ACBL Zero Tolerance Policy (LONG)
Mlfrench
>TENTATIVE ACBL ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURES <
So it's just tentative, pending action by the BoD, I presume. So much for Alan
LeBendig's indignant denial of my statement that the ACBL is encouraging ZT.
The subject message on ZT is from ACBL headquarters, signed by Kent Burghard,
ACBL Computer Services.
>Regardless of the degree and method of publication of the Zero
>Tolerance Program, the membership needs this policy as soon as
>possible.>
Is this just Kent's opinion, are we to suppose, or does the whole message come
from someone higher up?
Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfr...@writeme.com
alan d frank
When playing against better opposition, I appreciate comments such as "you
might have tried an intrafinesse to pick up the trumps for only one
loser." In any case, I don't consider such comments as a breach of the
proprieties. I'm concerned that players might find themselves being less
helpful for fear of a ZT director call.
Also, it should be made clear that attempting to straighten out bidding
misunderstandings after the fact with one's partner in a friendly way is
not a violation of the proprieties.
--Alan Frank
David desJardins
alan d frank <a...@world.std.com> writes:
> When playing against better opposition, I appreciate comments such as "you
> might have tried an intrafinesse to pick up the trumps for only one
> loser."
I think you are out of luck. "Zero Tolerance" is based on the theory
that such statements are insulting.
> In any case, I don't consider such comments as a breach of the
> proprieties.
The ACBL has ruled otherwise.
> I'm concerned that players might find themselves being less helpful
> for fear of a ZT director call.
That seems certain. However, you are probably in the minority; I think
most players don't actually want to be told what they could have done
better, so the majority will probably consider that lack of
"helpfulness" an improvement.
David desJardins
Kent Burghard
Mlfrench <mlfr...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971118213...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >TENTATIVE ACBL ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURES <
>
> So it's just tentative, pending action by the BoD, I presume. So much for
Alan
> LeBendig's indignant denial of my statement that the ACBL is encouraging
ZT.
> The subject message on ZT is from ACBL headquarters, signed by Kent
Burghard,
> ACBL Computer Services.
>
> >Regardless of the degree and method of publication of the Zero
> >Tolerance Program, the membership needs this policy as soon as
> >possible.>
>
> Is this just Kent's opinion, are we to suppose, or does the whole message
come
> from someone higher up?
The tentative policy was posted with permission of Jim Kirkham, chair of
the
ZT committee who submitted this policy to the Board of Directors, after a
request to headquarters to post the policy that was being discussed and
voted on by the BoD. The sentence quoted above is part of the discussion
of the policy and was submitted to the Board. If I post from the ACBL's
account rather than my personal one, it is an official ACBL post.
I will try to get the changes made in committee and post them along with
the
final vote later today. This version of the policy, if approved, will
apply only to NABC tournaments, although as stated in the policy, ACBL
districts, units, and clubs are encouraged to adopt the policy for their
tournaments.
Kent Burghard
ACBL Headquarters
Tim Goodwin
David desJardins <de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>alan d frank <a...@world.std.com> writes:
>> When playing against better opposition, I appreciate comments such as "you
>> might have tried an intrafinesse to pick up the trumps for only one
>> loser."
>
>I think you are out of luck. "Zero Tolerance" is based on the theory
>that such statements are insulting.
And, many times they are.
If your friend the expert suggests an alternate line of play, you
won't find it rude. Nor will you file a ZT report. No problem.
But, there are many non-friend experts (or expert wanna-bes) that
offer suggestions that people don't want to hear.
Different circumstances call for different behavior. You might not
say the same things to other parents at your kid's birthday party that
you do at the weekly poker game. Some bridge players have an amazing
inability to recognize that not all players want their advice.
What Zero Tolerance does (or hopes to do) is to enforce the basic
standards for bridge behavior as outlined in the Laws.
Does this mean that there will be less unsolicited advice? Yes. Will
everyone like this? No. Which do I think is more important:
eliminating some perceived rude behavior or having a free flow of
helpful comments? I vote for trying to eliminate the perception of
rude behavior. Does this mean you can't ask a respected player if she
might have played the hand differently? Of course not.
Tim
John Blubaugh
Dear Kent,
You are behind times. All of the clubs in my area (Indianapolis) already
have those obnoxious Zero Tolerance posters on their walls. They have
adopted the concept even if the BoD doesn't approve it. I am afraid this
will blow up in a big way. You would surprised that in most areas the
"good" players don't play in the clubs anymore. There is a reason for that
and the ACBL does nothing to fix it. This will just be used by nonplayers
to drive more "good" players away. I can see the flood of forms being sent
in now complaining because someone does this little thing or that little
thing. When are we going to deal with the real problem? Club players are
coffeehousers and cheaters. Bobby Goldman had it right when he said there
was an element that did this and some or even most of them aren't aware
they do it. In the past, "good" players have taken care of this at the
table not by calling the Director and asking for an adjustment but by
giving a hard lecture to the offending player. I understand that this
causes problems.
What the ACBL needs is for ethical behavior to be taught right along with
the clubs, diamonds, hearts, and spades series. Let the people know that
bridge is a game of full disclosure and theatrics are not tolerated. Teach
them that hesitating when they have a singleton in a suit and nothing to
think about is wrong. Teach them that it is wrong to ask for a review
before passing to bring attention to an opening lead for partner. Teach
them not to spin a singleton or thumb it hard on the table. Teach them that
part of the beauty of the game is having an opponent make a great play and
congratulating them.
We should be a group that applies 100% tolerance to everyone. That is
really the problem here. The "good" player is not tolerant of the
developing player who goes through this stage of trying to deceive the
opponents. I was lucky. I started playing in a club in Terre Haute, IN. If
I did something wrong, like saying "I'll double" instead of "double", you
can be sure I was told quickly and firmly this game isn't played that way.
I didn't take offense, I appreciated their guidance and I learned. Now, if
anyone says anything, someone says, "You are accusing me of cheating."
Well, they are right, that is a fact and in most cases they are whether
they know it or not. A good player used to break down the situation and
explain what was wrong. Now, he is danger of expulsion for doing so. We are
now forced to wait until we run into this player at a tournament and call a
Director and have him chastised in front of the world. This is Zero
Tolerance?
John Blubaugh
--
Want to learn more about bridge pros? Visit:
http://www.in.net/pro/
Do you have bridge questions? Visit:
http://www.in.net/~blubaugh/
Barry Margolin
>When playing against better opposition, I appreciate comments such as "you
>might have tried an intrafinesse to pick up the trumps for only one
>loser." In any case, I don't consider such comments as a breach of the
>proprieties. I'm concerned that players might find themselves being less
>helpful for fear of a ZT director call.
If you make it clear that constructive criticism is welcome, then such
comments should not be considered a breach of proprieties. But many
players consider unrequested criticism about their bidding or play from
opponents to be demeaning. Unless you know otherwise, you should assume
that the other players will not appreciate your unsolicited lessons, so
don't offer them.
>Also, it should be made clear that attempting to straighten out bidding
>misunderstandings after the fact with one's partner in a friendly way is
>not a violation of the proprieties.
I think the ZT policy is pretty clear that it's referring to demeaning
comments and "lessons", not simple discussions about a partnership's
systems. But if you want to argue, save it for later. Compare:
"Shouldn't that have been a suit preference situation?" with "You idiot,
how could you lead a spade when I clearly signalled for a diamond?"
The ZT policy isn't going to be implemented by mindless automatons. It's
an attempt to codify what most people would consider normal standards of
behavior, not create some rigid, draconian rules.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA
Support the anti-spam movement; see <http://www.cauce.org/>
Jeff Goldsmith
alan d frank wrote:
>
> When playing against better opposition, I appreciate comments such as "you
> might have tried an intrafinesse to pick up the trumps for only one
> loser." In any case, I don't consider such comments as a breach of the
> proprieties. I'm concerned that players might find themselves being less
> helpful for fear of a ZT director call.
Said as you describe, there should be no problem.
Same situation, however, and the comment is, "you
just went down in a cooler. You just missed the
obvious intrafinesse." That's borderline and would
probably be fine among friends, but not otherwise.
"Hahaha! Ten IMPs for sure, pard. Our guy won't
blow this one. The intrafinesse is obvious," will
get a penalty.
> Also, it should be made clear that attempting to straighten out bidding
> misunderstandings after the fact with one's partner in a friendly way is
> not a violation of the proprieties.
Just about anything done in a friendly way should
be no problem. You hit the nail on the head.
--Jeff
--
# Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of
# the masses." ...what do you suppose that means?
# Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet.
# --Watterson
# ---
# http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff
Tim Goodwin
"John Blubaugh" <p...@in.net> wrote:
>In the past, "good" players have taken care of this at the
>table not by calling the Director and asking for an adjustment but by
>giving a hard lecture to the offending player. I understand that this
>causes problems.
>A good player used to break down the situation and
>explain what was wrong. Now, he is danger of expulsion for doing so. We are
>now forced to wait until we run into this player at a tournament and call a
>Director and have him chastised in front of the world. This is Zero
>Tolerance?
In a duplicate game, the only people who should be giving hard
lectures or breaking down the situation are directors.
Tim
David Stevenson
Posted + emailed
Kent Burghard wrote:
>The tentative policy was posted with permission of Jim Kirkham, chair of
>the
>ZT committee who submitted this policy to the Board of Directors, after a
>request to headquarters to post the policy that was being discussed and
>voted on by the BoD. The sentence quoted above is part of the discussion
>of the policy and was submitted to the Board. If I post from the ACBL's
>account rather than my personal one, it is an official ACBL post.
>
>I will try to get the changes made in committee and post them along with
>the
>final vote later today. This version of the policy, if approved, will
>apply only to NABC tournaments, although as stated in the policy, ACBL
>districts, units, and clubs are encouraged to adopt the policy for their
>tournaments.
I hope that the changes suggested to make it legal are included. They
mainly revolve round the apparent confusion between Procedural and
Disciplinary Penalties. They were discussed in BLML, and I do not think
that the arguments are suitable for repeating here. However, my final
suggestion was:
I recommend that any Sponsoring Organisation instituting a Zero
Tolerance policy lists the offences, then states:
[a] Tournament Directors are empowered to issue Disciplinary Penalties
under Law 91A for breaches of this code.
[b] In the absence of strong mitigating factors, when a player commits
a first offence s/he will receive a 3 imp or quarter-board penalty.
[c] In the absence of strong mitigating factors, when a player commits
a second offence the contestant will receive disqualification from the
event [approval under Law 91B is hereby conferred on the TD for this
procedure]. However, a TD may decide to suspend the contestant under
Law 91A from the rest of the session instead if he sees fit. In both
cases it is not merely the player that is disqualified or suspended: it
applies to the contestant, ie her/his pair or whole team.
[d] While these penalties are not normally appealable, if a player has
a reasonable case the Tournament Director will usually allow it to be
considered by an Appeals Committee. The Tournament Director is not
bound to follow their advice.
--------------
If any of you enjoy reading about the finer points of the Laws of
Bridge, and having discussions and disagreements about them, then I
suggest you subscribe to the Bridge-laws mailing list [BLML]. To do so,
you:
Send an email with no subject to:
In the body of the email include:
subscribe bridge-laws
I hope you find it interesting.
