Cheating and alleged cheating : The Katz- Cohen affair
Sartaj Hans
and their suspension midway through the 1977 (78?) US team trials.
Allegedly, coughs and sniffs were used to send messages.
Yesterday, I came across a book Scandal in Houston by Danny Kleinmann
that gives the impression that it was an unfair conviction.
Looking for comments on
a) source of information for ACBL version of affair
b) any refutation of Kleinmann book.
c) any other piece of gossip on matter !
N. Silver
http://www.sabf.co.za/zonals2005/bulletins/bulletin5.pdf
If you go to the end of this bulletin, there is a brief
summary of what happened.
They sued the ACBL for reinstatement and won.
The ACBL stages just about all the events where
bridge pros can earn a living.
li...@sanfranmail.com
> If you go to the end of this bulletin, there is a brief
> summary of what happened.
Thanks for providing this link.
I also found this nice bit about a former Italian cheating
scandal (sorry to all my Italian friends), but the most
amazing ruling was made by the governing body at the time.
I don't remember hearing about this one:
The Bermuda Incident
The annual Bermuda Bowl world championship saw Italy and
the United States playing in the 1975 final. There,
American reporter Bruce Keidan would uncover one of the most
infamous cheating scandals ever.
While watching one of the Italian pairs, Gianfranco Facchini
and Sergio Zucchelli, Keidan noticed unusual foot actions
between the two. The reporter found the players tapping
each other's feet under the table in an apparent attempt to
relay information about their hands. Cheating is of course
illegal and normally grounds for expulsion from any bridge
organization. Keidan's discovery, which was confirmed by
several witnesses, was eventually presented to the presiding
authorities of the event, who "severely reprimanded" Facchini
and Zucchelli for their activity but allowed the players to
continue competing in the event. Ironically, although the
Italians were allowed to stay, the Bermuda Bowl authorities
placed blocks underneath the tables to prevent any further
foot contact.
American captain Alfred Sheinwld was angered by the Solomic
decision and stated that his team would resign from the match.
Only by threats made to Sheinwold by the United States'
governing body, the American Contract Bridge League, was his
team coerced into finishing the event. (The ACBL did not want
a huge public embarrrassment that refusing to play would cause.)
Italy won the event, 215-189 (International Match Points). By
all accounts, Facchini and Zucchelli quickly faded from the
international bridge circuit thereafter.
Well, I am left nearly speechless after reading this. So, the
ACBL isn't new to absolutely idiotic decisions. I have a new-
found respect for Alfred Sheinwold, and a distinct distaste for
the decisions made in this matter by all the officials involved.
Letting them continue to play after finding them cheating? What
in hell does "severely reprimanded" mean anyway? By putting
blocks under the table to prevent more cheating? Appalling.
And the ACBL "coerced" the team to continue against guys caught
cheating? The biggest part of this scandal is how it was handled
by the authorities, making what happened at Tenerife seem all the
more laudable.
Cheers -
Lindy
Andrew Gumperz
I have read the book and reviewed all 108 hands it contains. As I
understand it, Danny Kleinman is a friend of Katz and Cohen and
self-published the book as a defense of his friends.
If the facts of the accusation are as Kleinman reports them, then the
ACBL was completely unable to tie K-C's behavior to actions on hands
and did indeed railroad them out of the tournament. The ACBL told K-C
the trials were over and their only choice was to resign or see their
names dragged through the mud. If they agreed to resign, they were told
the matter would be handled discretely. As soon as K-C resigned, the
ACBL broke their word and trumpeted the resignation to the press as
evidence of guilt.
K-C may have been guilty--I am inclined to believe they were--but the
ACBL had no proof, and so chose to intimidate them out instead. That
being said, if I were an innocent, well-to-do Doctor accused of
cheating in the trials, my first call would have been to my lawyer. My
second statement would have been to tell the ACBL they would have a
mighty big libel suit on thier hand if the accused me of cheating in
the press. Since K-C did not go this route, I can only assume they were
either gullible milquetoasts or feared that they had been caught
red-handed.
The Evidence of the Hands
Danny Kleinman is about as far from an impartial observer as you can
find and his laughable analysis of the hands reflects that fact. His
analysis is a classic example of an analyst emphasizing the irrelevant
and ignoring actual facts that might point towards guilt (or
innocence). He focuses on an indirect measure, IMPs won/lost on boards,
rather than on direct indications like bids and leads which work
suspiciously well, or choices that work very badly.
