Questions about Reese-Schapiro
Paul Hightower
why some doubt whether Reese and Schapiro cheated. However, much of
what is said in their defense frankly tends to reinforce my belief in
their guilt. For this thread, I'll suspend that belief and ask the
questions I think are important:
(1) Did Reese and Schapiro hold their cards with a variety of odd
finger positions? (Since Reese admits this, I'll take this one at
least as proven.)
(2) Did this occur throughout the hand or only during the auction
period?
(3) Did Reese or Schapiro hold thier cards in such manner when playing
with other partners? (Reese-Flint and Schapiro-Rose, I believe.)
The apologists so far have portrayed Alan Truscott and Ralph Swimer as
bitter rivals of Reese, B.J. Becker as an avid accuser, and Dorothy
Hayden as easily influenced. But according to the Bridge Encyclopedia,
they reported their findings to Geoffrey Butler, who conducted an
independent investigation. He convened a meeting of the WBF Appeals
Committee (which he chaired) and subsequently reported his findings to
the WBF Executive Committee, which voted 10-0 on the last day in
Beunos Aires that R-S were guilty of using illegal signals.
I can practically answer this in advance: Butler, too, was a bitter,
partisan enemy of Reese, explaining his election as chairman of the
British Bridge League, member of the WBF Executive Committee, and most
importantly, chairman of the WBF Appeals Committee where one would
certainly expect to find a player well-known for his lack of fairness.
Spare me. More to the point:
(4) Did the WBF declare R-S guilty?
(5) Was any transcript kept of any hearing or of Butler's report?
(6) What correlation did Butler find between the number of fingers
shown and the length of the heart suit? Do we have any record of his
findings?
(7) Did Butler observe Reese or Schapiro with other partners?
(7) What were the WBF's instructions to the BBL, or what was their
report?
(8) Does whatever the WBF communicated to the BBL provide any basis
for retrying the case?
(9) What was Butler's position concerning the Foster hearing? Did he
testify?
(10) Who did testify at the Foster hearing?
(11) What was Butler's position concerning the outcome of the Foster
hearing?
I may have more questions later, but those will do for now.
jurg...@verizon.net
wrote:
>The "technical evidence" and "Weeds" threads have shed some light on
>why some doubt whether Reese and Schapiro cheated. However, much of
>what is said in their defense frankly tends to reinforce my belief in
>their guilt.
This case is intriguing because both possible explanations,
(a) That Reese and Shapiro were cheating
and
(b) That the accusers were either dishonest or deluded,
appear wildly unlikely - but at least one must be true.
Your personal belief is not of the slightest interest. No rational
person who knows all that has been published on the case, but not more
than that, can think that either possibility was conclusively proven.
> For this thread, I'll suspend that belief and ask the
>questions I think are important:
>
>(1) Did Reese and Schapiro hold their cards with a variety of odd
>finger positions? (Since Reese admits this, I'll take this one at
>least as proven.)
>
>(2) Did this occur throughout the hand or only during the auction
>period?
>
>(3) Did Reese or Schapiro hold thier cards in such manner when playing
>with other partners? (Reese-Flint and Schapiro-Rose, I believe.)
>
>The apologists so far have portrayed Alan Truscott and Ralph Swimer as
>bitter rivals of Reese, B.J. Becker as an avid accuser, and Dorothy
>Hayden as easily influenced. But according to the Bridge Encyclopedia,
>they reported their findings to Geoffrey Butler, who conducted an
>independent investigation. He convened a meeting of the WBF Appeals
>Committee (which he chaired) and subsequently reported his findings to
>the WBF Executive Committee, which voted 10-0 on the last day in
>Beunos Aires that R-S were guilty of using illegal signals.
>
From Onno Eskes re the Foster hearing:
"There is a full-blown attack against Swimer. It is brought out how
Swimer, prior to the world championships, had formed a partnership
with Shapiro, but had not been selected for the national team, in part
because of Shapiro's constant criticism of him."
>I can practically answer this in advance: Butler, too, was a bitter,
>partisan enemy of Reese, explaining his election as chairman of the
>British Bridge League, member of the WBF Executive Committee, and most
>importantly, chairman of the WBF Appeals Committee where one would
>certainly expect to find a player well-known for his lack of fairness.
>Spare me. More to the point:
>
>(4) Did the WBF declare R-S guilty?
>
>(5) Was any transcript kept of any hearing or of Butler's report?
>
>(6) What correlation did Butler find between the number of fingers
>shown and the length of the heart suit? Do we have any record of his
>findings?
>
>(7) Did Butler observe Reese or Schapiro with other partners?