--
David Stevenson *****************************************************
* New Edgar Kaplan memorial message on Bridgepage *
* http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm *
*****************************************************
Chris Ryall
David Stevenson <bri...@blakjak.demon.co.REMOVETHIS.uk> wrote:
> I recommend that any Sponsoring Organisation instituting a Zero
>Tolerance policy lists the offences, then states:
>[a] Tournament Directors are empowered to issue Disciplinary Penalties
>under Law 91A for breaches of this code.
>[b] In the absence of strong mitigating factors, when a player commits
>a first offence s/he will receive a 3 imp or quarter-board penalty.
OK: To merely warn once the code was published would not work as often
such players offend just once in an event and never triggger the fine
>[c] In the absence of strong mitigating factors, when a player commits
>a second offence the contestant will receive disqualification from the
>event [approval under Law 91B is hereby conferred on the TD for this
>procedure]. However, a TD may decide to suspend the contestant under
>Law 91A from the rest of the session instead if he sees fit. In both
>cases it is not merely the player that is disqualified or suspended: it
>applies to the contestant, ie her/his pair or whole team.
I find this unfair. The team-mates have done nothing wrong and
a substitution should be allowed (probably not available in practice)
>[d] While these penalties are not normally appealable, if a player has
>a reasonable case the Tournament Director will usually allow it to be
>considered by an Appeals Committee. The Tournament Director is not
>bound to follow their advice.
No way David! The *director* can decide whether to allow appeal
against *his* decision!! Can't see that working at all. As you know
I have only once appealed a decision, and won. Somewhat phyrrically as
the committee then fined me 1.5 vp for an agreed 1 second tempo break.
I felt this fair, albeit rought justice in the case and later even
felt flattered - that 3 internationals thought me good enough to keep
such strict tempo.
Now had the director ruled I was *not allowed* to even make that appeal
a sense of injustice would have stayed with me for a very long time.
I think standard appeal rules must apply here. If the appellant loses
again - it might convince him that it is *his* behavior that is wrong.
-- chris
--
Chris Ryall, Wirral UK (please remove eyes from deiimon to email)
Kent Burghard
According to ACBL President Howard Piltch, the ACBL Zero Tolerance
Policy was passed overwhelmingly by the ACBL Board of Directors!
The name was kept as Zero Tolerance since it is well known by that
name in many parts of ACBL territory. Very few changes were made
to the policy posted here a few days ago. I will update the ACBL
web page with the final version.
ACBL members are encouraged to print a copy of the web page and take
it to their club managers, unit and district officers and request
that the policy be instituted to improvement the enjoyment of duplicate
bridge for all.
Kent Burghard
ACBL Headquarters
Tim Goodwin
Chris Ryall <ch...@cavendish.deiimon.co.uk> wrote:
>>[c] In the absence of strong mitigating factors, when a player commits
>>a second offence the contestant will receive disqualification from the
>>event [approval under Law 91B is hereby conferred on the TD for this
>>procedure]. However, a TD may decide to suspend the contestant under
>>Law 91A from the rest of the session instead if he sees fit. In both
>>cases it is not merely the player that is disqualified or suspended: it
>>applies to the contestant, ie her/his pair or whole team.
> I find this unfair. The team-mates have done nothing wrong and
> a substitution should be allowed (probably not available in practice)
The team-mates selected their team-mate.
Brian Baresch
>> I find this unfair. The team-mates have done nothing wrong and
>> a substitution should be allowed (probably not available in practice)
>The team-mates selected their team-mate.
Right. If a player knows he risks getting his whole team DQ'd (and
thus upset at him) he should be more considerate. At the least he'll
have a hard time finding teammates in future, which seems to me to be
another effective deterrent.
Now if it's a pickup team with the player's teammates never having
seen him before meeting at the partnership desk, that's an interesting
issue. Perhaps a portion of the entry fee, depending on how late in
the event the DQ occurs, could be refunded (pro-rated so that in
effect everyone but the offender gets a refund)?
Just thinking out loud, so to speak.
Best regards,
Brian P. Baresch, National Sports Massage Team
Lawrence, Kansas, USA
bar...@sprynet.com
speaking for myself
Chris Ryall
Tim Goodwin <ti...@ime.net> wrote:
>> I find this unfair. The team-mates have done nothing wrong and
>> a substitution should be allowed (probably not available in practice)
>
>The team-mates selected their team-mate.
This is their punishment! Also for everyone else as the whole team
is ejected, the movemement unbalances, you get triplets in a Swiss.
I can see no reason why a locum cannot join into the team for merely
practical reasons; but can imagine circumstances where the whole team
withdraws in support of its suspended member. There ought to be some
flexibility (apart from actually kicking out the unrepentent boor)
If the *laws* only allow ejection of a whole entity (here a team),
then we are not addressing squarely the problem of bad *individual*
behavior. This practice would be most unusual. In say football only
the miscreant is sent off. Although clearly the option of playing
on with 3 men is not available in our case!
Strangely I feel less sympathetic to ejecting a *pair* as an entity.
Bridge is a partnership game and true scratch partnerships are rare
in tournamant play. In my own partnership we watch each others ethics
as part of the process, and would certainly discuss any out of line
comments or behavior self critically (and have done). -- chris
Chris Ryall
David Stevenson <bri...@blakjak.demon.co.REMOVETHIS.uk> wrote:
> Standard appeals rules do apply. They are that you may appeal against
>any decision of a Director except a disciplinary one. The case that you
>quote has nothing to do with a disciplinary ruling.
Then the rules are wrong. Not all directors are are good as David and
I do not personally trust all of them with disciplinary matters. Heck,
they even get simple rulebook matters wrong as I discovered. If not a
local appeal, then the player should have a right of self referral to
the relevant conduct committee (paying deposit to cover its expenses).
I don't want a judge/jury/executioner system -- chris
Tim Goodwin
Chris Ryall <ch...@cavendish.deiimon.co.uk> wrote:
>Tim Goodwin <ti...@ime.net> wrote:
>>> I find this unfair. The team-mates have done nothing wrong and
>>> a substitution should be allowed (probably not available in practice)
>>
>>The team-mates selected their team-mate.
>
>This is their punishment! Also for everyone else as the whole team
> is ejected, the movemement unbalances, you get triplets in a Swiss.
In the US, events are not restricted to even numbers of teams. So an
ejection could just as easily remove the need for a triplet.
I have turned down requests to play because I was uncomfortable with
the behavior that my potential teammates might exhibit. I'm sure I
will do so again.
Tim
Jeff Goldsmith
David Stevenson wrote:
> >>[c] In the absence of strong mitigating factors, when a player commits
> >>a second offence the contestant will receive disqualification from the
> >>event [approval under Law 91B is hereby conferred on the TD for this
> >>procedure]. However, a TD may decide to suspend the contestant under
> >>Law 91A from the rest of the session instead if he sees fit. In both
> >>cases it is not merely the player that is disqualified or suspended: it
> >>applies to the contestant, ie her/his pair or whole team.
> > I find this unfair. The team-mates have done nothing wrong and
> > a substitution should be allowed (probably not available in practice)
>
> Tough shit. If you intend to play bridge you follow its Laws.
And if the laws are flawed, you change them.
In particular, this issue is really a PR problem---
in Flight A, the laws might work. In Flight C, if anyone
throws out the whole team, he should have his head examined.
What will it gain? I know what it will lose. 3 bridge players.
Everett M. Greene
In article <655o85$e32$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>
JMX...@prodigy.com (Bernard Schneider) writes:
> I have a question about ZT. Will it be governed by an objective
> reasonable person standard, or by a subjective standard. In other words,
> what if a person is subjectively upset by a comment or an action at the
> table, but no reasonable person would likely to have been upset. Is the
> offender charged with the knowledge that the particular opponent was
> highly sensitive?
A closely-related question is what can be done about the player who
wants to use Z-T as a club against the opponents.
Another question:
What is the procedure when the (playing) director is the obnoxious
one?
Bernard Schneider
I have a question about ZT. Will it be governed by an objective
reasonable person standard, or by a subjective standard. In other words,
what if a person is subjectively upset by a comment or an action at the
table, but no reasonable person would likely to have been upset. Is the
offender charged with the knowledge that the particular opponent was
highly sensitive?
Is there a clear answer to this?
pam...@nospamplease.netcomuk.co.uk
moj...@ridgecrest.ca.us (Everett M. Greene) wrote:
..snip..
>What is the procedure when the (playing) director is the obnoxious
>one?
The new laws of bridge say that we all have to nice to directors or
else. There is no corresponding law to say directors have to be even
vaguely polite. I would suggest that all those ejected from sessions
using ZT should hot-foot it down to their nearest Director school and
get qualified - revenge could be very sweet.
--
Cheers,
Pam
B. K. Oxley (binkley)
Tim Goodwin wrote in message <34736d9b.3299344@news-server>...
>"John Blubaugh" <p...@in.net> wrote:
>
>>In the past, "good" players have taken care of this at the
>>table not by calling the Director and asking for an adjustment but by
>>giving a hard lecture to the offending player. I understand that this
>>causes problems.
>
>
>lectures or breaking down the situation are directors.
I cannot feel that this is right. It losses the sense of "bridge culture"
and "mentorship" that is important in moving intermediate players into
advanced and expert ones.
I learned bridge in Texas, where this kind of culture was strong and there
were many excellent and ethical players to promote the culture. Now that I
have lived in New England for about 5 years, I find this sense of mentorship
to be totally lacking.
I even remember an incident at a home team game (!) where the expert at the
table criticized me for asking advice on a hand, stating that he didn't give
out advice for free. Although correct in some sense, this is very counter
to the culture that I think helps bring young players into the game, and
make them into tomorrow's experts.
--binkley
Robert Lipton
I do not feel there can be a clear answer to this. Zero Tolerance is an
attempt to mandate courtesy. Courtesy, alas, is a matter of attitude.
You cannot order someone to be courteous. You may forbid a player to
make sarcastic comments. How are you going to forbid him to smirk?
"Director! This man smiled at me! Throw him out!"
The problem lies, alas, in the competitve nature of this game we all love.
How can you mandate the exact borders of what is properly competitive and
what is improperly so? Given, say, a Swiss match, I want my opponents to
come to my table, be mashed into bits on the first hand, yet walk away
feeling that they have a chance. There are ways of doing this, and doing
this so no one can complain: varying the tone in which one grunts while
filling in the score can do it.
Bob
David Stevenson
>>> a substitution should be allowed (probably not available in practice)
>>
>
>This is their punishment! Also for everyone else as the whole team
> is ejected, the movemement unbalances, you get triplets in a Swiss.
In England we do not try to avoid triplets in a Swiss Teams. Thus
there is a 50/50 chance whether this gains a triplet or loses one.
David Stevenson
Jeff Goldsmith wrote:
>David Stevenson wrote:
>
>> >>[c] In the absence of strong mitigating factors, when a player commits
>> >>a second offence the contestant will receive disqualification from the
>> >>event [approval under Law 91B is hereby conferred on the TD for this
>> >>procedure]. However, a TD may decide to suspend the contestant under
>> >>Law 91A from the rest of the session instead if he sees fit. In both
>> >>cases it is not merely the player that is disqualified or suspended: it
>> >>applies to the contestant, ie her/his pair or whole team.
>> > a substitution should be allowed (probably not available in practice)
>>
>
>And if the laws are flawed, you change them.
>
>In particular, this issue is really a PR problem---
>in Flight A, the laws might work. In Flight C, if anyone
>throws out the whole team, he should have his head examined.
>What will it gain? I know what it will lose. 3 bridge players.
