Dr Arie Geursen chairperson of the New Zealand Bridge Board, Life Member of New Zealand Bridge, erstwhile Chief Director of New Zealand Bridge, Officer of the Order of New Zealand for services to science and disgraceful low life liar.
This man despite his many accolades is nothing but a low life liar. I make this conclusion based on evidence he gave at a disciplinary hearing into my supposed inappropriate behaviour. In general his evidence was exaggerated and embellished but when questioned about his discourtesy towards me, he had told me to "shut up and listen", he broke into outright lying. That lying continued a couple of weeks later when he responded in writing to some written comments that I sent to his advocate, I mean the Disciplinary Committee Chair Kris Wooles.
Here are the details:
First a transcript of Geursen lying at the hearing 8th January 2014:
Wayne (I was speaking to Kris Wooles): Arie told me “shutup Wayne … shut up shut up and listen”
Liar Geursen: “When?”
Wayne: “That’s pretty discourteous”
Liar:“When?”
Wayne:“At the congress on…”
Liar: “What congress?”
Wayne: “The NZ National Congress“
Liar: “Which congress?”
Wayne: “October 2013 on the 4th of October, Friday morning”
Liar: “I can’t recall that”
Wayne: “Can’t you?”
Liar: “I would categorically deny it”
Liar: “I think it’s a figment of your imagination”
So the liar Geursen made a fuss of when exactly this had happened as if he didn't know. then adamantly denied making that statement. Its hard to imagine a statement more adamant - "categorically deny". And for good measure he threw in an attempt to mock me "its a figment of your imagination".
A couple of weeks later he responded to some questions and comments I wrote to Kris Wooles. In those comments I wrote:
"In the audio he tells me to "shut up and listen". This seems discourteous to me. He denied saying this.
Again this questions the veracity of his testimony?"
To which the liar responded:
"I have no recollection of being questioned at the recent hearing about me telling him to shut up. I do
recall Dr Wiggins being questioned at length about it and denying it" 22 January 2014 email response attachment to Kris Wooles.
Its surprising to the extent of being unbelievable that he could not recall the testimony. He made such a fuss, pretending to not know what I was referring to and as I have pointed out adamantly denying he had uttered that discourtesy.
While he responded on 22 January the email suggests it was a second attempt and my email with the comments were sent to Wooles on the 15th January so he would have had the comment sometime between a week and two weeks after the hearing on 8th January. Probably closer to one week.
Is it credible that such a distinguished scientist would not recall the details of a discussion only a few days earlier when he had uttered the lie that was so adamant that he had not told me to "shut up". No! I would categorically deny it was credible. If you think that then I think that is a figment of your imagination. If Geursen thinks that then it is definitely a figment of his imagination.
Why can I be so sure?
In between the oral hearing and responding to the written questions Geursen had the benefit of listening to the audio from 4th October 2013 in which he can categorically
be heard uttering the phrase "shut up and listen". So now it was convenient for him to try and weasel out of his lie by denying the lie had ever been uttered. Sorry Liar Geursen I have the offending conversation from October 2013 and the lie from 8th January 2014 both recorded. You don't get to lie then deny that you lied. Essentially that is just another lie.
What is more Geursen knew I had recorded him telling me to shutup. Here is the transcript of the relevant part of that conversation in which immediately after telling me to "shut up and listen" I informed him the conversation was recorded - NZ law allows the recording of a private conversation by any party to that conversation. I think the exception in the Crimes Act 216B2a is written deliberately to protect citizens from low life liars like Geursen. Enough here is the transcript:
Geursen : Wayne, Wayne,
WAYNE : There is no regulation
Geursen : Wayne shut up and listen you’ve got a simple answer
WAYNE : There is no regulation thank you. I have got that recorded.
So he was informed that he had been recorded telling me to shut-up but some how he conveniently forgot that he had told me to "shut up" and that he had been recorded. Very foolish.
It is unbelievable and sad that a man so willing to lie, even knowing he will be caught out, is the Chairperson of the New Zealand Bridge Board.
We are in very unsound hands.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Open Letter to the Board of NZ Bridge
Wayne Burrows
10 Glen Place
Palmerston North
16/11/2014
To whom it may concern,
Open letter to the board of NZ Bridge.
I read the minute quoted below in the NZ Bridge minutes 24 August 2014. It interested me as it obviously references the case involving me that was before the Bridge Appeal Tribunal. I am deeply concerned that the information provided to the NZ Bridge Board appears to be unrelated to any facts of the case and therefore that the NZ Bridge Board was manipulated into any decision made.
“Bridge Appeal Tribunal
Moved that as it appears that the appellant is not offering to settle consistent with the Tribunals Memorandum a further memorandum be authorised to be filed by our Counsel confirming that the Board seeks that the appeal be set down for hearing subject to each party providing appropriate security for costs, or otherwise be dismissed.”
In particular there is no basis for the statement “it appears that the appellant is not offering to settle consistent with the Tribunals Memorandum”. After receiving the ‘Tribunals Memorandum’ I had direct contact only with Fergus More the NZ Bridge honorary solicitor. There were two telephone calls and an email exchange in which Mr More sought information and I responded. The first telephone conversation was the most substantial. The second very brief, initiated by me and only clarified whether Mr More still required some additional information that we had previously discussed – he did not.
At no time in any of those conversations or emails with Mr More did I in any way indicate that I was unwilling to settle as per the ‘Tribunals Memorandum’. Any suggestion that I did so by Mr More or by any board member in the discussion, for example Graham Wakefield, was not based on any factual information.
