Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mark Bennett
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LHO followed small; RHO showed out when hearts originally played. LHO was originally dealt Kx; RHO stiff Q. –“I win the opening plain suit lead in hand and play the trump A, my RHO showing out and LHO following–K and Q of trump are outstanding.”
April 17
Mark Bennett edited this comment April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great post!

Happy April 1.

The only thing I can't tell is how many of the comments are serious and how many aren't.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was West and continued hearts at tricks two and three after a heart lead. Declarer played quickly (not overly quickly), playing four rounds of diamonds at tricks 4-7 (discarding two spades), my partner discarding one spade and one heart. Declarer then cashed the club king and without much thought (I played the club ten on the second round) finessed, making three.
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Greg–I chose not to ask at the table for a number of reasons. But, I also thought posting the question here and reading the responses (including yours, which is a fair comment), was reasonable.
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, misunderstood your question (I didn't read it carefully enough). North, not South, was next to the table from where the boards came.
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I'd be curious whether North or South was sitting next to the table which played the board previously, if this wan't the first round.”

Yes, and this was not the first round.
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Art–thanks for your comment. Double dummy, of course, 11 tricks are there for the taking. At matchpoints, a normal line after three rounds of hearts (and four rounds of diamonds) would in my view still be taking the club finesse (though that would or could depend on the discards and the speed with which they were made).
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT was forcing in the N/S system, according to their card (and Norths's hand).
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had not heard of the Bacon number until this thread. However, if TV counts, I have a Bacon number of 3 (based on Googling), as Alex Trebek has a Bacon number of 2, and I was a contestant on Jeopardy.

Sadly, I shall never have an Erdos number.
Dec. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks everyone for some great suggestions!
July 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Collins & Kevin–Great suggestions! Thanks very much!
July 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not related to the other Bennetts, though I very much enjoyed reading the book “The Devil's Tickets.”

And perhaps having spent much of my career as a prosecutor, including prosecuting many murder cases, causes me to believe the comparison is not apt.

Nonetheless, I believe that permanent expulsion (or perhaps expulsion that allows a right to reapply after 20 years) is clearly appropriate for collusive cheating (and other types of cheating).

.
June 9, 2016
Mark Bennett edited this comment June 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael H.–I, like your mentor, throw up the first morning of every trial (well over 100 now). I thought I didn't for appellate arguments, and then proceeded to for my two SCOTUS arguments. Just part of life for me :).

Sabrina–Best of luck in Denver–rooting for you to do great!
Dec. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nick–If it really deserves its own name, I have a modest proposal, as a Hawaii resident for 35 or so years.

In our local patois (or pidgin as it's called in Hawaii) lolo means foolish (or worse), as in “what a lolo thing to do,” or "he's so lolo.“

http://localhawaiiexperience.weebly.com/pidgin-language.html

So picking up on David Burn's theme that the squeeze is rare because a competent declarer can usually avoid it: the ”Lolo Squeeze."
Nov. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David–You write: “But the real reason it is a rare phenomenon is that it almost always requires declarer to have messed up the entries earlier in the play.” Although I don't think I know you, you seem to be very familiar with my declarer play!
Nov. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sensible to play 3 as game-forcing.

Thanks!

My hand was:

K J 4
8
7 4
K Q 7 6 4 3 2
Nov. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr. Odlund,

I did not say the US is the world. I offered a perspective on “acceptance of responsibility” that you, and all readers, are free to view as either germane or irrelevant.

And although this thread is neither about the US nor lawyers, I am very proud to be a lawyer in the US, and have been all 35 or so years I have been a lawyer in the US.
Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the imperfect U.S. criminal federal “sentencing guidelines,” which help judges determine the sentences for those convicted of U.S. federal crimes, defendants facing sentencing can get some “credit” for “acceptance of responsibility.”

Below are some factors judges are asked to consider in this regard, in determining whether to give the “credit”:

“(A) truthfully admitting the conduct comprising the offense(s) of conviction, and truthfully admitting or not falsely denying any additional relevant conduct for which the defendant is accountable …. Note that a defendant is not required to volunteer, or affirmatively admit, relevant conduct beyond the offense of conviction in order to obtain a reduction under subsection (a). A defendant may remain silent in respect to relevant conduct beyond the offense of conviction without affecting his ability to obtain a reduction under this subsection. However, a defendant who falsely denies, or frivolously contests, relevant conduct that the court determines to be true has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility;

(B) voluntary termination or withdrawal from criminal conduct or associations;

(C) voluntary payment of restitution prior to adjudication of guilt;

(D) voluntary surrender to authorities promptly after commission of the offense;

(E) voluntary assistance to authorities in the recovery of the fruits and instrumentalities of the offense;

(F) voluntary resignation from the office or position held during the commission of the offense;

(G) post-offense rehabilitative efforts (e.g., counseling or drug treatment); and

(H) the timeliness of the defendant's conduct in manifesting the acceptance of responsibility.”

Obviously this is, at best (and for many reasons) an imperfect analogy to the instant situation, but I think some of the concepts are relevant if and when punishment is ultimately determined by the relevant organization(s).
Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find this extraordinarily convincing, and exactly the type of evidence that would convince bridge experts as well as non-bridge players, who could be on any jury.

A key–as Kit says–not the actual lead as much as the signal by a player who would want to signal.

On a side note. My understanding is that the ACBL and its members are bound to arbitrate all disputes.

http://www.acbl.org/about-acbl/administration/binding-arbitration/

I believe the ACBL could actually file an arbitration action against Fisher/Schwartz–assuming, as I do, that they are ACBL members–including to recover damages–this would be above and beyond any internal ACBL disciplinary proceedings.

While such an action would likely be contrary to conventional legal wisdom, I'd like to see it, following the imposition of ACBL discipline–if there is an internal ACBL guilty finding.

Such an action might increase the deterrence level for those considering cheating. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

Thank you Kit.
Sept. 2, 2015
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top