Are you sure? When I was at that level, I prided myself, and all my
teams did, on our ethical approach. If one of our team had behaved so
badly that it needed two DPs, then we would have been sickened with our
so-called team-mate, and we would have applauded the organisation that
suspended him, and we would have blamed him, not the authorities, for
being expelled.
John (MadDog) Probst
In article <PXVgRXAj...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson
<bri...@blakjak.demon.co.REMOVETHIS.uk> writes
>>>> a substitution should be allowed (probably not available in practice)
>>>
>>
>>This is their punishment! Also for everyone else as the whole team
>> is ejected, the movemement unbalances, you get triplets in a Swiss.
>
> In England we do not try to avoid triplets in a Swiss Teams. Thus
>there is a 50/50 chance whether this gains a triplet or loses one.
>
believe how often they try to re-shuffle) it is always advantageous to
try to avoid them.
In EBUland we also sometimes play 'short' triplets (2x3-board matches
played in one round) or 'long' triplets (2 full 7-board matches over 2
rounds) once we have played a couple of rounds.
I have long felt that the triplet should take place at the centre of the
field rather than at the bottom. Is there any reason why one shouldn't
do this?
--
John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to:
451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947
London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- jo...@probst.demon.co.uk
+44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game
Craig Senior
I presume that by "triplet" you refer to what is commonly called a
troika in our area (Dist 4 & 6 ACBL). I agree that it would be best not
to banish the low end of the field to this, because these are the exact
players who are most likely to bollix it up and yet the ones (often
relatively new players) we most want to have experience a pleasant game
so they will keep coming back. Middle of
the field makes a lot of sense...less likely to impact the match and
quite difficult to opt into or out of, eliminating a chance for
gamesmanship that is not intrinsic tothe contest. Troikas are often
hated by folks who point out that if they wanted to move every couple
of boards they'd have played the pairs game. :-)
--
Craig Senior <rts...@ix.netcom.com>
John (MadDog) Probst <jo...@probst.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
David Stevenson
Craig Senior wrote:
>I presume that by "triplet" you refer to what is commonly called a
>troika in our area (Dist 4 & 6 ACBL).
[s]
>Troikas are often
>hated by folks who point out that if they wanted to move every couple
>of boards they'd have played the pairs game. :-)
There are two solutions to this. We generally only put a team into a
threesome, triple, troika, triplet once in an event. Furthermore we
play a lot of long threesomes, where the threesome lasts over two
matches. This reduces the type of complaint to which you refer
considerably.
Jeff Goldsmith
John Blubaugh wrote:
>
> Dear Kent,
>
> You are behind times. All of the clubs in my area (Indianapolis) already
> have those obnoxious Zero Tolerance posters on their walls. They have
> adopted the concept even if the BoD doesn't approve it. I am afraid this
> will blow up in a big way. You would surprised that in most areas the
> "good" players don't play in the clubs anymore. There is a reason for that
> and the ACBL does nothing to fix it. This will just be used by nonplayers
That has nothing to do with ZT;
the effect has existed for several years, at least.
> to drive more "good" players away. I can see the flood of forms being sent
Say what? How exactly would I use ZT to drive good players
away from my club's games? How long do you think I'd be
permitted to do that? And why wouldn't I be able to do a
better job of that if ZT weren't in effect? Without ZT,
I could make a point of being very obnoxious to every good
player I encountered. I could get my friends, all of whom
surely are bad players, to do the same so that our club would
be rid of those pests. Now, however, with ZT, they have recourse,
and my ploy won't work; *I'll* be the one who is thrown out of
the club for being obnoxious.
> in now complaining because someone does this little thing or that little
> thing. When are we going to deal with the real problem? Club players are
> coffeehousers and cheaters. Bobby Goldman had it right when he said there
Depends on the club. If your club/directors permit it, then
that's the way it's going to be.
> was an element that did this and some or even most of them aren't aware
Accurate.
> they do it. In the past, "good" players have taken care of this at the
> table not by calling the Director and asking for an adjustment but by
> giving a hard lecture to the offending player. I understand that this
> causes problems.
Say what???? Your adjective "good" is probably the wrong choice.
"Arrogant," "overbearing," or "obnoxious" is probably more
accurate. Good players, in fact, generally do not get on
a soapbox and berate some poor inexperienced club player
for not knowing what is permitted and what is not. You
bet this will cause problems. If you were to give me a
hard lecture at a club game, I'd likely tell you to shove it.
And so would anyone who hadn't been cowed by some obnoxious
"expert." You bet this would cause problems. At my club,
the offender (the lecturer) would be told in no uncertain
terms that if he has a problem, he is to call the director.
Period. The end. No yelling at my players. No lectures.
Repeat performances will be penalized harshly.
Hey, would you give such a hard lecture to someone who was
6'8" and 300 lbs? Would you be real surprised to be
defenestrated as a result?
> What the ACBL needs is for ethical behavior to be taught right along with
> the clubs, diamonds, hearts, and spades series. Let the people know that
> bridge is a game of full disclosure and theatrics are not tolerated. Teach
This is a true statement. I don't know if the club etc.
series includes ethics; I haven't taught bridge classes in
a few years. My classes did. In fact, there was exactly
one lesson that was 100% mandatory to all students. (Or
they didn't get their free t-shirt and other goodies.)
I impressed upon all players at the club that it might be
a good idea to attend that lesson. A goodly chunk of them
did, by the way. I was lucky, however, in that I didn't
have to give the lesson myself. I got a very qualified
and highly-respected national figure to do it for me.
Worked great. (Thanks, Mr. H-R NF!)
David Stevenson
Jeff Goldsmith wrote:
>There's lots of ground in between, but the bottom line
>is that directors are expected to use good judgment in
>making ZT rulings.
I really cannot tell you why this amuses me!
--
David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @
bri...@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )=
Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~
Craig Senior
David Stevenson <bri...@blakjak.demon.co.REMOVETHIS.uk> wrote in
article <h0HDZSA7...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>...
Oh, PLEASE do! :-)
All kidding aside, your advice might be of use to some of the club
level directors who read this group. It makes a bully pulpit. I suspect
there are many who could improve their judgement with tutelege from an
experienced TD such as yourself. Feel free to make fun of the
ineptitude...heaven knows it is well deserved. But do take up the TD's
burden.
--
Craig Senior <rts...@ix.netcom.com>
>
Craig Senior
Jeff Goldsmith <je...@gg.caltech.edu> wrote
> Hey, would you give such a hard lecture to someone who was
> 6'8" and 300 lbs?
Do I look stupid? (On second thought, don't answer that <g>)
Would you be real surprised to be
> defenestrated as a result?
Actually, yes. I could expect bodily damage, but such an incredible
hulk would probably not take it out on my windows.
--
Craig Senior <rts...@ix.netcom.com>
Wasn't it Mike Royko, the Chicago newspaper columnist, who was fond of
having miscreants found guilty of mopery with inten to defenestrate?
John Blubaugh
I had my first experience with the Zero Tolerance Policy in St. Louis (the
policy wasn't yet adopted but was well advertised). My partner put the Stop
card on the table and was about to bid 3S. The 3S card never got to the
table before his LHO bid 4C. I politely mentioned to the opponent that he
was supposed to wait 10 seconds. His partner immediately told him that I
was trying to harass him and he should call the Director on me. Sure
enough, Zero Tolerance!
I also had one of the Zero Tolerance proponents (maybe the main one) come
to my table and tell me she wanted to talk to me about the Zero Tolerance
Policy (she didn't like my posts here). I said I didn't think we had much
to talk about and that the ACBL was FAR too political to allow this concept
to work and that I found the whole idea offensive and the poster hideous. I
mentioned that I would not join a group that found it necessary to display
a poster like that one. She said, "It is obvious that you don't understand
Zero Tolerance." I wonder if she is going to run for the Board of Directors
(sounded like a BoD statement to me)? So, the problem is that I am too
stupid to understand the information the Board provided. Hmmm, well, the
may be right. I certainly don't understand using a negative approach to
promoting the game.
By the way, I visited with some of my Director friends and they assured me
that they NEVER intend to issue a Zero Tolerance penalty and they will
refuse if ordered to do so. They are just treating it like another silly
Board of Director decision. I agree with Jeff that it will most likely be
used by club directors. I can see the flood of paperwork that will be
turned in now.
Again, I support the Board's intent of correcting rude and obviously
unacceptable behavior. I just think this could have been done in a positive
manner like Active Ethics.
John Blubaugh
Want to learn more about bridge pros? Visit:
http://www.in.net/pro/
Do you have bridge questions? Visit:
http://www.in.net/~blubaugh/
Bill Campbell
Craig Senior wrote:
> Jeff Goldsmith <je...@gg.caltech.edu> wrote
> > Hey, would you give such a hard lecture to someone who was
> > 6'8" and 300 lbs?
> I was a club director for a number of years, and yes I would (and did)
> give hard lectures to large persons so deserving.
> Would you be real surprised to be
> > defenestrated as a result?
>
> Yes -- but only because I am 6'4" and 300 lbs myself ;) -- almost as
> much an advantage in that situation as being a petite female director.
--
William F. Campbell "Correlation is not cause."
Trident Systems Incorporated
http://www.tridsys.com
-----
This message may not reflect the views or opinions of Trident Systems
Robert Lipton
So: we have Zero Tolerance For Unacceptable Behavior.
What constitutes Unacceptable Behavior?
Tournament Directors are to use their own judgment.
How, pray tell, does this differ from the _status quo ante bellum_?
Bob
who is not running for office
Craig Senior
At the risk of defenestration, I just wish to note for the record that
my entire comment had been snipped by Bill...only his and Jeff's were
in this post. Excuse me now...I have to go protect my windows.
--
Craig Senior <rts...@ix.netcom.com>
Bill Campbell <bi...@tridsys.com> wrote in article
<348436F0...@tridsys.com>...
Jeff Goldsmith
John Blubaugh wrote:
>
> I had my first experience with the Zero Tolerance Policy in St. Louis (the
> policy wasn't yet adopted but was well advertised). My partner put the Stop
> card on the table and was about to bid 3S. The 3S card never got to the
> table before his LHO bid 4C. I politely mentioned to the opponent that he
> was supposed to wait 10 seconds. His partner immediately told him that I
> was trying to harass him and he should call the Director on me. Sure
> enough, Zero Tolerance!
Say, "thanks, I was just about to call the director about
the bid out of turn." I'm amazed---I thought I was the
only person to whom this has happened. And my opponents
were obnoxious about it when I suggested that we call the
director. "I waited 10 (&*^&*^%&ing seconds, you little *(&*&^&!"
"Oh, I'm not worried about your ignoring my skip bid warning.
I just think we ought to call the director about the bid out
of turn." After the hand, I had to go outside---I couldn't
hold in the laughter any longer.
> I also had one of the Zero Tolerance proponents (maybe the main one) come
> to my table and tell me she wanted to talk to me about the Zero Tolerance
> Policy (she didn't like my posts here). I said I didn't think we had much
> to talk about and that the ACBL was FAR too political to allow this concept
> to work and that I found the whole idea offensive and the poster hideous. I
I agree about the poster. I hereby strongly propose that
if the ACBL does adopt ZT, that they hire a competent
graphic artist to redo the ZT material. And maybe a
decent rules-writer, too. I'll commend the original
proponents for an idea whose time came 30 or 40 years
ago, but the implementation leaves a little to be
desired.
> By the way, I visited with some of my Director friends and they assured me
> that they NEVER intend to issue a Zero Tolerance penalty and they will
> refuse if ordered to do so.
