Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Maurizio Sacco
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, actually this part is subjected to regulations (personally, I'm in favour of it). Tablet can be set either way (allow infractions or not). We will see when the Committee meets (very soon), but I expect general approval.
Jan. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The good reason for not using cards is not seeing your partner, so taking away a possible source of unauthorised informations and cheating actions. I attended an important event in Budapest, where cards were not used and everybody looked happy. Obviously, the further problem is to whether to play at the same table at all (like it was done in Budapest: the players were seating behind a screen, but at the same table), because noises, or any movement, are potential sources of UI and/or cheating. Playing at different tables takes away a great deal of the social aspect of bridge, but sociality is not what we seek when it comes to high level play (or, at least, is not the main goal).
Jan. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since it looks like you bought the book, you can :) BTW: the title is just the translation, word by word, of its original: Il Blue Team nella storia del bridge". What I added to the original book were the notes: nearly 500.
Oct. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is worth adding to David's comment that the experts are polled also to determine whether there's a relation between the UI and the action under examination. Using the Laws' wording, they're asked whether they believe the action was demonstrably suggested or not. Whether this has been done by the TDs or not, and how, is also part of the review procedure.
Sept. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The virdict is not appealable, thus it is final. It will become executive fifteen days after the deposit of the motivations. This ends up the legal proceedings in Europe, other than for possible lawsuits.
July 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because the fact that the team uses some agreement, is not a proof that a particular pair does the same. It is obvious. A TD cannot rely on that fact. What I find odd, is to have had the misunderstanding.
March 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What you are clearly missing is that NS certainly could not prove their agreement. Otherwise, yes, the decision would not make sense, but I'm not prepared to believe it.
March 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not just strange: outlaw. That's why cannot be that Bilde-Madala could prove that South was right. Most likely, this is what they tried to argue, but failed to produce a solid evidence.
March 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One more point: since the double was related to the infraction, that was not - or should not have been - what the TDs were investigating. They were, instead, deciding whether the doble could have been considered as a double shot (in which case didn't need to be unrelated to the infraction, differently than an “extremely serious error”). STill, even if they had came to that conclusion, the final outcome would have been a split score: table result for Berg (-1) and -12 for Lavazza. Being a KO, it would have meant Berg winning anyhow.
March 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very strange. The whole Lavazza team (well, all the Italian experts) play the same, and from at least 20 years. Madala and Bilde had already played a few sets of boards. I'm wondering how's possible Bilde mixed up what should have been simple routine.
March 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ebl members do sign a treat, don't they? And in doing voluntarily so, they are legally, and even more important morally bound to observe its terms. As for the general principle, obviously there are differences between different countries' legal systems, and that's why, for example, Italy and, i believe, England, would not extradite to USA or Saudi Arabia someone who will be liable for death penalty there. Still, in Italy he/she will be held in prison for life, unless proven that his /her human, civil and/or legal rights were violated. This is completely different than saying that every country has its own full autonomy in criminal cases.
Feb. 5, 2018
Maurizio Sacco edited this comment Feb. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, it's me, and I do confirm my position. I do believe in lawfull processes: the FIGB, which has been informed, is now called upon to act against a violation of its regulation, and the penalties can be extremely severe (kind of twenty years ago someone was expelled for the same reason). I'm not a FIGB judge or prosecutor, nor I'm an EBL, WBF, CAS judge or prosecutor. Justice must be done in courts. On site, as Gonzalo Goded can confirm, I sought a decision of the AEB. Since I'm here, though I agree with David Burn about his legal view of such cases, I strongly disagree when it comes to saying that an NBO should not have the power to decide whether a player can play somewhere else or not. When someone is convicted for robbery in England, I'm pretty sure that England will do all it can for the guy to be caught and arrested anywhere in the world. In other words, a criminal - obviously so proven by a proper court and through a proper legal processe which save all his/her rights - should not be allowed to walk free anywhere, should he (she)?
Feb. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, Melanie, I'm not such an expert on the subject, but the reciprocity applies all over Europe, including EBL (which uses the same wethod used by WBF: see below), and to play a WBF event you have to be in good standing with your federation (when you register for an event, the system automatically checks with your federation whether you are, or not). So, as far as i know, unless they can manage to anticipate the hearing scheduled on december 2018, and to get a favourable verdict in time, they should not be able to play in Orlando.
Jan. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who the three members are is not so relevant: CAS is an arbitration, so two members are biased by definition, each being nominated by the parties. The only one who really counts is the President.
Jan. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
EBL not WBF
Jan. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It might be worth noting that in Italy FN are still suspended, because the Italian CAS (as member of CONI, the Italian Olympic Committee, we have two internal judgments, then the Court of Arbitration of CONI) upheld the decision of the FIGB. So, two tribunals of, somehow, the same sort, decided differently. Perhaps, a great deal has to do with how the case was presented. Once finished with the sport justice, FN now are through our administrative justice: the first hearing is scheduled on December 2018, after a request for the ban to be temporarily suspended was denied something like six months ago. This shows that in Italy the shield of CONI (IOC) works just fine. The Italian ban applies all over Europe.If FIGB had not been a member of CONI, FN could have filed a lawsuit.
Jan. 11, 2018
Maurizio Sacco edited this comment Jan. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Being part, or not, of the IOC, is not at all the problem. The German doctors were not acquitted (more or less) by CAS, but by a civil court. Not being part of IOC would not shield us from civil lawsuits. Acyually, I believe we have a better chance to find some agreement with CAS about the standard of proofs, than with civil courts of a few different countries.
Jan. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My choice for team Cayne's match is due both to that team itself (Versace-Lauria and young Donati are worth watching) and their opponents too. An Indian team which might well prove to be a tough challenge.
July 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations, see you in Lyon
May 10, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top