>
>(7) What were the WBF's instructions to the BBL, or what was their
>report?
>
>(8) Does whatever the WBF communicated to the BBL provide any basis
>for retrying the case?
>
>(9) What was Butler's position concerning the Foster hearing? Did he
>testify?
>
Quote from Onno Eskes in IMP-Magazine:
"A witness like Butler is an easy prey for the defence. This evidence
of this absentminded elderly gentleman, who did not shy away from a
drink or two either, naturally contains various inaccuracies.Only his
notes concerning the finger signals (the least damaging, 'only' 70 %
correlation) are alluded to and attacked by the defence - as if they
were the only ones."
>(10) Who did testify at the Foster hearing?
>
>(11) What was Butler's position concerning the outcome of the Foster
>hearing?
>
>I may have more questions later, but those will do for now.
Most of these questions are answered in both books. I suggest you read
them, though I doubt that they will change your mind.
Why do people think that it makes sense to take sides when the
evidence is intrinsically ambiguous?
David desJardins
> This case is intriguing because both possible explanations,
> (a) That Reese and Shapiro were cheating
> and
> (b) That the accusers were either dishonest or deluded,
> appear wildly unlikely - but at least one must be true.
I think most people don't believe that cheating is "wildly unlikely".
David desJardins
Robert Tamlyn
<jurg...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3cb491a1...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> On 10 Apr 2002 10:31:01 -0700, paul...@infi.net (Paul Hightower)
> wrote:
>
> >The "technical evidence" and "Weeds" threads have shed some light on
> >why some doubt whether Reese and Schapiro cheated. However, much of
> >what is said in their defense frankly tends to reinforce my belief in
> >their guilt.
>
> This case is intriguing because both possible explanations,
> (a) That Reese and Shapiro were cheating
> and
> (b) That the accusers were either dishonest or deluded,
> appear wildly unlikely - but at least one must be true.
>
> Your personal belief is not of the slightest interest. No rational
> person who knows all that has been published on the case, but not more
> than that, can think that either possibility was conclusively proven.
There is a third possibility: R-S were signaling to see if they could get
away with it. Which is what I believe. Also, I am interested in personal
beliefs if they make interesting conversation. You do not need to wait until
it is conclusively proven.
IIRC, Reese made a claim before BA that passing signals in bridge by skilled
cheaters would be undetectable. Has anyone else heard this or did I dream it
up? I think R was playing that game and that he talked S into going along.
>
>
> > For this thread, I'll suspend that belief and ask the
> >questions I think are important:
> >
> >(1) Did Reese and Schapiro hold their cards with a variety of odd
> >finger positions? (Since Reese admits this, I'll take this one at
> >least as proven.)
> >
> >(2) Did this occur throughout the hand or only during the auction
> >period?
> >
> >(3) Did Reese or Schapiro hold thier cards in such manner when playing
> >with other partners? (Reese-Flint and Schapiro-Rose, I believe.)
> >
IIRC, they did NOT hold the cards in varying positions as they did when
playing with each other according to the accusers.
IMO, both books are good and both of them will change your mind if you read
the one that disagrees with your belief.
> Why do people think that it makes sense to take sides when the
> evidence is intrinsically ambiguous?
>
"Sense" is not the issue. An interesting debate is.
This is what I call a subtle personal attack. You are suggesting that the
post is nonsense. I read the books too long ago to answer. If you dont
recall either let somebody else answer. Dont try to shut down the
convesation by saying that it does not make sense to take sides or to answer
the post.
>
>
jurg...@verizon.net
wrote:
>There is a third possibility: R-S were signaling to see if they could get
>away with it. Which is what I believe.
Yes - this is a possibility, but without knowing much more about
Reese's motives and his psychological state it remains no more than an
interesting speculation.
A mystery along these same lines is the title-page quote in Reese's
book:
"There is a demand nowadays of the sort of man who can make wrong
appear right."
– Publius Terentius Afer.
Publius Terentius Afer, more commonly known as Terence, is a much
quoted Roman playwright of the 2nd century BC. He said many clever
things but the source of this particular aphorism is unknown.
It is not inconceivable that Reese is announcing, by means of a
counterfeit quote from 'Terence', exactly what he has set out to
accomplish.
>
>> Why do people think that it makes sense to take sides when the
>> evidence is intrinsically ambiguous?
>>
>
>"Sense" is not the issue. An interesting debate is.
>
>This is what I call a subtle personal attack. You are suggesting that the
>post is nonsense. I read the books too long ago to answer. If you dont
>recall either let somebody else answer. Dont try to shut down the
>convesation by saying that it does not make sense to take sides or to answer
>the post.
