committee appropriate? I would
>imagine that here the answer is clearly "no", since three members of
>the committee had a vested interest in the result".
>
>
>The make-up of the appeal-committee is indeed the most important job. In
>Maastricht
>it was Bobby Wolff's job. The chairman must take in consideration
>principal and
>practical matters.
>The basic principle is that members may not have any interest in the
>result.Thus
>an appeal committee will never have members from a country that's
>involved in the appeal.
>When the situation is more complicated, it's up to the judgement of the
>chairman (Wolff) to decide if a person has a vested interest. Thus the
>general chairman is very powerful.
>The general chairman also decides who will be the chairman in one
>specific appeal.
The co-ordinator, Grattan Endicott, decides the Chairman.
>When Wolff was a member of a committee, for reasons unknown to me, he
>made himself always chairman.
You mean Grattan did - usually. There was at least one appeal with
Joan Gerard as chairman, with Bobby Wolff attending.
The main input from Bobby would be before the tournament started. The
three Chairmen, Bobby Wolff, Joan Gerard and John Wignall were decided
in advance. I have no idea how they were chosen.
David Burn
message news:8pj3p7$brj$1...@once.cirl.uoregon.edu...
> You guys should chill out. : )
Well spoken, that man.
> As I understand things, the question is whether a player misbid
(which
> he's allowed to do), or if his bid was misexplained (which you're
not
> allowed to do). Unfortnuately, resolution of this question
determined
> which of two teams would go on to face USA in the Maastricht round
of
> 8. With three Americans on the committee deciding the appeal, the
> arguably weaker team won the appeal and went on to lose to USA.
Well, there were three appeals rather than just one from the match in
question - which is not abnormal when everyone was empolying somewhat
unusual methods, so that disclosure was a major issue.
> It seems that there are now three separate questions:
>
> 1. Was the makeup of the appeals committee appropriate? I would
> imagine that here the answer is clearly "no", since three members of
> the committee had a vested interest in the result.
Quite so. Comments to the effect that a committee that is meeting to
decide (in effect) which team America should meet in the next round
ought to contain no Americans are entirely to the point.
> 2. Was the decision of the appeals committee correct? We have to
see
> the facts, hopefully as reflected in the ruling itself.
An authoritative version of each of the appeals and the results ought,
in justice, to see the light of day. Any information that I have is at
second hand only, and therefore of little value.
> It is in no one's interests to have the tone of this discussion fall
> to the level that it has. For what it's worth, I think that the
first
> of the three questions is arguably the most important and here, I
> agree with the original poster based on the evidence already at
hand.
Well spoken again, that man.
> I wasn't in Maastricht. I know Bobby but don't have a strong
> impression of him.
I was in Maastricht, and on the evening after Sweden's loss to Austria
in the round of 16, I was at the same dinner table as Bjorn Fallenius
(the member of the Swedish team who actually does live and play in New
York, contrary to the view given by a previous poster - Per Olof
Sundelin, as far as I know, still lives and plays in Sweden).
Fallenius shared the general opinion that it was, shall we say,
unfortunate for a predominantly American committee to decide the
outcome of that particular match. He was not, however, of the opinion
that any of the decisions made by that committee were incorrect - or
if he was, that was not the impression that he gave.
The makeup of the Appeals Committees in Maastricht was remarkable in
that almost no committee would ever have a majority of people who can
actually play the game at any level, never mind the highest. Wolff's
credentials are impeccable, as are Jens Auken's. Nissan Rand is an
excellent player; David Stevenson can tell the reds from the blacks on
most days. Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto, but as to the
rest... well, I say nothing.
David Burn
London, England
knee...@my-deja.com
David Stevenson <bne...@blakjak.com> wrote:
> Note: I am not suggesting that either decision was correct: I just
> dislike the accusations of bias which seem totally unfounded to me.
Accusations which will not get investigated until they are made,
and maybe not even then.
-Todd
Peter Gill
>Tobbe wrote:
>> K9xxx
>> Qx
>> Txxx
>> AJ
>>
>> Aqx 8xx
>> Atxx 9xx
>> QJx Kx
>> xxx KQTxx
>>
>> JT
>> KJxx
>> A9xx
>> 9xx
>>
>> W N E S
>> - P P P
>> 1H 1S 2C P
>> 2NT P 3S P
>> 3NT P P P
>>
>very workable. I too am curious what the systemic call is for the
hand.
Perhaps West should pass 2C? I wonder if East's passed hand status
had anything to do with the confusion? I await the eventual formal
appeal write-up with interest.
If anyone can identify the names of EW, then it would be interesting
to have a look at their online Convention Card and see what it says.
Peter Gill
Australia.
Robert Nordgren
wrote:
According to 2nd hand info i have gotten the system notes can not
backup the Austrian case And that the explain 5cd heart was not the
pairs agreement in this certain position. And that East missexplained
the system they were playing to North and as a result of that
missexplain North butchered the defense when he played down Sp K
having full count if the explain was correct.
