[nickf]

It's a quiet time around BBO forums, so I figured its time to stir the pot. Here's a chapter summary of Bobby Wolff's autobiography, due out in February. Looks rivetting:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 1 Firing Ira
Convincing Ira Corn that the Aces couldn't succeed if he insisted on being a playing sponsor.

Chapter 2 Tracing My Addiction
Bobby Wolff's early years and introduction to bridge through Oswald Jacoby and other greats

Chapter 3 Playing Pro Versus A Real Job
Wolff's early bridge career -- playing club pro, and playing on Charles Goren's team

Chapter 4 The Birth of the Aces
How the team came into being, and how the personnel were selected

Chapter 5 The Death of the Aces and Thereafter
The great years of the Aces, and what happened after Ira Corn's death

Chapter 6 Reflections
Some of the celebrities the Aces rubbed shoulders with... George Burns, Omar Sharif, and others

Chapter 7 ‘Serving Time’ on the Board
Behind the scenes politics -- how the ACBL really works -- inventing the Recorder system

Chapter 8 Blunders and Indiscretions
How the ACBL Board hired and fired a series of incompetent CEOs

Chapter 9 The Agony of De-Feet
The inside story of the 'foot soldiers', the Italian pair caught cheating in the 1975 world championships

Chapter 10 The Colossus of Rhodes Revisited!
More skullduggery, this time in the 1996 championships in Rhodes

Chapter 11 The ACBL... Flirting with Disaster!
How the ACBL Board almost gave $2 million to an unqualified charlatan to 'promote bridge'

Chapter 12 A Tale of Survivorship
The three women who shaped Wolff's life

Chapter 13 The Special World of the WBF
How Denis Howard was ousted as WBF president, how Wolff became president, the politics of world bridge, and the recent Shanghai affair involving the US Venice Cup team

Chapter 14 Losing Team Wins!
The inside story of how the Canadian team was robbed in the Geneva world championship, losing a match they had actually won as a result of politics

Chapter 15 Looking Out for Number One
Professionalism, sharp practice, and outright cheating...

Chapter 16 Paying the Piper
The Nickell team -- the glory years, the break-up of the Hamman-Wolff partnership, and Wolff's firing

Chapter 17 Weapons of Mass Destruction and Lesser Atrocities
Full disclosure, system proliferation, and bizarre conventions

Chapter 18 Professionalism, Personal Agendas and Recusals
The undue influence that professionals, politicians and sponsors wield over international team selection in the USA and elsewhere

Chapter 19 Even Idols Have Clay Feet
Edgar Kaplan, the Blue team, the Burgay Tapes affair, and an anonymous attempt to smear Wolff

Chapter 20 An Appeal to Remember
The strange, often nonsensical, appeals process reflected through a tortuous recent case that caused the ACBL Board to make new policy

Chapter 21 The “C” Word
Cheating -- examples, cases, efforts to combat it

Chapter 22 Restoring Equity and Meting Out Punishment
Wolff as Appeals Chairman and National Recorder -- more cheating cases and the infamous 'Oh, *****!' ruling.

Chapter 23 What’s to Become of America’s Talented Youth?
Heading up the USA Junior program in the early 90s, and what needs to be done to keep the game alive amongst the young.

Chapter 24 Where Do We Go from Here?
The big issues facing bridge today -- money, sponsorship, professionalism, politics, the structure of the ACBL, cheating, systems development and control, the alert system, the handling of appeals... and more.

nickf
sydney

[glen]

I saw the above on Ray Lee's Bridge Blog and I can't wait to read this book.

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: I dearly love dirt. I will most certainly read this book

Comment 2: I have absolutely no desire to see Wolff enjoy a penny of income . When I do read said book, I'll be borrowing it from a friend, checking it out from the library, or purchasing a used copy on Amazon.

[andych]

Would be most interested in

Chapter 16 Paying the Piper
The Nickell team -- the glory years, the break-up of the Hamman-Wolff partnership, and Wolff's firing

[ArcLight]

>Comment 2: I have absolutely no desire to see Wolff enjoy a penny of income . When I do read said book, I'll be borrowing it from a friend, checking it out from the library, or purchasing a used copy on Amazon.

Is he that bad a guy? What did he do?


>>Chapter 14 Losing Team Wins!
The inside story of how the Canadian team was robbed in the Geneva world championship, losing a match they had actually won as a result of politics

What year was this?


