The Lone Wolff

December 28th, 2010  ~  paul cronin  ~  6 Comments 

Got a wonderful Christmas present from my children – “The Lone Wolff” – and read same from cover to cover with hardly a break. What a great book – have been wanting to read it for so long! My congratulations to Bobby, who has done a tremendous service to bridge by writing this book – should be required reading by all bridge players. Would love to get the book autographed, and will look forward to the day when I have the pleasure of actually meeting Bobby and Judy. Bravo, Bobby!

To play, perchance to dream!

December 20th, 2010  ~  paul cronin  ~  2 Comments 

Am just back from the second annual “Regional At Sea” bridge cruise with Larry Cohen, and have a cute story:

For the Wednesday-Thursday-Friday Kos, my partner Mary Jo Crone and I teamed up with two ladies from Minneapolis, Peg Mitchell and Liz Hughes. The results were

It then turns out that the 6.60 gold points for the win were just what Liz needed to become a life master – her previous total was about 305 MPs.

 We then teamed up with them again for the Saturday Swiss, and the results were

What are the odds that someone with 305 MPs would get enough gold on Friday night to become a life master, and then win the Flight A open Swiss the next day???

This was no shabby field either, with 71 teams, some being professional like Ken Gee’s, and others being absolutely stellar, like the one headed by Jeff Meckstroth (who arguably had a bad day).

Our team total was about 5,300 MPs – the second place team’s total was 29,000, the third place 38,000, and the fourth place 46,000!

 On a lesser note, my partner Mary Jo managed to carry me for a total of  35.25 MPs  (27.59 gold) for the week, and thereby shoved me over 2500 MPs into gold territory.  To play, perchance to dream!

Zero Tolerance – I really believe….

October 24th, 2010  ~  paul cronin  ~  6 Comments 

I really believe  that we have to have “rules/laws” regarding misbehaviour rather than just “policies”, and that those rules/laws have to apply at all events – NABCs, Regionals, Sectionals, and clubs. When there are penalties, as in Zero Tolerance, that affect one’s score, misbehaving players quickly modify their behaviour so as to not incur those penalties. Suppose for instance an opponent, at the end of a hand, says to declarer “Boy, you sure played that hand stupidly”. Wouldn’t it be great if declarer could simply say “Director, please”, tell the director that his opponent has made a rude remark that has interfered with his enjoyment of the game, and have the director ask the opponent “Did you say that?”. When the opponent says “Yes”, the director then says “OK, I’m going to deduct 1/4 of a board from your score at the end of the game, and if there’s another instance of rude behaviour by you during this game I’m going to remove you from the event”. This doesn’t take any longer than quoting the options available to declarer on a lead out of turn, and will most certainly, in my opinion, cause the offender to modify his behaviour so as not to incur any further penalties. We are losing so many new players because of rudeness, and the demographics of ACBL membership tell us that without a constant influx and retention of new players we will quickly reach the point where we won’t have enough players left to successfully hold tournaments or maintain viable clubs. Isn’t it ironic that in a sport like golf, when a player misses an easy putt in a tournament, and the miss costs him a lot of money, the only reaction you see is a rueful look, whereas in bridge someone ends up screaming at partner over something that, in the long run, means nothing? Misbehaviour can be eliminated without turning the game over to the alleged “whiners”, and I sincerely ask for everyone’s help to do so.

Recommendations to the ACBL re Zero Tolerance

October 21st, 2010  ~  paul cronin  ~  5 Comments 

As per some of my previous blogs, I have submitted the following to the ACBL Board and staff for their consideration – comments would be appreciated:  

                                     Recommendations to the ACBL regarding its Zero Tolerance Policy

As one of the co-founders of the Zero Tolerance movement, I would like to congratulate the ACBL on its development of its Zero Tolerance Policy.  There are, however, in my opinion, parts of the policy statement which need further expansion, codification and/or director training:

(i)            “In accordance with Laws 74, 80F, 81C4, 90A, 91, and 92A (Laws of Duplicate Bridge) the following policy outlines what is expected of all players during NABCs and other ACBL sponsored events, as well as in the playing area before and after each session.”

Recommendation: since the Zero Tolerance Policy is derived from ACBL Laws, it should be made part of the ACBL Laws.