So I did my own analysis. I reviewed the auctions on every board. My
method was first to look for any systemic deviations. I wanted to find
out if they violated system in any profitable ways. I found none. Many
of their "suspicious" auctions were the result of people not
understanding their system (which was admittedly a pretty stupid
one--their only natural club opening was 3C(!)). However, they were
consistent with their published methods. This consistency cost them a
vulnerable game swing when their methods caused them to pass out a
1-level partscore when any beginner playing SAYC would reach a game in
the other major. If they had had UI during the auction, they almost
certainly would have responded to the opening bid on this hand. Not
only was game cold, but it was easy to bid.
Second, I looked for variations in bidding style, especially situations
where a player had close bidding decisions:
* invite/not invite
* preempt/not preempt
* double/pass
I could not find a single instance where the players deviated from
their apparent style. To my eyes, the auctions presented absolutely no
evidence of the possession of UI.
My review of the opening leads was another matter. My method was to
examine each lead without looking at the other hands and to ask how I
would rate the leads from that hand. When I found a lead that was very
different from my own choice, I would ask several expert players what
they would do with the hand. On the overwhelming majority of the hands,
K-C made the normal lead. There were three where K-C made offbeat lead
choices--by the consensus of several American experts--in all cases the
odd leads worked out nicely for them.
So my conclusion was that they may have been signalling the location of
honor strength to the opening leader. However three hands out of 108 is
hardly enough for an iron-clad case. Unfortunately, 108 hands just did
not provide enough good cheating opportunities. I think you'd need a
sample of at least 1000 hands to come to a conclusive belief about
cheating based on this type of hand analysis.
Also, I have discussed the allegation in depth with two west coast
experts who were frequent opponents of K-C in top-level bridge. Both of
them were convinced of their guilt. One of them said rather flippantly
that given the stupidity of their bidding system, they almost had to be
cheating to win. The other had a slightly more substantive explanation
for his opinion. He gave me an opening lead problem where the choice
between a club and a diamond was extremely close. After long thought I
chose a club. He said that when he gives this problem to others, the
result is invariably the same--after long thought either a club or a
diamond. He said that at the table when an honest player is in this
situation, he always feels some anxiety which shows up in eagerness to
see the dummy or in small reactions to the sight of the dummy. When K-C
had this problem, they also went into a long tank. But when dummy hit,
the leader was completely relaxed. The expert's conclusion: the leader
already knew that he had made the right choice.
Andrew
N. Silver
> Ironically, although the Italians were allowed to stay,
> the Bermuda Bowl authorities placed blocks underneath
> the tables to prevent any further foot contact.
> Well, I am left nearly speechless after reading this....
The real irony is that the Americans did much
better when the cheating pair were in and
eventually lost to the Blue Team when Facchini
and Zucchelli went to the sidelines.
Sartaj Hans
However, your claim about their system being stupid is baseless. 3C as
a natural opening is a style played by a few even today, notably
Newell-Reid of NZ who are frequent internationals.
To me the KC system was an attemmpted improvement over a strong club.
By using 2C for the real big hands, their one club became fairly
limited.
Today, one of the best systems around would be Moscito with relays. I
have played it with one of its creators and current caretaker, Paul
Marston. In Moscito, the major changes that have been occuring over the
last few years have to do with the dealing of the semi-positives, the 5
- 8 count hands. It goes to show that there are some issues involves in
playing a strong club, that leading theorists like Paul are trying to
address even today.
The Katz Cohen Breakthrough system was simply another attempt at
solving the problem.
Playing 3C as a natural opening bid with clubs is not the end of the
world, if you can get all the additional mileage out of your strong
club and GF 2 clubs.
As to your argument about them missing a game that a beginner would
bid playing SAYC. Any strong clubber will have his share of exhibits.
But then , any strong clubber will also point out hands like
AKJxx
x
AKxxx
Kx
xx
-
xxxxxx
xxxx
Where SAYC beginners and world champions played in 1S with slam in a
minor cold. (The original hand was markedly different from this one, in
the book Power Precision by Sontag where Americans played 1 of a suit
passed out. I have manufactured the above hand in the spirit of issue
at hand)
Your theory that K-C were really exchanging lead information is
credible. But needed more of a sample as you point out to make them
culpable.
