Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Krnjevic
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So you've decided not to read the book….
Oct. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Avon - Bart actually read the book. Surely you can't expect his views to carry weight with BW posters who are cheerfully prepared to suggest you are clueless without having to go through the bother of following Bart's example.
Oct. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard - many jurisdictions do not recognize loss of chance as a basis for establishimg that the defendant’s fault caused the damages claimed by the plaintiff.

Instead, per traditional rules of causation, you (plaintiff) have to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that you would have obtained the outcome you claim you were deprived of.

For example, assume a radiologist negligently misreads àn X-ray and fails to identify a growth. Further assume that the growth is only identified several years later after it has developed into an inoperable, fatal cancer.

Finally, assume that the patient had a 30% chance of surviving had the radiologist not negligently failed to identify the growth.

Addressing substantially similar facts, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the plaintiff (or rather her Estate by the time the case got to the SCC) did not have a claim for the loss of the 30% she would have had of surviving had the error not been made.

Instead, the traditional rules of causation were applied such that the patient had to show, on the balance of probabilities, that she would have survived but for the radiologist’s error.

It was small comfort that the Estate was awarded a nominal amount for the emotional anguish the patient suffered contemplating what might have been were it not for the radiologist’s error.
Oct. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I am stripped of my titles?”
Richard - I thought Ray was looking for a realistic scenario……….
Oct. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray - take the example of cheaters cheating their way to a win in the final of a major event.

In a civil law jurisdiction a pro on the losing team would sue the cheaters for the loss of both the bonus plus the boost to future earnings he/she would have received assuming the pro can establish his team lost because the opponents cheated.

Presumably a comparable action based on deceit or negligence is available in common-law jurisdictions.

Assuming the same fact pattern, in a civilian jurisdiction the sponsor would sue for a portion of the economic outlay the cheaters knew the sponsor was incurring paying a pro team in the expectation of a fair match. Again, the sponsor would have to establish the team was beaten because of cheating. A non-pecuniary amount would also be claimed for the loss of the title.
Oct. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy - jurisdiction will generally be assumed by the courts of the forum in which the fault was committed and the damage occurred.

For example, I suspect that US sponsors would have little difficulty persuading a US court that it has jurisdiction over a claim brought against cheaters for damage they caused the US sponsors by cheating them at US events.

If the defendants fail to contest the suit, the default judgment can be executed against assets held in the US. If there is a short fall, the judgment can be homologated and enforced in a foreign jurisdiction.

And I suspect that a price-insensitive sponsor's principal motive for bringing such proceedings would be “pour encourager les autres”.
Oct. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don - isn't that why the BoD has D&O liability insurance?

What's the point of paying for that coverage if you're going to forfeit the ACBL's credibility and integrity by surrendering titles to cheaters because you're afraid they might sue?

And the likelihood that these cheaters would actually file suit against the League and/or the BoD seems remote.

But let's assume the worse case scenario, and litigation is initiated. Since lawsuits against the ACBL have to go via non-appealable arbitration the carrier's defense cost exposure is limited.

All in all, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the BoD cravenly abdicated its responsibility for promoting one of the League's core purposes, namely the development and maintenance of standards of conduct and ethical behavior (art. 1.2.4 ACBL Bylaws).
Oct. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play nearly every weekend with a friend who has been in hospital for the past 2 years. Until this summer, three of us brought bidding boxes, chairs and a table and played 4 handed with our friend in his hospital room.

We were usually able to play 16 boards in 90 minutes, after which his concentration would flag.

Our friend is no longer able to get out of bed and play.

Thanks to BBO, we (“we” excludes the author - Marc Andre Fourcaudot is the techie in the group) are able to set up a virtual table, and the 4 of us are still able to play with our friend in his room at the hospital, usually 3 of us on ipads and 1 on an iphone.

The game is as social as before, and we now play between 20 to 24 boards in the same 90 minutes because there is no shuffling, dealing, revoking or leading out of turn.
Oct. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Avon- I suspect that the fact that the winning French team was anchored by Jais-Trezel supports your overall thesis
Oct. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Uriah Heep-Ebenezer Scrooge opposing Seth Pecksniff-Jonas Chuzzlewit
Oct. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That I needed to play more often with these fi…umm..folk
Oct. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lynn - many kudos on your second world championship, and congrats to your team-mates, including Sally Brock, who added a 6th world title to her collection, Kate McCallum, who added a 7th, and the non-pareil Kerri Sanborn, who added her *10th*.
Oct. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since Harvard accepted the Backgammon Society it is difficult to see why it rejected the Bridge Club.
Sept. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John- FanTunes were independent contractors, not employees.
Sept. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Excellent news - best of luck with the project!
Sept. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Best wishes on a successful launch.

I do hope the WBF has finally realized that deafening silence is not a viable strategy. So maybe the powers-that-be will see the light and comment on the book at Orlando.
Sept. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Avon - congratulations on both the enormous effort and impressive result.

It's a shame Eric Murray - who recently passed - wasn't able to read this. He was 4 times “runner-up” to the Blues.

I'd be interested in reading Hamman and Wolff's comments (6 times “runner-up”).

When is the book launch?
Sept. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bronze Medalists: People who loudly read out the scores achieved by every other pair that has played the board so far.

Silver medalists: People who chat noisily throughout the game.

Gold medalists: Bronze and silver medalists who get upset when you ask them to lower their voices.
Sept. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The prodigal son turned up at a Montreal regional later that year with the same team - the third set of pros “ont fait scandale” with their satin shorts (dentelle?) and decolletage.
Aug. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David - two questions related to Lille:

a) did you and LC change your system after Lille 98 so that you could defend a re-doubled contract (first board, last round, though I suspect you don't need the reminder)

b) About a decade after his British Open calamity, Jean Van der Velde was asked if he still thought about the closing hole. He memorably replied, “no, not nearly as often as I used to….maybe only once a day now.” Et tu?
Aug. 27, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top