Loving You Ain’t Easy

                     Michel pagliaro – Lovin’ You Ain’t Easy

 

Judy wrote:

Putting aside my warm feelings for both Eric and Stoney (from whose apartment Bobby and I just returned an hour ago), I fail to see the humor in posting a hand like this — even decades after the incident. In fact, I actually view it as cruel and offensive. Had Eric, with his shenanigans, ended up going for a number: (1) I doubt whether Sami or their teammates would have found it amusing; (2) It would not have appeared in “Canada’s Bridge Warriors;” and (3) It would not have given you fodder for your blog.

The funny thing about the characters involved — my Norman could have been on either side, having played on teams with Stone and Crawford as well as Murray and Kehela. Sorry, but if tales like these amuse your readers, I must have no sense of humor and consider it in very poor taste. To make a ninety-one year old bridge icon the butt of your joke is truly disgusting!

…. The gist of it was that I felt it was tasteless and downright cruel to recant that story about a bridge icon like Tobias Stone. Most of the world’s bridge populace (writers, authors, columnists, so-called experts or wannabes who blog or comment) don’t and will never play well enough to have shined Stoney’s shoes in his prime. Besides, just like all of us, I am sure there are countless Cameron French bridge atrocities you would not want to see publicized on a world bridge site. It was you, not I, shooting below the belt, and I felt it was totally indiscreet — and perhaps one more example of the Canada v. U. S. undercurrent which seems to be the prime subject of your recent offerings.

I don’t share your mean sense of humor and I really don’t give a rat’s ass if it were written by Roy Hughes or J.C., but history has shown that such action soothes the egos of those who inwardly feel inferior — but by attempting to make others look smaller — resultantly enhance their own image (from their personal vantage point). Shame on you for picking on a ninety-one year old revered Hall of Famer who was brilliant, ethical and played by the rules!______________________________________________________________________________

BOBBY WOLFF   April 10th, 2010 at 12:03 am   

 

Hi Cam,

It is not my intention to take a side in the flap about Murray v. Stone mainly because, assuming there is pent up emotion about many things in competitive bridge, including either saving face or being extra careful about hurting feelings, one would have to be a psychological magician to avoid some of these conflicts while blogging.

{Or a husband, and I think we all understand that this dialogue started with what I felt was a humourous story, not any of the peripheral issues you discuss below. But you asked for answers, I will comply. I hope you (and Judy) will do the same in kind.}

HOWEVER, perhaps you can explain to me how others, in this case your Canadian (probably but not for sure) friends who in one blogging breath accuse me of contrived traits from here to izzard, without any real knowledge of anything, except that perhaps they think it fashionable. Then when presented with the facts, which they KNOW are true, either clam up or vanish. Then when the case of Canada on the international scene is documented for them to have finished as my blog said they did for all those years and furthermore learning how weak their teams have been, with weak playing bridge politicians preempting spots on the team, all in spite of being blessed with the most favored position in the whole rest of the world (largely due to my original influence) and then investigating (which should be easy for them) but never commenting or, of course apologizing for standing around doing nothing, but only readying themselves for the next fictitious accusation. As an aside, can you imagine how embarrassing those putrid finishes were for me to accept (and for well over a decade) since I was a representative of Zone 2.

As I am sure you especially are aware, I could pursue these sad character traits with them until eternity but why should I? It is hard to imagine how they could have any self-esteem left, but my nose tells me differently and I suspect tomorrow it will continue to be business, as usual.

Then when I see you and Judy exchanging ugly emails about at least perceived differences in interpretation on reporting bridge, it gets very hard to stomach. At least your back and forth is based on differences in degrees of bridge reporting, not outright untruths, contrived motives and downright absurdities without ever responding to Canada’s shameful international past.

Furthermore, when I reported to you about the Kehela appearance in the Foster Tribunals you spoke of libel before you even checked it out. Were you trying to show your friends how patriotic you are or were you just joining them with your theatre of the ABSURD!

The end result is that I am thoroughly confused who you are. Very recently I thought you and I were good friends with you realizing that, when I relate a bridge happening it is with full knowledge of telling the truth. Evidently you do not feel that way and perhaps it is bcause of who your bridge friends really are. If you still feel differently, I would appreciate you informing me what I have told you which wasn’t 100% true.

Sorry for the unpleasantness, but when you start questioning my integrity, I take it seriously.

 

Bobby

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Every human being floats, so to speak, in an invisible sea of mental complexes-be they that of inferiority or superiority. An inferiority complex is like a delicate wound that never heals completely, and at the Bridge table, it is especially apt to be irritated  because other social beings are present.