Nikos Sarantakos
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Robert Nordgren <clai...@gogators.iag.net> wrote
>
>>I hope for the good of bridge that AC's like this isnt made up
>>anymore. There must be some guidelines in creating a AC that of the 5
>>members in the AC Maximum 1 member should be allowed from a country
>>that faces either team of those in the Appeal in there next match or
>>having a possiblity of facing them in there next match.
>
>>And at any point regardless of involvement any single country should
>>not have more than 2 members on a AC ever.
>
> These rules are not necessarily that easy to follow simply because the
>USA has so many bridge players.
How many is "so many"? Last time I checked, ACBL (which is not USA
exactly) had roughly as many members as Netherlands and France
combined. Yet, the ACs composition do not reflect (by far) this fact.
The "population" argument cannot explain away the over-representation
of ACBL in WBF matters -if in some years China becomes the country
with most affiliated bridge players, do you expect the various bodies
like ACs to be overwhelmed with Chinese?
>
> The actual pool of AC members had a number of Americans, naturally.
>Add the fact that not all the pool was always available, and there are
>practical difficulties in avoiding future opponents where Americans are
>concerned. Furthermore, it is easy to say this afterwards, but it would
>never occur to me to assume that an AC might be biased because of future
>opponents. Are you sure this is not sour grapes because of the effect
>of the decision?
Still, since bridge is going olympic etc. it might be a good idea not
just to adopt the doping control procedures but to take a leaf out
of the book of sports where judges or referees play a crucial role.
So, one idea might be to have ten populous NCBOs designate each one
eminent member to the AC. This is what they do in, say, gymnastics
or diving. In football (World Cup etc.), each country designates one
referee only.
>
> Note: I am not suggesting that either decision was correct: I just
>dislike the accusations of bias which seem totally unfounded to me.
Right. So why not eliminate any foundation for any such accusation
by having ACs where no country would have more than one
representative?
ns
Peter Gill
>>USA has so many bridge players.
>
>How many is "so many"?
About 160,000.
>Last time I checked, ACBL (which is not USA
>exactly) had roughly as many members as Netherlands and France
>combined. Yet, the ACs composition do not reflect (by far) this fact.
>
>The "population" argument cannot explain away the over-representation
>of ACBL in WBF matters -if in some years China becomes the country
>with most affiliated bridge players, do you expect the various bodies
>like ACs to be overwhelmed with Chinese?
Language problems are part of the reason. Yet it is very odd
that a highly respected person like Mr Nakatani from Japan
seemed to be in Maastricht for the Mixed Teams, yet he was
mysteriously not on the WBF AC, his Zone not even being
represented on the AC.
>Still, since bridge is going olympic etc. it might be a good idea not
>just to adopt the doping control procedures but to take a leaf out
>of the book of sports where judges or referees play a crucial role.
>So, one idea might be to have ten populous NCBOs designate each one
>eminent member to the AC. This is what they do in, say, gymnastics
>or diving. In football (World Cup etc.), each country designates one
>referee only.
You omitted boxing, whose Olympic judges we do not want to
emulate.
Peter Gill
Australia.
Robert Nordgren
Sarantakos) wrote:
>Right. So why not eliminate any foundation for any such accusation
>by having ACs where no country would have more than one
>representative?
Excellent suggestion i support it 100% Something needs to be done with
the last cple yrs mess that have happend on a cple occasion.
The most interesting appeal in this match is not this board in
question but the outcome of the first appeal on the following hand
\ Ax
\ AKx
\ AKJTxxx
\ x
Txxx \ Q
xxx \ QJxx
x \ Q9xx
AKxxx \ Qxxx
KJ9xxx \
xxx \
x \
JTx \
South West North East
2Di(1) 3Di(2)
3Sp(3) 4Cl(4)
5Cl 5Di
1) 2Di Multi
2) 3Di Natural and Forcing
3) 3Sp Denied Di support and showed spade suit
4) 4Cl explained by S => West as Natural
"" N => East as being Ace asking with Sp as trump
West's Lead was a Club honor and after that there was nothng the
defense could do to prevent 5di from making.
Austria at this time made up the following scenario
1) if West had know that North had showed Single club
2) or that North did an Ace ask with sp as trump
About the Ace asking was it wrong explain of South or North.
According to the system documentation of NS
The use of this "weird" ace asking convention occurs if South have bid
instead of his 3sp bid a 4minor bid in witch case a 1step relay of
north would have been Ace asking 4minor bid would have showed diamond
support and a corresponding major but after the bid of 3sp no further
agreements and bidding from that point on is natural.
It would seem like that the NS pair have proven there case that the
actual agreement was natural and that the defender on lead have gotten
correct explains about the meanings of the bids made.
Even if you apply this fairly simple logic the outcome of the appeal
was a mere 3-2 in favor of NS, in other words a really close call to
be lost in favour for Austria.
The 2nd appeal and the one that this whole thread is all about The
Austrians could not present any written documentation that supported
there view that the defender that played down the Sp K had gotten
correct information But this appeal Sweden Lost with 5-0 according to
my 2nd hand info.
So a simple question do anyone thnk NS would have won there appeal
without a copy of very well written system notes that proved there
case???
