Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Krnjevic
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eric Kokish wrote/edited a number of excellent World Championship texts that combined first-rate analysis and suspense(the 1983 BB was a stand out).
Feb. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John - the deflatable dome regional occurred at Smuggler's Notch at the end of the 80s. A loud ‘bang’ came from the large fan unit at the top of the dome, and air began to leak out of the structure which gradually began to sag.

There was only one air-lock exit, so the players were a bit nervous (and then some) waiting to get out while the membrane deflated.

My partner brought a carving knife to the next day's Swiss, “just in case…”.
Feb. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gonzalo - did the lawyer's letter issued by Mr. Trape's attorneys also demand that your original post be modified or removed?

If so, I suspect Bridgewinners has received its own letter…..
Feb. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don….c'mon…you know better than that.

The German attempt to impose a stiff penalty on the Throat Specialists got crushed in the Courts.

3 years was probably the most the Italians could reasonably get without fear of procedural reversal.
Jan. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed - you hit the nail on the head.

There is a certain type of mid-round/post-mortem offender who will be quick to a) be aggrieved when reminded of the need to play the next board, and b) be accusatory if you then take time to play a difficult hand.

I'd like to think that education will improve their ability to differentiate between the two scenarios, but my personal data-set, generated from 35 years of play, suggests that this particular form of assholicism is incurable.

If you are looking for a more optimistic view, then perhaps the CAS' stats expert could be retained to present an alternative interpretation of my data-set.
Jan. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tomislav - the difficulty is that I don't think the CAS panel has the relevant experience necessary to substitute its findings of fact for those made by the NBO Panel.

The CAS clearly has its place.

Ensuring timely, uniform justice on issues that are common to national sporting federations,and in respect of which the CAS' limited pool of arbitrators have experience, ensures equal treatment of competitors from national sports federations.

Doping is an obvious example,and,thanks to WADA, the science is relatively uncontroversial.

But F-N's case shows that the CAS clearly lacks the experience necessary to sit as the court of last resort, with fact-finding powers, in respect of bridge matters.

Which is why I think the NBOs should extricate themselves from the CAS process.
Jan. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IIRC, Peter Pender was unable to secure entry visas to a number of countries in the late 8o's.
Jan. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The bidding is consistent with West, who meant to bid 2S on his previous turn, having mistakenly bid 2H.
Jan. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Melanie- I am saying that the contribution to legal fees awarded by the panel is a small fraction of the legal fees F-N incurred.
Jan. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Melanie - the arbitration cost award is separate from the legal fee award. As the CAS notes, it has great discretion in awarding the latter:

“126. Article 864.5 of the CAS Code provides:

In the arbitral award, the Panel shall determine which party shall bear the arbitration costs or in which proportion the parties shall share them. As a general ride, the Panel has discretion to grant the prevailing party a contribution towards its legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings and, in particular, the costs of witnesses and interpreters. When granting such contribution, the Panel shall take into account the outcome of the proceedings, as well as the conduct and the financial resources of the parties.”

F-N were awarded a trivial sum for legal fees (considered in the context of what they spent).


The arbitration cost allocation also contains comments that are critical of F-N:

“127. In the case at hand, in view of the outcome of the arbitration and the circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that the unusual behaviour of the Players justified both the inquiry and the disciplinary procedure led by the EBL, the Panel determines that the costs of the arbitration, to be calculated by the CAS Court Office and communicated separately to the parties, shall be paid as follows: 20% of the costs by the Appellants and 80% by the Respondent.”
Jan. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry - the Scots offer this option in criminal cases. Juries can render a verdict of “not proven” if they think the accused probably committed the crime, but the Crown didn't quite meet it's burden of proof.

The CAS panel's decision to award F-N only 2000 CHFr. in legal fees may be seen as an indication that the majority have few illusions about F-N.

Per the ruling, the CAS has great discretion when it comes to awarding legal fees. So I view the award of an amount that represents a very small fraction of the legal fees that F-N incurred as an implicit rebuke.
Jan. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed.
Jan. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray - I think we are at cross-purposes. As I stated in my first, lengthy post on the CAS, my. beef isn't with that body. As I indicated, per its regulations, the CAS panel was fully entitled to conduct a de novo hearing.