Ely Culbertson

 (This and the below quote are taken from The Devil’s Tickets, by Gary M. Pomerantz.)

 

 

Dear Bobby and Judy,

 

 

I agree our perceived and real differences deserve to be aired. Thank you for inviting discussion.

I have difficulty much of both essays, like failing to address a few simple questions and making unfounded allegations starting with, for example “who you and your friends are”………

Anyone who has posted here has NEVER run anything past me, asked for an opinion or consent or posted whatever they want except for, by and of themselves. I have never met Jeff Smith, although I know of him; nor Blair – no idea what country he might live in. David Cravioto and David Turner are life-long friends (which I conceded happily) and we do not agree on much.

I think your anger comes from Mr. Richardson, who I have met but we don’t talk, meet, play bridge or fraternize whatsoever. I think he spoke from his heart, with emotion and anger, as sometimes we all do. I do, you do and he did. For example, he perceived (and he is hardly alone) of your dislike of Canadians and Canadian bridge as published in your book and above. You reacted with anger, proclaiming yourself (as Zone 2 rep and the architect of our cake-walk passage to the international theatre) as Canada’s best friend. The fact that this coin has two sides does not make one side superior to the other; that is for the reader to assess. Whether you or I like it or agree or disagree is moot – it is a matter of perception.

I will give you a better example. Sontag sits down against his opponents (not you of course) and tells them what he expects and what he  or will not tolerate at the table providing an ethics lesson. You and Judy saw this Sontag spiel as “leveling the field” and a somehow all but a courageous act. Many of the rest of us saw it differently, as a flagrant attempt at bullying and showing complete disregards for the Laws and spirit of the game. You saw an expert player exercising self-defence against cheating; others (me included) saw arrogance and intimidation. let’s be frank – he is not giving that speech to you, Meckwell, Martel or Helgemo. It is a matter of perception.

Different strokes for different folks. (Maybe I need a new song, Everyday People by Sly and the Family Stone.)

As for:

HOWEVER, perhaps you can explain to me how others, in this case your Canadian (probably but not for sure) friends who in one blogging breath accuse me of contrived traits from here to izzard, without any real knowledge of anything, except that perhaps they think it fashionable.

I can’t explain why any contributor said what they said beyond this – it was their opinion and they chose to express it. I can’t explain when you are asking me about apparent insults, when this is about a funny story as told by Eric Murray. Now if you imagine like Oliver Stone that this mastermind has somehow coerced or collaborated with those who spoke – well, you give me too much credit. Like Bigfoot a great legend, just not a lot of substance there.

As an aside, can you imagine how embarrassing those putrid finishes were for me to accept (and for well over a decade) since I was a representative of Zone 2.

No sir,  I can’t imagine. So what – less than world class teams finished with modest results? Ain’t that a shame? With all of your assistance, we should have strolled to the final, with title in hand. Sorry we let you down.

I did notice that you and Judy played avoidance with the language and innuendo issues (shoe-polishers, disgusting, mean, etc.) , and instead turned the tables to me, my motives, my character, my honesty, my co-conspirators, “friends” some of whom I am yet to meet!

Sometime (frankly too often) it is as if disagreeing with you and Judy is so wrong as to be dismissed outright and with derision. I point to the tone of the language “despicable, disgusting, mean”. You both have strong opinions, but no one, not even the Wolff family has a monopoly on the truth.

Judy’s history lesson notwithstanding, my experience (no lesson here, I resist although I am a teacher) tells me an angry, agitated and desperate person uses insults, innuendo, threats, hearsay and fury to bolster a weak argument. I have tried to steer clear of the Rush Limbaugh game plan.

When asked would one feel the same if ERM’s “victim” was Belladonna or Garozzo, what is the answer? Well the rest of us, and you and Judy too know that all too well. Why silence?

When asked how can a hand be mean? Avoidance, dodge and tackle is the non-response.

When asked if the “victim” was 21 or 31 or 55 or deceased – would it then be OK?  What answer?

How can anyone make so many (mean/disgusting….) disparaging accusations and then when asked for clarification play possum?

When asked if “moron, idiot and ignorant” are part of the Laws – silence.

You can’t have it both ways.

If you (or more fairly Judy) want to dive into the mud and slag the dirt, then be prepared to answer to justify your accusations. You can throw as much crap against the wall as you like – but at the end of the day the reader looks to facts, not unsubstantiated and baseless accusations. Granted, most of these are from your beloved, but you seem to be picking up the torch.