No - I meant it as a question. I think the answer is that the human
mind naturally abhors ambiguity, just as nature is said to abhor a
vaccum. Most of us will choose one side or the other - this is not
rational, but it is human nature.
Stephen Pickett
> IIRC, Reese made a claim before BA that passing signals in bridge by skilled
> cheaters would be undetectable. Has anyone else heard this or did I dream it
> up? I think R was playing that game and that he talked S into going along.
'Twas reported by Truscott in his book. I don't recall the source since I had to
return the book, but I fancy some of the participants had the last name of
Sharples? Bells anyone? Simplest would be to look.
--
Stephen Pickett, PO Box 44538, Vancouver BC Canada V5M 4R8
Telephone: (604) 874-7327, Fax: (604) 874-7326, ICQ UIN#212132
Go see BRidgeBRowser at http://www.microtopia.net/bridge/
Ron Peacetree
"Paul Hightower" <paul...@infi.net> wrote in message
news:6bb14ced.02041...@posting.google.com...
> The "technical evidence" and "Weeds" threads have shed some light on
> why some doubt whether Reese and Schapiro cheated. However, much of
> what is said in their defense frankly tends to reinforce my belief
in
> their guilt. For this thread, I'll suspend that belief and ask the
> questions I think are important:
>
> (1) Did Reese and Schapiro hold their cards with a variety of odd
> finger positions? (Since Reese admits this, I'll take this one at
> least as proven.)
>
> (2) Did this occur throughout the hand or only during the auction
> period?
>
playing
> with other partners? (Reese-Flint and Schapiro-Rose, I believe.)
observers keeping careful records of those partnerships ATT. Such
records were spotty to the point of uselessness. You are correct in
your implication that such observations and records should have been
kept when investigating a player or players for improper behavior.
> The apologists so far have portrayed Alan Truscott and Ralph Swimer
as
> bitter rivals of Reese, B.J. Becker as an avid accuser, and Dorothy
> Hayden as easily influenced. But according to the Bridge
Encyclopedia,
> they reported their findings to Geoffrey Butler, who conducted an
> independent investigation. He convened a meeting of the WBF Appeals
> Committee (which he chaired) and subsequently reported his findings
to
> the WBF Executive Committee, which voted 10-0 on the last day in
> Buenos Aires that R-S were guilty of using illegal signals.
The particulars of his "independent investigation" are a matter of
record and unfortunately did not go far enough in making sure that
totally neutral observations (for one thing the observers should have
been told what to note but =not= what correlation was being tested.
In addition, some observers should have been told =nothing= more
specific than "report anything unusual" as a control on the first set
of observers) be made by impartial observers over a statistically
valid number of boards. The entire situation was "outed" with far
more public distribution than it should have been, and highly partisan
individuals on both sides of the issue were allowed to be involved in
the proceedings inappropriately. Independently Investigate Truth and
stop having us do it for you. That's lazy at best and implies all
sorts of negative things about your attitudes towards the other
members of this group at worst.
> I can practically answer this in advance: Butler, too, was a bitter,
> partisan enemy of Reese, explaining his election as chairman of the
> British Bridge League, member of the WBF Executive Committee, and
most
> importantly, chairman of the WBF Appeals Committee where one would
> certainly expect to find a player well-known for his lack of
fairness.
> Spare me. More to the point:
I do not recall any sources indicating there being a adversarial
relationship between Butler and Reese. Surprise, most of us actually
care very much about the truth, and comments like the above are
unproductive at least and insulting at worst.
> (4) Did the WBF declare R-S guilty?
>
> (5) Was any transcript kept of any hearing or of Butler's report?
>
> (6) What correlation did Butler find between the number of fingers
> shown and the length of the heart suit? Do we have any record of his
> findings?
>
> (7) Did Butler observe Reese or Schapiro with other partners?
>
> (7) What were the WBF's instructions to the BBL, or what was their
> report?
>
> (8) Does whatever the WBF communicated to the BBL provide any basis
> for retrying the case?
>
> (9) What was Butler's position concerning the Foster hearing? Did he
> testify?
>
> (10) Who did testify at the Foster hearing?
>
> (11) What was Butler's position concerning the outcome of the Foster
> hearing?
All of these are matters of public record. Go find out for yourself!
Unless someone who was there or has a very close relationship to such
a person is lurking in this group, the best sources of =information=
are not in this group anyway. =Opinion=, of course, is in great
supply.
I remain convinced you have some undisclosed special interest in
making a certain view of this topic public and public dogma. Since
you've dodged questions as to your identity, I'll ask the group: Does
anybody out there know this guy?
