Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Krnjevic
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Avon - Oleg Rubinchuk's August 6th post on NABC Casebook statistics will provide you with further insight into the litigious tendencies of a number of players, be they clients or pros.

While I haven't checked Oleg's numbers, his basic point seems correct. As a former panel member of early editions of the Rich Colker/EOK - version of the NABC Casebook, I can assure you that certain clients and professionals appeared with surprising frequency in NABC appeals.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jan - thank you for the yeoman effort. Much appreciated.
Aug. 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sally - I'm a bit puzzled as to why Debbie R. is putting this question to this forum, when it seems that the obvious thing to do was call the director at the relevant time and ask him.

Did she do that?

I'm guessing not, but I'm not clear on why.

Aug. 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael - the difficulty is that Garozzo - who also occasionally played Roman Club with Avarelli (albeit in lesser events) - thought that any bid other than 4H called for a saliva test.
July 30, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob - your last paragraph nicely summarizes why the ACBL is not a fan of multi .
July 13, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed - how would this apply in practice to the claim John Adams describes above?
July 12, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Aviv - all kidding aside, it seems to me that there is a world of difference between Jonathan and Felix.

While I profoundly disagree with much of what Felix has to say, and will cheerfully concede that his posts have a distinctly partisan flavor, I nonetheless respect his ability to generally engage posters holding contrary views with a level of courtesy and decorum that was markedly absent from Jonathan's postings.
July 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jonathan - I'm afraid that your reliance on Gerben's post simply confirms that these exchanges are a pointless “dialogue des sourds”.

Gerben believes that Mr. Rona's response was satisfactory.

I suggest you re-read the posts I addressed to you *5 days ago* explaining why I believe that Mr. Rona's response was singularly inadequate.
July 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jonathan - I'm afraid that your perception that the great bulk of posters do not support the ‘special treatment’ argument because they fear being subjected to hateful epithets speaks volumes about the objective good-faith perspective you have purportedly brought to this discussion.

I suggest that you consider the alternative reason put forward by many posters, the substance of which is presented by Andy Bowles:

“We can hardly expect the Israeli security people to rely on the results of a Google search or on Rona's platitudes. From Eitan Levy's description, it appears that the Israelis couldn't even start a conversation about security. If that's true, it's pretty unreasonable behaviour by the organisers.”

Or, as David Thompson more recently put it,

“There is no doubt that Israel withdrew. The issue is whether they were pushed or they jumped.”

A review of the 40-odd posts you have submitted on this thread indicates that you seem constitutionally incapable of recognizing this nuance.

I cheerfully expect that your 41st post will, if nothing else, reflect your commitment to consistency.
July 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hanan;

First, permit me to congratulate you on the remarkable effort you have made to dispassionately respond to the extraordinary volume of posts that your thread has generated.

Secondly, unfortunately, a substantial number of the more recent posts, particularly those emanating from a very small minority of the most frequent posters, reflect what the French aptly refer to as a “dialogue des sourds” (dialogue between the deaf).

Thirdly, given that this very small but vocal minority does not make the effort to reasonably assess the merits of both sides of the argument, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that your well-meaning efforts at further persuasion are, unfortunately, a counter-productive troll-feeding exercise that simply generates more heat and less light.
July 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Roy - I look forward with keen interest to reading your views on why the host of a WBF event would, over a period of months, ignore multiple requests for security information.
July 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jonathan - I must confess to having some difficulty seeing how your reply addresses the issue of why the Indonesians have refused to respond to a request for information pertaining to security.

And let's consider that failure to respond in the question format that you have chosen to adopt: to paraphrase your approach, I am curious how people would answer the following question:

were you responsible for hosting a WBF event would you studiously ignore multiple requests for information about security from a participant whose international representatives have been the object of past terrorist attacks and plots?

