September 9th, 2015 ~ paul cronin ~
5 Comments 
Hard lately not to think about “heroes”, whether they be in bridge or in any other endeavor. And that brought to mind the title line above, from the movie “The Graduate”. And the poignant line following it – “A nation turns its lonely eyes to you”. And when, like the Beatles in “Let It Be”, “I find myself in times of trouble”, I think of….heroes. Like Bobby Jones in the 1925 U.S. Open, calling a penalty on himself for causing his ball to move while he was addressing it. No one else saw it move ….his partner tried to talk him out of it…..the officials insisted that it was totally up to him to make the call. He made the call, and penalized himself one stroke. That resulted in a tie at the end of the tournament, and a subsequent playoff which he lost. He lost the U.S. Open! Do you think he ever regretted that action? Probably not, because in the next U.S. Open he called another penalty on himself when his ball, in a strong wind, moved a half turn on the green as he lifted his putter head to place it behind the ball. To me, that’s being a…….hero. Doing the right thing when no one is looking, especially when you may pay a big price for doing so.
August 20th, 2015 ~ paul cronin ~
10 Comments
The statement issued by Mike Passell explaining his side of the situation was titled “The Whole Story”, but…..after some 650 comments posted on Bridgewinners, we still don’t seem to have the whole story. It’s easy to miss details when there are that many posts, but here are some questions that I haven’t found the answers to yet:
What was the actual score on the board Mike tossed on the floor? -100, -200 ??
What was the actual score when that board was played at the other table? +110, +130 ??
(Answers to the above are needed to confirm the alleged 2 IMPs lost on the board).
Was the card Mike saw on the floor face up or face down?
If face up, what was the actual card?
Prior to the EOC hearing, was Mike informed of the name of the complainant, and the nature of the charges?
Was he informed that there were to be four charges?
Was E13 one of those charges?
Were the other three charges 3.1, 3.7, and 3.20?
How many people were on the EOC for his hearing?
What were the names of those people?
When Mike says “I was found guilty of four things”, were those four things 3.1, 3.7, 3.20, and E13, as stated in the ACBL Bulletin?
If 3.20 was one of the things he was found guilty of, as the ACBL BUlletin notice says it was, why does he say “However, I was found NOT GUILTY of cheating…..” when 3.20 is “Cheating and similar ethical violations” ?
If guilt was found under E13, the minimum sanction is two years suspension and forfeiture of 25% of the player’s master-points. The probationary term of 13 months is therefore extremely lenient, and the committee would have an obligation to explain in the Hearing Report Form why it chose to go outside the sanction guidelines.
It should be noted that the content of E13 is “Prearrange a deal or part thereof including one card” – it says nothing about whether the prearrangement was intentional or unintentional, or whether the intent of the prearrangement was to gain some advantage or was totally innocent.
Additionally, as the EOC has been severely castigated as a result of its findings, it should be carefully noted that it is not up to the committee to decide what charges are appropriate. The committee is simply given the charges it is asked to examine, and it then hears evidence relating to those charges. When all the evidence is heard, the committee decides on the guilt or innocence of the charged party on each of the charges it was given. The committee has no authority to throw out the charges, or change the charges to something else – it can only conclude “guilty” or “not guilty” on each of the charges. Further, once the hearing is over, the committee members are not allowed, by CDR 3.22, to discuss anything that took place at the hearing except the final decision of the committee.
August 17th, 2015 ~ paul cronin ~
3 Comments
Very sad to see in today’s NABC Final Bulletin that Mike Passell, a member of the ACBL Hall of fame, and winner of over 77,000 MPs, has been placed on probation for 13 months with 25% of his masterpoints removed for an ethical violation. The only direct reference in the very short notice is to “Prearrange a deal or part thereof” (E13), and hopefully there will be clarification of exactly what this was about. The suggested sanction for an E13 violation is “2 years suspension to expulsion” and removal of 25-100% of the disciplined player’s MP holding, so an explanation by the Ethical Oversight Committee as to the apparent leniency of the sanction would be enlightening. I believe the members of the EOC are Peter Boyd, Bart Bramley, Lesley Davis, Jill Meyers and Karen Walker. [UPDATE:: it now appears that there are 15 members of the EOC, and normally 5 of them would be chosen for a specific hearing. I believe that Karen Walker has now stated that she was not on the committee handling this situation].While a committee can go outside the sanction guidelines, it must then explain why it did so.
Hard not to think of the irony in the following statement made by Mike in April, 2014, when he was writing an account of the “Doctor’s Scandal” in Bali:
“It was a long last day playing against a pair we knew were cheating. It has been an even longer 6 months waiting for justice to be served— for those of you who haven’t read about it, the Doctors have been found guilty of cheating by the WBF. They have been barred for 10 years from playing, and for life from playing together in WBF events.”
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 there was a ceremony at the Chicago NABC to award the Carolyn Lynch team, which included Mike Passell, gold medals for winning the d’Orsi Senior trophy in Bali due to the disqualification from first place of the German team for cheating.