The general opinion is that their withdrawing from the trials makes
them culpable. No one seems to give weight to their own claims as to
why they did what they did. According to Scandal in Houston, they were
not even officially informed what the charges against them were. They
were told that the trials were over (whether or not they withdrew).
The human mind does not always work in a clear precise fashion in a
moment of upheavel.
To hold them accountable for "abnormal" behavior in the face of
accusations is a fundamental oversight around how human nature works.
Andrew Gumperz
> Thanks for the detailed reply.
>
> However, your claim about their system being stupid is baseless. 3C as
> a natural opening is a style played by a few even today, notably
> Newell-Reid of NZ who are frequent internationals.
Its not the natural constructive 3C opening that is the problem. Its
the lack of a natural 1C or 2C opening. And that was far from the
biggest problem with their system.
> To me the KC system was an attemmpted improvement over a strong club.
> By using 2C for the real big hands, their one club became fairly
> limited.
>
> Today, one of the best systems around would be Moscito with relays. I
> have played it with one of its creators and current caretaker, Paul
> Marston. In Moscito, the major changes that have been occuring over the
> last few years have to do with the dealing of the semi-positives, the 5
> - 8 count hands. It goes to show that there are some issues involves in
> playing a strong club, that leading theorists like Paul are trying to
> address even today.
>
> The Katz Cohen Breakthrough system was simply another attempt at
> solving the problem.
I am pretty sure the system was invented by Larry Weiss. Katz-Cohen
just played it.
> As to your argument about them missing a game that a beginner would
> bid playing SAYC. Any strong clubber will have his share of exhibits.
> But then , any strong clubber will also point out hands like
Before defending their methods with the "different systems have
different holes theory", look at the size of this hole.
Their systemic response to a 1H opening with a non-fitting 0-9 HCP and
no 5-card suit is "pass". Yet their 1H opening encompasses hands such
as these:
* AKxx, AKxxxx, x, xx
* x, AKxxx, AKxxx, xx
I'd say thats a sizable hole. But really, its all beside the point.
Almost any system will work enough of the time to be playable and this
system certainly was playable. It was not nearly as bad as my expert
friend joked that it was.
> Your theory that K-C were really exchanging lead information is
> credible. But needed more of a sample as you point out to make them
> culpable.
Yep. And at the time, no one offered any theory that could be supported
by facts as to what information they were signalling or how they were
doing it. If Kleinman's reports are accurate, then the ACBL was
completely unable to justify their actions. So, in a legal sense, K-C
were clearly innocent. No one could prove they cheated, and therefore
the action taken against them was unwarranted.
> The general opinion is that their withdrawing from the trials makes
> them culpable. No one seems to give weight to their own claims as to
> why they did what they did. According to Scandal in Houston, they were
> not even officially informed what the charges against them were. They
> were told that the trials were over (whether or not they withdrew).
Why should they believe what they were told? A credible threat of a
multi-million dollar law suit probably would have reversed that
decision by the ACBL. In America, everything is negotiable. All you
have got to do is get yourself some negotiating leverage. And a good
libel lawsuit against a not particularly deep pocket organization is
leverage.
> The human mind does not always work in a clear precise fashion in a
> moment of upheavel.
> To hold them accountable for "abnormal" behavior in the face of
> accusations is a fundamental oversight around how human nature works.
Your arguments are of course true. People don't always think rationally
under stress and it is wrong to assume that an admission of guilt
necessarily means the person committed the acts of which they are
accused. However, an admission of guilt does make probable the person
is guilty--in practice many more poeple who admit guilt (even
implicitly) are guilty than are innocent.
And really, this is the crux of the cheating debate that so frequently
occurs on RGB. One group believes that practical odds in favor of
cheating justifies loose accusatory talk about the parties in question.
Another group feels that as long as there is some chance the accused
are not guilty, it is offensive to make such statements.
On this particular case, unless the ACBL had information which was not
printed in the Kleinman book, Katz and Cohen got the shaft. The ACBL
could not back up their accusations to anyone's satisfaction. The
evidence against Reese and Schapiro looks rock-solid in comparison to
the evidence against Katz and Cohen. Even guilty people deserve to have
a substantial case built against them before consequences are forced
upon them.