I had what I considered were by and large constructive conversations with Mr More throughout the appeal process. In the significant telephone conversation in the period covered by the board minute Mr More offered to find out what assurances could be given to me that NZ Bridge would accept the conditions of the ‘Tribunals Memorandum’ going forward and indicated clearly to me that he would recommend to the board that they accept the resolution proposed in the ‘Tribunals Memorandum’. The following are direct quotes from Mr More in the conversation 15 August 2014:
1. “... my advice to NZ Bridge will be to accept what the tribunal is suggesting.”
2. “I want to ask of you what would you say would be enough to bring closure to the appeal?”
3. “Well why don’t you write to me, without prejudice to yourself with what you would want to be guaranteed in the sense of it going away. Do that for me.”
4. “I am going to go back to NZ Bridge and indicate that if we are to try and achieve an outcome to this appeal we wont look at what brought us to this point but we will look at the future to see what assurances can be given you in terms of how it is that you could continue in the future to play the game in circumstances where we dont actually have any of these old issues resurfacing”.
As stated the conversation was constructive and I believed Mr More and I were working towards a resolution in terms of the ‘Tribunals Memorandum’.
Subsequently NZ Bridge filed a memorandum as per the above minute from the NZ Bridge board that stated
“Counsel has indicated to the appellant that NZ Bridge would have accepted closure of the appeal proceedings as initiated “without prejudice” by the Tribunal Chair…”
Such statement was entirely false and inconsistent with any conversation or email that I had with Mr More. The memorandum filed also included the statement:
“Given Mr Burrows chooses not bring closure as the Chair has proposed”
I filed a letter to the tribunal chair that included:
“I never indicated at any stage, to NZ Bridge nor to Mr More, verbally or in writing, that I would not accept the conditions of the memorandum from the Tribunal Chair.”
Therefore the NZ Bridge memorandum based on the quoted minute was plainly and I believe deliberately false.
I am not writing to revisit the issues of the appeal nor of the prior decision by the CDDC, however I think it is particularly concerning that someone, superficially Mr More – as he was the only NZ Bridge representative that I had direct contact with (save for Graham Wakefield’s attendance at one teleconference with the appeal tribunal) – although I speculate more likely a board member, manipulated the NZ Bridge Board by providing them with false information that I would not accept a proposal and then subsequently wrote a memorandum to the Appeal Tribunal that was knowingly false with regard to information that NZ Bridge had ‘indicated’ to me and again indicated I was unwilling to settle, when no such information had been given to NZ Bridge from myself.
I hope that you would be equally concerned that as board members you have been manipulated by some seeking to be deliberately untruthful.
I also hope that as board members you would call to account those among you who have provided the board with false information in this regard.
Yours faithfully
Wayne Burrows
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Palmerston North Open 18th October 2014
Two hands from the Palmerston North Open with a common theme illustrate that it is not always correct to lead your 'longest and strongest'.
The first was perpetrated against us by Amy Thomson. On lead against 3 NT she spurned her five-card heart suit and led the ♠ K. This was spectacularly successful when partner cooperated with jack-fifth. Note a heart lead, simultaneously, knocks out partner's entry, establishes two heart tricks for declarer, and gives declarer the time to set up their diamonds.
East's hearts are certainly her longest but its moot whether they are the 'longest and strongest'.
| Board 10 East Deals Both Vul |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| West | North | East | South |
| Compton | Davidson | Thomson | Burrows |
| Pass | Pass | ||
| Pass | 1 ♣ | Pass | 2 ♣ |
| Pass | 3 NT | Pass | Pass |
| Pass |
| 3 NT by North |
| Lead: ♠ K |
We did some double dummy analysis, similar to Bird and Anthias, to test the best lead. We dealt 1000 hands consistent with the bidding and looked at the double dummy result with forced leads from spades and hearts. The ♠ K lead resulted in an average of 9.376 tricks for declarer while a heart lead resulted in an average of 9.454 tricks for declarer. Further the ♠ K defeated 3 NT, 234 times in the sample whilst a heart lead defeated 3 NT only 213 times. While this was a moral victory for the non-standard short suit lead neither difference (average tricks and proportion defeated) were statistically significant. Subsequently we did a larger sample of 10000 hands and there the spade lead was a small, but statistically significant, amount better in terms of both beating 3 NT and the number of tricks for the defence.
| Board 16 West Deals E-W Vul |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| West | North | East | South |
| Davidson | Burrows | ||
| Pass | Pass | 1 ♣ | 2 ♥ |
| Pass | Pass | 2 NT | Pass |
| 3 NT | Pass | Pass | Pass |
| 3 NT by East |
| Lead: ♠ Q |
A session later, I faced a similar problem. Again the lead from honour-honour-ex was spectacular.
In fact I had additional information. West had waited out the ten seconds while I had the stop card on the table and then decided to question my partner on the meaning of 2 ♥. How it could help her decision - I do not know. What she was thinking of bidding - I do not know. All those sort of questions can do is convey information to the table which may help the opponents and constrain her partner. Apparently her partner did not feel constrained as she made the gross overbid of 2 NT. The expert I polled - an unbiased sample of one - said "I will have to pass" when given the auction "1 ♣ (2 ♥) Pass (Pass); ?"
The laws require east to not choose from among logical alternatives one suggested by the additional information. Partner having values certainly suggests action rather than inaction. I believe 2 NT is taking advantage of the unauthorised information and should be not allowed and punished under Law 73C.
On this occasion karma delivered -300 for the 2 NT bidder.
Again a statistical analysis of the double dummy results found that the ♠ Q lead average 9.053 tricks for declarer and defeated 3 NT 391 times. This time the difference compared with a heart lead was marked with the heart lead resulting in 9.997 tricks (nearly a trick worse for the defenders) and defeated the contract only 142 times. These were statistically significant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