I would also respectfully suggest that the question you have posed misses the point. A more appropriate question would be the following:

If you thought your team was exposed to a potential security risk at an international event, would you ask the host for information about security in order that you could make an informed decision as to a) should the team attend, and b) what additional security measures, if any, may be required?

You might also have added the following query:

Would you expect the host country to studiously ignore your multiple requests for months on end?









July 5, 2013
Nick Krnjevic edited this comment July 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jonathan - with all due respect, I think you have this ass-backwards.

Mr. Rona's comments are remarkably condescending.

The Israelis have reasonable grounds to communicate with the Indonesians to obtain information with respect to security procedures.

The Israelis state that over a period of months the Indonesians have ignored multiple requests to discuss security issues with them. Neither the Indonesians nor the WBF have denied the Israelis' contention.

The Indonesians' failure to respond to multiple requests to discuss security matters in these circumstances is entirely inconsistent with the reasonable, good faith conduct expected of a host of a WBF event.

Given that neither the Indonesians or the WBF have disputed the Israelis' version of events, Mr. Rona's bald assertion that “knowing our Indonesian friends I am sure that they did everything was necessary to assure the participation and the security of the Israel representative, as all the other representatives, in Bali”, is singularly inadequate.

In short, as Mr. Sher accurately states, Mr. Rona has decided that the message “trust me” is sufficient response to the Israelis' legitimate complaint.

With all due respect to Mr. Rona, it is difficult to conceive of a more condescending, and unsatisfactory, reply.
July 5, 2013
Nick Krnjevic edited this comment July 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hard to see how South can be assigned any share of the blame: given that South has shown a 4-bagger trump suit and a minimum with his previous bidding he has the best possible hand for the auction.

North's bidding looks more than a little suspect - South wouldn't have signed off in 3NT with the great bulk of the hands North needs him to have to make slam a good proposition.
June 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Seymon D. came second in ‘92 ( to a strong French team) in harness with Rosenberg, who psyched on the first board if I recall correctly, testing a pet theory.

He won the ’88 Olympiad with Meckwell and the Texans against an Austrian team that had made its mark in more ways than one in the '85 BB.
June 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit - congratulations on both a first-class article and a very impressive system. I suspect that you face hyperactive interference from the opponents when they are at favorable vulnerability. Do you play the same system at all colours, or, like some big-clubbers, have you found that it may be preferable to change methods when red v white?
May 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm with Aviv, but recognize that my perception of courtesy may well be different from that held by others.

Perhaps this issue should be the object of a separate thread and a poll.
April 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bobby - I suspect the *number* of first class international opponents that US teams/pairs have faced in the past 15 years is likely substantially greater than the number faced by the preceding generation of US teams/pairs.

Consequently, ‘ability to win very high-level titles’ seems to be an awkward tool to use to compare the ability of the relevant post-1976 generations of US bridge players since the fewer current US teams/pairs winning world-class titles may well reflect the rest of the world catching up rather than the US declining.



April 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jan - being Canadian, my interest in this thread is purely academic; however, after reading the various posts, I must confess to being in awe of both the scope and duration of the astonishing effort you have put into the ITT.

A fellow Canadian, Mike Myers, could easily have been referring to you when he popularized the phrase “we are not worthy….”
April 24, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you think the bulk of the field is playing a strong no-trump then playing the Ace immediately seems right.

Assuming the lead was 4th best, West has a decent 5 card spade suit). If he also has the K of diamonds he will likely bid 1(or more) spades at many tables. No-trump will be played by North, and most declarers will play West to have the diamond K on the auction (particularly if West, as is likely, plays the Q or K of spades at trick 1).

And if West does not have the KD, and passes, there is a good chance East would not have lead a spade from a 3 card suit against a 1C-3NT auction. And if he did lead a spade because the suit is 4-4 the finesse is always right.

So it seems your best play to cater to what happened at the majority of the other tables is to win the Ace and try and grab all your tricks.
April 9, 2013
Nick Krnjevic edited this comment April 9, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top