However, shafted or not, I am also guessing that K-C really were
guilty. You can find a couple of opening leads in the book which would
be the 2nd, 3rd or 10th choice of most experts, yet are successful and
you can't find examples of similar leads working badly. And I have the
opinion of many contemporaries of theirs that something felt off about
their table presence. Yeah, that last point is slim, but these guys
make a living judging that flicker in a player's eyes before he leads
or bids. They deserve some credit for an abilty to smell a rat when
players consistently don't flicker in the expected ways.
Andrew
Thomas Dehn
"Andrew Gumperz" <agum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sartaj Hans wrote:
> > Thanks for the detailed reply.
> >
> > However, your claim about their system being stupid is baseless. 3C as
> > a natural opening is a style played by a few even today, notably
> > Newell-Reid of NZ who are frequent internationals.
>
> Its not the natural constructive 3C opening that is the problem. Its
> the lack of a natural 1C or 2C opening. And that was far from the
> biggest problem with their system.
There exist other expert pairs playing such systems.
For example, there is a German pair who has to open
1D on 2-2-1-8 distribution. When opener then rebids
clubs later, responder has to guess whether its a 4-5, a 3-6,
or a 0-9 canape. That pair does think that the system
has other advantages which are more important
than that little stupidity. (No, they are not cheating. You
can see the "Ouch, he has opened 1D again" look
on responder's face.)
Thomas
Lorne
"N. Silver" <mat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:N82ye.1076045$w62.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
The published information I have seen does not support this statement - they
threatened to sue but it never got to court and in a situation where only
the lawyers were going to win they reached a compromise where the players
were allowed to play but only if they agreed not to partner each other.
Nobody won, and nobody based on published information could possibly know
whether anything wrong did or did not take place.
You could easily argue that Katz/Cohen would not agree to this compromise if
they were not guilty or you could argue the ACBL would not agree if they
were sure of their facts but on the other hand the ACBL probably could not
finance a defence of the law suit so might compromise whatever the facts
were and Katz/Cohen wanted to play bridge so might agree to conditions just
to get it over with.
Bob Lipton
Yup. And therefore by the "if they're not profiting by it they can't
be cheating" reasoning used elsewhere -- particularly by the defense
for Reese and Schapiro -- they couldn't have been cheating.
Bob
pumpk...@hotmail.com
Andrew;
If you read Edgar Kaplan's Bridge World report on the 1977 Team Trials
(the first two reports were entitled Road to Manila; the last one,
which reported the aftermath, was entitled Freeway to Manila), he adds
another possible avenue you might want to explore. He references a
couple of situations in which K-C made unusual competitive decisions
(usually whether to overcall, or balance) that worked out very well
indeed.
Cheers.
Nick
pumpk...@hotmail.com
Andrew;
henry...@yahoo.com
trials. i simply wish to add a few additional observations (and i
hasten to add that i wasn't in houston at the time).
first, using 1c and 2c as artificial opening bids was justified by katz
and cohen as a way of limiting the 1c opening bid and thereby to
incorporate natural bidding into the 1c response structure. in dicking
around with the system after i bought the book in the late 1970s, i
found that method unsatisfactory. still, other systems have
incorporated artificial 1c and 2c opening bids (such as roman, leghorn,
simplified club and weird versions of blue team club where 2c = natural
or any three suiter).
second, those who wonder why katz and cohen caved in should remember
that when an organization has it out for you, you are often in an
impossible position when it comes to self-defense. especially when the
trial would come to arguing hunches or table feel or those
non-quantifiable factors, chances of successfully defending oneself
against an organization are small. i know, because i lost a job at a
seminary based on repeated but unsubstantiated rumors of my concern
about my students' lack of philosophical acumen. the fact that it
wasn't true didn't stop the administration for deciding not to pick up
my contract. moreover, my school spread rumors about my mental
instability to other potential employers, which pretty much killed any
chance i had to continue in the academic world.
third, there was no evidentiary hearing on the matter. whether
kleinman is right or whether others are right is a matter of opinion.
like andrew, i found that criticism of katz and cohen at the time was
based more on a misunderstanding of their system than anything else
(the leads, of course, are different). like andrew, i didn't see katz
or cohen stepping out of character in those hands.
