♣ ♦ Club News Sheet – No. 7 8/12/2002 ♥ ♠
|to news-sheet main page||to Pattaya Bridge home page|
May I again remind people that we
try to start the Monday session at sharp.
This means that people should be sitting at the table opposite their partner
before My general policy is that I will always try to obtain suitable
partners for people without one. This is extremely difficult if people arrive
at exactly and without a partner. So, in future, I will only
‘guarantee’ a partner for people if they arrive well beforehand (say at least
10 mins). Now I wrote the last paragraph before I was
made aware of the exact circumstances last Monday. Everything above is still
absolutely valid, but I do apologise to
I’m sure that everybody
was pleased to see the return of Chuck. The club is not the same without him.
He was kind enough to read all of the news sheets and give comments. Basically
he agreed with just about everything I said but queried my ‘persistent’ knocking of
there are very few nations which I have any tolerance for. I gave up French
wine and brandy when they decided to blow up a Pacific island as a ‘nuclear
test’ a few years ago. As far as I am concerned, anybody is free to have a go
at the Brits and Tony’s ‘sucking up’ to mr bush – it won’t bother me at all. And if these guys do
start a war, then
Now I thought that I had been fairly clear in the last few news sheets, but it appears not. A phrase like ‘a loud mouthed Norwegian’ is ambiguous?? So, I will clarify the situation and mention names from now on (please don’t sue me – it’s not worth while). First, let’s cover the ‘on notice’ people from news sheet 2. Let’s be explicit about the Belgian, American and Australian. Now it appears that I was not too subtle here; and Geoff, Chuck and Ian all got the message. Geoff usually appears (just about) on time, has a nice new shirt and has learnt not to criticize Chuck or other players. Chuck is well mannered and relatively quiet (for an American) – sorry, scrub that last bit. He has even been known to be very polite to less experienced opponents, realizing that this is not a stratified event; and he has not walked out again. Ian has not called anybody else a rude pig (Tholief has gone now) and no longer tries to sneak in a fag behind by back at the Amari. I now consider these three to be back to ‘normal’ status (but keep it up and don’t push it, guys). Did I really mean to say that?
Now I did not elaborate in News sheet 5 as to why Thorlief was banned – I thought it was obvious; and the least said the better. It appears, however, that I need to justify it. Apparently Alex thought it harsh (John had provoked Thorlief) and Thorlief did not realize that he was ‘on notice’?? I shall just summarize a few items from news-sheets 2-4:
‘Cards (and bidding cards) should be placed on the table and not slapped down in an apparent show of anger. This is cheating (when showing displeasure at some action of partner’s). If two opponents had asked you not to do this the previous week, then I can only assume that the offender is stupid or wants to cause problems. If his English is not up to reading this note then perhaps Alex will translate.’
‘One such individual has been involved in a loud argument three weeks running (with 3 different opponents!)’ – Thorlief had loud arguments with John, Chuck and Ian three weeks in succession. The very next week he even managed to get Bill to raise his voice.
‘I can psyche as often and whenever I like’ – sorry Thorlief, not repeatedly at our club.
‘one particular member continually wishes to argue with me (and everybody else)’.
‘ – do these people realise that they are within 5mm of being thrown out? I really don’t care who is to blame. This is the LAST warning. I will not risk the club’s standing because of one loud mouthed Norwegian. It is simply more than pathetic.’
Just to repeat a line from the news sheet issued on the day that he was requested to leave: –
‘I really don’t care who is to blame -This is the LAST warning.’ The bold capitals and underline were in the original. Most normal people would not take this to be a mild reprimand.
Incidentally, I believe that one other prominent club member (Martin) had approached Alex and cautioned him about his partner’s behaviour.
Now I fully realise that John may well have provoked Thorlief in the last ‘incident’, but I think that I had made it fairly plain that I just needed the slightest excuse to throw him (Thorlief) out. John presumably realised this and simply expedited the inevitable. As far as I am concerned, this is the end of the matter. I shall make it clear and totally unambiguous: - Thorlief is not welcome at either the Monday or Friday club ever again.
Virtually every member present congratulated me on the outcome and my swift reaction. I do not believe in parole and light sentences. If the prisons become overcrowded, – then hang ‘em all!
Just a friendly word to Alex: - Thorlief is a lost cause. You will not make many friends at the Bridge club by continuing to defend him or by suggesting that others have behaved anywhere near so badly. He has upset just about everybody at the club and been involved in every argument that I can remember. People must learn to be accountable for their own actions.
So, how about a little Bridge? …. Just room for a quickie.
Most people play transfers these days, so it is worthwhile mastering them. Let’s say you have Hand A and partner opens 1NT (strong 15-17). You transfer with 2♥ and partner obediently bids 2♠.
What now? You clearly want to be in game but a 4♠ bid is incorrect. Bid 3NT and
give partner the choice (he knows that you have 5 ª’s).
♥ A62 ♥ AJ862 game forcing) over partner’s expected 2♠ response. If
♦ 94 ♦ 6 partner then bids 3NT, you bid 4♥, indicating at least 5-5 in