Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Really? So your contention is that if one side (presumably the defense) has no “zealous advocate” the result is likely to be more “just” and perhaps “amicable?” Or are you stating that both sides should have no “zealous advocates?”

Pardon me if I find this point of view appalling.
March 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have never stated that the hearing should be before a judge or a jury. I fully agree that the hearing should be before a committee consisting of bridge experts. However, it is my position that the accused should be represented by counsel at such hearing.
March 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems that there is an overwhelming majority vote in favor of forcing pass. However, what the minority lacks in numbers they certainly make up for in quality. I would be interested in hearing their rationale that this is not a forcing pass situation.
March 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And, Arno, to paraphrase your last sentence, the basic point that you are missing is the difference between an accused cheater and a proven cheater. But then, quoting a recent post of yours:

“For me, it is I, Arno Weber, that is THE expert in establishing cheating has occurred, as I, Arno Weber have seen (most of the) the tapes/evidence/analysis. I do not need anyone else (committee, lawyer/court) telling me if FS, FN, PS and BZ are cheaters. I have seen with my own eyes that they ARE.”
March 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The second double committed the partnership to the 4 level or to defend 4x. It is inconceivable that 5 can be passed out.
March 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, Arno. The points that I raise are so basic and yet you are going off in an absurd tangent. Define professional bridge player? That is fairly self evident - someone who makes his living at playing bridge.

As for “being told to take their cheating somewhere else,” where exactly would that be? If the home NBO of the player and the ACBL both find the player guilty of the gravest possible offense against the game of bridge, where, exactly, does the player go to ply his trade?
March 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Arno: Please tell me how suspension from playing bridge is not punishment for a professional bridge player? You seem to be overlooking this basic point.

As I mentioned before, suspension is equivalent to a professional death penalty as far as the career of a professional bridge player is concerned.
March 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eligibility to serve on a jury varies from place to place. In New Jersey, lawyers are not ineligible to serve on a jury. However, no lawyer would want a lawyer on a jury on a case he was litigating.

The last time I was called for jury duty I was sitting in the courtroom while prospective jurors were interviewed. At some point, the judge, who was a former member of my firm, noticed me sitting there and spoke with the lawyers for the litigants. He then dismissed me.
March 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David:

As a fellow tax lawyer, I could not agree more with your point of view as expressed in your letter.

I assume that you deal with Sec. 103 of the Internal Revenue Code - dealing with tax-exempt bonds. I almost went that route, as I was offered a position in a firm which dealt exclusively in that field. But I wound up being a more general tax attorney, and I even appear in court every so often (not very often - I leave that to the litigators whenever possible).

It is a bit disappointing to read some of the comments in this thread, including some by lawyers. In my opinion, if the accused are not permitted to have counsel, then any result of a disciplinary hearing is suspect. Make no mistake, these disciplinary hearings are quasi-criminal proceedings, and the consequences for the accused of a guilty verdict is essentially a death penalty as it relates to competitive bridge.
March 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was right about “Crazy Gambling Stories from February” on cardplayer.com.

See http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/20050-crazy-gambling-stories-from-february.
March 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the Blubaugh case, the court did not reach the merits of the claim, but rather decided that, under Indiana law (which controlled in this case), the court had very limited ability to review actions of a voluntary membership organization such as the ACBL and that this case was not one of them. This was the thread that ran through all of the various claims asserted by Mr. Blubaugh. In reading the case, I don't even see a mention of anything having to do with a whistle blower situation. So to say that the whistle blower argument was raised in the court case may be accurate (although I don't see it), but to say that the court found it to be meritless is not accurate - the court did not review the merit of the argument.
March 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If they were suspended for 5 years, they would not be under any discipline now.
Feb. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you were playing Treadwell, the 3 bid would show a spade stop and ask partner to bid 3NT with a solid 7 card suit and a side trick.
Feb. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If South had bid 4 rather than 4 over the negative double, North's 4 bid might end the auction. I am sure that is what North had in mind when he made the negative double. But the 3 bid made this hand very awkward, and stopping in 5 is not a bad result looking at the two hands.
Feb. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Missing slam on this hand is good bidding. I would rather be in 4 than in 5, but if you went plus, that is OK.
Feb. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let me get this straight. You want the ability to post an article and exclude certain members of BW from posting in it?
Feb. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I understand XYZ, it applies over any three bids at the one level, including 1NT.
Feb. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also play 5332 choice of games. The doubleton can be any of the suits other than my M.
Feb. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't bid 2 with the East cards. Partner is going to assume your hand is much better than this. This is not a classic prebalancing situation by a long shot.
Feb. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apparently cheating was involved in many more than just this one. It would be appropriate to have some sort of Note at the beginning of the article referencing the unresolved cheating scandal of all those involved in the later segments of the event so that the article could be placed in its proper historical perspective. Even better would be a Note at the beginning of the article referencing another (hypothetical) article in the same issue setting forth the current status of the cheating investigations against all those involved. But that isn't happening.
Feb. 23, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top