>>Chapter 16 Paying the Piper
The Nickell team -- the glory years, the break-up of the Hamman-Wolff partnership, and Wolff's firing

I am somewhat interested in what caused their break up. Hamman wanted more complexity and Wolff refused? They played together a long time so it seems there was no clash of personalities (like Hamman indicates he had with Mike Lawrence).


I am interested in this book too.

[nickf]

I really spend too much time surfing. I've just discovered Bobby Wolff's personal blog.

An interesting read although I dont agree with many of his views.

nickf
sydney

[jdonn]

ArcLight, on Dec 14 2007, 10:45 AM, said:

>>Chapter 14 Losing Team Wins!
The inside story of how the Canadian team was robbed in the Geneva world championship, losing a match they had actually won as a result of politics

What year was this?

1990, I have the world championship book from that one (I LOVE the world championship books). There are probably much more politics behind it than I know about, but it was told in the book like this. Canada lost a semifinal match in the World Knockout Teams against Germany, with this hand being the one in dispute.

Scoring: IMP

---

Germany bid and made 6♠ in one room for 1430. In the other Canada was defending 5♣X and set it six tricks (heart ruff + all the obvious tricks). But the score was incorrectly recorded as down five for 1100 by all players, for reasons that aren't totally clear. 8 imps to Germany.

Canada lost the match by 3 but later (in the middle of that night) realized the scoring error and lodged an appeal, which they ultimately lost. This explanation appeared in the next day's daily bulletin.

According to the Conditions of Contest, a score can be changed in a situation such as this only when the score entered is 'manifestly incorrect'. Clearly the definition of 'manifestly incorrect' is the key here.

The Committee heard all the testimony, including, according to the Canadian players, the statement by the Germans that they actually were set six tricks (which meant that they took only five tricks). However, the Committee noted that the scorecard said six tricks were made and the penalty was 1100. Since these figures (on the scorecard) are consistent with each other, the score was allowed to stand.

What is a 'manifestly incorrect' score? It could be the score of the match - perhaps the totals of the IMPs would be incorrectly added. 420 on a vulnerable board would be manifestly incorrect. Down three, vulnerable, with a score of 1100, would be manifestly incorrect. However, in this case the number of tricks and the score matched. That was the key to the Committee's decision.

Seems like total rubbish to me, but that's just my relatively uninformed opinion.

I'm surprised that other than in that book I had never heard of this. It involved some players who are still quite prominent, most notably Kokish and Mittelman.

[Gerben42]

Quote

But the score was incorrectly recorded as down five for 1100 by all players, for reasons that aren't totally clear.

The reason: This was not long after the score change, so alhtough it was down 6, the scorer incorrectly counted 1,3,5,7,9,11 --> 1100.

Quote

However, the Committee noted that the scorecard said six tricks were made and the penalty was 1100.

Did the score card read "6" or "-6"? The latter is the standard way around here.

[jdonn]

Gerben42, on Dec 17 2007, 07:04 AM, said:

Quote

But the score was incorrectly recorded as down five for 1100 by all players, for reasons that aren't totally clear.

The reason: This was not long after the score change, so alhtough it was down 6, the scorer incorrectly counted 1,3,5,7,9,11 --> 1100.

From the WC book "All the players entered '6' in the 'tricks taken' column (for declarer) although he won only five" So I don't think that can be it. It may have contributed mentally though.

It seems impossible all four would independently make the same error of confusing 6 with -6 at the same time.

[hrothgar]

ArcLight, on Dec 14 2007, 06:45 PM, said:

>Comment 2: I have absolutely no desire to see Wolff enjoy a penny of income . When I do read said book, I'll be borrowing it from a friend, checking it out from the library, or purchasing a used copy on Amazon.

Is he that bad a guy?  What did he do?

I am going to preface this post with a few comments:

1. I don't know Wolff personally
2. I've never played with or against him
3. I've never had him hear an appeal or mine

My opinions are primarily based on my observations regarding Wolff's numerous comments in appeals committee write ups as well as his posts on bridge bulletin boards like rec.games.bridge.