(ii)           “The ACBL Board of Directors and Management are committed to improving acceptable player behavior at all times”

Recommendation:  after being made Law, the Zero Tolerance Policy should be mandated for Sectionals, Regionals, and Club play as well as NABCs.

(iii)          “At the start of each event, the director shall make an announcement that the tournament will be observing ZERO TOLERANCE for unacceptable behavior. It is requested that the director be called whenever behavior is not consistent with the guidelines outlined above.”

Recommendation: given that some directors are not making the announcements at all, and others are substituting some variant of their own (like “Be nice”), the announcement should be mandated as exactly “This is a Zero Tolerance event – please call the director if anyone’s conduct interferes with your enjoyment of the game”.

(iv)          “Warnings are strongly discouraged and will be given only when there is no clear violation or in cases where the facts cannot be determined.”

Recommendation: that this statement be changed to “Warnings will only be given when there is no clear violation or in cases where the facts cannot be determined.”

(v)           Recommendation: that club level play be again made subject to the ACBL CDR.

Rationale

It makes little sense for the Zero Tolerance Policy to be in effect at NABCs but not at Regionals, Sectionals, and cubs. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

It would make equally little sense to say that reneges at NABCs will be subject to the laws on reneges, but it will be up to the sponsoring organization as to whether reneges will be subject to those laws at Regionals, Sectionals or clubs.

The argument has been put forward that player behavior in certain Units, Districts, or in fact in general has never been better, and that therefore nothing further needs to be done in terms of Zero Tolerance. This is, in my opinion, as invalid as saying that leading out of term has never been at a lower level than at present and therefore we don’t have to be as concerned about leading out of term as we might be otherwise.

It is extremely embarrassing for a player to call a director to the table, explain that some conduct of their opponent(s) is interfering with their enjoyment of the game, and then have the director stare blankly at them  and say something like “So?’.  This results in the player making a mental decision to never call the director again, and the same decision is likely to be made by other players within earshot. Directors must be educated that it is necessary that they get fully behind Zero Tolerance, and that it is important for them to demonstrate that Zero Tolerance situations can be quickly and easily assessed at the table, and penalties assigned if appropriate.

The decision by the ACBL to make discipline at the club level a matter for club management (except for serious breaches of ethics like cheating) has been, in my opinion, a seriously retrograde step. It is extremely important that player conduct at the club level be brought back under the umbrella of the ACBL CDR, so that players can again send “Player Reports” to the Unit Recorder, and “Player Complaints” to the Unit Charging Party. Club players become tournament players, and the conduct that will be expected of them at tournaments must be inculcated at the club level.

What to bid? – What to bid?

October 21st, 2010  ~  paul cronin  ~  2 Comments 

As dealer East, you hold   —   QJ9     AK109873     J73.    NV vs. V.      What would you open?

When South passes, what action should West take with   105   AK873     Q5     AQ86 ? 

When the dust settles on this, we’ll take a look at North’s hand and see if he should take any action.

Sauce for the goose – sauce for the gander!

September 27th, 2010  ~  paul cronin  ~  16 Comments 

Zero Tolerance for a number of misbehaviours is currently (theoretically???) in force at all ACBL NABCs. But do the NABC floor directors make a  real  effort to publicize that fact? Are there announcements about same prior to every session? Do the players know their “rights” under the ACBL ZT policy? Are directors being called to the table to rule on ZT situations? Once at the table, are they assigning penalties as prescribed by the ZT policy? Or are they just giving warnings? Or doing nothing? And if the ZT “sauce” is good enough for the NABC “goose”, why is it not then mandated by the ACBL for all the “ganders” (ACBL sanctioned Sectionals and Regionals)? Curiouser and curiouser indeed!

A “rare” bidding question: continued

August 7th, 2010  ~  paul cronin  ~  5 Comments 

For those of you lucky enough to use 4C as ace asking anytime (well, OK, there are a few exceptions) how about trying the auction

4C asks for aces, and the responses are 0/3, 1/4.

Playing DOPI, the X shows 0: playing DEPO. the X shows even

5C asks for kings – 0,1,2,3,4

Over N’s 5D, S passes – over N’s 5H, S bids 6D.

Thoughts???

A “rare” bidding question.

July 30th, 2010  ~  paul cronin  ~  6 Comments 

The auction goes

and you hold    —     Axx      AQxx      AKQxxx.        What now???

Lessons. lessons!

