  A critique of a prescription of non-locality in [Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4418
(2000)], [Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 040404 (2002)], [Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 130404
(2004)] that appears to be stronger and more general than the Bell-CHSH
formulation is presented. It is shown that, contrary to expectations, this
prescription fails to correctly identify a large family of maximally non-local
Bell states.