With all this said and done:

I think that Wolff uses his powers during appeals processes in a disciminatory manner. He's divided the world up into what he likes and what he doesn't like; imposing his own external aesthetics onto the game. He invents classifications such as "Convention Disruption" and "Active Ethics" that have no legal standing and then attempts to apply this during appeals proceedings. Moreover, if a case comes up that involves a convention or treatment that he doesn't approve he'll discriminate against that side. (He, of course, describes this as holding these people to a higher standard, but it boils down to discrimination)

I recommend taking a look at a recent exchange at http://www.bridgeblo...com/bobbywolff/

I also recommend familarizing yourself with the following:

http://www.blakjak.d...o.uk/lille7.htm

I find quotes like the following particularly infuriating

Quote

We cannot wait for 100% evidence of violations, but must rather act with harsh punishment for apparent disrespect of the game itself. Yes, at times it will be subjective, but as long as solid people are in control, it will work. And at the very least, under threat of bad scores (plus some embarrassment) the players will be aware of the horrors of not conforming.

Quote

A has a special ethical responsibility (SER} to insure B understands what A's bids mean, with special emphasis on the main or death thrust (in this case their psyching tendency) of the convention or treatment. Psychics have long been a fundamental part of our game and should continue to be so. That is no problem. It is only when the perpetrators, by either their tendencies, design or usage are privy to information (whether or not that information might just be called "that's bridge, mister" by others. In this case, South is well within her rights to psyche a l2-l4 point NT--anything could happen--what did happen was that when South later bid 2 clubs her partner described it as "does not exist" knowing full well (in my opinion) that it probably confirmed a psychic, a bid he had used many times before from his side of the table. I think, at this point, it required both North and South to alert the opponents that 2 clubs (usually) showed a psychic lNT and wanted a quick exit. While I fully realize that all these caveats are not yet recognized, much less required, in our game, how else will we ever proceed on a straight path to fairness, which commands respect until we all see this alike. We must take the oneupsmanship out of bridge by consistently ruling against it and let our victors be decided by the beauty elements of our game instead of the uglies.

Don't get me wrong: I am all in favor of requiring that players accurately describe their methods. However, I have real issues if players who choose to play two suited preempts, mini-notrumps or whatever are held to a radically different standard than players who use methods that Wolff likes.

I will also note, with some interest and amusement, that Wolff is constant railing against the influence of "politics" in Bridge while following a blatantly political agenda like this one...

[Onno]

Gerben42, on Dec 17 2007, 07:04 AM, said:

Quote

But the score was incorrectly recorded as down five for 1100 by all players, for reasons that aren't totally clear.

The reason: This was not long after the score change, so alhtough it was down 6, the scorer incorrectly counted 1,3,5,7,9,11 --> 1100.

Quote

However, the Committee noted that the scorecard said six tricks were made and the penalty was 1100.

Did the score card read "6" or "-6"? The latter is the standard way around here.

Your reason is improbable. Tricks and score matched.

This is what happened at the table. The players played the hand quite quickly. The scorer was madly scribbling down all the tricks up until the claim. He had no time to count the tricks. He asked the players "How many tricks?" and one of the players responded "Six". The scorer and the opponent then wrote down 6 tricks on their scorecards.

[blackshoe]

Onno, on Dec 17 2007, 12:22 PM, said:

This is what happened at the table. The players played the hand quite quickly. The scorer was madly scribbling down all the tricks up until the claim. He had no time to count the tricks. He asked the players "How many tricks?" and one of the players responded "Six". The scorer and the opponent then wrote down 6 tricks on their scorecards.

It looks to me like somebody didn't adequately investigate before ruling. Either that or, having adequately investigated, they failed to properly record the evidence which was the basis of their ruling.

If it turns out that the person who said "six" meant "down six", then to rule that the recorded score was not "manifestly incorrect" and therefore cannot be changed is, imo, a dereliction of duty (see Laws 81C6 and 81D).

[awm]

I'm looking forward to reading this one.

While sometimes Wolff doesn't express himself in the most clear way, or pursue the best avenue for change, I think he does have a point on many of these issues. In particular:

Convention Disruption: I think pairs have some responsibility to know their agreements, especially if they are playing in a serious event and especially if they're playing a lot of artificial stuff. While tradition has said that players forgetting their methods is just part of the game, the modern game has tended towards artificial weak bids to the degree that the pair having the "forget" will quite frequently win the board because of it. I would be in favor of instituting automatic adjustments and/or procedural penalties for pairs who don't know their agreements in simple auctions. Perhaps this should only apply to the first round of bidding, but it doesn't really seem fair that pairs can agree to play weak only multi (for example) and then forget and open a weak two in diamonds and end up winning the board because opponents couldn't decipher what has occurred.

