Join Bridge Winners
All comments by JoAnna Stansby
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 33 34 35 36
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eugene Hung has written that it was not about anything specific she said.

Scary. “Thought police” are not acceptable to me.
Dec. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's say the defense attorney calls Fantoni and Nunes as his expert witnesses. He will be able to make a case for conspiracy theory to oust the 2 most successful pairs from the game.
Dec. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The press releases he is producing are particularly unconvincing to serious bridge players so is there another target audience?/

maybe the jury/judge in the civil trial that will ensue if IBF finds them guilty
Dec. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wanted to generate discussion/comparison on the merits of blocking someone writing on just one thread (easy enough for blocked person to go start another thread either on this site or elsewhere) and blocking someone on multiple threads (or the entire website).

Both Peg and Jonathan listed a few of the many reasons why I think it is a poor idea to block someone writing in one specific thread. All of these reasons apply equally well to the situation of blocking someone from writing in multiple threads.
Dec. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd like to see an improvement on BW where the originator of a thread can barr specific people from commenting in that thread.
Dec. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael Kamil wrote
Geez - I wonder how many crap censorship issues you have to have here at BW before you realize censorship is not debatable. Just evil.

Ray,
I read this as MK saying BW policy is to censor some posts and he also has the opinion censorship is evil.

The posts may be censored either via the community flag or an admin. I don't see anywhere that he called out any specific person as being either evil or a censor.

We perceive MK's post differently. I am reading the words he wrote. You are ascribing meanings to his words and deciding that the meaning you have ascribed is unacceptable.
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't for the life of me figure out what was “wrong” with your earlier post, Michael Kamil.

Regarding your post: do you think we should make any distinctions between “second-degree George Orwell” or “first-degree George Orwell”?
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very important to give penalties to expert players making use of UI; otherwise we have groups of people playing by totally different sets of rules.

In order for this to happen, we will need some term to describe this that doesn't include the word cheating.

I suggest the ACBL laws be amended to include the irregularity “acting on UI”
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 (one way) then after 2 showing game interest bid 2 on all hands with 3-card support and bid 2 or higher with 4-card support
Dec. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Mr. Pachtmann's #2 above, he tells us he was tired and anxious and this was one of the of the reasons he had difficulty deciding which card to play from xx.

Why do you think it is automatic that near the end of this grueling event Sontag and Berkowitz should notice the opening leader took advantage of UI? This seems quite a bit less obvious than which card to play from two small.
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peter, in this case we have the UI of third hands' play to trick one self-reported as accidental. It is entirely possible the opening leader would say his heart shift at trick 2 was not based on UI, but an accidental mind loss.

My preference is to make it unacceptable to profit from having an accidental mind loss following the receipt of UI.

Without a severe penalty, these “accidents” will continue to happen.

Again, I have no issue with RP's play to trick one.
I want to avoid a repeat of the situation where there is no cost for his partner to act on the UI at trick two
Dec. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand presents an opportunity for the new ACBL Blue Ribbon Task Force.

My suggestions to the committee members:


a) Publicize this hand. Let it be known that this style of play is not tolerated in our top bracket major championships (unlike WBF who set a precedent by allowing the foot soldiers to continue their match).

b) Let it be known that whether transmission of UI is intentional or unintentional partner may not act on it.

c) Let it be known that “I lost my mind” or “I had a blackout” is not an excuse for making a play that is both successful and illogical when you have received UI.

d) Set a zero tolerance approach. This hand serves notice to all who enter a top bracket NABC+ championship event.
Going forward: any pair (even with no prior record) making an illogical successful play coincident with UI is suspended from the next NABC and on probation thereafter.


reference:
http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/acbl-task-force-takes-on-cheating/

New members added to this committee: Jeff Meckstroth, Brad Moss
Dec. 11, 2015
JoAnna Stansby edited this comment Dec. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem is not so much the amount of time taken. It is detaching a card as if to play it then returning the card to hand. This tells partner you have 2+ cards in the suit.
Dec. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Awesome idea Fred! I look forward to trying it
Dec. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like Buddy's suggestion with a tweak: the software keeps track of every auction where a player alerts and builds a library of alerts for this player. The person who alerts can just click the one that applies.
Dec. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oren wrote:
Like I said in the text of the article, my information comes from an inside source. I won't say more about the specifics. I trust this source.

“an inside source” suggests one person, singular.

My understanding of this process is that the only person who would be present at all 3 of the initial incident, the first hearing and the review hearing would be Mike Passell (and his representative).

Of course he (or his representative) may share this info with Oren or whomever he chooses but no need for a new article here since MP has already told us THE WHOLE STORY.
Nov. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oren, I have 3 questions for you please

1. Were you on the team of MP's opponents in Palmetto when the board got fouled or is your knowledge of this based on hearsay?

2. Were you present during the meeting of the initial committee or is your knowledge of what happened in that hearing based on hearsay?

3. Were you present during the meeting of the review committee or is your knowledge of what happened there based on hearsay?
Nov. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray wrote
Assuming, because you say so, that every one of your repost attempts was perfectly crafted to be free of any connotation and innuendo, it must remain a mystery why enough people flagged them to put them in the danger zone.

BW may remove a post with zero flags if a moderator sees it and believes it violates the community guidelines
Nov. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regarding the removal of David T's post: BW has not done A.V. any favor here because now the readers are unable to check it for themselves.
Nov. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is the link to Nicolas' crowd source project
http://www.bridgescoreplus.com/data/ebtc_2014/pairs/index.html

If you click on a given pair, you will see an easy to read table showing the orientation of the lead, the opening leader's hand, and the hand of partner of the opening lead

There is also link to video at time of lead so you can look at lead orientation yourself if you want to
Nov. 23, 2015
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 33 34 35 36
.

Bottom Home Top