Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Krnjevic
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lynn - the author was using the “c” word in reference to Bocchi's ‘Lightner Pass’, not Madala's club lead.

And while the author was certainly tactless, it's worth noting that Madala (per the author) subsequently apologized to H/H/ for Bocchi's ill-timed hitch.
Sept. 30, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Ciaran.

For those of you (us?)who are twiddling their thumbs waiting for the semis to start, here is a trivia question that arises from the Butler data:

Who were the oddest pairs in the BB round-robin?

Sept. 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Terrific articles Sartaj.

And your point about virtue sometimes being its own reward is well taken.

Many moons ago I was having coffee with the late great Peter Nagy and Eric Kokish. For reasons I can't recall, Peter was playing on Eric's team but in partnership with George Mittelman instead of Eric.

Eric asked how Peter had found the session with George and Peter replied “good news-bad news”.

The good news was that George had played brilliantly: he had found both a number of superior lines of declarer play, and some well-thought out defensive gambits, the great bulk of which had been missed by his counterpart.

The bad news was that the lie of the cards was such that none of George's efforts made any difference to the outcome of the contracts.

Peter was delighted, however, by George's unwavering commitment to superlative technique.
Sept. 22, 2013
Nick Krnjevic edited this comment Sept. 22, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And in the interim I suggest we extend a collective “thank you!” to Jan for the tremendous effort she has put into making the blog both interesting and informative.
Sept. 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Avon - I suspect the ethical lecture will be of very little practical benefit unless you also provide a conventional remedy.
Sept. 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yuan, you're in good company. Two of the world's most successful pairs (i.e. Hamman/Wolff and Martel/Stansby) both played a form of Flannery.
Sept. 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Michael - if it were up to you would qualification for world-championship team play be based on a) team trials, b) pairs trials, c) selectors' choice or d) other?
Aug. 23, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gabrielle - with respect, posting this type of information on this thread reflects questionable judgment, which undermines the validity of the points Mike was trying to make when he started this topic.
Aug. 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jonathan - I suggest you re-read Judy's post. She's not trashing the site. She is trashing the “few troublemakers who feel the overwhelming need to be heard”. Given both the tenor of her previous post, and considering the speed/inaccuracy of your reply, there seems to be little doubt that both you and Judy understand that she includes you in that group.
Aug. 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike - I suspect your post is likely going to have the reverse of the effect you intended.

The BridgeWinners' poster whose recent over-the-top critique was the impetus for your post *thrives* on the attention generated by his inflammatory remarks.

I'm afraid that your indignant response is precisely what he looks for.

I think you're much better off following the advice of those who block his posts - he'll lose interest when deprived of feedback.
Aug. 14, 2013
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
.

Bottom Home Top