Georgiana Gates
>
> I really dont thnk it is to unknown that the USA team HATES to play vs
> Sweden and would rather take 216 boards against the former blue team
> than facing Sweden.
>
> Could this have been done thru the AC this time, it sure makes you
> wonder when the makeup of it looks very partial and with many many
> members from one singel country that is at part involved in the
> outcome of the appeal since they have to play one of the teams in
> there next match.
that if Sweden had won, the U.S. would not have been allowed to
change their choice?
NOdav...@pdnt.com
The picking of opponents occurs before the round of 16. Once the round
of 16 matchups are finalized, all future matchups are predetermined.
In particular, in this case, the US had to play the winner of the
Austria-Sweden match in the quarters.
I had no idea that the Jacobs team "hates" to play this Swedish team.
Have they played in the past or is there a quote from a team member
that supports this claim?
David Stevenson
>On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 01:36:17 +0100, David Stevenson
><bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Robert Nordgren <clai...@gogators.iag.net> wrote
>>
>>>I hope for the good of bridge that AC's like this isnt made up
>>>anymore. There must be some guidelines in creating a AC that of the 5
>>>members in the AC Maximum 1 member should be allowed from a country
>>>that faces either team of those in the Appeal in there next match or
>>>having a possiblity of facing them in there next match.
>>
>>>And at any point regardless of involvement any single country should
>>>not have more than 2 members on a AC ever.
>>
>> These rules are not necessarily that easy to follow simply because the
>>USA has so many bridge players.
>
>How many is "so many"? Last time I checked, ACBL (which is not USA
>exactly) had roughly as many members as Netherlands and France
>combined. Yet, the ACs composition do not reflect (by far) this fact.
>
>The "population" argument cannot explain away the over-representation
>of ACBL in WBF matters -if in some years China becomes the country
>with most affiliated bridge players, do you expect the various bodies
>like ACs to be overwhelmed with Chinese?
If they also become pre-eminent in other ways as well, then yes. If
China provides the strength in depth, the organisation, the money and so
on, then they will reach a point where the WBF will begin to be pre-
eminently Chinese. At that point they are quite likely to also have a
majority on the Appeals Committee.
>> The actual pool of AC members had a number of Americans, naturally.
>>Add the fact that not all the pool was always available, and there are
>>practical difficulties in avoiding future opponents where Americans are
>>concerned. Furthermore, it is easy to say this afterwards, but it would
>>never occur to me to assume that an AC might be biased because of future
>>opponents. Are you sure this is not sour grapes because of the effect
>>of the decision?
>
>Still, since bridge is going olympic etc. it might be a good idea not
>just to adopt the doping control procedures but to take a leaf out
>of the book of sports where judges or referees play a crucial role.
>So, one idea might be to have ten populous NCBOs designate each one
>eminent member to the AC. This is what they do in, say, gymnastics
>or diving. In football (World Cup etc.), each country designates one
>referee only.
I think it a pity to have to take such a retrogade step. No, we have
not got the AC members we want, but that will certainly make it worse.
We would do far better if we had better members so that people are
happier with decisions anyway. However, the better members are
concentrated in certain countries, partly because the appeals process is
terrible in some places and well done in others.
>> Note: I am not suggesting that either decision was correct: I just
>>dislike the accusations of bias which seem totally unfounded to me.
>
>Right. So why not eliminate any foundation for any such accusation
>by having ACs where no country would have more than one
>representative?
I am quite sure someone on this group will just think of a different
reason to accuse bias.
David Stevenson
>David Stevenson can tell the reds from the blacks on
>most days.
Ye gods!!!!
<faints dead away>
.............
Excuse me, I think I shall go and lie down for a bit.
Ian Payn
David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MxTiNTAt...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
> David Burn <db...@btinternet.com> wrote
>
> >David Stevenson can tell the reds from the blacks on
> >most days.
>
> Ye gods!!!!
>
> <faints dead away>
>
> .............
>
> Excuse me, I think I shall go and lie down for a bit.
>
>
> --
from that particular quarter I think you should feel rather flattered.
t...@cix.compulink.co.uk
bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) wrote:
> Actually, as I have read this thread so far, you seem to have
> completely missed the facts that really governed the decision, ie
If the decision was reasonable, (right or wrong - who cares but
reasonable) then the "facts" you state below are relatively
unimportant (they still contain lessons on good procedure).
However, when, as it appears from the write-up provided by tobbe9*,
the decision is clearly absurd they become a matter for serious
investigation.
*I have seen nothing from official sources which contradicts the
information presented or the summarisation drawn from it by Jens
Christiansen. So despite the fact that tobbe9 has failed to give his
name neither RGB nor BLML has any other information to work from. The
WBF would be well-advised to get the real facts into the public domain
quickly if they differ at all from those already presented.
As to lessons to be learned.
> 6. The AC had three Americans on it.
Indeed a fact. Regardless of how an AC rules it would seem sensible
for ACs to be constructed in such a way that a representatives of a
single country do not form a majority. It's like having neutral
umpires in an English test match - primarily there to ensure the
appearance of being bias-free.