Can we not agree to disagree without descending to Karl Rove politics of slander and innuendo?

We have agreed on many things, and we have disagreed on many others. We chatted briefly about the women’s sign in China. To the unfamiliar, I am not elaborating. To be frank, I thought you exploded with wrath, and given your way might have had them drawn and quartered before sundown. I felt like applauding their patriotic act. You considered it treasonous. Both positions were at the polar end of the spectrum, and neither of us was right.

When I got your response, I felt the passion, and in spite of what seemed to me to be excessive anger, I came to see how you saw it. I learned from you. In the end, cooler heads prevailed, and I think we all learned a lesson, that this was neither the time nor the place. Another lesson, some learned better than others is that free speech is not a trained dog that rolls over on cue and once in a while it needs to run off the range. Cowboys don’t like that. Libertarians do.

And although you and Judy answered none of my questions, I tried to answer yours. Perhaps you can extend me the same courtesy. Let’s remember, this was about a funny (not for one) Eric Murray story. It is not about Bobby Wolff, or me or Stoney. You, come back to you.

At least your back and forth is based on differences in degrees of bridge reporting, not outright untruths, contrived motives and downright absurdities without ever responding to Canada’s shameful international past.

Well thanks. As for Canada’s “shameful international past”, well…beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect others, starting with Canadians might beg to differ with your assessment.

Why is it that Canada can kick the world’s butt at hockey or curling, but gets hammered in just about every other venue? Well, this may be tough to accept, we have one tenth America’s population and for a start – that gives her ten times more candidates to draw from – be it track and field  (like Carl Lewis/Marion Jones), or baseball (like McGuire/Canseco/Clemens and Bonds) or soccer or tidily-winks. So what? We don’t whine about our lowly status, and in bridge our best, yes even Murray and Kehela playing with your compatriots were never quite good enough to capture a World title. This much I know – every competitor who represented this country did so to the best of their ability. That evokes pride, but you feel our accomplishment level “shameful”. I beg to differ.

One measly example: Murray and Kehela’s record, I only include the highlights.

Bermuda Bowl, representing North America

1966. St. Vincent   second

1967  Miami          second

1974  Venice         second

World Olympiads representing Canada include two third place finishes, one fourth, one seventh.

World Open Pairs and Rosenblum Cup; fifth, fifth, third.

We might call America foreign soil, there they (M/K) only have three Spingolds, a Vanderbilt and qualified twice for the International Team Trials.

Now maybe on occasion some upstart teams dethroned them when it came to Canadian team Trials, and sometimes they were added by compatriots. I suggest that the modest partial listing of accomplishments above is anything but shameful.

ERM used to brag that he knew more national anthems than anyone, always a bridesmaid, never a bride. And you know what – that is OK. We have had great teams compete, and lesser teams do so too. Our beloved Toronto Maple Leafs have not won a Stanley Cup since 1967. Is that shameful? Leaf fans think so. But life soldiers on. What about the Cubs – and the curse of the goat? The shadow of The Bambino looked down upon the Fenway fateful for almost a century. Sometimes the favourite wins and sometimes Cinderella prevails. Maybe our talent level wasn’t quite good enough, especially facing cheaters. Sorry.

I certainly feel proud, hardly “ashamed” of my fellow citizens for their international bridge accomplishments. You felt that Canada did not field its best players for many years and the results were predictable. Well, the problem is again – the rules. Not counting the fact that you feel we have been cheated by the Blue Team for decades. Perhaps “shameful” might apply better to cheaters than to competitors who gave their all and were swindled out of titles.

I begged George Retek and Jonathon Steinberg to allow my handpicked elite team of Murray and Kehela, EOK and Silver, and anchor pair – French and Schmo to represent our country.  They explained that for some silly reason our champions were neither appointed nor anointed. They had to qualify through competition and somehow our team, though clearly superior, was too often knocked out. I thought that very unfair and in direct conflict of your wish that we field the strongest possible team.

You see incompetence. We see competition and accomplishment. Different lenses.

Furthermore, when I reported to you about the Kehela appearance in the Foster Tribunals you spoke of libel before you even checked it out. Were you trying to show your friends how patriotic you are or were you just joining them with your theatre of the ABSURD!

As for the above, you are right that I had not checked it out. I am doing so right now. I have sent private mail (the old-fashioned way) to Sami. Will keep you posted. And, no – I wasn’t trying to join the theatre nor prove how patriotic I am. Is that how you demonstrate patriotism? I don’t even know them – let alone know whether or not they are Canadian. But it is funny of you to say so. I am calling Oliver right now for the movie – Conspiracy Kingpin.