My complaint was that which has since been echoed by Don M and Marty H. I don't blame the CAS; I blame the EBL (or rather, as Don has more accurately pointed out, the WBF) for having chosen the wrong body for the task it needs performed.

As I have stated elsewhere, I agree that an independent body should hear NBO appeals in order to ensure that the parties received a fair hearing. The focus should be on protecting the parties' procedural rights.

But that's not what the CAS does. And I think you and I are on the same page on that point.

And I could probably be persuaded that it may be useful, in limited circumstances, to have an appeal panel that has extensive bridge experience hear appeals that focus on bridge errors of fact committed by the NBO panel.

But the CAS clearly isn't qualified to perform that role.

Which is why my initial post argued that the EBL should adopt a proper appeal process that does not include the CAS.

Unfortunately, as Don has pointed out, it seems that the EBL is stuck with the CAS process until such time as the WBF severs it's link with the IOC.
Jan. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Giorgio - as was pointed out in response to your comment on the other thread, there is a very significant difference between this case and the Italian civil appeal process that you reference.

In particular, it is one thing for three generally technically illiterate appeal judges to hear new technical evidence and set aside the factual conclusions of a similarly technically illiterate lower court judge.

But it is quite another for a technically illiterate CAS panel to hear new evidence and set aside the factual findings made by the EBL's far more experienced first instance panel.
Jan. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Greg - for the reasons set out below, if you're going to have a trial “de novo” in which the “appeal” panel can substitute its own findings of fact for those made by the far more bridge-savvy EBL panel, then the CAS panel should have a background in bridge as well as experience with statistics.

As a general rule it is a losing tactic for lawyers to try and attack the validity of the opposing expert's technical analysis (assuming the expert is a genuine expert).

The expert knows a *great* deal more about his/her specialty than does the opposing lawyer, and the latter will get crushed trying to trip up the expert on the science.

Instead, a very common method of attacking the expert's report is to establish that the factual foundation of same is contradicted by other factual evidence.

In other words, the lawyer will agree that the opposing expert's theory is sound, but will argue that the Court should place no value on the expert's report because it is based on facts that are not consistent with those that are put into evidence and accepted by the judge.

So the findings of fact (which are determined by the trial judge) are of particular importance, since the fate of the expert report turns, in no small measure, on the extent to which the factual foundation relied on by the expert is consistent with the factual evidence that the judge decides to retain.

Since the the CAS panel is hearing new witnesses, and determines which factual evidence should be retained, it is particularly important that the panel members should have the practical experience necessary to make informed findings of fact on bridge matters.
Jan. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Greg - Carelessness on my part. Particularly since I had taken David B. to task for having made that mistake a week ago.
Jan. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tomislav - the CAS ruling provides an example of an NBO that had adopted regulations which made it easier for that body to rely on statistics to prove its case before the CAS:

“49. It is true that the panel of the case CAS 2015/A/4351 VSL Pakroujo FK et al y. Lithuanian Football Federation sanctioned the appellants based on ”suspicious conducts“ that resulted from statistical studies but this was only because the disciplinary code of the Lithuanian federation allowed it to do so. In casu, the EBL regulations do not permit sanctioning based on suspicions and, for this reason only, the Appealed Decision shall be annulled as there is no direct evidence proving the alleged Code.”

But that “solution” has it's own problems.

I'd be very uncomfortable depriving someone of their livelihood on the ground that statistical evidence establishes, to a degree of “comfortable satisfaction”, that they engaged in “suspicious conduct”.
Jan. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don - at least the members of that majority are consistent.

4 out of 5 them dissented in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009.

That *minority* opinion would be another useful standard against which to measure the CAS ruling.
Jan. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David - since Plessy,regrettably,was entirely consistent with the then-prevalent mainstream thinking, the analogy seems wide of the mark.

A better standard to compare the CAS ruling with would be the majority decision in Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011).

You couldn't make up those facts, and get that result, because no one would believe you.
Jan. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Melanie - corruption seems to be a stretch.

I think it is preferable to apply Hanlon's Razor:

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
Jan. 16, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top