> 7. The Americans would always rule for Austria not Sweden.
Not fact. However it is, unfortunately, a fact that a committee
comprising mostly of Americans was put in the position of "choosing"
the opponents for USA to meet in the next round. Especially
unfortunate given the seemingly widespread belief that USA would not
wish to face one of the choices.
> 8. Two of the Americans were unsuitable because they are the wrong
> type of people.
I have not seen this suggested. However on related concerns:
Do not put a long-term partner/friend of an involved party on the AC.
Do put anyone on an AC if their is a risk of their being unduly
influenced by a fellow member.
would seem damn good guidelines for selecting ACs.
> 9. One of the Americans was unsuitable because he was Bobby Wolff.
Bobby has, in the past, been associated with at least one high-profile
case where the ruling has appeared based on "the laws as Bobby thinks
they should be" rather than "the laws as they are now". This does
raise a question about his suitability to Chair an AC.
> 10. The full details will not be published even though they will be.
Again not even alleged. It was said that they were being "temporarily
held back" which certainly seems to be true.
Tim West-Meads
Ron Johnson
David Burn <db...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>I was in Maastricht, and on the evening after Sweden's loss to Austria
>in the round of 16, I was at the same dinner table as Bjorn Fallenius
Worth noting that when Fallenius first moved to New York he used to
play frequently on the same team as Larry Cohen (who was playing
with Bergen then). With a fair amount of success I might add.
I have no doubt that the US team had a higher regard for the Swedish
team than the Austrian. I very much doubt that they hate/fear playing
them.
--
RNJ
Robert Nordgren
Just look back on what they thought about facing Magic Diamond in
Lille.
It's of no surprise that they hate to play against.
Hans Gelders
Onno Eskes published appeal 19 in this group.
I advice you to read it.
The comments of Bobby Wolff are interesting:
I quote
"Comment: The parameters in determining "mistaken bid" or "mistaken
explanation" are so subjective and clouded that everyone involved in
the
decision process can have the reasoning and conclusion of their choice
and
thus can have the power to rule for whom they want. This makes the
justice
process rife for bias. We must change it. Bobby Wolff."
It was known that the winner of the Austria-Sweden match would face the
team
from the United States in the quarter-finals. If the "justice process is
rife
for bias", one should make 100 % sure that no members of the
appeal-committee
would have vested interest in the result. That a majority of the members
in this
case come from a country that had vested interest is unacceptable.
David Burn informed us that there were two other
appeals in the Austria-Sweden match. I was only aware of one other case.
However,I'm very much interested in the publication of these
two other appeals.I'm especially interested in the make-up of the
appeal committees in these two other cases.
Regards,
Hans Gelders
Nikos Sarantakos <sar...@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote in message
news:39bdda35...@news-ath.forthnet.gr...
Robert Nordgren
<hans.g...@chello.be> wrote:
>However,I'm very much interested in the publication of these
>two other appeals.I'm especially interested in the make-up of the
>appeal committees in these two other cases.
>
I am too very interested in learning exactly how the AC looked like on
those other appeals that were filed and in particulary the appeal
involving Sylvan/sundelin's 5di contract that was allowed to make on
the lead. I know the vote in it was 3-2 but dont know yet whom voted
for what since i dont have the makeup of it at hand nor have i seen it
published yet. Facing the ruling in that appeal the 2nd one looks like
a slamdunk since the documentation is lacking to support E/N claim
that it was showing 5+ he and the fact that the bidder didnt have it
just even more makes it look like it was not the actual agreement.
I dont want to spectulate at this point i prefer to get complete
knowledge of those appeals before drawing any conclusion.
I thnk many would be interested in seeing all the appeals from that
match being posted.
Robert
to reply via e-mail, remove "gogators" from above address
David Stevenson
>The picking of opponents occurs before the round of 16. Once the round
>of 16 matchups are finalized, all future matchups are predetermined.
>In particular, in this case, the US had to play the winner of the
>Austria-Sweden match in the quarters.
>
>I had no idea that the Jacobs team "hates" to play this Swedish team.
>Have they played in the past or is there a quote from a team member
>that supports this claim?
According to what I heard the quote is from members of the Swedish
team, not from the Americans. However, what I heard was second-hand at
least and may be wrong.
David Burn
> Hans Gelders <hans.g...@chello.be> wrote
>
> >Also in the Belgium versus England match there was an appeal that
was
> >decisive for the outcome (appeal 16).
Here is something I wrote for BLML that might amuse a few readers of
this list also.
[Author's note: some dramatic licence has been taken with the facts of
this incident. The Belgian players, as well as being worthy - almost
too worthy! - opponents, were exemplary sportsmen who took the
incident referred to here and the ruling in the best possible spirit.]
Ballade of Unwarranted Presumption
Playing against a Belgian side,
I reached a dodgy contract, where
Although to beat me long they tried,
They hadn’t any cards to spare.
Instead of merely sitting there
And waiting for all Hell to freeze,
I rose politely in my chair
And claimed it on a double squeeze.