July 27th, 2010  ~  paul cronin  ~  9 Comments 

Am wondering why no bridge lessons (that I know of) take into account any of the following factors:

(i) gender – do men and women have  different approaches to the game. Why are there relatively few women listed as winners of major pairs or team events? Do men play more aggressively than women? How should bridge lessons take this into account to help overcome any differences that exist? 

(ii) type of game – bridge hands at club games and at tournaments are very different – the cards at club games tend not to get well shuffled, and produce more flatter hands than the pre-duplicated ones at tournaments. If it takes (in general) 25 HCP to make a major suit game at the club, will it still take (on average) 25 HCP to make a major suit game at a tournament? Do lessons take this difference into account?

(iii) what kind of player am I? – when I walk into a club or tournament game, what are my answers to the following questions?:

(a) are my partner and I the best bidders here?

(b) are my partner and I the best declarers here?

(c) are my partner and I the best defenders here?

If the answers to the above are “No”, then what skills do we plan to bring to the game that will enable us to overcome these weaknesses and enable us to win? If we have no winning “plan”, then we have no chance of winning. 

(iv) nature – am I a timid player? An aggressive player? Nervous? Bold? Lazy? Sharp? How can I minimize my personal weaknessess and maximize my personal strengths?

(v) partner – am I a good partner? Do I consistently try to see where  I   went wrong or didn’t do as much as I could to help my partner, or do I believe that I will get the best out of my partners by publicly berating them at the table. Would I recognize top players if I saw them? – players like Passell, Wold, Lair, Hamman. Do I sometimes mistake my own partners for any of these top players and wonder why they aren’t consistently making the great plays I expect of them? Do I consistently make these great plays myself?

Lessons, lessons – lessons indeed.

What kind of “game” is bridge?

July 21st, 2010  ~  paul cronin  ~  5 Comments 

There are many kinds of “games”, so a good starting point is to distinguish between “popular” games and “unpopular” games. “Popular” games tend to be those with a few easily stated and quickly understood rules. Baseball, football,  hockey, and poker are popular. “Unpopular” games tend to be those with many not easily stated rules which are difficult to understand. Chess and bridge are “unpopular”. These categories can also change over time – bridge was once very  popular, but is now very unpopular. My parents and their friends played bridge socially on a very frequent basis without ever having read a bridge book or taken a bridge lesson. Fifty years ago bridge was cool! But in the last twenty years I can’t think of a single occasion where anyone I know played bridge socially. Why is that? People will have many  answers to that question, most of which will say that it really isn’t bridge’s fault for its decline in popularity. But I think it is – bridge is simply no longer what the average person would call a “game”. Its rules are many, they seem to be constantly under revision, and they often require a committee hearing to clarify. If non-bridge players wandered into a tournament site and saw the incredible number of bridge books on sale it would not be unreasonable for them to conclude that the possession of a staggering amount of knowledge is necessary in order to “play” bridge. If they then wandered about the playing area, they would probably further conclude that not many of the participants were enjoying themselves very much. How has bridge come to this point? Part of the answer may be – money. Maybe too many people are making too much money from teaching, authouring, playing, directing, etc. to want to allow the gravy train to stop. But the way the age demographics of the ACBL membership are going the gravy train will stop – there just won’t be enough players left to make a game anymore. What can we do to try to prevent the disappearance of the game? Try this one on for size: hold a tournament where the number of masterpoints awarded in each masterpoint stratum is proportional only  to the table count. Then set friendly masterpoint stratum ranges. maybe 0-499, 500-999, 1000-2499, 2500-4999, and 5000+. If it then turns out that the table count for the 500-999 range exceeds that of any other range, then the winners in that range get the largest masterpoint award. The next largest table count gets the next largest masterpoint award, and so on. There will be screams from many that we should never give the “lesser” players in the 0-499 range the largest award of our sacred masterpoints, but on the other hand wouldn’t it be great to see the bridge population pyramid expanding at the bottom once again. But what to do with the eight players who show up who have 5000+ masterpoints. Well, they could play in a two table section and get .16 masterpoints for winning same, or they could look elsewhere for major events for them to play in – the Spingold, Red Ribbon Pairs, Cavendish, etc, or, perhaps their stratum would turn out to be the largest of all when it is inundated by all the players who say  they want to play up against the best. If we don’t do something, the rich may keep getting richer for a while, but the game we love will not survive.