Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Okan Zabunoglu
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I support Poland from now on.
I see merits in their winning!
Sept. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Credentials Committee of WBF decided to send the most noted pair of Poland home.
And as far as I know, no objections arose. It looks almost obvious that this was because of (at least) non-ethical conduct of that pair in 2014 EC, since that is all the evidence submitted to WBF, as Boye says. (Note that Poland qualified for BB with that pair's contributions.)

Furthermore, WBF allowed Poland to replace that pair with a new one, while a disqualification would seem normal/reasonable, from where I stand. (I wonder if the regulations required the replacement.)

I am NOT saying that the evidence is clear or Poland is fishy or guilty or something like that.

Imo, if the Committee of WBF made such a brave (!) decision, Poland should not have been playing there, one way or another; or Poland should have called the Indian police (not the sheriff) to protect the rights of her pair, insisting on playing as full-team, or withdrawing as full-team as a last resort.

Poland's playing like this does not only shadow the decision of the committee, but also the general view on Poland's NBO (which was really respectable as far as I know), and also has the potential to dampen the whole event. I wonder how WBF allowed this and why Poland acted this way.

The whole thing does not make any sense to me.

NOTE: Maybe I just don't know enough and I am afraid that will never know what exactly led to the current situation.
Sept. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do not worry Subhransu !
It has already been an unforgettable one, and I hope it will turn out to be a milestone.

EDIT: I just noticed that this has been very similar to what Matthias said, but I am not gonna delete it since India needs all the morale.
Sept. 26, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Breaking the code is necessary, again.
Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
me too, Franck.
Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hermod: Not really conspiracy, l would call it ‘an important divergence from the purpose that I perceived’.

EDIT: “Hermod” was added.
Sept. 25, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Sept. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think that Norway should replace a team from this point on even if she deserves it.
Sept. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
deleted (instead, just liked the comment above)
Sept. 25, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A bigger problem (imo) with the CNBC coverage:

In the CNBC video (about 2-minute part I watched), a short time after the speaker pronounced the names of the Israeli pair, she said that the world number 1 and 2 were also caught, nearly at the same time, on the upper right corner of the screen, the heading “German Bridge Cheaters” with the names under showed up and stayed there for a while.

I wonder why Fantoni and Nunes and Italy and Monaco were not mentioned at all.

Besides, if someone who is not aware of what's happened/happening in the bridge world watched it, he/she would naturally suppose that the two Germans are the world number 1 and 2.

I find it bad, misleading journalism; to say the least.

EDIT: The link for the video was added. http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000424111

Sept. 25, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Sept. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like the quotation more than the original, because it covers the deviation resulting (in practice) from historical reliance of A, to a proper degree, in my opinion.
Sept. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well presented and very rich, thank you. It contains so many fine, logical and educative points that I can use it as a side dish when I next get together with my bridge buddies at a supper.
Sept. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know if you meant this one:

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-end-of-the-beginning/?cj=230473#c230473
Sept. 19, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with the first paragraph, yet I am not sure how your ‘pool’ suggestion works in practice.

Here is another disadvantage (or maybe advantage for some):

Since half a table is needed for 2 pairs, ‘semi-table presence’ will suffice.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo, I agree with you in essence. Let me add this though:

It is normal that a system (I don't know if it is correct to name it “system”, as you call it “cheat-buster movement”) originally designed to prove guilt of the suspected may not be as successful when it comes to proving innocence of the suspected. Some betterment or tuning is necessary, imo.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does this mean that the system is working (in all cases)?
Do ‘they’ (whoever they are) all agree that nothing was found?
Sept. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I mostly agree, Nick. But, in addition, this post has also put forward very good clues for those who want to identify the third pair. I think, your guess (75 %) has now raised significantly.
Sept. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK then, tell me the 4th :)
Sept. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I have not missed a related comment, I am afraid that one basic question may go untouched:

How to make players (and especially newcomers) never dream of cheating?“
(As Roy Welland stated, regarding Peter Fredin.)

An easy answer might be: Create an environment in which one never thinks of cheating.

A more popular, yet profounder answer is ”education, education, education".

NOTE: Please do not say that word out loud, because first of all young people hate to hear it (at least with respect to my own observation).
Sept. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Incidently, while I was trying to get some info about ‘hypothesis testing’, I ran into this sub-heading in Wikipedia: “Fisher's null hypothesis testing”.

What a coincidence!. :)
Sept. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Magnus: then, would it be certainly accurate to state that it is less likely to find average people among those who are into statistics?!
Sept. 12, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top