Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Krnjevic
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not quite sure how your reply addresses the point that certain players who are far more representative of L/W's skill level (Kit W being the obvious example) hold a completely different view than you.
Dec. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But you assert that L/G suffered no damage because you adamantly believe that they share *your* belief that the D lead was 100%.

It's very difficult to understand the basis for your belief as to their belief given that a number of world-class players have flatly contradicted what you think is clear.
Dec. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don - it will be interesting to see how the carrier responds to a claim if it is established that members of the BoD fought against document disclosure in order to maintain the pretense of plausible deniability.

If that is true, the carrier may well assert that this was a factor that significantly increased its exposure, and which should have been disclosed. The failure to disclose information material to the underwriting of the risk may give rise to the nullity of the coverage.
Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kudos to the winners, and congrats/condolences to Mittelman & Co. who were edged at the wire for the second year in a row/
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Don - was that change approved by the BoD?
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mark/Kevin - presumably the BoD requested and received legal advice from the League's counsel on this issue. What did counsel advise?
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a general rule no.
Dec. 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Поздравляю.
Nov. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peter - I suspect your scheme will have no impact on the many who are price-insensitive. They will always pay $$$ and will laugh at those who opt for the far more meaningful penalty, namely percentages of boards.

And Stephen Sondheim tells a story about Ethel Merman (“EM”) that usefully illustrates the futility of monetary penalties.

EM, who was known for her frequent use of coarse language, was booked as a guest on the Lorettta Young show.

Lorettta Young (“LY”) was a stickler for decorum, and warned EM that she'd be fined a quarter each time she used ‘unladylike’ language during rehearsals.

After paying out fifty cents for minor transgressions, EM shoved a bill in LY's hand and barked “Here’s 10 bucks, now f…off.”
Nov. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nedju - my question was pretty straightforward. Have you read any of the judgments?

Or is your assertion that “the authorities expressed their view on the issue in their verdict, and such a view is very modern, MM century”, not based on your having actually read what the “authorities” in fact said in any written judgment?
Nov. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig - I think Michal's point is that it would be unreasonable for W to play E to have a heart card since it's *very* unlikely that the early play would have proceeded as it did had declarer held the KS.
Nov. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nedju - are your comments based on a translation of the judgment that you can share with us?
Nov. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Names could vary with the role the bots perform.

On opening lead: Larry, Curly and Moe
Subsequent defense: Caspiar, Melchior and Balthazar
Competitive bidding: Raglan,Cardigan and Nolan
Nov. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes.
Nov. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Avon - the notorious 1899 trial in Rennes provides a useful example of how institutions committed to preserving appearances are able to disregard inconvenient confessions.
Nov. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Terrific article Nic - you've done her proud.
Nov. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard - please keep posting. It's fascinating to see how the bots have evolved. It's also amusing to see that they periodically slip the leash and make a dash for freedom (Board 12 being an obvious example).
Nov. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Charles - IIRC legend has it that John Crawford relied on just that inference to bring home a grand on the last hand of a night of rubber. The key suit was AKQTxxx opposite stiff.
Since every kibitzer remained standing expectantly instead shuffling toward the door, he took a a successful hook and picked up Jxxx onside.
Nov. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike - I think we approach these issues from a *much* different perspective.
Nov. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John - I think we'll have to agree to disagree since neither of us knows the exact layout. My reading of Hank's description indicates that it was a no-brainer at trick 11 for the defenders.

But as Dennis Miller said, “I could be wrong”…..
Nov. 18, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top