finally, there is the lew mathe factor. his statement, after katz and
cohen resigned from the acbl, was to the effect that as president of
the acbl he would never allow katz and cohen to represent the acbl in
international competition. if this is true, then the acbl really
screwed over rosenkrantz, bates, and mohan. at the very least,
rosenkrantz as sponsor and captain should have been advised to carry a
6th team member so that play could resume.
reminisences from a participant in that trial can be found in john
swanson's book inside the bermuda bowl.
henrysun909
Ron Johnson
Andrew Gumperz <agum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>However, shafted or not, I am also guessing that K-C really were
>guilty. You can find a couple of opening leads in the book which would
>be the 2nd, 3rd or 10th choice of most experts, yet are successful and
>you can't find examples of similar leads working badly.
FWIW that's the basis of the accusations against the Manoppos
as well. And several of their spectacular successes have
been given to panels like the MSC.
It's at minimum interesting that on one hand nobody on
the panel even mentioned the successful choice.
I know it was a low card from either Axx or Kxx
in a suit bid by declarer. Catching partner with
the other high honor doubleton, but can't locate
the issue in question or the reports at the time.
--
RNJ
Andrew Gumperz
I remember one or two such aggressive decisions made by Dick Katz, and
they did not look like good bridge to my eyes. But then again, plenty
of experts use an idiosyncratic bidding style that violates my, or
Edgar's, norms of what consitutes "good" bidding. So selecting one or
two aggressive decisions that worked out well is not a reliable way to
spot cheating.
To my mind, the only reliable way is to find inconsistent bidding
decisions--similar hands in similar situations where a player makes
dissimilar choices which happen to work out well. And 108 hands did not
provide enough of those.
Anyways, throughout the trials, Katz was consistent--he made the
aggressive choice every time he had a competitive bidding decision,
some of those worked out quite well, others less so. So while he may
have in the auction cheated, I cant say that the hands represented
unambiguous evidence of it.
Andrew
Lavern Wiebe
"Andrew Gumperz" <agum...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120462538....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Sartaj Hans wrote:
>> Thanks for the detailed reply.
>>
>> solving the problem.
>
> I am pretty sure the system was invented by Larry Weiss. Katz-Cohen
> just played it.
>
>
invented by the person who married us, Bob Sundby. :)
He documents the system in a book called Bridge in the 80s. Bob also
includes a chapter in it on the Katz-Cohen affair, where he analyzes the
auctions from a Breakthrough perspective.
Lavern
pumpk...@hotmail.com
Andrew Gumperz wrote:
> >
> I remember one or two such aggressive decisions made by Dick Katz, and
> they did not look like good bridge to my eyes. But then again, plenty
> of experts use an idiosyncratic bidding style that violates my, or
> Edgar's, norms of what consitutes "good" bidding. So selecting one or
> two aggressive decisions that worked out well is not a reliable way to
> spot cheating.
>
> To my mind, the only reliable way is to find inconsistent bidding
> decisions--similar hands in similar situations where a player makes
> dissimilar choices which happen to work out well. And 108 hands did not
> provide enough of those.
>
> Anyways, throughout the trials, Katz was consistent--he made the
> aggressive choice every time he had a competitive bidding decision,
> some of those worked out quite well, others less so. So while he may
> have in the auction cheated, I cant say that the hands represented
> unambiguous evidence of it.
You're quite right-the key would be finding inconsistency. And it's
certainly true that one would not have characterized Edgar's
competitive style as being aggressive.
However, I seem to recall Edgar made a point of high-lighting two hands
that suggested precisely such an inconsistency. On one Katz took a
particularly aggressive competitive action (and found pard had just the
right mitt); not long after, in a closely analogous situation, he took
a quite conservative view and pard had a near bust.
Mind you, as you point out, the sample size Edgar reviewed was obvously
far too small to be significant.
Cheers.
Nick
David Stevenson
>The ACBL stages just about all the events where
>bridge pros can earn a living.
Oh, yes? Strange. I did not realise that. Think of all the poor
professionals playing in all those events outside North America and not
realising the events do not exist.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @
<bri...@blakjak.com> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )=
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~
John Blubaugh
"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:L++tt+RF...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
The same deal, David. If they are barred from the ACBL, they are not going
to be allowed to play in those tournaments.