Curious. What do unemployed directors do?
Regionals are generally run by district committees.
Those committees choose whether or not to adopt ZT.
It turns out that recently, tournament committees (TCs)
have been given the option of refusing to hire
specific directors. I strongly advise your director
friends not to tell the powers that be in your area
that they will refuse to comply with the conditions
of contest of the events they are to work or
direct requests from the TC.
> They are just treating it like another silly
> Board of Director decision. I agree with Jeff that it will most likely be
> used by club directors. I can see the flood of paperwork that will be
> turned in now.
I'm not sure I said that, but...
It's most useful for club directors, because they typically
have a vested interest in getting more people to come to their
games. Many tournament directors don't give a hoot about
what happens at tournaments. To some degree, this is bad,
but it's reality. Note that tournament committees, who do
have a strong interest in having larger attendance, are
enthusiastic about ZT. Tournament directors, who do not,
are not fond of ZT.
> Again, I support the Board's intent of correcting rude and obviously
> unacceptable behavior. I just think this could have been done in a positive
> manner like Active Ethics.
Steve Willner made a similar proposal, suggesting that
ZT was too negative. I agree with that, but the BoD
decided that ZT was too entrenched, that to change the
name would be counter-productive. Fortunately, we can
understand that ZT isn't as negative as it sounds, that
it won't apply to silly cases that are easy to dream up,
and that it is a simple idea: if a player grossly misbehaves,
he's going to get a score penalty. If he does it twice in
a session, he's going home. And that's it---if I accidentally
step on someone's toes unwittingly, I'm not getting the book
thrown at me. But if I throw a chair at someone, I expect
to be done for the day. Simple enough.
Donald A. Varvel
In <348436F0...@tridsys.com> Bill Campbell <bi...@tridsys.com> writes:
>
>Craig Senior wrote:
>
>> Jeff Goldsmith <je...@gg.caltech.edu> wrote
>> > Hey, would you give such a hard lecture to someone who was
>> > 6'8" and 300 lbs?
>
>> I was a club director for a number of years, and yes I would (and
did)
>> give hard lectures to large persons so deserving.
>
>> Would you be real surprised to be
>> > defenestrated as a result?
>>
>> Yes -- but only because I am 6'4" and 300 lbs myself ;) -- almost
as
>> much an advantage in that situation as being a petite female
director.
I have little fear of being thrown out a window, myself, although
being gravitationally challenged hasn't kept me from being shot
at. (See www://ace.alleg.edu/~varvel.)
-- Don Varvel
Donald A. Varvel
In <661q2u$j...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net> "Craig Senior"
<rts...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>At the risk of defenestration, [...]
This is getting a long way from bridge, but isn't "defenestrate"
an intransitive verb, not a transitive one? That is, I believe
"Joe defenestrated" is correct but "Bill defenestrated Joe" is
not, and "Joe defenestrated himself" is an abomination. Probably
there is a proper newsgroup for this. There is for everything
else.
-- Don Varvel
dke...@best.com
In article <66379b$i...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
Donald A. Varvel <var...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>This is getting a long way from bridge, but isn't "defenestrate"
>an intransitive verb, not a transitive one? That is, I believe
>"Joe defenestrated" is correct but "Bill defenestrated Joe" is
>not, and "Joe defenestrated himself" is an abomination. Probably
>there is a proper newsgroup for this. There is for everything
>else.
>
That would be alt.usage.english.
--
Dave Eisen Sequoia Peripherals: (650) 967-5644
dke...@netcom.com FAX: (650) 967-5648
There's something in my library to offend everybody.
--- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
Bruce McIntyre
>
>That would be alt.usage.english.
>
Perhaps it is time for alt.usage.english.bridge--first items of contention
would be my two pet peeves from the current ACBL Bulletin style guide:
1. The convention commonly called Lebensohl must not be capitalized
Wrong: South used Lebensohl to get to the right game.
Right: South used lebensohl to get to the right game.
2. When referring to Our Organization, the definite article is not to be
used.
Wrong: The Board of Governors of the ACBL met at the recent NABC in
St.Louis and passed the Zero Tolerance Policy for NABCs.
Right: The Board of Governors of ACBL met at the recent NABC in St.Louis
and passed the Zero Tolerance Policy for NABCs.
Even better, apparently: Board of Governors of ACBL met at recent NABC
in St.Louis and passed Zero Tolerance Policy for NABCs.
--McBruce
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
"Bruce McIntyre" <mcb...@direct.canospam> writes:
>>
>>That would be alt.usage.english.
>>
>Perhaps it is time for alt.usage.english.bridge--first items of contention
>would be my two pet peeves from the current ACBL Bulletin style guide:
Oops -- until I read this paragraph more carefully I thought you
were advocating the usages below instead of making fun of them...
>1. The convention commonly called Lebensohl must not be capitalized
>
> Wrong: South used Lebensohl to get to the right game.
> Right: South used lebensohl to get to the right game.
>
>2. When referring to Our Organization, the definite article is not to be
>used.
>
> Wrong: The Board of Governors of the ACBL met at the recent NABC in
>St.Louis and passed the Zero Tolerance Policy for NABCs.
> Right: The Board of Governors of ACBL met at the recent NABC in St.Louis
>and passed the Zero Tolerance Policy for NABCs.
> Even better, apparently: Board of Governors of ACBL met at recent NABC
>in St.Louis and passed Zero Tolerance Policy for NABCs.
This drives me nuts too. I mean, if you spell everything out, it's
"the American Contract Bridge League" so you should refer to it as
"the ACBL" also.
Other examples: the NHL, the NFL, the NBA. But baseball is just MLB
(but that's OK if you look at what the actual words are).
Then it occurred to me that I and most people I know usually refer to
the American Automobile Assocation as just AAA, not "the AAA." But I
think that's because we think of AAA as a company/corporation (you
wouldn't say "the Coke" or "the IBM" when talking about the company).
Or maybe it's just what you're used to...
-- Z.
____
"The IRS is auditing the NRA. I haven't had this much trouble picking \ /
sides since the Iran-Iraq war." -- Bill Maher, "Politically Incorrect" \/
st...@vnet.ibm.com
In article <66379b$i...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
var...@ix.netcom.com(Donald A. Varvel) wrote:
>
> In <661q2u$j...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net> "Craig
Senior"
> <rts...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> >At the risk of defenestration, [...]
>
>"defenestrate" an intransitive verb, not a
>transitive one? That is, I believe
>"Joe defenestrated" is correct but "Bill
>defenestrated Joe" is not, and "Joe defenestrated
>himself" is an abomination.
Oddly enough, my 2500 page Random House dictionary
does not have the word "defenestrate" defined.
It has only the noun form: defenestration.
>Probably there is a proper newsgroup for this.
>There is for everything else.
If not on defenestration, there certainly is a
newsgroup on windows. :-).
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Everett M. Greene
In article <66379b$i...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> var...@ix.netcom.com(Donald A. Varvel) writes:
> In <661q2u$j...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net> "Craig Senior"
> <rts...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> >At the risk of defenestration, [...]
>
> This is getting a long way from bridge, but isn't "defenestrate"
> an intransitive verb, not a transitive one? That is, I believe
> "Joe defenestrated" is correct but "Bill defenestrated Joe" is
> there is a proper newsgroup for this. There is for everything
> else.
I resorted to RTFM (dictionary) to determine what was being
discussed: According to the only dictionary in which I could
find the word, defenestration is a noun. No mention is made
of a verb form.
pwi...@dwx.com
In article <8811945...@dejanews.com>,
st...@vnet.ibm.com wrote:
>
> In article <66379b$i...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
> var...@ix.netcom.com(Donald A. Varvel) wrote:
> >
> Senior"
> > <rts...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > >
> > >At the risk of defenestration, [...]
> >
> > This is getting a long way from bridge, but isn't
> >"defenestrate" an intransitive verb, not a
> >transitive one? That is, I believe
> >"Joe defenestrated" is correct but "Bill
> >defenestrated Joe" is not, and "Joe defenestrated
> >himself" is an abomination.
>
> does not have the word "defenestrate" defined.
> It has only the noun form: defenestration.
In Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (c) 1983, p 333 ...
defenestrate vt (i.e. transitive verb )
>
> >Probably there is a proper newsgroup for this.
> >There is for everything else.
>
> If not on defenestration, there certainly is a
> newsgroup on windows. :-).
But there you'd read about Larry wanting to defenestrate Bill, Scott
wanting to defenestrate Bill, Lou wanting to defenestrate Bill, ... :-).
Regards
Pete
--
pwi...@dwx.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.
Chris Pisarra
Bruce McIntyre wrote :
>>That would be alt.usage.english.
>>
>Perhaps it is time for alt.usage.english.bridge--first items of contention
>would be my two pet peeves from the current ACBL Bulletin style guide:
(snippage)
>2. When referring to Our Organization, the definite article is not to be
>used.
>
> Wrong: The Board of Governors of the ACBL met at the recent NABC in
>St.Louis and passed the Zero Tolerance Policy for NABCs.
> Right: The Board of Governors of ACBL met at the recent NABC in
St.Louis
>and passed the Zero Tolerance Policy for NABCs.
> Even better, apparently: Board of Governors of ACBL met at recent NABC
>in St.Louis and passed Zero Tolerance Policy for NABCs.
Except that the Board of Governors did no such thing--the Board of
Directors did.
The Board of Governors voted on this measure during the meeting in
Albuquerque, recommending it to the BoD.
Chris
Paul Barden
>In <661q2u$j...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net> "Craig Senior"
><rts...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>>At the risk of defenestration, [...]
>
>This is getting a long way from bridge, but isn't "defenestrate"
>an intransitive verb, not a transitive one? That is, I believe
>"Joe defenestrated" is correct but "Bill defenestrated Joe" is
>there is a proper newsgroup for this. There is for everything
>else.
>
On the contrary, "defenestrate" is a transitive verb, as the victims of
the celebrated defenestration of Prague in 1618 could once have told
you.
--
Paul Barden
David Stevenson
Bruce McIntyre wrote:
>>
>>That would be alt.usage.english.
>>
>Perhaps it is time for alt.usage.english.bridge--first items of contention
>would be my two pet peeves from the current ACBL Bulletin style guide:
>
>
> Wrong: South used Lebensohl to get to the right game.
> Right: South used lebensohl to get to the right game.
Dem's fighting wurds, pardner.
Why?
>2. When referring to Our Organization, the definite article is not to be
>used.
*Our* Organisation [sic]?
AlLeBendig
>I had my first experience with the Zero Tolerance Policy in St. Louis (the
>policy wasn't yet adopted but was well advertised). My partner put the Stop
>card on the table and was about to bid 3S. The 3S card never got to the
>table before his LHO bid 4C. I politely mentioned to the opponent that he
>was supposed to wait 10 seconds.
Is there just an outside chance that this poster wasn't as polite as he'd like
to remember? Furthermore, surely John is aware that it's not his job to
correct the opponent's infractions. That is still considered the
responsibility of the directors (and to the best of my knowledge, they're still
willing to perform that function).
> His partner immediately told him that I
>was trying to harass him and he should call the Director on me. Sure
>enough, Zero Tolerance!
What has this incident to do with Zero Tolerance, John? Someone thought you
were being rude and called the TD. Did the TD in any way intimate that they
were assessing a penalty? Zero Tolerance will not be in place at our NABCs
until Reno. But you must understand that Zero Tolerance penalties can
currently be dispensed by any director whether the Sponsoring Organization has
embraced this policy or not. All penalties called for under the ZT program are
totally applicable within the Laws.