The end result is that I am thoroughly confused who you are.

As Popeye says – “I yam who I yam”. 

Very recently I thought you and I were good friends with you realizing that, when I relate a bridge happening it is with full knowledge of telling the truth. Evidently you do not feel that way and perhaps it is because of who your bridge friends really are.

My friends are granted this wonderful thing – the ability to speak for themselves. What anyone has said here was at their own behest. And should a friend, or an acquaintance or a stranger agree or disagree – so be it. With friends, one does not jump to conclusions nor ratchet up the rhetoric and innuendo, not counting the adjectives. And just to clarify, the vast majority of people who posted on this thread are not my friends, and spoke independently of me.

If you still feel differently, I would appreciate you informing me what I have told you which wasn’t 100% true. 

What I have tried to do is this – explain that we all come from different backgrounds and viewpoints. You have a unique standing given your decades of experience. Still, you and Edgar disagreed on “dumping”, and I dare say within the bridge community (not just those at the top) there are a multitude of issues – from conventions to cheating that are seen differently. Roth-Stone versus Cohen-Bergen, four or five card majors, weak or strong no trumps and that is but the tip of the iceberg.

Sorry for the unpleasantness, but when you start questioning my integrity, I take it seriously.

With all due respect – I think that is the best line in your reply. I think you should take it seriously, and I respect that.

I respect it by trying to answer your questions and allegations.

I respect by not diving into the word dumpster with belittling adjectives.

I respect it by explaining friends can agree to disagree and still be friends. If my wife tells me she just bought stunning lingerie from Victoria’s Secret for $800 I might not agree, but I hope I will respect and love her just the same. 

Judy wrote:

Your lengthy explanation and continuing pride in being the “messenger” of such an “amusing” story has caused me to lose all respect I ever had for you. Perhaps I should be blaming Eric Murray as well. Some people derive pleasure at the expense of others. That is not my creed and I pray I never change.

I am saddened that you feel that way, but I respect her right to say so. I hope I do change or more accurately evolve, as a player, writer, father, husband and citizen. Hopefully for the better, but that remains to be seen.

I confess I am so low as to pull this out.

 Hi Cam,

When a person is right, he is right, and you are that person.

(Bobby Wolff)

Now granted, that was a different context. I am still the same person, maybe just as right, maybe not. Somehow, overnight I hope I did not morph into a “cruel, mean, despicable” person. Judy may as well have said – when we agree you are the cat’s meow. When we don’t  – well the vindictive speaks for itself.

Then this shot across the bow.

 Jeff:

You miss my point completely. It has nothing to do with giving the hand to experts. I am not interested in anyone’s critique of the auction or play. It was strictly Mr. French’s insensitivity to making an aged bridge legend the goat of his tale. Maybe that provided pleasure for him. I found it offensive. I have a great sense of humor — but this exceeded my limits. His tattered “Norfolk” mission has gotten to be old hat so maybe this is his new theme — poking fun at others publicly. Whatever floats one’s boat!

 Judy

 Well, Judy – you make me laugh, you really do have a good sense of humor. I am sure you missed Jeff’s point and mine as you felt he missed yours. No one was a goat. As for my “tattered Norfolk mission” – please tell that to your good friend Zeke who suffered for three decades before the truth was revealed. I may have belabored the point, but I see it this way – just making up for lost time.

And you know what – I think we need people to say Kenny Gee’s punishment was a joke, that when cheaters who are allowed to retain unlawfully won titles it represents a stain upon our game and that maybe our system of justice needs a makeover. So,” tattered” or not – no apologies here for telling a story.

And no – there is no “new theme”. Sorry to disappoint. My canoe floats quite well thank you. It allows me to sneak up on those largemouth bass, one of my preferred species.

To end this on a positive note, I quote with some modest modifications to the text.

“As is well known, the author, writer, player Bobby Wolff   has certain well defined views….. This does not mean that those holding opposite views will be excluded from the presentation in this magazine.

Quite the contrary is true. It is in the crucible of conflict that the truth is proven.”  

 Ely Culbertson

 

 

 Sincerely,

 

C

 PS. You are quite right to take offence to alleged assaults to your integrity. That is why “mean, disgusting, shoe-licking”, well you get the point) disappoint – no – insult me. If that wasn’t an assault upon integrity, please sign me up for some Nevada desert -soon to be home to an upscale subdivision.