Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eugene Hung
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We removed the content because it violated our guidelines. If you need further explanation, ask me privately. In the meantime, I have removed the comment by Avon Wilsmore because it attempts to repeat the already removed content.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comments by Kerry Kappell flagged by the community as containing references to contemporary non-bridge political events and removed. No political discussions are allowed on this site, and any comments deemed by the community to cross that line will be removed.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since the only identifiable person with negative comments associated is apparently dead (with no assets of estate based upon reputation), I believe there's no foul here - defamation and libel are crimes against the living, not the dead. I do support Mr. Harris's suggestion to use non-identifying names whenever possible, or future articles may run afoul of our guidelines.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Jonathan Steinberg flagged by the community as completely off-topic and removed.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comments by John Stubbe flagged by the community as lacking civility and removed. Bridge Winners is a place for CIVIL discourse about bridge. This is a fundamental rule of our site: personal attacks and insults do not belong here, and never will.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Paul Elstein flagged as an offensive personal attack and removed. Please keep your comments polite and civil on Bridge Winners.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This article has been flagged as a bidding problem and it will be removed. Please do not create articles that are bidding problems, but use the ‘create bidding problem’ feature instead.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am closing this thread because there is now a new thread about new developments and this thread is becoming too large to read (and getting full of comments attempting to “pad” the number - something which we do not wish to encourage). Please use the new thread to continue discussion.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This has been flagged by members of the community as an opening lead problem. Removing. Please repost as a problem, not an article.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Rick Roeder flagged by the community for containing inappropriate remarks and removed. Remember this is a public forum, not a private conversation.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My point is that the mindset that “a qualifying team should not able to change its composition for the championships because that would jeopardize the integrity of the trials”, is not a logical mindset to have. There are plenty of existing provisions for cases where a qualifying team has to be modified and nobody really feels it was unjust. As long as a significant majority of the qualifying team can continue, they continue (and usually, a replacement is found who is as good or better).

I don't see modifying a qualified team as a disaster, but I do agree that it's not something we should want to encourage. If that were the only concern, then yes, we should definitely not allow people to enter multiple trials. However, there are conflicting objectives at play. The argument others are making is that by allowing more people to enter, the overall event is better, and participation is improved because now one doesn't have to restrict oneself to merely one event. These benefits might make such a multiple-entry policy reasonable to implement even though it increases the “risk” that a player or pair might have to drop out. I don't know if I believe the benefits are worth it, but I do believe the downside risk of “jeopardizing the integrity of the trials process via a dropout” is exaggerated.

I also find the arguments that say “choice” is the important difference in the attitude towards replacements, to be flawed. Imagine if a qualifying player chose to go skiing, and then ran into a tree. The player had a “choice” not to ski and risk letting his team down, but he chose to take the risk and, through a combination of bad luck and bad skiing, became incapable of representing his country. Should we, the other trial participants, then feel cheated if the skier's team goes to the championship without that player? Or substitute skiing with some other potentially dangerous activity that the player wanted to do – that player had the “choice” to avoid the activity, but the net result is the same. Now compare the dangerous activity with the “choice” of entering another trials for an event held at the same time of the event you already qualified for. Not even the best players are good enough to guarantee winning any Trial at the national level. All they are doing is entering with the hope of winning – some with more hope than others, but none with a guarantee. If, unfortunately, one happens to win multiple events, they'll resolve it, and one team will have to reconfigure – but the people who lost to the reconfiguring team should not feel cheated out of a title. If you played well enough against the shorthanded team, then you'll get chosen to replace them. If you're not chosen, then you didn't play well enough.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Danny, how would you feel if Michael loses in the Seniors, goes home, and then suffers a stroke after reading a ridiculous cardplay analysis on Bridge Winners, making him physically incapable of playing in the Mixed Championship? Would you feel cheated because the team that ends up representing the USA in China wasn't the same team that qualified in the trials, and might have been beaten by your team?

In my opinion, having someone win a trials and then not participate in the championship is not a desirable outcome, but you can't prevent it from happening, even if you barred people from trying to qualify for multiple championships that occur at the same time. And if it does occur, it does not invalidate the trial result unless the winners become completely incapable of fielding a team afterwards. I don't know how far we should go to prevent this from happening (because improving strength of field and popularity of event are conflicting objectives), but I feel having a slightly different team in the final event does not invalidate the entire trial.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Finn Kolesnik flagged by the community for containing inappropriate remarks and removed. Remember this is a public forum, not a private conversation.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment flagged by the community as containing a contemporary political reference and removed. Please, no references or discussion of contemporary politics on this site unless it directly impacts bridge.
May 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Robert Greene flagged by the community and removed because many people found it offensive.
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
More verbal sparring? So much for asking nicely. As of now, I declare this subthread effectively closed. Any further replies here WILL be removed and you may lose your posting privileges as well.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am going to step in here in my role as moderator and point out that there has been a concerted effort by many members of the community to change one man's mind. If you think you can do better – please don't. It's quite clear he isn't changing it. I will ask ALL participants in this subthread to please take this specific discussion to private messages, because it's generating far more heat than light.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Post flagged by the community as a bidding problem and removed. The post can be represented as a bidding problem since all options are bids (even “something else”). Please do not post this as an article.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Lars Andersson flagged by the community as containing a reference to contemporary political figures, and removed. Bridge Winners is a politics-free site; please do not mention such people in any way unless it is absolutely necessary and relevant to bridge.
May 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fixed.
May 5
.

Bottom Home Top