Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Krnjevic
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 47 48 49 50
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin - I gotta filling you extracted a confession…..
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The back-cover of Under the Table indicates that Avon is currently working on a book that examines dishonesty and skulduggery in an unrelated, albeit far more personal area.
Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations on your well-deserved, hard won success! And I do hope you won't have to go through this process on an annual basis.
Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What do you mean we paleface?” 2.0

As is set out in detail in Dermot Turing's (nephew of Alan) book X,Y &Z, the bulk of the work that gave rise to the breaking of the Enigma code was done by Polish mathematicians led by Marian Rejewski.
The Poles gave their work to the British in July 1939.
A review of Turing's book can be found in the September 2018 issue of Nature.
Oct. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
QS pitch on the second problem should you feel the need to eliminate any lingering doubt West may have as to whether he should have played a trump at least 1 trick earlier.

Seems the auction should have tipped him off though.

South thought his hand got better as the auction progressed, so West might have wondered why East's 3H bid - confirming 3 card support - led South to conclude he was now worth a 5D bid facing a pard who had not only passed 3D but was also likely to have wasted spade values.

East's 3H bid could only have improved South's hand to that extent if it essentially guaranteed that the dummy had at most 1 heart.

So South probably had 4 hearts to the Ace.
Oct. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting idea Charles, but I think it only partially solves the causation problem.


Putting aside procedural obstacles that will arrive in different jurisdictions, collective action might work if we assume that the value of the purely non-pecuniary damages (i.e. the loss of glory, as opposed to loss of future earning power, or loss of benefit of fees paid to pros)is common to all teams.

The class as a whole will be able to prove that the cheaters caused them to suffer this collective damage.

The class could also agree on a formula as to how this common damage is to be allocated as between themselves. Since this allocation has no bearing on the amount of this head of damages collectively caused by the cheaters, they can hardly object to this procedure.

But I don't think that's going to work for the pecuniary damages since different teams will have distinct pecuniary damages (sponsors pay different amounts, and the loss of earning power will vary among the pros).

Since these damages aren't common to the class, the global amount of pecuniary damage will be the sum of each team-member's distinct pecuniary loss multiplied by their team's chance of winning. Which brings you back to square one.

You could solve part of that problem if you were able to show that each team suffered a common minimum amount of pecuniary damage, and you restricted the pecuniary claim to such damage.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So you've decided not to read the book….
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Avon - Bart actually read the book. Surely you can't expect his views to carry weight with BW posters who are cheerfully prepared to suggest you are clueless without having to go through the bother of following Bart's example.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard - many jurisdictions do not recognize loss of chance as a basis for establishimg that the defendant’s fault caused the damages claimed by the plaintiff.

Instead, per traditional rules of causation, you (plaintiff) have to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that you would have obtained the outcome you claim you were deprived of.

For example, assume a radiologist negligently misreads àn X-ray and fails to identify a growth. Further assume that the growth is only identified several years later after it has developed into an inoperable, fatal cancer.

Finally, assume that the patient had a 30% chance of surviving had the radiologist not negligently failed to identify the growth.

Addressing substantially similar facts, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the plaintiff (or rather her Estate by the time the case got to the SCC) did not have a claim for the loss of the 30% she would have had of surviving had the error not been made.

Instead, the traditional rules of causation were applied such that the patient had to show, on the balance of probabilities, that she would have survived but for the radiologist’s error.

It was small comfort that the Estate was awarded a nominal amount for the emotional anguish the patient suffered contemplating what might have been were it not for the radiologist’s error.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I am stripped of my titles?”
Richard - I thought Ray was looking for a realistic scenario……….
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray - take the example of cheaters cheating their way to a win in the final of a major event.

In a civil law jurisdiction a pro on the losing team would sue the cheaters for the loss of both the bonus plus the boost to future earnings he/she would have received assuming the pro can establish his team lost because the opponents cheated.

Presumably a comparable action based on deceit or negligence is available in common-law jurisdictions.

Assuming the same fact pattern, in a civilian jurisdiction the sponsor would sue for a portion of the economic outlay the cheaters knew the sponsor was incurring paying a pro team in the expectation of a fair match. Again, the sponsor would have to establish the team was beaten because of cheating. A non-pecuniary amount would also be claimed for the loss of the title.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy - jurisdiction will generally be assumed by the courts of the forum in which the fault was committed and the damage occurred.

For example, I suspect that US sponsors would have little difficulty persuading a US court that it has jurisdiction over a claim brought against cheaters for damage they caused the US sponsors by cheating them at US events.

If the defendants fail to contest the suit, the default judgment can be executed against assets held in the US. If there is a short fall, the judgment can be homologated and enforced in a foreign jurisdiction.

And I suspect that a price-insensitive sponsor's principal motive for bringing such proceedings would be “pour encourager les autres”.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don - isn't that why the BoD has D&O liability insurance?

What's the point of paying for that coverage if you're going to forfeit the ACBL's credibility and integrity by surrendering titles to cheaters because you're afraid they might sue?

And the likelihood that these cheaters would actually file suit against the League and/or the BoD seems remote.

But let's assume the worse case scenario, and litigation is initiated. Since lawsuits against the ACBL have to go via non-appealable arbitration the carrier's defense cost exposure is limited.

All in all, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the BoD cravenly abdicated its responsibility for promoting one of the League's core purposes, namely the development and maintenance of standards of conduct and ethical behavior (art. 1.2.4 ACBL Bylaws).
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play nearly every weekend with a friend who has been in hospital for the past 2 years. Until this summer, three of us brought bidding boxes, chairs and a table and played 4 handed with our friend in his hospital room.

We were usually able to play 16 boards in 90 minutes, after which his concentration would flag.

Our friend is no longer able to get out of bed and play.

Thanks to BBO, we (“we” excludes the author - Marc Andre Fourcaudot is the techie in the group) are able to set up a virtual table, and the 4 of us are still able to play with our friend in his room at the hospital, usually 3 of us on ipads and 1 on an iphone.

The game is as social as before, and we now play between 20 to 24 boards in the same 90 minutes because there is no shuffling, dealing, revoking or leading out of turn.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Avon- I suspect that the fact that the winning French team was anchored by Jais-Trezel supports your overall thesis
Oct. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Uriah Heep-Ebenezer Scrooge opposing Seth Pecksniff-Jonas Chuzzlewit
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That I needed to play more often with these fi…umm..folk
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lynn - many kudos on your second world championship, and congrats to your team-mates, including Sally Brock, who added a 6th world title to her collection, Kate McCallum, who added a 7th, and the non-pareil Kerri Sanborn, who added her *10th*.
Oct. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since Harvard accepted the Backgammon Society it is difficult to see why it rejected the Bridge Club.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John- FanTunes were independent contractors, not employees.
Sept. 23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 47 48 49 50
.

Bottom Home Top