General Bridge Knowledge: I think there's a problem in the way the laws are phrased, in that people don't have to disclose "general bridge knowledge." But this general knowledge often takes the form of knowing what "local expert standard" is or having a great deal of experience with a particular system. For example, say I agree 2/1 GF. Partner and I bid 1♣-1♥-2♦. Occasionally people bid 2♦ on a three or even two card suit to create an artificial force. Of course, partner and I have not specifically agreed to do this, and I have never seen partner do this before (we may not even have played together before), but I am well aware that this is a common action by 2/1 players. My opponents, who may be from some other country and may even be quite good players within the context of (say) Polish Club, may have no awareness of this possibility; it doesn't seem quite fair that I can describe this reverse as "natural" or "just bridge" in this situation. Similarly when my Polish Club opponents bid 1♣-1♦-1♥, they are well aware that this could be a three-card suit. If their explanation is "natural" that doesn't seem to cut it even though they could argue that the possibility of a three card suit is just "general knowledge of polish club" and not a specific agreement, or that bidding a three-card suit is natural since it's a suggestion to play there. Of course, it does often seem like Bobby Wolff wants to codify things so that the Polish players have to explain 1♣-1♦-1♥ as "could be three" whereas American players don't have to explain 1♣-1♥-2♦ as "could be three" which seems manifestly unfair. Perhaps he doesn't mean it this way.

[blackshoe]

In the new laws, law 40B6 says

Quote

6. (a) When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.
(b) The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent’s choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged.

Note that "general bridge knowledge" has been rephrased, hopefully making it more useful.

[awm]

I think the issue is that you can have "system experience" without having partnership experience.

Say I sit down to play with Dan Neill and I say "Symmetric Relay Precision okay partner?" and he says "sure." We have never played together before. We have not discussed any sequences. But since we have both read the symmetric relay precision notes, and have played versions of the system before, we are quite likely to get our sequences right. Is it fair for us to explain all our bids as "just bridge" because we are drawing only on our general knowledge of this system? Hardly.

Yet this is exactly what many expert players do in new partnerships when they agree to play 2/1. If their opponents "don't know 2/1" then they're flat out of luck, they won't be getting any useful explanations. Presumably Polish expert players can do the same thing when they agree to play Polish club...

The new laws don't really seem to address this, as they emphasize partnership agreement and experience, and if you've not discussed anything and never played together before it's hard to argue that you have much of either.

[blackshoe]

"General bridge knowledge" is not the same thing as "general knowledge of a particular system". Most players' eyes cross when they hear the words "Symmetric Relay" - they don't have a clue what's going on. As a director, if I found an experienced pair playing a relatively unusual system against less experienced players providing "explanations" along the lines of "it's just bridge", they'd get one warning from me, and then the penalty bat comes into play.

[awm]

blackshoe, on Dec 17 2007, 04:59 PM, said:

"General bridge knowledge" is not the same thing as "general knowledge of a particular system". Most players' eyes cross when they hear the words "Symmetric Relay" - they don't have a clue what's going on. As a director, if I found an experienced pair playing a relatively unusual system against less experienced players providing "explanations" along the lines of "it's just bridge", they'd get one warning from me, and then the penalty bat comes into play.

The problem here is the words relatively unusual system.

Who is to say that Washington Standard (for example) is a "normal system" whereas WJ2005 is "relatively unusual"? Or are they both normal systems? Or both unusual?

In a multi-national field where many pairs are playing systems that "almost everyone plays" in their own country, we will still see Americans playing 2/1 GF in some version, Brits playing Acol in some version, Poles playing Polish club in some version, and Chinese and Indians playing strong club in some version. Who has to explain their methods, and who can say "it's just bridge"?

I think the only fair answer is that everyone has to explain even if they're just explaining what's "standard" in their part of the world.

[blackshoe]

I agree, Adam, so what's the problem?

Bog standard <whatever it is in your country> is "relatively unusual" to someone from someplace else. Who decides? Well, if a player resists his ethical and legal obligation to fully disclose his methods, the TD decides. That's his job.

[barmar]

Agreeing to play "2/1" with a brand-new partneris a partnership agreement. This requires you to announce/alert and correctly explain conventions like Forcing NT, New Minor Forcing and Jacoby 2NT (in ACBL jurisdictions, and I suspect many others).