JB
David Stevenson
I am not interested in whether someone somewhere will be allowed to do
something. I just dislike straight assertions like this which are just
wrong.
Mind you, it also did not seem very relevant in the post either.
kingsman
is to have a trial/hearing by impartial, highly competent judges. The
problem with pretty much all of the scandals is that one or the other
of these qualities is not present. Sometimes, as with Reese-Schapiro,
the judges could not be said to be impatial. Sometimes, as with
Katz-Cohen the procedural basis underlying the decision was highly
suspect. Force them to resign first-- then conduct a (fully) thorough
investigation.
At this point, we're all better off simply moving on.
As to the L-B accusation, hopefully the above two conditions have, or
will be met-- a considered review by a respected decision maker.
Lastly, the purpose of a trial is to consider demeanor evidence, and
noone who is not there can be in the shoes of the committee actually
talking to the various parties, and hearing what they say. (This last
point should also give pause to those who followi the media blitz on
celebrity trals; if you're not there, how can you judge what really
happened.) For example, much is made, from a distance, over the
comment that diamonds seem to have been breaking badly in the past
several hands. Was he just making a joke? Was he being defensive?
Nobody (for the moment) except those in that room know the value to be
given to that comment.
jrw
The Foster enquirey was not biased. And the judgement was the best
that a non-bridge playing lawyer could arrive at, and he did say that
it did not meet the grounds of criminal proof, ie beyond resonable
doubt. It takes evidence and expert witnesses.
kingsman
Thank you. I was not trying to opine one way or the other on
Reese-Shapiro; only to set forth what I believe to be reasonable
parameters for closure. Thus, I may have my own opinions on Michael
Jackson, but a consicientious jury sifted through the evidence to reach
a conclusion--leaving aside for the moment the difference between
"proven innocent", and "insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt."
Which leads me to ask you which of the above two conclusions was
reached by the Foster Commission?
jrw
if I had been Reese or Shapiro. It did not declare them innocent. But
it would have been equally difficult to have proved them innocent.
I think it is probably a good idea to video all major bridge matches.
Adam Beneschan
The version of the story I've heard is that Facchini/Zucchelli claimed
that they were doing poorly because their nerves were frayed by the
accusations, and that after a poor start, Garozzo/Belladonna requested
that Facchini/Zucchelli be benched for the remainder of the match. How
the Italians came back to win is quite a story in itself and involves
the infamous "Eddie Kantar hand". Hamman's autobiography gives a good
account of the match.
-- Adam
David Stevenson
The latter, certainly.
jrw
bridge players, and I think it is a shame that there is so little about
the Katz & Cohen affair, and one is left with the feeling that they
were driven out of the game by players with an axe to grind. Their
case is different from the Reese Shapiro affair, where there are a
number of hands to consider. One has to make up your mind whether the
style of Reese and Shapiro was either a matter of course, and
inculcated at the tougher rubber bridge clubs in london or blatant
cheating. Katz & Cohen probably do deserve a hearing.
David Stevenson
One wonders who David is. Google, I presume?
jrw
David Stevenson
>If you don't know who David is...
Why follow Netiquette at all? Why make life easier and pleasanter for
other people?
John Crinnion
jrw wrote:
> If you don't know who David is...
Surely we all remember the late great David Stephenson.
Julian Lighton
David Stevenson <bne...@blakjak.com> wrote:
>jrw wrote
>>Well, that might please you David, but I think it pleases very few
>
I've never heard of David Google.
--
Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com
/* You are not expected to understand this. */
krallison
This is second hand (and the party I heard it from is no longer alive).
They did have a hearing and there was an agreement negotiated (by
someone who had no axe to grind) for them to leave the League and no
more to be said about it. Then one of the parties broke his word and
that ended the agreement and they have since been allowed back into the
League. I will not name names.. this is all I am prepared to say on
the subject.
jrw
I do think their peers are entitled to see the evidence. I do not
think any national pair should be barred without the hands been made
available for public scruitiny. Just a view.
John Blubaugh
"krallison" <kral...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368997....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
How about Mathe ;-)
JB
Ron Johnson
You beat me to the punch. Mind you, if Karen's info is second hand,
mine's about 4th hand. Take it for what it's worth.
--
RNJ