Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Justin Lall
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The French really dominated this tourney. Great showing. They are going to be a dynasty for a long time with such a young good nucleus.
June 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Totally agree Max, to drive a cultural change we all need to be vigilant wrt sexism. For instance there is an implicit accepting of it right now (you hear a sexist joke with your boys and just laugh/smile/nod), and it is hard for women to speak out about it lest they be labeled sensitive or a b*tch or something.

Zero tolerance socially seems like the only way to drive change.
June 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hope it does not get taken down, it is a perfect example of how real of a problem sexism is.
June 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was this a bad attempt at a joke?
June 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Definitely unpopular amongst experts
May 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great news. I wish it was longer than 5 years especially given that this was part of a pattern of life long cheating (less chance to be rehabilitated) in their case, but it is a great step that they were found guilty.
May 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Joe you are a class act.
May 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks a lot Joe, that actually means a lot because I know we have all spent s lot of time talking about ethics when we lived together. The whole cheating scandal thing was a punch in the gut.

And amen about Bob Rosen. He was our junior captain and taught us to play the right way.
May 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The critical lines are ruffing a diamond vs my line IMO. Playing for Kxx of clubs off is not a line, that would be the worst holding for him to lead one from. Also I still might make my way anyway.

I have no idea if ruffing a diamond or not is right. I thought clubs were 4-1 either way (stiff trump or Kxxx both make sense, K on I claim). If I ruff a diamond I can't hook clubs twice when it's Kxxx onside, and I can't hook diamonds. However, when it's Kxxx off I tighten up the position (and gain a trick) for the squeezes, while losing the ability to hook a diamond.

To be honest, I'm not sure what is right. I could definitely be convinced that's better. But it wins with Kxxx off, and the DQ off, and the heart off with the major suits favorable for a squeeze. On the other hand, even with Kxxx on I make most of the time if I ruff a diamond. I am not a math guy but I think it's probably close and went with what I thought was right.

What is a REALLY bad line is to try and ruff 2 diamonds and play for 3-2 clubs with the K off. Even though that is intuitive.

Luckily for me both critical lines would work.
May 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have eventually claimed on a double squeeze.
May 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Bill. Thanks dude.

@ James if I recall correctly you're a poker player. Poker players are more used to talking, of course you have the hoodie/sunglass/headphones/tank on every decision types there too.
May 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It just depends on the people. You have your partner and your opps to think about, if your opps don't like talking/it distracts them you def shouldn't do it, same for your partner. My partner does not generally care that that's just how I am, but probably if we had a disaster or 2 in a row he would not be happy with me talking/laughing/joking around (rightfully so).

I think I was screenmates with Zia (a huge talker as mentioned) and Vince (one of my best friends, also a talker). I am definitely more comfortable/happy having a good time at the table and laughing at funny things, and most people aren't. Like I said, just depends on the people but if that is your style definitely remember to be respectful of your opps and partner and what they prefer.
May 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Both sides had very reasonable arguments but personally I agree with the ruling. If it is at all possible you can be off 2 key cards you must be bound by the response to keycard if you have UI indicating that partner may not know its keycard. In my opinion it was possible but I think that is the crux of the issue.
May 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the cartoonishly large scores kind of make it so surreal that I trouble to put into context how truly amazing this is. I mean even just having a 74 in a national event does not rate to happen in ones life time. to follow it with a 69… lol. that is absurd. It makes having a 66 and a 63 in day two of a national event seem standard, but that is like a winning game with no carryover, it is massive. Again, just surreal, this was really sick guys. Congrats, couldn't have happened to a new nicer person (and congrats to Greg also).
March 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well deserved and overdue! Congrats Eddie
March 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The same people who are for being awarded masterpoints proportionate to how many boards you have played are against paying an entry fee proportionate to how many boards you play. Go figure.
Jan. 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
a 5 or 7 hand Tom? Seriously?
Nov. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You were the ACBL president in 2013. What did you do to “address cheating”, to reform the corrupt/“insular” ACBL board (that you were a part of), to grow the game of bridge, and in general to not be a part of the problem that has plagued our game so long?

It is an absolute joke that people are posting support of someone who was a part of the broken culture being a new member of the WBF council.

No thanks.
Nov. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit: “Yes, the hypothesis was mine, helped by the suggestions of a couple of people who I named. Without their suggestions I might not have noticed the pattern.”

Kit 15 mins later: “I'm not claiming originality. I said that it was suggested by others. What is your point?”

You are a very experienced author/journalist. Perhaps if you read those side by side, you will understand the point.
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, you say: “I do not claim to be a code-breaker. But I don't take somebody else's word for anything. I attempt to verify any hypothesis for myself. When I am satisfied that there is something solid to the hypothesis, I will present the hypothesis with all the relevant data. Readers can examine this information and draw their own conclusions.

This is all that I have done in the F-S, F-N, and B-Z cases.”

Thanks for clearing that up. People might have gotten a different impression from your article here: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-videos-speak-balicki-zmudzinski/

In particular, one of the first paragraphs in the article, you say:

“This struck me as an unusual gesture. In addition, I hadn't noticed him making this gesture at other times. I saw this gesture occur in a couple of other matches just after the dummy came down. I formed the following hypothesis: Balicki is signaling something with this gesture. What he is signaling I did not know at the time.”

You even bold the sentence: “ I formed the following hypothesis: Balicki is signaling something with this gesture.”

Many people might have taken that as saying you broke the code. Your style has changed in the 3 “The videos speak” articles, in the first one you say that you tested Cullin's hypothesis, in the second one it is an editors note that credits the code breakers (I assume that was not you, personally I would have credited them in an article I wrote so it wouldn't require an editors note, but that's just me), in the third one you talk about your hypothesis and give light credit at the end.

I have also read extensively on this site about your work on the German Doctors case (mostly from you), many people might not realize that it was Eddie Wold and Donna Compton (and others?) who actually cracked that code. I have also read in a comment from you about your work on the Sion-Cokin case, I was probably not alive then but I do wonder if I am misunderstanding your involvement in that the same way many might be misunderstanding your involvement in these cases.

So thanks for clarifying in your last statement, you might have done so before Boye explicitly called you out though so that there was no chance for a misunderstanding.

It also helps to understand why some people like David Gold made posts like this: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-big-thankyou-to-the-unsung-hero/
Oct. 15, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top