Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Jackson
1 2 3 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sartaj, I am not in Wuhan but since nobody has mentioned otherwise I presume this offensive display with pictures of numerous cheaters wearing medals and waving trophies is still on display on Day 5 as players arrive. Are there not continuing protests by players at the venue?
Sept. 19
David Jackson edited this comment Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although betting is not allowed in the WBF rules I would be willing to wager that even the WBF will take these posters down before the second day of play. But then again I wouldn't take really short odds.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
GUBU is the word to describe this action by the WBF. Grotesque, Unbelievable, Bizarre and Unprecedented.

Much more than a slap in the face to all the hundreds of us whom these guys have robbed. The WBF is putting the blame on the Olympic movement that they can do nothing re these titles. The video evidence makes me 99.9% certain re 2014 and I and many others and perhaps the WBF too are only 99.8% certain before that from the table hands evidence. Because Bridge is in the Olympic movement apparently that makes all the difference to the WBF. My sympathies to all those who have to see this in the playing venue each day as they go to represent their countries.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see Grue is now listed as the coach for this team so maybe he will be turning up in Wuhan later this week?
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess the USA having to replace a defending Bermuda Bowl winner on one of their qualified teams because he was refused a visa will hurt their chances At least I think that is the reason he was replaced
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just my view of the usual strengths of the various countries that have qualified but not going Richard..
For example, Central American Zone represented by Guadeloupe in BB with a bridge membership of 101. By Trinidad and Tobago membership 29 in Venice Cup. Barbados, membership 54 in Mixed Championships. The Zone is not sending a team to the Senior Bowl. Just based on previous form and such small playing numbers, I fancy Turkey, Italy or Bulgaria's Senior team to be a stronger contender in the Senior Bowl than any team that the Central American Zone could send. Sorry if that view seems biased to you.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the USA had Visa issues but perhaps other countries did too
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In BB Poland have replaced Monaco
In Seniors Bowl Italy Bulgaria and Turkey plus a Zone 6 Asia Pacific country have been added
In mIxed there is an extra European country for a South America non entry
So basically the Senior and Mixed events have been made stronger as the non entries were generally rated weaker than the replacements mainly from Europe.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Presume that these were countries that qualified from their Zones but decided not to enter the World Championships for whatever reason, financial or otherwise. Don't know of any entry that then cancelled unless you want to put Monaco in that category.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Norbert,
great that you have seen and sent (to French organisers of event) video from 2013 and prior to 2013(?) that you believe confirms what you noticed in National Final of the Coupe de France.
Can you post links to these videos on Bridgewinners?
May 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Re FF and CN and the ACBL:

Vanderbilt. Runners-up in 2014

Reisinger. Winners 2007, 2012 and 2013. Runners-up 2011

Spingold. Winners in 2011 and 2012. Runners-up in 2006, 2010, 2014 (Fisher Schwartz had the measure of FN’s team) and 2015 (Fisher Schwartz again)

My understanding from earlier threads c 2015 is that the ACBL has video recordings of some of these finals, which have not been released. Since most of these videos predate the European videos from 2014 then they are likely to shed considerable light on both the already known about vertical/horizontal leads and the newish revelations about (a) rearranging furniture before play to place a table visible to both players and (b) both players writing on scorecard after viewing current hand and then placing scorecard and/or pen on the visible table and also close to the screen.

The European videos seem to be clear about this behaviour but do these earlier videos exist in the ACBL archives that will give some indication as to how long it was going on.
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A governing body in Bridge should not be making rules that depend on a 4321 point count being used to evaluate hands. Thats like saying everyone must be familiar with the value of the Yen before you can make a purchase. There are other currencies than the near 100 year old 4321Work count to value your hand
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that the real question is the reliance on the near 100 year old WORK count. Why should that be the only reference currency. Announce Weak NT or strong NT and add that is usually in WORK points 12-14 or 15-17 but as we don't use that evaluation method it easily could be a point (or two) either way. I use 54321 so Three Aces and a King in a flat hand would certainly be a weak NT
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since opening 1NT if one can reasonably do so is considered effective it makes sense to upgrade INTO a 1NT opening. However, for exactly the same reason it makes sense to downgrade (say a 4333 18 count) INTO a strong NT opening bid. Upgrading and downgrading are two sides of the same coin. Never to downgrade is not logical. Trying to open 1NT if one can is logical. whether one is a little short or a little heavy.
March 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Haven't read all 270 comments up to now so maybe already mentioned but seems the WBF can act even faster than anyone imagined as they state in their official ruling ‘On 29th September 2019, Geir Helgemo provided a sample that was sent for laboratory testing;’ With such foresight re doping they should be able to catch the real cheats and disqualify them and redistribute any medals/masterpoints before they commit the crime.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Look at a pairs results in the year or years when they have been convicted of cheating - Butlers, tournament results whatever takes your fancy. Then when it turns out their results record is even better - Butlers, tournament results or whatever, in the previous years when there was no conviction for cheating, what conclusion can you draw?
Nov. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or as my chiropodist said. “There is profit in de feet”
Oct. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Like numerous others I am looking forward to reading the book but I wouldn’t be using the 20/1 quote unless there was evidence that someone had actually bet money at those odds i.e. wager $1000 to win $50.
If a bookmaker is dubious about the contest or doesn’t wish to get involved he might say if you want to back the BT with me then the best I will offer is 20/1. That is quite different from knowing that someone was actually willing to take such poor odds. Did they? From reading this thread it seems that the examples themselves provide the overwhelming evidence that something bad was going on (one is forbidden to say the c- word). The odds quote is inconsequential unless it was real money that was talking.
Sept. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi David and Jeff. There was an earlier UK Betting Exchange before Betfair called Flutter.com which was eventually taken over by Betfair. Trying to make the case against the Exchanges that what defines and differentiates a punter from a bookmaker is that the former has a bet and the latter lays a bet was unsuccessful in several court cases and appeals in the UK. Perhaps a better approach might have been between those who ‘take bets’ and those who ‘offer bets’ but in addition to the many distinguishing ‘banners of trade’ mentioned earlier that identify a bookmaker, one could add that (a) he holds a licence and (b) keeps the stakes until the bet is decided.
Re the 20/1 odds I find it hard to believe that any bet was ever struck at those odds but rather that the figure appears in some journalist’s article re his estimate of how likely the BT was to win.
Sept. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robert is an expert in both the Bridge world and the Gambling world, but even he is little confused re a ‘ Back bet’ and a ‘Lay bet’. Betting on something to occur such as horse to win a race is a ‘Back bet’. Betting on something not to occur is referred to as a ‘Lay bet’. Both are just simply bets. So, in general, a punter is usually a ‘backer’ and the bookmaker is ‘a layer’. But not always as bookmakers often offer odds that ‘something will not occur’. Backing and Laying is not what differentiates Punters from Bookmakers but a completely different set of attributes such as being a business, employing people, advertising, having premises etc. Indeed when Bookmakers themselves tried to argue that Betting Exchanges should be banned because clients of the Exchanges were ‘laying bets’, and hence must be unlicensed Bookmakers, the Bookmakers suffered a humiliating defeat in the courts.
Sept. 20, 2018
1 2 3 4
.

Bottom Home Top