Directors came from far and wide,
Out of some dark infernal lair.
"He can’t do that!" the Belgians cried,
"It’s not allowed! It isn’t fair!"
Bill Schoder fixed me with a glare.
"What were you doing, if you please?"
"It’s quite all right – don’t lose your hair –
I claimed it on a double squeeze."
They called Committees to decide
If I was mad, or took no care.
"And are you normal?" I replied,
"I try to be, when I declare."
"Are you inferior?" "What! You dare
To ask me questions such as these?
The end position wasn’t rare –
I claimed it on a double squeeze."
Envoi
Prince, all the Laws are pure hot air,
And made for sheep by chimpanzees.
But that is none of my affair -
I claimed it on a double squeeze.
David desJardins
> If the "justice process is rife for bias", one should make 100 % sure
> that no members of the appeal-committee would have vested interest in
> the result.
Bobby Wolff doesn't gain anything if some other American advances in the
tournament, nor does he lose anything if the American team doesn't
advance. While one can imagine that he could be biased either in favor
or against certain American players or teams, whom he knows well, this
isn't a "vested interest". He probably know lots of players on the
other teams, too.
David desJardins
David Stevenson
>In article <i8U2$TBTcX...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
>bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) wrote:
>
>> Actually, as I have read this thread so far, you seem to have
>> completely missed the facts that really governed the decision, ie
>
>If the decision was reasonable, (right or wrong - who cares but
>reasonable) then the "facts" you state below are relatively
>unimportant (they still contain lessons on good procedure).
>However, when, as it appears from the write-up provided by tobbe9*,
>the decision is clearly absurd they become a matter for serious
>investigation.
>
>*I have seen nothing from official sources which contradicts the
>information presented or the summarisation drawn from it by Jens
>Christiansen. So despite the fact that tobbe9 has failed to give his
>name neither RGB nor BLML has any other information to work from. The
>WBF would be well-advised to get the real facts into the public domain
>quickly if they differ at all from those already presented.
I see no reason why nagging from RGB should shortcut a process that
will probably only be a few days long to do the job properly. I never
like to be associated with processes where the job is done in an
inferior fashion solely to satisfy the whingers. As previously stated
the appeals will be available fairly soon on the web.
>As to lessons to be learned.
>
>> 6. The AC had three Americans on it.
>
>Indeed a fact. Regardless of how an AC rules it would seem sensible
>for ACs to be constructed in such a way that a representatives of a
>single country do not form a majority. It's like having neutral
>umpires in an English test match - primarily there to ensure the
>appearance of being bias-free.
>
>> 7. The Americans would always rule for Austria not Sweden.
>
>Not fact. However it is, unfortunately, a fact that a committee
>comprising mostly of Americans was put in the position of "choosing"
>the opponents for USA to meet in the next round. Especially
>unfortunate given the seemingly widespread belief that USA would not
>wish to face one of the choices.
>
>> 8. Two of the Americans were unsuitable because they are the wrong
>> type of people.
>
>I have not seen this suggested. However on related concerns:
> Do not put a long-term partner/friend of an involved party on the AC.
> Do put anyone on an AC if their is a risk of their being unduly
> influenced by a fellow member.
>would seem damn good guidelines for selecting ACs.
OK. Let me ask how anyone would know these facts?
I construct appeals at major English tourneys. Do you expect me to
know the history of every player and/or Committee member involved?
I rely on members to disqualify themselves and players to object to
members if necessary. The particular accusations I heard afterwards
about friends, wishing not to play against Sweden [funnily enough, no
American has said this to me yet: are you sure it is true?] and so on:
are you sure that the Co-ordinator was aware of them?
The only thing that he certainly was aware of was that he had three
Americans on a Committee on which he had to have two because of
logistics. Whether that was a mistake or not I am not arguing: perhaps
so. But everything else that is being said seems to be things that are
thought of afterwards by people who did not like a decision.
>> 9. One of the Americans was unsuitable because he was Bobby Wolff.
>
>Bobby has, in the past, been associated with at least one high-profile
>case where the ruling has appeared based on "the laws as Bobby thinks
>they should be" rather than "the laws as they are now". This does
>raise a question about his suitability to Chair an AC.
That is a different matter. The Co-ordinator had to use him to chair
ACs once the original AC for the tourney was set up. Thus it is that
original choice that is the one you should question rather than this
particular case.
>> 10. The full details will not be published even though they will be.
>
>Again not even alleged. It was said that they were being "temporarily
>held back" which certainly seems to be true.
It was said they would not be published at Maastricht. That is true.
To say that they are being held back now is not true.
David Stevenson
>David Burn informed us that there were two other
>appeals in the Austria-Sweden match. I was only aware of one other case.
>
>However,I'm very much interested in the publication of these
>two other appeals.I'm especially interested in the make-up of the
>appeal committees in these two other cases.
The AC for the other case that was heard was the same: Wolff [C], De
Wael [S], Gerard, Polisner, Rand.
The third appeal was withdrawn after the AC was chosen and ready. The
AC would have been: Wignall [C], Stevenson [S], Auken, Colker, d'Orsi.