>I also had one of the Zero Tolerance proponents (maybe the main one) come
>to my table and tell me she wanted to talk to me about the Zero Tolerance
>Policy (she didn't like my posts here). I said I didn't think we had much
>to talk about and that the ACBL was FAR too political to allow this concept
>to work and that I found the whole idea offensive and the poster hideous.
Most seem to feel that the poster is not only humorous but makes a very solid
point of how rudeness is perceived. As to the idea being offensive, I guess it
comes down to which is worse - unchecked rudeness or a sincere effort to gain
some control of the problem? It appears that John prefers the former.
John and other posters don't seem to recognize the real problem here. Many of
you are so used to dealing with rudeness that it doesn't bother you. In
actuality, if someone wants to be rude to me, I rather enjoy responding in kind
and feel that I can defend myself in any verbal exchange. But the newer
players are horrified when they run into these situations and they vote with
their feet. They simply quit playing duplicate. We have taken many surveys of
players that have not renewed their memberships and the #1 reason they quit has
always been rudeness. Is everyone really willing to ignore that?
> I
>mentioned that I would not join a group that found it necessary to display
>a poster like that one. She said, "It is obvious that you don't understand
>Zero Tolerance." I wonder if she is going to run for the Board of Directors
>(sounded like a BoD statement to me)? So, the problem is that I am too
>stupid to understand the information the Board provided. Hmmm, well, the
>may be right. I certainly don't understand using a negative approach to
>promoting the game.
I'm not running for office, John. But I really do think you have missed the
point of this program. You call it a negative approach. I see it as a very
positive approach and a clear statement that we are ready to deal with the
problem. I've had it in place in my club since it's inception and the players
see it as a very positive approach. We've had some beginners return because
they heard about ZT. I can't even begin to tell you how many have come to us
and thanked us for making a clear statement of what we expect behaviorwise.
I've seen it work well at Regionals and Sectionals. And in all cases, the
player response has been overwhelmingly positive. Have you and other naysayers
actually seen it applied yet or do we have some Chicken Littles in our midst?
>By the way, I visited with some of my Director friends and they assured me
>that they NEVER intend to issue a Zero Tolerance penalty and they will
>refuse if ordered to do so. They are just treating it like another silly
>Board of Director decision.
I hope that you have talked to some of the TDs that probably need to find other
employment. Because if they refuse to follow instructions from the Sponsoring
Organization, I assure you they will be seeking employment. Read Law 80. Some
of the TDs have definitely become confused about who is in charge. And I find
it amusing to imagine some of them searching for jobs in the real world with
their current attitudes. I assure you that those that wish to keep their jobs
will indeed assess penalties as instructed.
You refer to this as a silly Board of Directors decision. This Zero Tolerance
policy has been spreading throughout the world like wildfire. Nearly 300
requests for kits have been filled by the Toronto Unit where it was started.
This made it clear to me that the problem we have in the ACBL is obviously an
international one. And when the Board of Governors heard that the BoD was
considering it, they voted overwhelmingly to ask the BoD to put this policy on
place. Perhaps you also think the BoG is silly? Is there any chance at all
that with this many people in favor of this approach, perhaps the minority
should stop and reconsider their position?
> I agree with Jeff that it will most likely be
>used by club directors. I can see the flood of paperwork that will be
>turned in now.
Funny thing. It has been used in many places and we have yet to see that
"flood of paperwork". What we have sis people behaving better and less
experienced players quite grateful as a result.
>Again, I support the Board's intent of correcting rude and obviously
>unacceptable behavior. I just think this could have been done in a positive
>manner like Active Ethics.
You must understand the differences in the two policies, John. Active Ethics
was put into place to deal with both real and perceived problems at the top
levels of bridge. A large part of why Active Ethics has made such a big
difference is because of peer pressure of the top players and the emphasis that
has been placed on "doing the right thing". Everything set forth in Active
Ethics is covered in the Laws. Prior to it's inception, it was sort of okay to
sidestep these Laws. Thank goodness that attitude has been rapidly changing.
And you know as well as anyone that because of Active Ethics, it became quite
acceptable for Committees and Directors to issue penalties for ethical
infractions. Zero Tolerance merely sets forth the same willingness to penalize
Unacceptable Behavior. It says that you must get in line or else. What many
fail to realize is that a very important part of ZT is the PERCEPTION by the
average player that we are finally ready to deal with what they see as a major
problem. They applaud that as long as they see action. And ZT definitely
calls for action.
I have not seen all the problems that so many seem to fear. And I do not
expect to see them as ZT spreads. What I have seen and expect to see more of
is some of those that have been rude for years to recognize that they must
modify their behavior or they are no longer welcome here. I firmly believe
that when you draw a clear line, people will not cross that line when it will
damage them. And that will make it all worthwhile.
We know what rudeness is - why do we fear that the directors won't be able to
determine what it is. And there are penalties perscribed for "frivolous"
calls. There may be some early on, but once players recognize that we are not
giving them a free license to complain, I believe we will only hear about the
"real" problems.
I have found a few players that seriously object to ZT. Many of them want to
able to continue to behave as they always have. It's time to recognize that is
no longer acceptable.
Alan LeBendig
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot...
pam...@nospamplease.netcomuk.co.uk
var...@ix.netcom.com(Donald A. Varvel) wrote:
>In <661q2u$j...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net> "Craig Senior"
><rts...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>>At the risk of defenestration, [...]
>This is getting a long way from bridge, but isn't "defenestrate"
>an intransitive verb, not a transitive one? That is, I believe
>"Joe defenestrated" is correct but "Bill defenestrated Joe" is
>not, and "Joe defenestrated himself" is an abomination. Probably
>there is a proper newsgroup for this. There is for everything
>else.
There is! Cross-posted to alt.usage.english.
--
Cheers,
Pam
pam...@nospamplease.netcomuk.co.uk
alleb...@aol.com (AlLeBendig) wrote:
> This Zero Tolerance
>policy has been spreading throughout the world like wildfire. Nearly 300
>requests for kits have been filled by the Toronto Unit where it was started.
>This made it clear to me that the problem we have in the ACBL is obviously an
>international one.
Huh?? It may mean it is a North American problem but I'm afraid for
some of us, the US and Canada does not constitute "the world".
--
Cheers,
Pam
Jeremy Rickard
Donald A. Varvel wrote:
>
> In <661q2u$j...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net> "Craig Senior"
> <rts...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> >At the risk of defenestration, [...]
>
> This is getting a long way from bridge, but isn't "defenestrate"
> an intransitive verb, not a transitive one? That is, I believe
> "Joe defenestrated" is correct but "Bill defenestrated Joe" is
> not, and "Joe defenestrated himself" is an abomination. Probably
> there is a proper newsgroup for this. There is for everything
> else.
>
Actually, the Merriam-Webster WWW dictionary <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary>
gives it only as a transitive verb:
Main Entry: de·fen·es·tra·tion
Pronunciation: (")dE-"fe-n&-'strA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: de- + Latin fenestra window
Date: 1620
: a throwing of a person or thing out of a window
- de·fen·es·trate /(")dE-'fe-n&-"strAt/ transitive verb
Unfortunately, I don't have an English English dictionary to hand.
Jeremy.
Craig Senior
> Bruce McIntyre wrote :
my two pet peeves from the current ACBL Bulletin style guide:
> >2. When referring to Our Organization, the definite article is not
to be used.
in
> >St.Louis and passed the Zero Tolerance Policy for NABCs.
> > Right: The Board of Governors of ACBL met at the recent NABC in
St.Louis
> >and passed the Zero Tolerance Policy for NABCs.
> > Even better, apparently: Board of Governors of ACBL met at
recent NABC
> >in St.Louis and passed Zero Tolerance Policy for NABCs.
Even better: ACBL BoG Urges Discretion in ZT Implementation; Penalties
NOT Automatic Say Wiser Heads...Let Directors Decide.
Now there's a headline I'd prefer to see.
Even Better Yet:
ACBL Scraps ZT Policy...No Longer Needed Says BoD Since Rudeness No
Longer Occurs.
I think was all can wish for this headline, no matter what our views on
the particulars of ZT.
By the way, is Lebensohl not a proper noun just as ACOL is not an
acronym?
--
Craig Senior <rts...@ix.netcom.com>
A. L. Edwards
(pam...@nospamplease.netcomuk.co.uk) writes:
> alleb...@aol.com (AlLeBendig) wrote:
>
>
>> This Zero Tolerance
>>policy has been spreading throughout the world like wildfire. Nearly 300
>>requests for kits have been filled by the Toronto Unit where it was started.
>>This made it clear to me that the problem we have in the ACBL is obviously an
>>international one.
>
> Huh?? It may mean it is a North American problem but I'm afraid for
> some of us, the US and Canada does not constitute "the world".
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Pam
*ahem* Well, maybe he thought that, because Canada is included,
and Canada is a member of the Commonwealth, and the sun never
sets on the British Empire...
Tony (aka ac342)
Adam Beneschan
In article <8812074...@dejanews.com>,
pwi...@dwx.com wrote:
> > >Probably there is a proper newsgroup for this.
> > >There is for everything else.
> >
> > If not on defenestration, there certainly is a
> > newsgroup on windows. :-).
>
> But there you'd read about Larry wanting to defenestrate Bill, Scott
> wanting to defenestrate Bill, Lou wanting to defenestrate Bill, ... :-).
And don't forget Janet . . .
-- Adam
Slippur
pam...@nospamplease.netcomuk.co.uk wrote in message
<66664c$afk$2...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>...
>alleb...@aol.com (AlLeBendig) wrote:
>
>
>> This Zero Tolerance
>>policy has been spreading throughout the world like wildfire. Nearly 300
>>requests for kits have been filled by the Toronto Unit where it was
started.
>>This made it clear to me that the problem we have in the ACBL is obviously
an
>>international one.
>
>some of us, the US and Canada does not constitute "the world".
It wasn't stated that the kits were only going to US / Canada...
M.
Jeff Goldsmith
> Bruce McIntyre wrote:
> >2. When referring to Our Organization, the definite article is not to be
> >used.
I'd ammend that to, "when referring to the American
Contract Bridge League, or to the ACBL, the definite article
is not normally to be omitted." We say, "the Police Department,"
"the March of Dimes," "the United States of America."
It sounds goofy to say, "American Contract Bridge League
is based in Memphis," instead of, "The American Contract
Bridge League is based in Memphis." The Chicago
Manual of Style(1) has a section on names of organizations.
They have express rules for capitalization of definite
articles; they imply that dropping the "the" is unusual.
Upon scholarly investigation, I conclude that the ACBL's
internal usage of their name without the definite article
is an affectation.
The definite article is not always used, of course; when
"ACBL" is used as an adjective, no article is used, e.g.,
"ACBL membership is dropping." When used as an abstract
noun (really another form of adjective), "Any ACBL would
need to...," then the definite article is not used. As
a normal proper noun, in the context that there is only
one such organization, then the definite article is normally
used, e.g., "In no way am I representing the ACBL."
A small number of organizations have had the definite
article dropped in usage of the acronym; typically that's not done
when the whole name is used. For example, "he works for LAPD,"
but "he works for the Los Angeles Police Department." Even
in those cases, often the definite article isn't
omitted; "he works for the LAPD," is not wrong, nor does
it sound wrong.
Universities are a different story. "Harvard University,"
for example, does not take a definite article, although
"the University of Tennessee" does. The ACBL,
however, is not a university, it's an organization.
