Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dick:

With all due respect, you are just wrong on this. There was no other line of play that would have succeeded. Believe me, after the day was over, my partner and I went over that hand very carefully, as he thought there might have been another line of play that would have succeeded. But there was not.

Everyone else is well beyond this. I suggest that you drop it.
June 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any information obtained from exercising your lawful options at the instruction of the TD is authorized information.
June 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard:

I know what the result was at the other table - 4x -1100. What I do not know is whether your teammates dropped a trick in the play. I didn't have any reason to review the play in diamonds, but I don't believe that we would have gone for 1400 in 5x.

Michael:

The auction was 2 - x - 5 at equal nonvul. At this point, the opps could have doubled for a substantial number - much more substantial than our side had a right to suspect. The fact that it makes slam their way and the fact that our number is higher than anticipated are related facts.
June 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jim: I can only assume that you are not a lawyer. Beyond a reasonable doubt, comfortable satisfaction and preponderance of the evidence are three different standards of the burden of proof that must be met in order to find for the plaintiff or prosecution. None of them have anything to do with the seriousness of the charge, per se. Having said that, a higher level of burden of proof usually applies when the accused faces the loss of life or liberty, while a lower level of burden of proof usually applies in matters dealing only with the loss of property.
June 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I discussed this with Richard this morning at a local Sectional Swiss. For some reason, Richard was not aware that his partner had xxx in clubs opposite his AKTxx, and that the only play for the slam was to have the QJ of clubs onside and no other lopw percentage issue that would have scuttled the slam.

He is absolutely correct that he would not have gotten to this moth-eaten slam without our “help.” Rather than defend 5 doubled (for a significant penalty) Richard chose to cue bid 6 and force his partner to choose to play in 6 of a major. Clubs was out of the picture, although it was Richard's longest suit. So, I guess it was our fault that we pushed him to make a silly call that worked when the QJ was onside.

Quite frankly, the result on this hand is not the issue. That any one fluky result like this can have the consequences that it did is partly the result of the CoC of the event and partly the whims of the bridge gods.
June 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then they should unbound themselves from that agreement.
June 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And the bridge organizations say “NO!” What, exactly, are they or the CAS going to do?
June 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My regular partner, who used to be VERY LARGE but is much slimmer now, recounted the story of a game when he was playing with a former regular partner who was very slight. The opponents were about the same size as my regular partner - in other words, quite LARGE. So there were three players at the table who were LARGE and one who was quite small. He wondered if his partner was going to be sucked into the center of the table by the force of gravity.
June 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I found a link to Chris Davies' article in a matter of seconds:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNDAULawRw/2012/2.pdf

The working definition is exactly what you stated - something between a preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. The trier of fact determines whether the evidence presented meets the standard by using the words that define the standard. There is no magic to “preponderance of the evidence.” One merely determines if, in one's own opinion, the evidence on one side carries a greater weight than the evidence on the other side. And, with “beyond a reasonable doubt,” one must determine if there are any doubts as to the guilt of the accused, and, if so, are any of those doubts reasonable.

So, with “comfortable satisfaction,” the trier of fact has to determine whether it is satisfied to the trier of fact's comfort that the weight of the evidence is sufficient to find against the accused. While I have not reviewed Chris Davies' article, I suspect that he presented a number of examples of how the “comfortable satisfaction” standard worked in real cases so as to use those cases as a guide to determining how it should and will work in future cases.
June 3, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment June 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jack, you are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, the boards in the round-robin were not duplicated.

While that would reduce the random element across matches, it still doesn't reduce the random element of the round-robin format itself. If your opps bid a 20% slam against you and it makes, it can be absolutely fatal in the round-robin format.
June 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is great if you have enough teams. We don't. We only had 5 in the open flight (only 2 in Flight A).
June 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can say what you will, but I put the blame in my post in the other thread on the CoC which provided for 2 teams qualifying out of 5. It makes much more sense to have 4 teams qualifying out of 5, then have KO matches. The Round-Robin is high-variance. KO matches have a lesser variance.
June 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good luck with this. Call me a cynic, but this appears to be a pointless exercise.
June 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a member of one of the 2 teams to lose to the “very weak” team (and the loss was by 1 IMP over 14 boards), I can tell you that it was not a result of my team playing poorly. There was a 23 IMP adverse swing when the “very weak” team bid a sub-25% slam against us that made, and one or two other unlikely adverse swings.

I wrote about this in another thread. Only 2 teams qualified from the 5 team round-robin. My post is located at:

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-12324/
June 2, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment June 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand this post at all.

The 12 best ladies are selfish because they team up into 3 teams rather than pair with 12 “lesser” players to form 6 teams? How is that selfish? What is gained by having 3 more teams compete? 3 additional tables? For what purpose? Just to say there were 3 additional tables?

The best are playing with the best. Nothing wrong with that.
June 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are correct, Mike - we do not agree (What a shock - two lawyers who don't agree on an issue!). In my opinion, when a title is vacated due to cheating, not only is it right to vacate the title, but it is also right to move up each of the other participants by one ranking.

Is it a perfect solution? No. The arguments have been made showing that it is not a perfect solution.

But is it good enough? It is, in my opinion.

By the way, if a team that did not win was found to be cheating, the cheating team's finish in the event should also be vacated and each team that finished below them in the rankings should be moved up one rank.
June 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This discussion is just another example of the perfect being the enemy of the good enough. It is good enough that the cheating team have their victory vacated and the other teams have their ranks elevated by one. Yes, it is not perfect. But don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. Perfect is not attainable under these tainted circumstances. Good enough should suffice.
June 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To Mike H and others who might object to removing the cheating team and moving up all other competitors one place in the standings.

I understand that it may not be a perfect solution, and that there is no way of knowing what the exact consequences of the cheating team were, and that, if it were possible to neutralize the effect of the cheating team, the order of standings might be significantly different than that obtained by removing the cheating team and moving all of the other teams up one rank.

And yet, somehow, that result would be utterly satisfying to great many, including those directly affected by the conduct of the cheating team.
May 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In response to Nat, all I can say is….

“Sigh…”
May 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They knew the job was dangerous when they signed up for it.
May 31, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top