George Brewder
Jens Brix Christiansen
>
> Jens Brix Christiansen <j...@dksin.dk> wrote
> >Before expressing any kind of opinion about the ruling, I would like to
> >make sure that those who criticize the AC's ruling agree that these five
> >points are to be understood as well-established facts.
>
> Actually, as I have read this thread so far, you seem to have
> completely missed the facts that really governed the decision, ie
Well, David, I think you got one word wrong in your summary. You should
have written "ignored" instead of "missed".
> 6. The AC had three Americans on it.
>
> 7. The Americans would always rule for Austria not Sweden.
>
> 8. Two of the Americans were unsuitable because they are the wrong type
> of people.
>
> 9. One of the Americans was unsuitable because he was Bobby Wolff.
>
> 10. The full details will not be published even though they will be.
I am going to wait for the decision to be published before I make up my
mind regarding whether I agree with it or not. That should clear up a
lot of doubtful points, including at least point 6.
Nikos Sarantakos
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
The Chinese angle was an hypothetical case, to show the limits of
the 'population' argument. The France+Netherlands case, however,
is a real one. France and Netherlands have as many members
as the ACBL (in fact, I guess they have a bit more) and yet
their participation in the Appeals Committees is way less
important than the US participation. Perhaps the answer to this
apparent paradox lies in your other statement:
>
> I think it a pity to have to take such a retrogade step. No, we have
>not got the AC members we want, but that will certainly make it worse.
>We would do far better if we had better members so that people are
>happier with decisions anyway. However, the better members are
>concentrated in certain countries, partly because the appeals process is
>terrible in some places and well done in others.
Do you mean that the appeals process is terrible in France and
Netherlands? :-))
I don't know about the appeals in Maastricht, but scanning thru the
appeals in Rhodes I came with the following:
Out of 24 appeals,
in 12 cases, there was an absolute US majority in the AC (e.g. 3
members out of 5)
in 3 cases, the AC had an even number of members and the US
contingent accounted for the half
in 9 cases, there was no US majority (in some of these there was
US plurality, for instance 3 out of 7; one of these 9 appeals
concerned USA, hence no US participation).
How is that for balanced and fair?
ns
Peter Gill
>I am going to wait for the decision to be published before I make up
>my mind regarding whether I agree with it or not. That should clear
>up a lot of doubtful points, including at least point 6.
The appeal was published on rgb yesterday, in a thread called
Appeal No. 19, Austria vs Sweden - posted by Onno Eskes.
It has attracted just two comments, much less than this
more speculative thread.
Peter Gill
Australia.
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)
> I don't know about the appeals in Maastricht, but scanning thru the
> appeals in Rhodes I came with the following:
>
> Out of 24 appeals,
> in 12 cases, there was an absolute US majority in the AC (e.g. 3
> members out of 5)
> in 3 cases, the AC had an even number of members and the US
> contingent accounted for the half
> in 9 cases, there was no US majority (in some of these there was
> US plurality, for instance 3 out of 7; one of these 9 appeals
> concerned USA, hence no US participation).
You should include in these kinds of statistics how many of the AC's had a
US chairman. Under WBF rules, the chair of the committee is allowed to
overrule a committee majority (but not a unanimous vote).
Henk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.ui...@ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445
1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305
The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A man can take a train and never reach his destination.
(Kerouac, well before RFC2780).
Nikos Sarantakos
<he...@ripe.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nikos Sarantakos wrote:
>
>> I don't know about the appeals in Maastricht, but scanning thru the
>> appeals in Rhodes I came with the following:
>>
>> Out of 24 appeals,
>> in 12 cases, there was an absolute US majority in the AC (e.g. 3
>> members out of 5)
>> in 3 cases, the AC had an even number of members and the US
>> contingent accounted for the half
>> in 9 cases, there was no US majority (in some of these there was
>> US plurality, for instance 3 out of 7; one of these 9 appeals
>> concerned USA, hence no US participation).
>
>You should include in these kinds of statistics how many of the AC's had a
>US chairman. Under WBF rules, the chair of the committee is allowed to
>overrule a committee majority (but not a unanimous vote).
>
>Henk
Well, since you asked I checked it and in fact under this angle the US
domination becomes even more pronounced. Out of 24 appeals, three
concerned US team, hence no USA members.
Out of the rest 21:
- 19 had an US chairman
- 2 had a non-US chairman.
There was also a "special appeal" also chaired by US.
But, of course, some will say that in Europe the appeals procedure is
done terribly, that's why an American chairman is needed to set things
straight.
ns
pwi...@my-deja.com
I guess that proves that we'd rather speculate, theorize,
pontificate, ... rather than discuss the facts of the case.
Regards
Pete
--
pwi...@my-dejanews.com
Robb's Law It's impossible to devise a foolproof system as Nature
will simply evolve a more perfect fool.
Naeser's Law You can make it foolproof, but you can't make it
damnfoolproof.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
t...@cix.compulink.co.uk
bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) wrote:
> >The WBF would be well-advised to get the real facts into the public
> >domain quickly if they differ at all from those already presented.