The master-points won by Mike in Chicago were
Friday evening August 7 3.58
Sunday Flight A Swiss August 9 3.61
Spingold 50.00
Roth Swiss Teams 60.00
for a total of 117.19. But the overall results show the total as 116.10 ???
P.S. Mike has now issued the following statement:
“Here are the facts from my perspective:
Early this year, I played a bracketed Swiss at the Palmetto Regional with Mary Chilcote, Meckwell, and Chris Compton. I sat North and tossed a board on the floor after we had gotten a poor result. Sometime during the next hand I noticed a card sitting face down next to a pocket and inserted it. This was a three-way match, so I thought it prudent to make sure the board was correct before our opponents took the boards to the other table. I counted the cards and found 14 in one hand and 12 in another, so I moved the extra card, which I thought was the one that had fallen out and I had replaced. I should have checked more thoroughly, but I thought I had fixed it. When we compared results, our opponents said there was a fouled board and I realized it was my screwup and owned up to it. They had won 2 IMPs on the board, and we decided to just let that result stand. I should have gone to the director, and I wish I could go back in time and do so.
This was early in the week and I thought nothing of it until the following week when two close friends told me one of my opponents was spreading stories of my “foul play.” About a month later I was contacted by Jim Miller of the ACBL who asked about the incident and I repeated the story exactly as it happened. A short time later I was contacted by Sam Whitten of the ACBL and had the same discussion. I was informed I was to attend a meeting in Chicago of the Ethical Oversight Committee, which I used to be a member of. Both Jim and Sam attended the hearing and testified that I had told them the exact same story. I was told I could bring a representative with me but not a lawyer. I declined, thinking no one could possibly believe I could be stupid enough to change a hand that had already been played.
The end result of my not calling the director was that I was found guilty of four things, most of which I’ve never heard of. The most significant seems to be “prearranging a deal or part thereof,” which I still don’t know exactly what it means or how it pertains to what happened. Apparently it carries with it a mandatory penalty of 13 months probation and 25% of total masterpoints. However, I was found NOT GUILTY of cheating, and I was told the public statement would make this clear. Yet, now I see the statement reads like I was found guilty of cheating and given a lenient sentence. I am 100% not guilty of anything other than stupidity. I have a spotless five-decade record; I never have and never would cheat the game I love. I feel my reputation has been damaged and am extremely hurt. I have every interest in getting all the facts out, so I welcome all questions from Bridge Winners users; I have nothing to hide.”
July 21st, 2015 ~ paul cronin ~
7 Comments
Had a chance to listen to an interesting discussion the other day about whether professionals being paid to play in tournaments should be required to identify themselves in some way. One point of view was that they should make their status known to the director selling them their entry. Others felt that there should be some way to indicate to opponents at the table that they are being paid to play. Although the mechanics of any kind of IDing system are problematic, such IDing might help TDs to properly assess table calls where paid professionals are involved, and to avoid selecting same to sit on committees, where their paid status might lead to conflicts of interest. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
June 19th, 2015 ~ paul cronin ~
1 Comment
Am just back from 10 glorious days in Ireland, with activities centered around the town of Arklow in Wicklow county on the East coast. Arklow is a town of about 13,000, and about an hour’s drive from Dublin. The weather was wonderful, the road system magnificent, and the sights many to behold – the Vale of Avoca (where those fantastic sweaters are knitted/woven), Waterford and its glass, the spa at Monart, Charles Stewart Parnell’s (the uncrowned king of Ireland) home at Avondale, the ancient Franciscan monastic site at Glendalough, and…..of course……bridge games. I played at clubs in Arklow, Gorey, and Greystones, and enjoyed all thoroughly. Club games in Ireland are very different from ones in Canada, the most notable differences being (i) director calls are extremely rare to non-existent (ii) there were no alerts (iii) there were no “table cards” as we know them but rather small cards telling you what table to move to next (iv) no one uses a convention card (v) players very rarely record their scores as they go along (vi) opening leads are entered into the BridgeMates (vii) players can see their score for each hand on the BridgeMate as well as seeing what contracts other pairs played in (viii) the opening lead is not faced until dummy is put down (ix) bidding cards are often left on the table until dummy is tabled (x) one club had a lovely tea break at half-time, complete with cookies and biscuits (xi) there are small cash prizes for those coming first, etc. (xii) everyone plays ACOL, but people could explain what they were playing in a sentence or two by simply stating 4 or 5 card majors, weak, strong or variable notrump, and strong opening two bids – no one (except my partner and myself) played weak twos (xiii) the game is far more sociable than here, but at the same time the standard of play was very high.
The games are regulated by the Contract Bridge Association of Ireland (CBAI), and the various master-point levels are Novice (N2 and N1), Intermediate (B, A2 and A1), Area Master, Regional Master, National Master, Life Master, and Grand Master. There is an excellent “Irish Bridge Journal” published 4 times a year.
This was my second trip to Ireland (the first being years ago to explore my family roots in Bantry) and this time was very special because of the many fine people who extended such a gracious welcome, and truly made me feel at home. To all I say a heartfelt “Ní bheidh mé a bheith ina strainséir in Éirinn arís”.
