Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Paul Weinstock
1 2 3 4 ... 44 45 46 47
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jurgen, look again at what I've wrote. Your last line in your comment up-thread was out of context, and I think you should scrape it instead of further explaining. That's all.
March 16
Paul Weinstock edited this comment March 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michal, you're so funny I gonna cry… :(
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why should the 4 bid guarantee the ace of ?
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jurgen writes:

“I do think I now understand the ACBL+ calamity better”.

Objection overruled. It was better not to write that last line. If you connect between such things you understand nothing.
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations for a great win !!
Way to go Sharon, from a long time fan :).
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I would think that the decisions of a bridge organisation are 100% fair and flawless,I could agree to that. But we all know, unfortunately, that this is not the case.
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Respect, Rui !!

Very good and enlightening article.
March 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South's pass, BIT or not, should not be forcing ?

If someone wants to search into it, thinking would convey the message that South has doubts about bidding 5 himself or letting pd into the picture for an advice (double or 5 from pd).
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
None.
Feb. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think I played the board in a robot game yesterday. My play was A, ruff, to the A, ruff, A, K, ruff, spades from the top and in the end-game I had a squeeze - available or impass. I don't want to add more details, in order not to spoil it.
Feb. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree fully.
Feb. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem has been given to me by a friend. That was the bidding at the table. His question was about the continuation over responder's 3 only, he had no real problem with any previous bid.

Even if all the players were very good tournament players, in this special game the 3 bid is acceptable. I don't agree with it, personally.
Feb. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gene said :

“If the law is clear, then you wouldn't need a director”.

Huh ?

OK, then you (almost) never need one.
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree to your first paragraph. But the DC too took on themselves to challenge a large number of world class players' competence, ethics, whatever, so they deservedly should feel that burden on their shoulders.

Exactly because of that you are so right in the second paragraph. To publish the transcript of the hearing would be the only way to get clear in the open, for them and for B/Z.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why, it's not clear ? It was not suitable for the espresso served to the DC.

Let's be serious, Ron, don't bury your head in the sand. There could be no reason to discard experts based on that. Any.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ron said: “…Are you asking what if the ”judges“ made a mistake? Yes that is possible. In legal cases there is the possibility of an appeal. How would we know though that this is the case?…”.

By discussing it, Ron.

If we shut up, they'll do it again. Even if we don't shut up, more or less probable that they'll do it again, only with more care (Polish Club expertise ?! What a nonsense of a reason to discard prosecution experts…).
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These are the names of the DC of EBL who delivered the verdict on the four cases of alleged cheating:

Fischer-Schwartz
President: Mr. Jurica Caric (CRO), Members: Mr. Gabor Winkler (HUN), Mr. Rex Anderson (IRL).

Piekarek-Smirnov
President: Mr. Jurica Caric (CRO), Members: Mr. Gabor Winkler (HUN), Mr. P.O. Sundelin (SWE).

Fantoni-Nunes
President: Mr.Jurica Caric (CRO), Members: Mr. P.O.Sundelin (SWE), Mr. Rex Anderson (IRL).

Balicki-Zmudzinski
President: Mr. Gabor Winkler (HUN), Members: Mr. Peter Schaltz (DEN), Mr. Rex Anderson (IRL).

I wonder if Mr. Peter Schaltz was brought in for the B/Z case as an expert in Polish Club…
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW, Eugene, interesting that an article with 370 comments and counting is not labeled “trending”.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Beautiful diatribe, Amir. Really agree with every word. But beside my point.

The point is “,,, IF they win IBF and/or IBF officials could be crippled financially, and then we all pay…”. Explain then to the judge that we have already paid in full.

I suggest we, and surely IBF, would learn something from ACBL's very careful and sometimes annoying legal approach.
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. Actually, paying for the procedures seems OK with me.
2. Reimbursement is impossible, and you know it. Not in this case and not in the other two cases “solved”.
3. The downside of an appeal to a civil court is that IF they win IBF and/or IBF officials could be crippled financially, and then we all pay.
Feb. 17
1 2 3 4 ... 44 45 46 47
.

Bottom Home Top