Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Peg Kaplan
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 465 466 467 468
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peter, I'm confused about some points. Do we know who the person was who told Amir 3+ years ago what he states that they did? Was it Cindy, the person who wrote the most recent letter? Or someone else; we perhaps know not who?

I think at least one of the people who was outraged at Amir's comments conceded that it was possible that the original response from ACBL was not worded as well as it might have been. And thus it could have been very reasonable that Amir's interpretation of what was said made sense - given the wording of the explanation.

After looking more than once at what was said in the original post from Amir, it's not unreasonable to think that his last statement was emotional and perhaps not fair. I'm guessing - no matter what exactly was said - but - whatever it was, the first person to speak to him didn't think he/she was lying. And that Cindy was expressing the current rules.

Still, what I think too many are forgetting is that the ACBL is not a courtroom. And that, no matter what others seem to think, part of the League's goals should be, in addition to attracting new members, keeping current ones happy to remain members.

How is Cindy certain that Amir misunderstood what was originally stated? Perhaps he did - and - perhaps he did not. Unless Cindy was the one who first spoke with Amir and has a record of exactly what was saying - then - for all we know, maybe Amir is the one who recollects precisely and not the person who spoke to him 3+ years ago.

It is still quite difficult for me to understand, particularly given the comments from a number of people who state that they were inactive for some period of time - and yet - when they signed up to be a member again, all the points they won while not a member were immediately restored. And yet…. not for Amir.

While I'm not a believer that in absolutely every instance “the customer is always right” - I do think that when things are not clear cut and what might be done to keep a customer happy isn't onerous, then the customer ought indeed be judged to be right.

I'm still hoping that someone tells Amir that the League would like him to continue being a member, that if he keeps his membership current the points will be restored - and then Amir can thank them and let them know that his emotions may have caused him to use some unfortunate language - and - he's sorry for that.

Make peace; not war. Build membership and have people want to play for years - not feel insulted and harmed.
4 hours ago
Peg Kaplan edited this comment 4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray - it sure does in my partnership. If you keycard looking at the trump A or K and partner shows two - he has an ace outside his suit!
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Translation, please Chris - for the great unwashed among us (thanks!)
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What I have played for many years is “funny key card.” But to employ it, you skip the 2nt “do you have a maximum, partner” part. You just bid 4 over the preempt (4 if the preempt was 3) - and responses are as Paul Friedman stated: 0-1-1 with the queen, 2, 2 with. You stay lower and it's simple. (I like simple :) )
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Watches. Probably before you were born, Michael..
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And thank you for your kindness, Melanie :)
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Melanie - I was treated quite well in my first years … only when there were significant changes in personnel did it change.
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am “liking” your attitude, Peter - not the grossness of others….
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike - you and Cookie were my first victims! ;)

Very seriously, the two of you have a wonderful friendship and partnership … and your playing together benefited you both wonderfully. A delight to be able to photograph you and highlight your super partnership!
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You mean you didn't have to pay $10.25 per masterpoint to get 'em back, Linda? :) :) :)
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robert, perhaps you are correct. But the one time this happened to me, I did not play slowly (NOR rapidly; normal pace) - and an opponent did indeed revoke.

And - I will say that I've had hands where the opponents literally dump 3-4 extra tricks to me with errors.

If it is wrong to play out a hand where a revoke might be your only chance, must one claim when you can see that if the opponents don't do something fairly ridiculous, that you can't take more tricks?**

**(Please note that there are plenty of hands where indeed I would claim - knowing that the odds are minuscule that I could ever take any more tricks - or that I knew my opponents were such that they were close to incapable of going wrong…)
18 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Michael; that is what I mean. And please note that I absolutely DO NOT BLAME everyone in ACBL for this! Earlier in my “roaming” career I worked with people that were a delight and a pleasure. But - as the saying goes - things (and circumstances) changed.
18 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robert, for sure it is and I am someone who frequently claims. But - the old “devil is in the details”. If I think there is a possibility that I might be able to take more tricks by not claiming, then I will play out a hand. I absolutely, however, will NOT play slowly in an effort to put my opponents to sleep.
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robert, I can understand why someone at ACBL might not be able to give you the details you were requesting. Yet, it would be nice if - somehow - they could refer you to SOMEONE at the League who would listen to your concerns. Then they could perhaps give advice, answers, etc. about how better to address some of this.

Perhaps one day I will write something on Bridgewinners about how I was treated several years ago when I was in my role of “roaming reporter”. I will simply say that it was not pretty and I was extremely hurt.
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, if I were king, my preference would be that when people sit down at the table, they announce system - and state general carding (“standard, UDCA, Rusinow” etc.) Might take 15 seconds and would be friendlier and more helpful for all - IMHO.
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jonathan, I agree with you that anyone can play bridge and enjoy the game without the ACBL. I think I played 5-6 years (though only a little bit) prior to joining the League.

But I think when people make the statement that it is a monopoly, they are not referring simply to the ability to play the game. They mean that if you wish to be involved with organized bridge, that holds serious tournaments, keeps track of your successes and the like, then at least in North America, the ACBL is “it”. (I did have the pleasure of playing in one ABA tournament many years ago in Minneapolis. It was fun and I met nice people. Yet I do not think that the ABA is a serious contender for the ACBL in terms of major competition, etc.)

Anyway. I'm not sure that there is a serious problem with having essentially one source for serious bridge competition. But - if that is indeed what we have, then there is more concern about that organization doing as much as possible in good ways. Not like so many other aspects of life in North America, where we are most fortunate to have a wealth of other options if we are not happy with one particular resource.
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, wholly agree with your “Somnambulant Coup”. I know I've fallen for it and do not think it is fair play at all (unless, of course, someone really has something they need to ponder in a hand…)
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
James; you may be the only person commenting here - but - I sure do know people who play 2 as non forcing. (An alert of course, yet any partnership's choice to play it that way…)
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bill, you certainly could be correct that the hand might have slam in it. And that if you bid 4, you're going to play the hand there, irrespective of the layout.

But I do agree with those who think it would have been nice to have a 4 option. Even if (theoretically) we might be wrong, still a bit more convenient to be able to check that than have to check “other” and explain.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, I wondered about that (“pelludidly” vs “pellucid”). Seems yet another issue where dictionaries do not always agree.
21 hours ago
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 465 466 467 468
.

Bottom Home Top