March 24th, 2015 ~ paul cronin ~
8 Comments
When playing in a club team league last night ran into an opening 1C bid described as the “Bulgarian Club”. Having never heard of this, I had to make numerous inquiries about the bid – some of which were
(1) after an opening bid of 1C, and my “Please explain” – Answer:shows 13 cards
(2) after an opening bid of 1D, and my”How is this different than opening 1C?” -Answer: promises 4 diamonds
(3) after an opening bid of 1C, and my “Can this hand have 4 diamonds as well?” – Answer: yes
(4) after an opening bid of 1C and a rebid by opener of 1NT, my “What is opener’s HCP range?” – Answer: could be anything
All “Bulgarian Club” bids were made by my LHO, so it was my RHO who always got to answer my questions. I asked RHO if they were a regular partnership, and was told “Yes”. When he disclaimed knowledge of partner’s point count range on the last sequence above, I asked how he would be able to know when to take action over the 1NT rebid by opener – the reply was “I’m as baffled by this as you are”.
Should this be allowed in club play?
February 2nd, 2015 ~ paul cronin ~
5 Comments
Have been watching a match between Benito Garozzo-Marina Stegaroiu (Romania) and Patrick Bocken (Belgium) -Tarun Badiani (Belgium). As I watched, I couldn’t help smiling when I thought of the 2/1 advocates here who say that soon everyone will be playing 2/1. Well, maybe not everyone – as here are a few of the bids I saw:
a 1S overcall of a 1D opening, showing 4+ hearts
a 2C opening showing 5+,4+ in the majors
a 1C opening showing 4+ clubs OR any 12-14 NT OR game forcing
transfer responses to opening bids
I guess we here in North America tend to think that we are the centre of the (bridge) universe, and that the rest of the world will follow our lead.
But the more important issue is the question – “How crucial is system?”.
Is it more important than good defense? good declarer play? table sense?
If it isn’t more important than these, then why is all the emphasis, particularly with new players, placed on learning a system? And then lacing it with innumerable conventions!
I see numerous signs at the local clubs advertising courses (for which you have to pay) on 2/1, Negative Doubles, Michaels, Flannery, Roman Keycard, Responsive Doubles, Cappilletti, Lebensohl – the list is endless. But I have never seen a sign for a course in declarer play or defending. Is there some sense in learning how to reach the “right” contract when you can’t play well enough to make it?
My sense is that, unless you have a very practiced (expert?) partnership, the more complicated you make your bidding system, the more restrictions you place on the number of bids you can make. I well remember playing in a weekend tournament where one of my opponents was absolutely shocked that I had opened a weak two spades without two of the top three honours. So shocked that she reported the incident to the director. It’s not that I’m advocating opening weak twos without two of the top three, but rather noting that her interpretation of what the bid should contain greatly restricted the number of times she would be able to make it.
The money, of course, is always in teaching people “new” things, and many have followed the advice given by Deep Throat when he said “Follow the money”. We can only guess what will come next – 3/1?
January 11th, 2015 ~ paul cronin ~
1 Comment
When you sit down to play at a club or tournament, what is your strategy for winning? Will you win because you are the best bidder in the room? The best defender? The best declarer? If you answered “No” to each of the above, do you expect to win at all? Or are you there just for the joy of “playing”, with winning being an accident that simply puts icing on the cake? Do you change your approach when you know you’re having a bad game, or just “play it out”? Do you vary your game to suit the various partners you play with? A significant number of club players play just about every day, but almost never have a good game. What keeps them playing? Most clubs have a small group of practiced players who regularly vacuum up the majority of master-points, and this gives more food for thought in terms of “Why do I expect to win today?”.
November 23rd, 2014 ~ paul cronin ~
2 Comments
Looking for a name for the defensive tactic of markedly snapping the first card on the table when it’s the start of a high-low. One suggestion was “Sigh”, or, if you play it upside down, then “Slow”. Ideas??
Do you play “Unusual Leads” ? Then add this one to your arsenal. You are defending against a spade partial, your side has not bid, and you lead the KH from K7. Fortunately, partner has the AH, to which you lead your 7. Partner wins and returns a H for you to ruff. This lead should only be made when partner holds the ace.
Re my previous blog, apparently no one wants to share any (simple) tips for beginners on the play of the hand ??? I’m thinking of “things” that would enable beginners (or others) to make default agreements on play, so that, if the agreements are followed, no blame can be attached. Would be a great help to those (many) who are afraid of “doing the wrong thing”.
November 9th, 2014 ~ paul cronin ~
13 Comments
While all kinds of “courses” are offered on bidding, very few are offered on defense, and none on playing the hand. What is the sense in giving someone the tools needed to reach the “right” contract when he or she can’t play the hand well enough to make it? Is it better to be in the “right” contract and go down, or in the “wrong” contract and make it? Would be great to hear from one and all what “tips” they would offer to those wanting to play the hands better – and I’ll start same off with “When playing a suit that has two missing honours, always play the the two honours to be split – unless there is some evidence to the contrary”. Your turn!
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related