On Apr 30, 5:18 pm, richlp <richl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2:50 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 2:25 pm, David Babcock <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > >> someone who has never read a book
> > > > not that I am going to buy it to find out
>
> > > <snicker>
>
> > > David
>
> > I will admit that is very funny ;-) Seriously, for the good of
> > bridge in the world, Uncle Big Bad has to go. As some have pointed
> > out, I am no fan of Wolff. I saw him in action working in the same
> > office every day for six months. It made me ill and the bridge radical
> > and activist I became. In looking out for his own self-interest, he is
> > the most ruthless man I ever met. Some people know the facts. I
> > understand that it is just about impossible for anyone who doesn't
> > know those facts to understand any of this. I try to avoid everything
> > bridge but when this came out, I couldn't be silent any longer. I
> > don't mean to offend anyone but Bobby Wolff and I already know that is
> > impossible too. I'll give you another example. Wolff wanted to be the
> > NABC Appeals Committee Csar (his actual words) and make all of the
> > decisions along with Edgar Kaplan in high level cases. I find just
> > about anyone who wants to be a "Csar" of anything to be offensive but
> > especially so with Wolff.
>
> > JB
>
> I don't know anything about his personal life and don't particularly
> care. But having read all the Appeal Casebooks for the past 10 years
> or so, I find the thought of his being in charge of Appeals
> committees ....................... disturbing.
>
> I don't know if he would actually rule as he advocates in the
> casebooks. Perhaps he is just advocating how he would like it to
> be.
>
> Now that the casebooks have been watered down so drasticly there's
> nobody to comment on his suggested rulings which frequently violate
> the laws and spirit of the game. HD (Hesitation Disruption) and CD
> (Convention Disruption) have no basis in Law (AFAIK) and until he
> returns (or advocates returning) the matchpoints won from the
> consequences of an opponent's revoke, bid/lead out of turn, etc. I'll
> take all his PTF (Protect the field) stuff with LARGE grains of salt.
I want field protection whenever I miscount a suit. The opps don't
deserve these unearned tricks. == Bill Shutts
|