>
> I see no reason why nagging from RGB should shortcut a process that
> will probably only be a few days long to do the job properly. I
> never like to be associated with processes where the job is done in
> an inferior fashion solely to satisfy the whingers. As previously
> stated the appeals will be available fairly soon on the web.
My wife, a public relations specialist, has told me in the past words
to the effect that "If a rumour gains widespread circulation you
should get the real facts out as quickly and widely as possible".
This struck me as sensible advice. I'm not suggesting that quality
should be sacrificed, just that priorities should be reviewed.
I believe RGB is a powerful rumour-mill for competitive bridge in
general, as such it should be properly addressed.
Organisations have only one reputation. Managing that reputation *is*
important. Maybe it shouldn't be that way in an ideal world - but in
this one it is. Many "sporting" bodies recognise this and have a
"Director of Public Affairs" or "Director of Communications" - does
the WBF?
Having seen what I think was an official write-up the facts did indeed
differ from those received second-hand. Most importantly the ruling
looked reasonable (still wrong IMO, but reasonable).
Tim West-Meads
David Stevenson
David Stevenson
Certainly not. I am sure it is fine in the Netherlands. :))
> I don't know about the appeals in Maastricht, but scanning thru the
>appeals in Rhodes I came with the following:
>
>Out of 24 appeals,
>in 12 cases, there was an absolute US majority in the AC (e.g. 3
>members out of 5)
>in 3 cases, the AC had an even number of members and the US
>contingent accounted for the half
>in 9 cases, there was no US majority (in some of these there was
>US plurality, for instance 3 out of 7; one of these 9 appeals
>concerned USA, hence no US participation).
>
>How is that for balanced and fair?
My experience of picking ACs [a job I have had at major English
tourneys for about seven years now] is that geographical considerations
are the least important.
If you do not think the ACs use the right members, surely the way to
change that is by changing the set of members used? But I do not see
the problems of using the US members in any particular way.
David Stevenson
>
>> I don't know about the appeals in Maastricht, but scanning thru the
>> appeals in Rhodes I came with the following:
>>
>> Out of 24 appeals,
>> in 12 cases, there was an absolute US majority in the AC (e.g. 3
>> members out of 5)
>> in 3 cases, the AC had an even number of members and the US
>> contingent accounted for the half
>> in 9 cases, there was no US majority (in some of these there was
>> US plurality, for instance 3 out of 7; one of these 9 appeals
>> concerned USA, hence no US participation).
>
>You should include in these kinds of statistics how many of the AC's had a
>US chairman. Under WBF rules, the chair of the committee is allowed to
>overrule a committee majority (but not a unanimous vote).
No longer.
Sven-Olov Flodqvist
Regards
-Tjolpe Flodqvist
axman wrote:
>
> In article <8pikbq$5vo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> tob...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8pgqe3$2u2t$3...@news.okay.net>,
> > "Thomas Dehn" <thomas...@myokay.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Nikos Sarantakos" <sar...@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote:
> > > > On 10 Sep 2000 10:36:47 -0700, David desJardins
> > > > <de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >"Hans Gelders" <hans.g...@chello.be> writes:
> > > > >> I can of course not give more information about these two
> > appeals, as
> > > > >> this would reveal my source.
> > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > >
> > > > >You misspelled "undermine my slurs".
> > > > >
> > > > > David desJardins
> > > >
> > > > In any case, the hard facts (i.e. deal No X, North bid this,
> > > > director said this, AC decided that) would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Definitely. There have been so many rumours now,
> > > we want to see at least the hand, the bidding, and
> > > the director's and the AC's decision.
> > >
> > > Thomas
> >
> > Well guys, here is the case. Remember, this is second hand
> information
> >
> > K9xxx
> > Qx
> > Txxx
> > AJ
> >
> > Aqx 8xx
> > Atxx 9xx
> > QJx Kx
> > xxx KQTxx
> >
> > JT
> > KJxx
> > A9xx
> > 9xx
> >
> > W N E S
> > - P P P
> > 1H 1S 2C P
> > 2NT P 3S P
> > 3NT P P P
> >
> > Sweden North-South, Austria East-West
> >
> > 2NT was alerted by East to North and explained as 14-16 with 5+
> hearts.
> > The 2NT-bidder did not alert his bid.
> >
> > Diamond spot was lead to small, Ace, small. Spade jack was taken by
> the
> > ace. A club to the jack and king. Queen of clubs to small, small and
> > Ace. North now knew that South had QJx in diamonds, three spots in
> clubs
> > using count signals. With at least 5hearts in wests hand means that Q
> of
> > spades now is singleton. If the spades are not cashed right away
> there
> > may be 9 tricks (4C, 2D, ace of spades and ace-king of hearts. North
> > played the king of spades and the contract was safe.
> >
> > The TD after consulting other TD’s and interviewing numerous top
> players
> > ruled 3NT-1 because of wrong explanation. The 2NT-bidder thought that
> > 14-16 with 5 hearts only was applicable after 1H-1S-2NT and
> 1H-1NT-2NT.
