Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Krnjevic
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure we are on the same page John - trumps were known to be 5-1 so it seems to me everyone knew declarer was either getting 1 or zero more tricks and that potential trick could only be a heart.
Nov. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My point exactly Mike
Nov. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike - because that happened to be the setting in which this incident happened.
Nov. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike - seems to me Hank would have made the same concession had his partner coffeehoused against Mr and Mme Deuxdepiques…..
Nov. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John - seemed pretty clear from the write-up that declarer was known to have 2 hearts in his hand at crunch time.

Given that pard over-called 2 vulnerable hearts, considering we have the Ax of that suit, and given that dummy had KTx, I must confess to having some difficulty conceiving of a lay-out where the Q cover was a possible play.
Nov. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely we have all pored over hands scribbled on scraps of paper that were thrust in our faces by excited friends/team-mates etc.
So it seems pretty obvious that it’s the substance that counts.
Ignoring content, and instead focusing, in negative manner, exclusively on form, is counterproductive since it discourages posters from future participation.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin - I gotta filling you extracted a confession…..
Nov. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The back-cover of Under the Table indicates that Avon is currently working on a book that examines dishonesty and skulduggery in an unrelated, albeit far more personal area.
Nov. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations on your well-deserved, hard won success! And I do hope you won't have to go through this process on an annual basis.
Nov. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What do you mean we paleface?” 2.0

As is set out in detail in Dermot Turing's (nephew of Alan) book X,Y &Z, the bulk of the work that gave rise to the breaking of the Enigma code was done by Polish mathematicians led by Marian Rejewski.
The Poles gave their work to the British in July 1939.
A review of Turing's book can be found in the September 2018 issue of Nature.
Oct. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
QS pitch on the second problem should you feel the need to eliminate any lingering doubt West may have as to whether he should have played a trump at least 1 trick earlier.

Seems the auction should have tipped him off though.

South thought his hand got better as the auction progressed, so West might have wondered why East's 3H bid - confirming 3 card support - led South to conclude he was now worth a 5D bid facing a pard who had not only passed 3D but was also likely to have wasted spade values.

East's 3H bid could only have improved South's hand to that extent if it essentially guaranteed that the dummy had at most 1 heart.

So South probably had 4 hearts to the Ace.
Oct. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting idea Charles, but I think it only partially solves the causation problem.


Putting aside procedural obstacles that will arrive in different jurisdictions, collective action might work if we assume that the value of the purely non-pecuniary damages (i.e. the loss of glory, as opposed to loss of future earning power, or loss of benefit of fees paid to pros)is common to all teams.

The class as a whole will be able to prove that the cheaters caused them to suffer this collective damage.

The class could also agree on a formula as to how this common damage is to be allocated as between themselves. Since this allocation has no bearing on the amount of this head of damages collectively caused by the cheaters, they can hardly object to this procedure.

But I don't think that's going to work for the pecuniary damages since different teams will have distinct pecuniary damages (sponsors pay different amounts, and the loss of earning power will vary among the pros).

Since these damages aren't common to the class, the global amount of pecuniary damage will be the sum of each team-member's distinct pecuniary loss multiplied by their team's chance of winning. Which brings you back to square one.

You could solve part of that problem if you were able to show that each team suffered a common minimum amount of pecuniary damage, and you restricted the pecuniary claim to such damage.
Oct. 19, 2018
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
.

Bottom Home Top