Organizations usually take the definite article: "the
League of Women Voters," "the AFL-CIO," "the Ku Klux Klan,"
"the New York Yankees." Companies are usually called by
their names only: "IBM," "Dow Chemicals," "General Electric,"
"Funk and Wagnall's," but not always: "the Southern Pacific
Railroad." " The ACBL is an organization, not a
company, so it takes the definate article.
This is all American usage. I have no idea if British or
other English language usages follow the same rules.
--Jeff
(1) 13th edition, 7.57.
Chris Ryall
Jeremy Rickard <j.ri...@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
>Donald A. Varvel wrote:
>> >At the risk of defenestration, [...]
>>
>> This is getting a long way from bridge, but isn't "defenestrate"
>> an intransitive verb, not a transitive one? That is, I believe
>> "Joe defenestrated" is correct but "Bill defenestrated Joe" is
>> there is a proper newsgroup for this. There is for everything
>> else.
>
>Actually, the Merriam-Webster WWW dictionary <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary>
>gives it only as a transitive verb:
>
>Main Entry: de·fen·es·tra·tion
>Pronunciation: (")dE-"fe-n&-'strA-sh&n
>Function: noun
>Etymology: de- + Latin fenestra window
>Date: 1620
>: a throwing of a person or thing out of a window
>- de·fen·es·trate /(")dE-'fe-n&-"strAt/ transitive verb
>
>Unfortunately, I don't have an English English dictionary to hand.
Never mind, I do ..
= "The action of throwing out of a window"
"Defenestration of Prague: the action of the Bohemian insurgents who on
the 21st of May 1618 broke up a meeting of the Imperial commissioners
and deputies of the States, held in the castle of Hradsin, and threw
two of the commissioners and their secretary out of the window;
This formed the prelude to the thirty years war". (undated)
".. which commencing at the defenestration of Prague, terminated at
the peace of Westphalia" (Neale 1853)
Ref: Oxford English Dictionary
imo: Indubitably a transitive verb. One can throw oneself out of a
window, but judging from folklore of the 1929 crash I understand
our american cousins have a greater experience in this regard.
Over here it is more traditional to throw onself from a bridge.
Talking of which ... chris
--
Chris Ryall, Wirral UK (please remove eyes from deiimon to email)
John (MadDog) Probst
In article <LTchABC4vfh0Eww$@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson
<bri...@blakjak.demon.co.REMOVETHIS.uk> writes
>Bruce McIntyre wrote:
>>>
>>>That would be alt.usage.english.
>>>
>>Perhaps it is time for alt.usage.english.bridge--first items of contention
>>would be my two pet peeves from the current ACBL Bulletin style guide:
>>
>>1. The convention commonly called Lebensohl must not be capitalized
>>
>> Wrong: South used Lebensohl to get to the right game.
>> Right: South used lebensohl to get to the right game.
>
> Dem's fighting wurds, pardner.
>
> Why?
>
>>used.
>
>
Americans send to rot in hell
A word which defines in English well
Uniqueness of term
And well may they squirm
I'm glad I belong to THE EBU cell
--
John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to:
451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947
London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- jo...@probst.demon.co.uk
+44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game
Bruce McIntyre
Well said, Jeff; especially since I was unclear--my pet peeve #2 about usage
policies in the ACBL Bulletin is that "When referring to Our Organization
*using its abbreviation*, the definite article is not to be used, *except
when ACBL is used as an adjective or abstract noun*." They don't follow
this rule all the time, but there are a half-dozen times each issue when
this oddball usage comes up.
--McB
Jeff Goldsmith wrote in message <34870B...@gg.caltech.edu>...
>> Bruce McIntyre wrote:
>
>> >2. When referring to Our Organization, the definite article is not to
be
>> >used.
>
Barbara Seagram
A. L. Edwards wrote:
>
> (pam...@nospamplease.netcomuk.co.uk) writes:
> > alleb...@aol.com (AlLeBendig) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>policy has been spreading throughout the world like wildfire. Nearly 300
> >>requests for kits have been filled by the Toronto Unit where it was started.
> >>This made it clear to me that the problem we have in the ACBL is obviously an
> >>international one.
> >
> > some of us, the US and Canada does not constitute "the world".
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Pam
>
> *ahem* Well, maybe he thought that, because Canada is included,
> and Canada is a member of the Commonwealth, and the sun never
> sets on the British Empire...
> Tony (aka ac342)
>
Mexico, Dominican Republic and Hawaii...in addition to all over North
America.
That may have a lot to do with what A. LeBendig was saying.
Barbara Seagram
--
Adam Beneschan
In article <34870B...@gg.caltech.edu>,
Jeff Goldsmith wrote:
> Universities are a different story. "Harvard University,"
> for example, does not take a definite article, although
> "the University of Tennessee" does.
Interestingly, though, although it doesn't sound wrong to say "the
University of California at Los Angeles" or "the University of Southern
California", it *does* sound wrong to say "The UCLA" or "The USC". Now
I'm curious as to why this is a special case.
pwi...@dwx.com
In article <8812604...@dejanews.com>,
ad...@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) wrote:
>
> In article <8812074...@dejanews.com>,
> pwi...@dwx.com wrote:
>
> > > >There is for everything else.
> > >
> > > newsgroup on windows. :-).
> >
> > But there you'd read about Larry wanting to defenestrate Bill, Scott
> > wanting to defenestrate Bill, Lou wanting to defenestrate Bill, ... :-).
>
> And don't forget Janet . . .
>
Until Tuesday, the question would have been which Bill did she want to
defenestrate. Now it should be clearer. Isn't there an alt.politics to
crosspost this to?
Regards
Pete
--
pwi...@dwx.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.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
William F. Campbell
Chris Ryall wrote:
> Jeremy Rickard <j.ri...@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
> >Donald A. Varvel wrote:
<snip> I must say, having changed the name of this thread to
"Directorial Defenestration" merely because I liked the sound of it, it
certainly has generated a number of followup posts! (Yes, I am aware
that the previous sentence is grammatically incorrect -- I'm only saying
that because of the threat of crossposting to alt.english.usage :-}>)
--
Bill Campbell Correlation is not cause.
pam...@nospamplease.netcomuk.co.uk
"Slippur" <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>pam...@nospamplease.netcomuk.co.uk wrote in message
><66664c$afk$2...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>...
>>alleb...@aol.com (AlLeBendig) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This Zero Tolerance
>>>policy has been spreading throughout the world like wildfire. Nearly 300
>>>requests for kits have been filled by the Toronto Unit where it was
>started.
>>>This made it clear to me that the problem we have in the ACBL is obviously
>an
>>>international one.
>>
>>Huh?? It may mean it is a North American problem but I'm afraid for
>>some of us, the US and Canada does not constitute "the world".
>It wasn't stated that the kits were only going to US / Canada...
Eek! You are right and my apologies. I misread the sentence. (Crawls
to a corner in embarrassment).
--
Cheers,
Pam
Donald A. Varvel
In <34868C...@bristol.ac.uk> Jeremy Rickard
<j.ri...@bristol.ac.uk> writes:
>
>Donald A. Varvel wrote:
>>
>> In <661q2u$j...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net> "Craig Senior"
>> <rts...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> >
>>
>> This is getting a long way from bridge, but isn't "defenestrate"
>> an intransitive verb, not a transitive one? That is, I believe
>> "Joe defenestrated" is correct but "Bill defenestrated Joe" is
>> there is a proper newsgroup for this. There is for everything
>> else.
>>
>
>Actually, the Merriam-Webster WWW dictionary
<http://www.m-w.com/dictionary>
>gives it only as a transitive verb:
>
>Main Entry: de·fen·es·tra·tion
>Pronunciation: (")dE-"fe-n&-'strA-sh&n
>Function: noun
>Etymology: de- + Latin fenestra window
>Date: 1620
>: a throwing of a person or thing out of a window
>- de·fen·es·trate /(")dE-'fe-n&-"strAt/ transitive verb
>
>Unfortunately, I don't have an English English dictionary to hand.
I had heard the word used only with respect to the stock
market crash of 1929, in the context of pedestrians having
to watch out for "defenestrating investors", but even my
humble and tattered Webster's New World Dictionary gives
"defenestration" the definition "a throwing or being thrown
out of a window", suggesting that the related verb is in
fact transitive, and that I was wrong. (How can there be
a noun "defenestration" and not a verb "defenestrate"? But
only the former is in this dictionary.)
-- Don Varvel
Donald A. Varvel
In <666hfb$t...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net> "Craig Senior"
>By the way, is Lebensohl not a proper noun just as ACOL is not an
>acronym?
I don't think anyone has actually suggested that Lebensohl
shouldn't be capitalized. (For what it's worth, it's a
proper noun as the name of a *convention*, not necessarily
as the name of a person.)
-- Don Varvel
Donald A. Varvel
In <666ns6$5...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A.
L. Edwards) writes:
>*ahem* Well, maybe he thought that, because Canada is included,
>and Canada is a member of the Commonwealth, and the sun never
>sets on the British Empire...
Yes. I have a friend who's at Diego Garcia right now. (He's
a bridge player. Does that make it relevant?)
[For those unaware of it, the sun still doesn't set on the
British Empire largely because of the island of Diego Garcia
in the middle of the Indian Ocean. The island consists of an
American military base and a small area inhabited only by
donkeys. (No, not the military base.)]
-- Don Varvel
Tim Goodwin
var...@ix.netcom.com(Donald A. Varvel) wrote:
Does this mean it should be Negative Doubles, Forcing No Trump, Limit
Raises, Unusual No Trump, and Grand Slam Force?
Tim
Ross Howard
On Thu, 04 Dec 1997 12:04:28 GMT, pam...@nospamplease.netcomuk.co.uk
wrote:
>var...@ix.netcom.com(Donald A. Varvel) wrote:
>
>>In <661q2u$j...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net> "Craig Senior"
>><rts...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>At the risk of defenestration, [...]
>
>>This is getting a long way from bridge, but isn't "defenestrate"
>>an intransitive verb, not a transitive one? That is, I believe
>>"Joe defenestrated" is correct but "Bill defenestrated Joe" is
>>not, and "Joe defenestrated himself" is an abomination. Probably
>>there is a proper newsgroup for this. There is for everything
>>else.
>
>There is! Cross-posted to alt.usage.english.
Sorry to tell you this, but it's as transitive as they come. That
said, it's probably usually used in passive constructions:
Joe was defenestrated by Bill.
Now, about the origin of "rubber". . . .
Ross Howard
-----------
There's a number in my e-mail address. Subtract four from it to reply.
Craig Senior
I think Hawaii is still a state...and Mexico is still in North America.
--
Craig Senior <rts...@ix.netcom.com>
ZT for geographical errors. That'l be a 3 IMP fine. :-))
Barbara Seagram
Us Canadians have a little trouble with geography, sorry, eh?
Barb
--
Donald A. Varvel
In <34881391.2450973@news-server> ti...@maine.rr.com.nospam (Tim
Wow! How about New Blue Car or Best White Shirt?
The point at which something changes from being a descriptive phrase
to being a name is sometimes hard to determine. As far as I'm
concerned, only Grand Slam Force (which I *do* capitalize) has
crossed the line. On the other hand, when something is given a
name that is never intended to be descriptive, such as "Lebensohl"
or Danil Suits' invention "Crapshoot", I think it is pretty clearly
a proper noun. I could be convinced otherwise, but so far I haven't
heard an argument that comes close to being convincing.
