Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Krnjevic
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 51 52 53 54
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And the vulnerability seems to be all white.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“For insurance purposes, I never let on to the underwriters how potentially dangerous the floor of a bridge sport's club can be.”


Jeff - for insurance purposes that is what Courts describe as material non-disclosure.
March 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robb- while I agree that a *great* number of these cases can be addressed via player memos, Debbie R.'s particular beef is not so easily dealt with.

In this neck of the woods we once had a very experienced pair who were able to smoothly and effortlessly solve most skip-bid problems (3-4 seconds max).

So when they had a 7-8 second pause it was a really big deal - provided you knew their tendencies. If not, you hadn't a clue that this was major UI situation.

And even if you knew that 7 seconds was an eternity for this pair, how did you record that belief (which was a subjective perception based on extensive history that had nothing to do with this particular hand) on the player memo in a manner the recorder was going to find credible?
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff - one of the more obvious difficulties with your reasoning is that the economically superior party will be tempted “roll the dice” because it knows the other party may well not be able to absorb the time and/or expense required to engage in litigation. This is particularly true in employment relationships.

Which is one of the reasons why the Courts of a great many jurisdictions hold that employment contracts include an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In other words, both parties have a duty to act in good faith and to deal fairly with each other at all stages of the contractual relationship.
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fully agree John.

The patently untenable ground of dismissal invoked by the League is an embarrassment.

And it's lack of transparency is a disgrace.
March 27
Nick Krnjevic edited this comment March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Meckstroth
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That’s not the theme I was thinking of….
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray - take a gander at the exchanges in the thread entitled “Gratuitous Question”; a theme is emerging…..
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John -it was a felony because Texas has enacted section 66.023 of the Texas Parks & Wild Life Code, entitled Fraud in a Fishing Tournament.

Good luck trying to bring this charge without the statutory provision.
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Definitely an ethical issue, but one that can work to your advantage.

IIRC, Al Roth gave the following eminently practical advice. When playing unknown opponents he would take fake finesses as early as possible in the match (e.g. when Roth hold KQx he would table the J from dummy's AJT) in order to get a sense of whether RHO was the type of player who engaged in the conduct described in the OP.
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eduard - since your organization's viability appears to be dependent in no small measure upon public funding, it must necessarily be acutely sensitive to the requirements that have to be met in order to obtain such funds.

While the CAS issue is more complicated, is your organization able to petition the national sports federation for relief from WADA requirements that are not clearly relevant to the “sport” of bridge?

By way of exaggerated example, Ben Johnson's steroid of choice,stanozolol,is on WADA's list of proscribed substances. But unless you have a particularly intemperate partner,anabolic steroids do not confer a bridge benefit.
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Addictive Captivating Exhilirating
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Three against one
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LA would be a tragic figure if that was the whole story.

But it isn't.

LA was a notorious litigator who routinely filed libel actions against journalists, friends and colleagues who accused him of doping.

These punitive lawsuits - which LA filed in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions - dragged his critics into prohibitively expensive litigation which exposed them to potentially ruinous financial consequences.

Oprah had the following exchange with the “tragic hero” about this particularly unsavory tactic:

“OW: This is what doesn’t make any sense: when people were saying things – David Walsh, the Sunday Times, Emma O’Reilly, Betsy Andreu, many others were saying things – you would then go on the attack for them. You were suing people and you know that they were telling the truth. What is that?

LA: It’s a major flaw, and it’s a guy who expected to get whatever he wanted and to control every outcome and it’s inexcusable. When I say that there are people who will hear this and will never forgive me, I understand that.”
March 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David - the Tour de France is not an obvious analogy since the principal driver of doping regulations in endurance sports seems to be the protection of athlete health, at both the professional and amateur levels.

As was discussed in a 2016 Lancet editorial:

“Beyond the ethics of using performance-enhancing
drugs (PEDS), and inconsistencies in governing body
decisions, athlete health remains the most important
factor. In endurance sports, such as road cycling, there
has been evidence of injury and death from doping.
(…)
However, doping is not limited to professional athletes, and there is an increasing use of EPO, steroids, growth hormone, and other PEDs in amateur circles. Recently, 19-year-old
club cyclist Gabriel Evans was given a 3·5 year ban by
UK Anti-Doping for using EPO. The general health risk
is clear as more individuals use these sorts of substances
without adequate supervision.”

www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanhae/PIIS2352-3026(16)30082-5.pdf

I have not yet seen any suggestion that the WBF regulates PED in order to safeguard the health of competitors.
March 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed!
March 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Single dummy the defenders will have to discard very carefully if declarer ducks the J of spades, wins the forced D return in dummy (a club gives him the entry for a heart trick) and then runs 5 rounds of clubs.
March 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve - how does any comment that starts with the dismissive ‘seriously?’ constitute collegial conversation?
March 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that a great deal has changed in the last 17 years.

But I don't think we are thinking of the same changes.

In my view, recent events (notably the fiasco involving F/N at the CAS)make it clear that the WBF's misguided decision to adopt IOC protocols has done a great disservice to bridge.

So my perception is that the events of the last 2 years provide significant support for the view that in 2019 the WBF should apply a *milder* sanction for a technical breach of an IOC-WADA rule than it did 17 years ago in respect of a more serious breach.

Which is why I am frankly astonished that the WBF has instead seen fit to do the reverse.
March 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Francine-I agree that your question is an important one. GH should be expected to know the rules.

The difficulty I have is that the WBF doesn't seem to apply sanctions that are consistent with those rules.

Which gives rise to the question I put to Alvin: why is a significantly harsher sanction being applied in 2019 than was levied in 2002, particularly since the 2019 circumstances seem more benign than those of 2002 when considered in the context of the benefit provided by the respective substances that were taken?
March 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 51 52 53 54
.

Bottom Home Top