Summer Nationals 24 – Reflections

The Summer Nationals have just concluded. Honestly, it feels like it got over before it started! As is my wont, I am sharing a few thoughts on the event. These thoughts are all my own, some of them nice, others critical. The criticism is aimed to be as objective as possible with the only aim of improving bridge and the playing experience for all of us bridge lovers

However, before one begins commenting on the event in general, I have to comment on the Superwoman of the Event

Bindiya Kohli turned in a superlative effort to capture both the ladies pairs national championship as well as the mixed pairs national championship.

Those who were playing the mixed pairs event would have been aware that she played the finals with a severely bad throat. Indeed she had approached the directors to examine the possibility of withdrawing half way through the event should she be unable to continue. Once the directors advised her against doing so, she determined that she would play to the end, no matter what the result. And what a result that was!

We salute her achievement this year and I can only exhort her to start playing open events, something I have been talking to her for the past several months.

 

What went well

The organization and the efforts put in by the organizers must be mentioned as superlative. Indeed, writing any more would only detract from the statement.

The other fact that struck out in my mind was the efforts made to minimize the number of pairs getting direct entry to the finals. In order to do that, the following modifications were made to various events.

• The knock outs for silver were kept at 4 sessions of 10 boards
• The play offs for silver were kept for 2 sessions of 10 boards (This didn't seem to be necessary but, to be honest, I haven't paid too much attention to the matter
• The play offs for Gold were reduced to one session. They were combined with one session of the Finals resulting in the players playing 70 boards on one day.

 

What could have been done better

If there were one area which could have done with improvement, it was in my opinion, the food. While the food was quite tasty and enjoyable, I ended up feeling that the menu was a bit monotonous. I hasten to add that this could be an individual perception and does not detract from the fact that the food was tasty per se.

The other thought that I had about the food was that providing fried snacks in the evening could be avoided. We as a population are only growing older and need to be more and more health conscious. I don't know how easy or difficult it is to provide non fried options, but I believe that this point merits consideration.

What was unacceptable

Regrettably there are more than one issues which cropped up at the event which left nobody feeling good. Nevertheless these are issues we should face and try to come up with ways of addressing.

1. Player Misbehavior

In one event, a player literally flung her cards at her partner. No matter what the provocation, this is not acceptable. This event happened in front of a director, so it will probably be paid attention to. Otherwise the willingness to take up such issues in the absence of a written complaint is next to non existent.

I understand that something similar had occurred during the Shree Cements event but, since it was not reported, no action could be taken.

In the Shree Cement event, one player was abusing his partner using unparliamentary language in loud tones. Why is it that we cannot control our tempers and restrict ourselves to gentlemanly language at the table, at the very least?

All the players mentioned in these incidents above are top class players who would be looked up to as examples by many of the bridge playing population.

2. Drunk Disorderliness

One player was seen making a nuisance of himself under the influence of alcohol. While everybody could see that his behavior was totally unacceptable, there is a reluctance to take action against him unless a written complaint is filed against him.

3. Smoking

This playing venue had a designated smoking area. Nevertheless, people were resorting to smoking at a point where a no smoking sign was put up. When the directors attempted to remonstrate with the smokers, one of them told the director to levy all the penalties to his account and he would be happy to take the same.

I see two aspects to this issue. The first, of course, is the concept of obeying director instructions. The other, much larger, issue is abusing the wishes of the organizers. This could result in organizers refusing to grant us venues at reasonable rates in future. I will not even bother to go into the ill effects such smoking has on non smokers.

Once again, the offenders were prominent bridge players, who would serve as an example to other bridge players around them.

4. Directorial Hectoring

This incident took place during the last round of Swiss League in the Silver section. One pair bid a slam in spite of a hesitation by one of the partners. Their opponents protested and the director revised the score to a game score making 12 tricks.

The pair then requested for a review. The director doing the ruling filled the review form and then all the directors attending the event insisted that the review be filed even before the round was complete. Arguably, their compulsion was that it was the last round of the event and they wanted the review out of the way so that the draw for the knock outs could be made immediately after the play was over.

One of the players of the disgruntled pair happens to be a member of the BFI executive committee which was meeting later that evening. Immediately we had various people enquiring with Sanjay Chakraborty and Sudhir Agarwal about the correctness of the ruling. Both went to great pains to explain the rationale of the ruling (a rationale with which I agree).

However, the insistence of completion of the review before play was over was not only in bad form, but was also in violation of Law 79 C of the laws of Contract Bridge which deals with correction period. The directors are supposed to be custodians of the law. The question therefore arises Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

In conclusion

To conclude, there have been many points of criticism in the post above. These are largely points for us to reflect upon rather than a 'holier than thou' statement of how people should behave or otherwise.

We request you, dear reader, to take these comments in the spirit in which they have written.
As usual, please do feel free to write your comments on the post.

Disclaimer : All opinions are entirely those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the BridgeFromHome Team.on