Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Krnjevic
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fortunately, Suttles doesn’t read BW, and Miles can’t.
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with first two points but would add nuance to 5. Denying a major when 4333 has been a winner for me in botworld.
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
George- I'd be surprised if PZ withdrew because he wants to compete for Switzerland.

PZ plays, and pays, to win.

Winning requires team-mates who are crushers.

Monaco - which Somerset Maugham famously described as a sunny place for shady people- has very lax rules re acquiring residency/citizenship.

So, as long as you're price insensitive, building a team of “Monegasque ” crushers can be easily achieved in a relatively short period of time.

The Swiss have a much different perspective: acquiring Swiss residency/citizenship is a far longer and more complicated process.

Since PZ has no realistic chance of creating a “Swiss” team comprised of imported crushers, my guess is that he is moving on to other things, and is releasing his pros so they can begin making alternative residency arrangements .
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cornelia -you hit the nail on the head.
Whatever happened to “Do unto others….. ”
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bernard Levin's memorable line about Lord Longford's campaign for prison reform seems apt:

Everybody asks the wrong question about Avon, viz., is he a zealot?
The question is not worth asking: of course he is a zealot.
What we should be discussing is something quite different: is he right?
June 15
Nick Krnjevic edited this comment June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cameron- I cheerfully agree with all that you wrote ….except the third sentence.

Avon will *not* stop writing if people stop reading and caring.

Much to his credit, Avon will write *more*.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike -sounds like Stayman was a disciple of Leona Helmsley: only the “little people” have to follow the rules…..
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If E had 10x, QT or Qx of clubs would he not have upper cut the 3rd round of hearts,catering to West's QJ or Jx?

So E either has xx of clubs or a 3 card holding.

Finesse loses to W's stiff Q or QT but wins against 3 of the 4 singletons.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Different jurisdictions different rules - civilian regimes like their judges to explain why they toss out the evidence of the majority of the witnesses, particularly when preferring the evidence of a party who has skin in the game over that of a neutral party.
June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Equal time in this case meant 2 lines plus identification, which was important
since Team C did not have a dog in this fight.

And the justices would certainly have let you go if your draft ruling had omitted to explain why you rejected the evidence of the majority of the witnesses, which included the totality of the independent witnesses.
June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray- I think there’s a spectrum.

I agree with you that the District didn’t have to provide a detailed
summary of what each witness said.

But if you’re going to briefly summarize and accept the fact version of one of the three teams in the final, fairness requires that you also a) give equal time to the competing fact version presented by the other 2 teams and b) explain why you preferred team A’s version to that given by Teams B and C- particularly when Team C’s version is less likely to be self serving because it does not benefit from the outcome of the ruling.

The District did neither.
June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The District states that there are “4 separate issues”:

“1. DIC behavior and performance

2. Conditions of Contest (COC)

3. Suggested improper player behavior

4. Actual IMP differentials in the three matches and the resulting VPs”

The District then states that the first three issues are irrelevant to its ruling:

“The first three issues will be addressed, but the District and the ACBL have determined that they do not affect the outcome. The DIC behavior doesn’t constitute a reason to overturn results but will be reviewed. The DIC’s application of the wrong VP scale was corrected that evening.”

It is not at all obvious why the District concluded that the first 2 issues are not relevant. It was necessary for the District to determine if the participants were provided with the correct information about the CoC. It was also necessary for the District to determine whether the CoC were both valid and properly applied.

Issue 3 was not relevant (at least not from the facts set out in the 720 comments on the other thread).

Issue 4 is only relevant if the analysis of the first two issues leads to the conclusion that the winner of this event should have been determined on the basis of VPs.

So let's look at the District's discussion of the first two issues.

a) DIC behavior and performance:

Th District's comments on this issue are limited to the factual assessment set out in the following paragraph:

“Although there were statements that the COC was not available, John Kissinger, D-22 GNT Coordinator, insists there were two copies on DIC Scott Campbell's desk. Kissinger announced the format of play and type of scoring. Gupta claims their team asked and were informed about the form of scoring and played accordingly.”

Let's start with the premise that all facts set out by all of the various event-participants in the comments posted on the other thread are accurate reflections of their perception of events. Let's also assume that the District was provided with the same facts.

The District Co-ordinator's specific version of the facts is expressly described by the District.

Team Gupta's specific version of the facts is also referenced.

There is no reference whatsoever to the DIC's version of the facts.

The District indiscriminately lumped all competing versions of the facts into the following one-liner “there were statements that the CoC was not available”.

Surprisingly Team Schafer's specific version of the facts is entirely absent from the discussion.

Even more surprisingly, Team Hiestand's specific version of the facts is also missing. Since Team Hiestand did not stand to gain from the ruling, and was thus less likely to provide self-serving evidence, one would have thought that the District would have given particular weight to that Team's version of events.

Having misdescribed the competing factual versions as to the information provided to the contestants, the District then opted, without explanation, for the only version it specifically described.


b) The CoC.

Assuming the facts set out in the other thread are accurate, there appears to be live issues as to a) the contents of the pre-May 31 CoC, b) whether the CoC was in conformity with the ‘master’ conditions applicable to the GNT, and c)whether the CoC was applied as intended. There are probably other CoC issues I have missed.

None of these issue are discussed by the District.

Since there are no other substantive components of the ruling, readers can draw their own conclusions as to the merits of this decision.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
a) which body issued the ruling?
b) Were reasons provided?
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The DIC was a Sinatra fan: “My Way”.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ron - thanks for the follow-up. I share your view that supporting Club Owners is essential.

And I understand that if you're going to whack 'em when they screw it up you should also recognize the positive.

Having said that, I remain gobsmacked that the League can see this as an “either/or”.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ron wrote: “Finally, what I liked about Joe Jones editorial is that it emphasized support for Club Owners. The ACBL needs to do as much as possible for Club Owners.”

This would be the same Joe Jones who just eliminated the position of Director of Club and Member Services, thereby summarily dismissing an employee, Carol Robertson, who provided the League and Club Owners with 40 years of first rate service.

You couldn't make this stuff up. No one would believe that an organization could be so boneheaded.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Avon - to paraphrase Chief Brody,“you're gonna need a bigger box”.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray - the ACBL should consider following the example of the USGA and the R&A, who jointly publish a text entitled Decisions on the Rules of Golf.

The purpose of this text is described as follows:

“Each year, the United States Golf Association (USGA) and The R&A receive thousands of inquiries regarding clarification of the Rules of Golf. In order to help millions of golfers around the world better understand how these detailed Rules are applied and interpreted, the USGA and The R&A develop the comprehensive Decisions on the Rules of Golf. The format is geared towards questions and answers and is designed to be used as a reference for golf administrators and those with an interest in the Rules of the game.”
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Amalya K is still an incumbent Senior (i.e. semi-retired) Judge of the 2nd Cir.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ross - there is a world of difference between a) 15+ seconds removes the presumption of *no* UI and b) 15+ seconds creates a presumption of UI.
May 17
.

Bottom Home Top