Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Krnjevic
1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 54 55 56 57
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gary - I suspect your reply -with which I agree- is what the French aptly describe as a “dialogue des sourds”.
Dec. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo - your NBO should give serious consideration to immediately adopting the national equivalent of articles 3.6, 3.8 and 3.9 of the WBF Conditions of Contest, which can be found at the following link:

http://www.worldbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/generalconditionsofcontest.pdf
Dec. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michal - did you mean Stefan?
Dec. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David - I suspect that Avon will be particularly interested in the following segment of your analysis:

“If we crank it up so that the best team beats the second best 8 times out of 10, then it wins 496 out of 1,000 times on my most recent run of the simulation. A team that dominates the bridge world to such an extent ”ought to“ win significantly more than half its tournaments - the reason it doesn't is, as I have said, that the KO format is completely hopeless.”
Dec. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Avon has apparently expended substantial time and effort preparing a detailed case.

Others might have chosen a different manner of presentation, but at this stage (the “2 of spades” is only the first of 13 posts) that objection seems largely a matter of style rather than substance.

We should at least extend him the courtesy of completing his presentation before accusing him of misinformation and/or inadequate methodology and/or ignorance of statistics and/or libel of the dead and/or breach of statutory limitations and/or indecency and/or unfairness etc.

I suspect Avon can appreciate the irony of being accused of weak methodology and bias after having presented less than 10% of his case.
Dec. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What happened to Bocchi et. al.?
They seem to have played only 1 session.
Dec. 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Avon, I think the Vegetables - each of whom made a surprising mess of a number of hands when flying solo as declarer - pulled off some outstanding defensive coups when they were able work in tandem.

Which I suspect is your point.
Dec. 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Terrific article Phil - and you made great use of the title story.
Nov. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andrew was the third brother - he was 3 years older than Hugh, and passed away in 2012.
IIRC Jim Ross died in tragic circumstances in 1967.
Nov. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RIP Hugh.

A true gentleman, Hugh (a Montrealer and McGill grad) was 1 of only 3 players to compete in the finals of 6 world-team championships in the 15 year period from 1976-1990.

The other two players were Messrs. Hamman and Wolff.

Hugh also won 3 Bermuda Bowls playing with 3 different partners: Erik Paulsen (BB 76), Peter Pender (BB 85) and Mike Lawrence BB 87)

Bob Hamman is the only player who has won more BBs playing with different partners.
Nov. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John - the Court you describe as an “actively hostile” judiciary seems, sensibly enough, to have simply prohibited the WBF from imposing a sanction that was impermissible under that organization`s own regulations.

And what you refer to as Germany`s “silly rules” is the Rule of Law.
Nov. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John - the WBF lost in appeal because it ignored its own laws and imposed a penalty that was impermissible. I therefore have great difficulty seeing how the WBF has any basis whatsoever for sanctioning Germany.
Nov. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John- Hanlon's Razor is useful for resolving these issues: “don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity”.
Nov. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John - while I sympathize with your practical view, I think Chris is right as a matter of law.

The notion of “quitted trick” is not relevant. Per 66.A, which is entitled “Current Trick”, your right to inspect the current trick (which you carefully preserved by not turning your card face down on the table) will be forfeited if your oblivious pard either leads or follows to the next trick.
Nov. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“And this is all I have to say…..”
Nov. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
sacré bleu?
Nov. 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JoAnn - we are clearly at cross-purposes.

My points were in reply to your suggestion that entry fees would be “substantially” raised if the arbitration clause was not enforced.

I put forward two reasons why that won't happen.

I must confess to having some difficulty seeing how your follow-up in any way buttresses your wholly unsupported assertion that arbitration clauses are needed else ACBL members can expect a substantial fee increase.
Oct. 23, 2017
Nick Krnjevic edited this comment Oct. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JoAnn - a) if there was a direct cause and effect relationship between the arbitration clause and entry fees then one would have expected prices to drop when the clause came into effect. They didn't.

b) The types of claims the League faces generally fall within the ambit of its liability insurance coverage.
Oct. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave - I think we are talking apples and oranges.

I have certainly reviewed the factual investigations that have been provided to me by adjusters, and a myriad of forensic professionals.

But I don't think that is the relevant context for the purpose of our discussion.

As the Unit Recorder I am the one doing the factual investigation from the ground up. Based on my review of the recorder forms, and my interviews with various parties, I decide whether or not to make a recommendation that charges be laid.

It is in that specific context that I suggest that the prosecution of those charges be effected by someone other than the Recorder.

Particularly since I have lost count of the number of times I have seen factual investigators and/or expert witnesses become wedded to their view of the case, and have been unable to adjust their opinion in appropriate manner when adverse facts come to light at trial.
Oct. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave- speaking with the benefit of thirty years experience acting primarily for the defense, the lawyers do not do the investigation.
Oct. 15, 2017
1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 54 55 56 57
.

Bottom Home Top