Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Krnjevic
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
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
.

Bottom Home Top