Paul Barden
jurg...@verizon.net writes
[]
>A mystery along these same lines is the title-page quote in Reese's
>book:
>
>"There is a demand nowadays of the sort of man who can make wrong
>appear right."
> Publius Terentius Afer.
>
>Publius Terentius Afer, more commonly known as Terence, is a much
>quoted Roman playwright of the 2nd century BC. He said many clever
>things but the source of this particular aphorism is unknown.
>
>It is not inconceivable that Reese is announcing, by means of a
>counterfeit quote from 'Terence', exactly what he has set out to
>accomplish.
Unknown?
Hinc nunc praemium est, qui recta prava faciunt.
- Phormio (VIII, 2, 6)
--
Paul Barden
London
George Priest
> shown and the length of the heart suit? Do we have any record of his
> findings?
I have always wondered, if someone was going to go to the trouble of
signaling the number of cards in a suit, why one would signal the number of
hearts rather than the number of spades??
--
George Priest
geop...@raincity.com
"But why is it mere talk? Because, my friend, beauty, purity,
respectability, religion, morality, art, patriotism, bravery, and the rest
are nothing but words which I or anyone else can turn inside out like a
glove." GBS, Man & Superman.
jurg...@verizon.net
without success. So it is not counterfeit.
Jurgen
Mark Bennett
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 19:35:21 GMT, "Robert Tamlyn" <xta...@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> A mystery along these same lines is the title-page quote in Reese's
> book:
>
> "There is a demand nowadays of the sort of man who can make wrong
> appear right."
> – Publius Terentius Afer.
>
> Publius Terentius Afer, more commonly known as Terence, is a much
> quoted Roman playwright of the 2nd century BC. He said many clever
> things but the source of this particular aphorism is unknown.
>
> It is not inconceivable that Reese is announcing, by means of a
> counterfeit quote from 'Terence', exactly what he has set out to
> accomplish.
>
>
http://www.jmacsnippets.com/Politics_Snippets.htm
http://oceanconnect.com/portal/news/viewmgram.jsp?mgramId=236
Karen Allison
signaling the number of cards in a suit, why one would signal the number of
hearts rather than the number of spades??<<
Because hearts are easier to lose and spades will not be lost in any auction.
___|___ AT HOME
////////\ _
//////// \ ('< IN LAS VEGAS
| (_) | | (^)
ldb
Andrew Gumperz
> > (6) What correlation did Butler find between the number of fingers
> > shown and the length of the heart suit? Do we have any record of his
> > findings?
>
> I have always wondered, if someone was going to go to the trouble of
> signaling the number of cards in a suit, why one would signal the number of
> hearts rather than the number of spades??
>
Because it is far easier to lose a heart suit in the auction than it
is to lose a spade suit. This means there are more opportunities to
profit by signalling heart length than spade length.
Andrew
Andrew Gumperz
> <jurg...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3cb491a1...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> > On 10 Apr 2002 10:31:01 -0700, paul...@infi.net (Paul Hightower)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >The "technical evidence" and "Weeds" threads have shed some light on
> > >why some doubt whether Reese and Schapiro cheated. However, much of
> > >what is said in their defense frankly tends to reinforce my belief in
> > >their guilt.
> >
> > This case is intriguing because both possible explanations,
> > (a) That Reese and Shapiro were cheating
> > and
> > (b) That the accusers were either dishonest or deluded,
> > appear wildly unlikely - but at least one must be true.
> >
> > Your personal belief is not of the slightest interest. No rational
> > person who knows all that has been published on the case, but not more
> > than that, can think that either possibility was conclusively proven.
>
> There is a third possibility: R-S were signaling to see if they could get
> away with it. Which is what I believe.
So you think they were signalling genuine information to one another,
then NOT using it? In the world championships?
> IIRC, Reese made a claim before BA that passing signals in bridge by skilled
> cheaters would be undetectable. Has anyone else heard this or did I dream it
> up?
It is reported in Truscott's book.
> I think R was playing that game and that he talked S into going along.
That is the picture that Ralph Swimer's paints of the situation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I took a look at Truscott's book this week. The thing that struck me
about the hands was that Reese and Shapiro psyched an enormous amount
by modern standards. It is hard to tell what proportion of hands
featured a psychic bid since the book only provides a small sample of
the hands they played, but Truscott seemed to have no trouble finding
8-10 among the boards at Buenos Aires. Truscott reports that by 1965,
R-S were the only top pair in the world still bidding this way.
In many of the psychic auctions, it is clear the psychic bidder's
partner knew, or strongly suspected, the presence of a psychic. This
is a fairly typical example:
Qxx
AJxx
Kxx
AKQ
Auction:
You LHO Pard RHO
1C X 1H 2D
?