> > His apprehension agreed to their system notes. Before the AC said
> their
> > captain that it was obvious that the 2NT-bidder had bidden wrongly
> and
> > that his partner had explained correctly. The AC ruled wrong bid and
> > correct explanation.
> >
> > Tobbe9
>
> Thanks Tobbe9
>
> I do think it is eccentric to find as fact that the written system
> notes deny the systemic meaning of 2N to be 5+ hearts with 14-16 hcp;
> while also finding as fact that the system was indeed that very thing.
> I would conclude that it is likely that the case presented may not
> recount all of the facts, such as the basis for resolving the
> contradiction. I would not convene a jury just yet.
>
> On another front, it seems that here exist several elements
> illustrating a significant part of what is 'wrong with bridge'.
>
> First, a pair that has undertaken a system that is beyond their
> capacity to remember, and perhaps apply. And this example is followed
> by the putzers.
>
> Second, the system as asserted by the captain appears to be not very
> workable. I too am curious what the systemic call is for the hand. I
> would think that only 3C makes sense [2S, nor 2D, nor 2H, nor 2N does
> not seem like a good idea given the kind of values 2C promises; and for
> that matter, 3C does seem to be a bit much in light of what 2C
> promises.] That is to say, the system creates so many problems in
> practice that players are continually having to deviate from it in
> order to avoid exceeding the indicated capacity of the hand.
>
> axman
David Stevenson
>In article <YoW3bOA6...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
>bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) wrote:
>
>> >The WBF would be well-advised to get the real facts into the public
>> >domain quickly if they differ at all from those already presented.
>>
>> I see no reason why nagging from RGB should shortcut a process that
>> will probably only be a few days long to do the job properly. I
>> never like to be associated with processes where the job is done in
>> an inferior fashion solely to satisfy the whingers. As previously
>> stated the appeals will be available fairly soon on the web.
>
>My wife, a public relations specialist, has told me in the past words
>to the effect that "If a rumour gains widespread circulation you
>should get the real facts out as quickly and widely as possible".
>This struck me as sensible advice. I'm not suggesting that quality
>should be sacrificed, just that priorities should be reviewed.
>I believe RGB is a powerful rumour-mill for competitive bridge in
>general, as such it should be properly addressed.
Wait a minute, you cannot have it both ways. You certainly were
suggesting quality should be sacrificed, whether you realised it or not.
So, which is more important, letting people wait for about five days and
doing the job properly, or not doing the job properly, and getting a
botched job out in two days?
t...@cix.compulink.co.uk
bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) wrote:
> Article: 120107 of rec.games.bridge
> Path: news.cix.co.uk!peernews.cix.co.uk!ayres.ftech.net!news.ftech.n
> et!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!blak
> jak.demon.co.uk!bridge
> From: David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
> Subject: Re: AC Scandals in Maastricht
> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 02:36:45 +0100
> Organization: knave
> Message-ID: <xnlCpfBt...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>
> References: <YoW3bOA6...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>
> <8pq41g$7iv$1...@plutonium.compulink.co.uk>
> Reply-To: David Stevenson <bne...@blakjak.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: blakjak.demon.co.uk
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: blakjak.demon.co.uk:194.222.6.72
> X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 969331322 nnrp-10:23995 NO-IDENT blakjak.d
> emon.co.uk:194.222.6.72
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Newsreader: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U <C1QwiTKHUKosRE+Wuy
> SlFLLusW>
> Lines: 32
> Xref: news.cix.co.uk rec.games.bridge:120107
It cannot take five days to check and publish a single appeal.
Postpone all other appeal write-ups for 1 day, bring the one that
needs to be dealt with urgently to the top of the list, convene an
emergency meeting to address it, do whatever it takes to kill the
rumours before they take off, write an official statement in support
of the decision.
Tim
David Stevenson
>In article <xnlCpfBt...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
>bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) wrote:
>> Wait a minute, you cannot have it both ways. You certainly were
>> suggesting quality should be sacrificed, whether you realised it or
>> not. So, which is more important, letting people wait for about five
>> days and doing the job properly, or not doing the job properly, and
>> getting a botched job out in two days?
>
>It cannot take five days to check and publish a single appeal.
>Postpone all other appeal write-ups for 1 day, bring the one that
>needs to be dealt with urgently to the top of the list, convene an
>emergency meeting to address it, do whatever it takes to kill the
>rumours before they take off, write an official statement in support
>of the decision.
No. RGB is not that important.
I really think that people need a smidgeon of self-control. If people
really want to talk about these things in advance they will do so, but
there is no need to start messing with the system in this way. the
appeals are published en bloc a few days after the Championships and
that is adequate. The people who believe that the Americans actually
agreed [hah - agreed!!!!!] to cheat to get one team rather than another
are not going to be affected by the truth anyway.
Jens Brix Christiansen
>
> Peter Gill <Gi...@bigpond.com> wrote
No. I just read one thread before the other, so I posted my intention
to wait first, and then I posted my comments shortly afterwards. Peter
no doubt read my comments in the same order.