-- Don Varvel
SantyClz
lebonsohl is not capitalized because Lebensohl, who was not involved in its
creation specifically requested that it not be capitalized to remove the
reference to his name.
Bruce McIntyre
SantyClz wrote in message <19971206195...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>lebonsohl is not capitalized because Lebensohl, who was not involved in its
>creation specifically requested that it not be capitalized to remove the
>reference to his name.
Except of course, that there is no such person, the mistaken inventor being
actually somebody called Lebensold. We capitalize Brozel. We capitalize
many conventions which are named after people who didn't invent them. When
we do so they are no longer names of people, in context they are names of
conventions and therefore proper nouns. The Bulletin practice of
capitalizing several dozen other conventions but not Lebensohl is just
silly. ZT, if we had such a thing in this newsgroup (unlikely!) forbids me
from saying anything about your refusal to capitalize it EVEN AT THE START
OF A SENTENCE! :)
--McBruce
Jeff Goldsmith
>
> > Universities are a different story. "Harvard University,"
> > for example, does not take a definite article, although
> > "the University of Tennessee" does.
>
> University of California at Los Angeles" or "The University of Southern
> California", it *does* sound wrong to say "The UCLA" or "The USC". Now
> I'm curious as to why this is a special case.
I agree--that's interesting. According to the Chicago Manual,
whether or not a group takes the definite article is mostly
determinable by the group's purpose/organization. Companies'
names do not take "the," universities vary, and organizations
do. Within each category, however, exceptions exist. It
does seem that shortenings of university names do not take
the definite article, even if those shortenings are not
acronyms. Organizations' acronyms generally continue to
keep the definite article: "the AFL-CIO," "the KKK," "the NBA,"
"the ACBL." Companies do not take the definite article,
either in the long form, "Hewlett-Packard," or in a shortened
form, "HP." Logically, the distinction between companies,
of which many can exist for the same purpose, and organizations,
of which only one exists, makes sense. How universities fit
into that scheme is a little less clear. I guess short names
("Harvard," "Berkeley,") are treated as companies'---many such
schools exist. The long form, "the University of Southern
California," is treated as an organization; there cannot be
two universities of Southern California. Exceptions exist.
So, has anyone figured out why some folks at the ACBL have
chosen to adopt a policy of removing the "the?" It's always
sounded affected to me.
--Jeff
Jeff Goldsmith
Donald A. Varvel wrote:
> I don't think anyone has actually suggested that Lebensohl
> shouldn't be capitalized. (For what it's worth, it's a
> proper noun as the name of a *convention*, not necessarily
> as the name of a person.)
That's a very good point. Yes, many have stated that
"Lebensohl" should not be capitalized. Of course it
should be! "Roman Key Card Blackwood" is capitalized,
and Joe Roman, Jimmy Key, and Orson Card have nothing
to do with it!
Jeff Goldsmith
AlLeBendig wrote:
> Most seem to feel that the [ZT] poster is not only
> humorous but makes a very solid
> point of how rudeness is perceived.
I don't. I think the poster is ugly. I don't see
how it suggests, states, or implies rudeness. Violence,
perhaps. I also think it's very negative---do we really
have people like the example in the bridge community?
> You call it a negative approach. I see it as a very
> positive approach and a clear statement that we are ready to deal with the
> problem.
It is negative. It focuses on the problem. Positive
approaches focus on the solution. Within the already-
committed bridge community, where the problem is well-
known, it's OK. Outside, however, it has to be replaced,
I think. "You mean you have people like that whom you
are trying to curb? No, thank you."
> I hope that you have talked to some of the TDs [who] probably need to find other
> employment.
Let's talk reality. Has an ACBL TD ever been fired?
Nikos Sarantakos
On Sat, 6 Dec 1997 15:45:53 -0800, "Bruce McIntyre"
<mcb...@direct.canada> wrote:
>
>Except of course, that there is no such person, the mistaken inventor being
>actually somebody called Lebensold. We capitalize Brozel. We capitalize
>many conventions which are named after people who didn't invent them. When
>we do so they are no longer names of people, in context they are names of
>conventions and therefore proper nouns. The Bulletin practice of
>capitalizing several dozen other conventions but not Lebensohl is just
>silly. ZT, if we had such a thing in this newsgroup (unlikely!) forbids me
>from saying anything about your refusal to capitalize it EVEN AT THE START
>OF A SENTENCE! :)
>
>--McBruce
>
Excuse me for being unduly pedantic, but I have the impression that
Ken Lebensold has always denied responsibility for the invention of
L/lebensohl. I believe the article is available on the TBW Webpage,
but I may be wrong.
About Brozel, isn't a telescoping of two names (the latter being
Zeller?)
On another tack, although Lebensold tried to dissociate himself from
L/lebensohl, here in France the other half of his name still survives.
Claude Delmouly's variation of L/l. was named Delmousold!
Nikos Sarantakos
.
Bruce McIntyre
Jeff Goldsmith wrote in message <348C5C...@gg.caltech.edu>...
>
>Let's talk reality. Has an ACBL TD ever been fired?
>
Based on my admittedly limited experience (as an observer, not as a
Director), I would say that the ACBL does not so much fire perceived bad
Directors, as let them wither on the vine waiting for work. Directors know
this and the smart ones stay on good terms with the region's co-ordinator so
as to make it difficult to under-schedule them. Unfortunately, some of the
good ones are not too smart sometimes...
--Bruce McIntyre
Donald A. Varvel
In <348C54...@gg.caltech.edu> Jeff Goldsmith <je...@gg.caltech.edu>
writes:
>So, has anyone figured out why some folks at the ACBL have
>chosen to adopt a policy of removing the "the?" It's always
>sounded affected to me.
I think they're trying to get us to pronounce it "Ackbull".
-- Don Varvel
Craig Senior
Is that Achhhhhkk-BULL rhyming with Yechhhhhkk?
--
Craig Senior <rts...@ix.netcom.com>
Donald A. Varvel <var...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<66j4kv$o...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
David Stevenson
Nikos Sarantakos wrote:
>Excuse me for being unduly pedantic, but I have the impression that
>Ken Lebensold has always denied responsibility for the invention of
>L/lebensohl.
Excuse me for being unduly pedantic, but the fact that someone of a
totally different name denies authorship seems somewhat irrelevant.
--
David Stevenson *****************************************************
* Advertise here! Very reasonable rates! *
* Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk *
*****************************************************
David Stevenson
Barbara Seagram wrote:
>Us Canadians have a little trouble with geography, sorry, eh?
Yes, you do have geographical problems! :)))))))
QQSV (Dick Wagman)
David Stevenson wrote:
> Nikos Sarantakos wrote:
>
> >Excuse me for being unduly pedantic, but I have the impression that
> >Ken Lebensold has always denied responsibility for the invention of
> >L/lebensohl.
>
> Excuse me for being unduly pedantic, but the fact that someone of a
> totally different name denies authorship seems somewhat irrelevant.
My dear pedant,
According to the original Bridge World article (by August Boehm), the
name derived from his son's (I think) having gotten the idea, he thought,
indirectly from Lebensold. However, his son didn't know Lebensold and
didn't know how to spell his name; it thus came out "Lebensohl". Since
that wasn't (and isn't) the correct spelling of Lebensold's name, and
since Lebensold apparently disavowed convention authorship, Boehm pro-
posed to call it "lebensohl" to indicate that it wasn't named after
anyone. So Lebensold's denial of authorship is indeed relevant to
this story.
However, having said that, I agree with those who think that calling
it "Lebensohl" because it's the name of a convention (even though it's
not the name of a person) have the right idea. I always mark my own
convention card accordingly.
--Q (Dick Wagman)
Email: wag...@odi.com
Ian D Crowe
I am concerned enough about zero tolerance to have written a letter to
ACBL with overtones similar to comments written by John Blubagh.
In correspondence with Barbara Seagram she mentioned the discussion on
the newsgroup for which I thank her. I have now read every post on the
group and I do not feel much more educated.
Some of the specific hypothetical situations were interesting however.
More interesting was the variety of judgments and responses. Yet even
more interesting to me is that no-one has mentioned one of the
difficulties that is going to be encountered by the tone or attitude
actually used at the table.
Isn't the bottom line that the cynics among us do not believe that
bridge players are going to change their behaviour habits of a
lifetime, at least overnight ? I am concerned that the (IMO)ill-judged
haste in officially adopting zero tolerance will, in the mid-term at
least, do more to impede the advance of this notion than good and yet
fervently believe that a thoughtful , well-constructed "zero tolerance"
approach is a requirement for the game to flourish.
I would like to hear more SPECIFICS about the positive changes that has
occurred where zero tolerance is being enforced. I would like to hear
EXAMPLES of unacceptable behaviour that has been properly dealt with.
I'm also quite curious as to the comment regarding penalties for
frivalous complaints. I do not remember reading anything about this in
any official comments on the policy. Can someone give me a reference
here?
Lastly I would like to respond to the request by Bruce macIntyre to
discuss the lengthy, thoughtful post on zero tolerance, a motion which I
second.
>Back in the goode olde dayes, duplicate bridge was played by
>ladies and gentlemen. They even wore evening dresses and
>tuxedoes at the table in the evening. Their standards of behavior
>matched their outfits. Those good old days are gone; and
>unfortunately standards of behavior have been lowered to the
>point where many newer players (and some not so new) are
>discouraged from playing competitive bridge in the ACBL.
This year marks my 25th year of playing duplicate bridge.( rather sad
BTW don't you think that, at the age of 44, i continue to be in probably
the youngest 20 % of tournament players. I'm sure some statistician can
tell me exactly what percentile I am in)
The comments quoted are at the very beginning of the background
statement. For me, the description of the grand old days of bridge was
revisionist history at its worst. For me,their insertion at the
beginning of the backgrounder destroys the entire credibility of the
document.
From "the Mad World of Bridge" Jack Olsen
The Chronicle of Corona, New York, suggested that bridge players be
forced to pass a rigid state test to determine their emotional
stability. " If the applicant is unable to be set or have an ace trumped
without showing undue emotion, a license should be denied. The trouble
with such a law, if enforced, would practically eliminate all who take
the game seriously."
This was written in the 1930's ! I suggest that the last sentence could
have been written about zero tolerance.
Ian Crowe
Halifax Nova Scotia
Bruce McIntyre
QQSV (Dick Wagman) wrote in message <348D83...@odi.com>...
Moving on, how do you pronounce it? Since it isn't the name of a person and
since Boehm's article presumably did not appear in audio format, I expect
there is equal reason for a short e or a long e in the first syllable, with
my experience indicating the short e more common in these parts. There is
another possible variation permutation, Saul vs Sole in the last syllable,
Saul currently more common from where I listen.
Perhaps a convention can be forged. Those who play "slow shows:"
1N-(2H)-2N*-3C-3N showing a heart stopper, shall use the short e in the
first syllable. Those who play that this sequence denies a stopper and that
therefore 1N-(2H)-3N promises one shall use the long e.
Similarly, over weak twos those who play "slow shows" (2S)-X-2N*-3C-3N
showing a spade stopper shall use the Saul pronunciation in syllable three;
those who play that (2S)-X-3N promises the spade stopper shall use the
"Sole" variant.
Those who think they play the convention but do not fully understand it may
continue to do what they've been doing--misspelling the name of the
convention (I've seen Lebben, Lieben, even Lebin precede -sohl, -sol, and
even -ssol in most of the possible combinations), and misusing it in places
where it isn't even on.
