Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Martin Fleisher
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm protecting them by keeping faux Americans like you out.
April 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
who is the “we”?
Jan. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
who is the “we”?
Jan. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Geir ducked completely in tempo. But I knew he was capable of this and I figured that if he had with Kxx I would just be down if I finessed again. Accordingly, I took the club finesse figuring that it had lost I could still play for hearts 22 by cashing the ace or try to reenter my hand with a club ruff to repeat the heart finesse. glad I didn't need to decide which!
Aug. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
they played 3 sets each day (4 one day only)
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
fleisher-firemans
July 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the other table, I was afraid of going down with diamonds 6-2 if I played ace and ruffed a diamond. this way I was cold with the trumps 3-2 or 4-1 onside, with some good chances if 4-1 offside.
May 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We won the appeal!
May 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've sent a check. Thanks for all of the hard work!
May 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congrats Eddie!
March 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the record, I find (2) and (4) offensive and obnoxious. I also wish that (5) were true . . .
Nov. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
blackstone was talking about criminal cases. why should that standard apply here? also, in many (WBF) countries, there is not even a presumption of innocence in criminal cases
Nov. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
we play pass is forcing if the opponents are clearly saving. Here i think they are. I'd rather give up the 4 imps if they occasionally make it doubled and be more precise in my own bidding.
Nov. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ah, so maybe your proposal and mine are exactly the same. They might just have been expressed differently. BTW, This is being discussed in two other threads also,but I don't know how to link to them.
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is now a discussion of this under Fantonio-Nunes NABC wins. I don't know how to link to it
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once again, what does it matter what the CDR status? Retroactivity in the law is highly frowned upon when it affects innocent parties. Who would be hurt here? The cheaters, whose efforts to ruin the game would be ever so slightly ameliorated? In the 2011 Spingold, surely Nickell, Who got to the final fair and square and lost to Monaco, is a more rightful winner than nobody.
As to the substance of Eric's proposal (which he says benefits him)he is actually proposing a rule that is worse for him and better for say, you and me, than what I proposed. Back to the 2011 Spingold, our team lost to Monaco in the semifinals. Under my proposal, our team would be treated as coming in second, while under Eric's we would be tied for first. (Since sadly I can't think of any neutral principal under which we would be first and nickell second, either seems fine to me.)
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see why the CDR can't be changed
Sept. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't agree with leaving the titles vacant. I posted this in another forum, but just reposting here.
There is no perfect solution to any of this, but as I said in another post lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I propose the following:
1. In pair events simply eliminate the unethical pair(s) and move everyone up a place (presumably only do this if the unethical pair is in the top 10 or so)
2. In Swiss teams/Reisinger formats same as 1.
3. In Knockouts, obviously the trickiest thing, the best I can come up with is to assume that the team with the tainted pair on it, loses each match, but assume the team they beat then loses the next round. Is that entirely fair to the losing team? Surely not. But I can't think of anything better.
e.g., In an event that Monaco won, have the team they beat in the round of 64 lose in the round of 32 etc. As we get later in the tournament, their round of 8 opponent loses in the semi-finals, their semi-final opponent is treated as losing the final, and the losing finalist is given the title.

This can be tweaked for sure. But otherwise are we really leaving all of these titals (including most of the American ones for the last several years) vacant? I can't believe that is the right answer.
Sept. 20, 2015
Martin Fleisher edited this comment Sept. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no perfect solution to any of this, but as I said in another post lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I propose the following:
1. In pair events simply eliminate the unethical pair(s) and move everyone up a place (presumably only do this if the unethical pair is in the top 10 or so)
2. In Swiss teams/Reisinger formats same as 1.
3. In Knockouts, obviously the trickiest thing, the best I can come up with is to assume that the team with the tainted pair on it, loses each match, but assume the team they beat then loses the next round. Is that entirely fair to the losing team? Surely not. But I can't think of anything better.
e.g., In an event that Monaco won, have the team they beat in the round of 64 lose in the round of 32 etc. As we get later in the tournament, their round of 8 opponent loses in the semi-finals, their semi-final opponent is treated as losing the final, and the losing finalist is given the title.

This can be tweaked for sure. But otherwise are we really leaving all of these totals (including most of the American ones for the last several years) vacant? I can't believe that is the right answer.
Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nicely done. As everyone knows, you guys are a class act!
Sept. 17, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top