:)
--Bruce McIntyre
Sean Holland
Ross Howard <rho...@mx7.redestb.es> wrote:
>
> Sorry to tell you this, but it's as transitive as they come. That
> said, it's probably usually used in passive constructions:
>
> Joe was defenestrated by Bill.
>
I have always used the verb "defenestrate" as a transitive, and most
of my acquaintance use it in that way. If most people in their every day
speech use "defenestrate" transitively, then that is how it should be
used. Those pedants who disagree should jump out a window.
Sean
--
Please remove the word "garbage" from my e-mail address.
David Stevenson
Bruce McIntyre wrote:
>QQSV (Dick Wagman) wrote in message <348D83...@odi.com>...
>>David Stevenson wrote:
>>> Nikos Sarantakos wrote:
>>> >Excuse me for being unduly pedantic, but I have the impression that
>>> >Ken Lebensold has always denied responsibility for the invention of
>>> >L/lebensohl.
>>> Excuse me for being unduly pedantic, but the fact that someone of a
>>> totally different name denies authorship seems somewhat irrelevant.
>>My dear pedant,
>>
>>According to the original Bridge World article (by August Boehm), the
>>name derived from his son's (I think) having gotten the idea, he thought,
>>indirectly from Lebensold. However, his son didn't know Lebensold and
>>didn't know how to spell his name; it thus came out "Lebensohl". Since
>>that wasn't (and isn't) the correct spelling of Lebensold's name, and
>>since Lebensold apparently disavowed convention authorship, Boehm pro-
>>posed to call it "lebensohl" to indicate that it wasn't named after
>>anyone. So Lebensold's denial of authorship is indeed relevant to
>>this story.
>>
>>However, having said that, I agree with those who think that calling
>>it "Lebensohl" because it's the name of a convention (even though it's
>>not the name of a person) have the right idea. I always mark my own
>>convention card accordingly.
Hmmmmm. I don't think that more than a handful here spell it with an
'l' [for real pedants: with two 'l's <g>]. I am not sure myself that
history matters too much. Certainly no-one over here cares too much
about Truscott's denial of ownership of the Truscott defence to a Strong
1C.
If someone wants to play the Stevens [sic] convention which I did not
invent, you don't need to start with a small letter for my sake, and to
be honest, Q, I *really* do not see what it has to do with me. Would
you object to the Hagman [sic] convention?
I was not saying that your premise is wrong but I am not happy about
its connection to your conclusion!
>Moving on, how do you pronounce it? Since it isn't the name of a person and
>since Boehm's article presumably did not appear in audio format, I expect
>there is equal reason for a short e or a long e in the first syllable, with
>my experience indicating the short e more common in these parts. There is
>another possible variation permutation, Saul vs Sole in the last syllable,
>Saul currently more common from where I listen.
I use a short 'e'. But Saul or Sole? I prononounce it Sol!
Chris Ryall
"Donald A. Varvel" <var...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I had heard the word used only with respect to the stock
>market crash of 1929, in the context of pedestrians having
>to watch out for "defenestrating investors", but even my
>humble and tattered Webster's New World Dictionary gives
>"defenestration" the definition "a throwing or being thrown
>out of a window", suggesting that the related verb is in
>fact transitive, and that I was wrong. (How can there be
>a noun "defenestration" and not a verb "defenestrate"? But
>only the former is in this dictionary.)
It really doesn't matter in English, or most languages for that matter
A word gets meaning from it's original usage. Possibly wrong her as
to my ear defenestrate sounds like removing windows. Never mind,
that's done!
The main authority (UK English) in this regard is OED who record
*actual usage* in liteature and issue updates every 10 yeats or so.
Doubtless quicker now they are computerised. If they haven't seen
the verb in print it won't be in.
But the rules of language use allow us to change words 1NT (2H) 2NT -
dynamically and as required provided meaning is clear 3C* - 2D
and the basic syntax rules are obeyed. In another thread
'Llebensohl' is discussed (I emphasise the ambiguous 1st character
rather than it's welsh origin). One could quite properly write that
'responder lebensohled into 3D' making up the (horrid) verb on the fly.
Here is seems the noun (gerund) came first, probably by analogy with
the accepted 'fenestration'. But that's OK too. One of the reasons
for english's success is this easy and loose syntax. (Certainly not
it's spelling or irregular verbs!) The poor old French have to give
multiple colloquial meanings to words to get a wide enough pallette.
But they have the fiercely frank Institute Français trying to construct
language 'top down' instead of 'bottom up'. I think in practice the
common or local use always prevails. Le sandwich, le Bridge. -- chris
btw: This thread has defined two new word in English.
Defenestrate (vt) and lebensohl (vi). Copy to OED!
Chris 'Twas brillig and the slithy toves, did gyre and gymble in the wabe
Ryall All mimsy were the borrowgroves, and the mome wraths outgabe
Lewis Carroll: Jabberwocky (remove b's from monster to email!)
Craig Senior
st...@flash.net
In article <ACeY8GAP...@cavendish.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Ryall <ch...@cavendish.deiimon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> It really doesn't matter in English, or most languages for that matter
> A word gets meaning from it's original usage. Possibly wrong her as
> to my ear defenestrate sounds like removing windows. Never mind,
> that's done!
>
> The main authority (UK English) in this regard is OED who record
> *actual usage* in liteature and issue updates every 10 yeats or so.
^^^^^^^^^
So did you keep this Irish poet in lower case because he didn't
approve of using his surname to represent 365 days? :-).
Stu Goodgold (drop xx on reply for email)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
alan d frank
Chris Ryall <ch...@cavendish.deiimon.co.uk> wrote
>
> btw: This thread has defined two new word in English.
> Defenestrate (vt) and lebensohl (vi). Copy to OED!
> Chris 'Twas brillig and the slithy toves, did gyre and gymble in the
wabe
> Ryall All mimsy were the borrowgroves, and the mome wraths outgabe
> Lewis Carroll: Jabberwocky (remove b's from monster to
email!)
It's "borogoves" and "outgrabe" (p.t. of "outgribe"). A month from Sunday
(14 Jan 1998) is the 100th anniversary of Carroll's death.
--Alan Frank
Ed Reppert
> It really doesn't matter in English, or most languages for that matter
> A word gets meaning from it's original usage.
While we're pontificating on matters of language, perhaps we should examine
the use of "it's" where "its" is proper. :-)
--
Regards,
Ed
mailto:erep...@syndicomm.com mailto:blac...@delphi.com
"'Contact' is not a verb!" -Nero Wolfe, in reply to a query as to why he
was burning his new dictionary.
jy...@no.spam.leeds.ac.uk
> If most people in their every day speech use "defenestrate"
> transitively, then that is how it should be used.
The game of bridge appears appears to have changed a liitle
since I last played a rubber.
Do you really use the word 'defenestrate' every day? I ask for
information, and to improve my mind. I have only ever used the
word defenestrate to describe a feature of Balkan politics that
closely ressembles our term "to seek a dissolution of parliament".
This is surely a once in lifetime event for most people.
Ben.
Sean Holland
<jy...@no.spam.leeds.ac.uk> wrote:
> Do you really use the word 'defenestrate' every day? I ask for
> information, and to improve my mind. I have only ever used the
> word defenestrate to describe a feature of Balkan politics that
> closely ressembles our term "to seek a dissolution of parliament".
>
> This is surely a once in lifetime event for most people.
>
Sorry. I should have used one of the emoticons that indicate
facetiousness, but I detest those things.
Paul Cook
jy...@no.spam.leeds.ac.uk wrote:
>> If most people in their every day speech use "defenestrate"
>> transitively, then that is how it should be used.
>
>The game of bridge appears appears to have changed a liitle
>since I last played a rubber.
>
>information, and to improve my mind. I have only ever used the
>word defenestrate to describe a feature of Balkan politics that
>closely ressembles our term "to seek a dissolution of parliament".
>
>This is surely a once in lifetime event for most people.
>
I have used the word several times, in referring to
"Art Linkletter's daughter's LSD-induced self-definistration."
Other than that, the word has not proven useful very often.
And hell, I may have been using it incorrectly even then.
Boy, sure is hard to talk right!
Dennis Johnstone
jy...@no.spam.leeds.ac.uk wrote:
> > If most people in their every day speech use "defenestrate"
> > transitively, then that is how it should be used.
>
> The game of bridge appears appears to have changed a liitle
> since I last played a rubber.
>
> Do you really use the word 'defenestrate' every day? I ask for
> information, and to improve my mind. I have only ever used the
> word defenestrate to describe a feature of Balkan politics that
> closely ressembles our term "to seek a dissolution of parliament".
>
> This is surely a once in lifetime event for most people.
>
> Ben.
I have used it correctly once, in writing a newspaper story about a drug
dealer who was thrown from a fifth-story window by his former
associates. The entire newsroom was delighted to have the chance to use
"defenestrate", even if the editor did simplify it in later editions.
--
-------------------------------------
Dennis Johnstone
Website editor
BBC 5 Live
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio5
email: 5l...@bbc.co.uk
-------------------------------------
Sue Picus/Barry Rigal
Can any historian out there fill us in on what the Defenestration of
Prague (which I am fairly sure is the usage that sparked the
semi-regular use of the word) actually relates to.
and is the fact that it was not Prague but two Catholic legates (or
whoever it was..) that got pushed out relevant to determining whether
the usage is transitive or intransitive?
Barry
Markus Laker
Sue Picus/Barry Rigal <sue-...@worldnet.att.net>:
> Can any historian out there fill us in on what the Defenestration of
> Prague (which I am fairly sure is the usage that sparked the
> semi-regular use of the word) actually relates to.
Here's what the Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say:
>>>>
(May 23, 1618), incident of Bohemian resistance to Habsburg authority
that preceded the beginning of the Thirty Years’ War. In 1617 Roman
Catholic officials in Bohemia closed Protestant chapels that were being
constructed by citizens of the towns of Broumov and Hrob, thus violating
the guarantees of religious liberty laid down in the Letter of Majesty
(Majestätsbrief) of Emperor Rudolf II (1609).
In response, the defensors, appointed under the Letter of Majesty to
safeguard Protestant rights, called an assembly of Protestants at
Prague, where the imperial regents, William Slavata and Jaroslav
Martinic, were tried and found guilty of violating the Letter of Majesty
and, with their secretary, Fabricius, were thrown from the windows of
the council room of Hradcany (Prague Castle) on May 23, 1618. Although
inflicting no serious injury on the victims, that act, known as the
Defenestration of Prague, was a signal for the beginning of a Bohemian
revolt against the Habsburg emperor Ferdinand II, which marked one of
the opening phases of the Thirty Years’ War.
<<<<
> and is the fact that it was not Prague but two Catholic legates (or
> whoever it was..) that got pushed out relevant to determining whether
> the usage is transitive or intransitive?
Probably not. 'Of' means 'in' or 'belonging to', as in 'the Tower of
London'; it doesn't imply that Prague was defenestrated, following the
model of 'the beheading of Charles I'. It's amazing how many possible
meanings can be crammed into a tiny, one-syllable, unstressed
preposition.
Much more relevant to the question of transitiveness is the way the word
has been used by respected writers over the years. The nearest
dictionary says that 'defenestrate' is transitive, and that's the way
I've always thought of it.
[Follow-ups trimmed. I can't believe this is on-topic for r.g.b.]
Markus Laker
No virtual Christmas cards, please -- think spam!
My real email address doesn't contain a Christian name.