What would you bid? Terrence Reese chose 2NT. A bit odd for sure. The
auction continued:
You LHO Pard RHO
2NT P 3C P
P P
The only way Reese could bid this way honestly, is if he more-or-less
expected 1m-X-1M to show a psychic. He was willing to give up on
partner having something like this: xx, KTxxx, x, xxxxx which provides
good play for game.
It seems to me that regardless of whether or not they were signalling
length in hearts, they were bidding on the basis of partnership
tendencies they very likely did not disclose. Want some more? you
hold:
xxxx
KJTxx
xx
xx
and RHO opens 1C. What do you bid? Reese chose to make a comic NT
overcall. They had the agreement that 1NT could be either a normal
strong NT overcall, or a weak 2 type hand and they had a control for
showing these hands so 1NT is not as bizarre as it might look.
However, This hand did not measure up to the mormal even for the comic
part of a 1NT overcall.
What do you open on this:
Axx
x
AKxxxx
Jxx
Schapiro chose 1NT (12-14) as his call.
Here is another one:
AKxxx
xx
xx
Kxxx
You LHO Pard RHO
1S X P 2D
?
Schapiro chose a 2H rebid.
Here is an opening lead problem:
xxx
Axxx
Axx
QTx
Auction: 1S-P-3S-P-4S-All pass. What do you lead? Obviously it is a
guess, but I'd expect maybe 80-90% of people to lead a spade. Second
choice, a club. Third choice--I can't imagine many people getting that
far--but maybe Ace of diamonds or hearts.
Schapiro actually led a low heart. This turned out spectacularly well
for his side, when his partner held a small doubleton in hearts and
Schapiro got to give Reese two overruffs of the dummy.
Does this "prove" that Schapiro knew the heart length? Absolutely not.
But it is an example of a wildly speculative decision that almost no
other expert of the time would have made.
Their game was littered with such wildly speculative actions. Truscott
shows another example. One of Reese's pet theories was that it is a
good idea to double a 4M contract on a trump void, because partner
"must" have a trump stack. Well, I don't know about you, but sometimes
my partners hold xxxx in trumps, and I wind up conceding 4MXX +5 when
I bid this way. But R-S managed to bid this way unscathed.
R-S landed on their feet *far* more often than not after their
speculative actions. Is it any surprise that these guys were accused
of cheating?? The only surprising fact was that they were not accused
much earlier.
Whether they signalled or not we can not know for a certainty.
However, for myself, I am a believer that where there is smoke there
is fire. And these guys were smoking like a chimney.
Andrew
DavJFlower
>finger positions? (Since Reese admits this, I'll take this one at
>least as proven.)
>
Almost certainly. Kehela testified to the Foster tribunal thatg he Kibitzed
Argentina 125-134, and that different numbers of fingers were used.
Incidentally, he testified that as a result of what he saw on these boards, he
changed his view from believing Reese-Schapiro guilt to believing them innocent
Dave Flower
math.mit.edu
> I took a look at Truscott's book this week. The thing that struck me
> about the hands was that Reese and Shapiro psyched an enormous
> were the only top pair in the world still bidding this way.
There are a few other tough pairs. Cornelius Slavenburg and Hans
Kreyns comes to mind. Eric Murray (he who is a partnership alone) is
another prominent example. It's more a fashion thing, see below.
> In many of the psychic auctions, it is clear the psychic bidder's
> partner knew, or strongly suspected, the presence of a psychic.
> ... they were bidding on the basis of partnership tendencies they
> very likely did not disclose.
You just described George Rapee and Johnny Crawford and a bunch of
other prominent Americans -- in fact, most top Americans in 1950s.
Psychic bidding went out of fashion in the 1960s and the Americans
then proceed to white-out that part of their bridge history.
>But it is an example of a wildly speculative decision that almost no
>other expert of the time would have made.
Guess Marshall Miles (pioneer of the stopperless gambling 3NT and the
4-card overcall), Zia, the late John Lowenthal, and Eric Rodwell are
must have been cheats. Eccentricity is common among top theorists.
>Their game was littered with such wildly speculative actions. Truscott
>shows another example. One of Reese's pet theories [doubling on a void]
>my partners hold xxxx in trumps, and I wind up conceding 4MXX +5 when
>I bid this way. But R-S managed to bid this way unscathed.
Well, that's because you don't get to see the spectacular failures.
One opponent of mine summoned the director because I bid 2H-P-4H-4S on
S:Kxxx H:x D:xx C:AKxxxx and hit partner with S:Axxxxx, making 4Sx=6.
The director (Sol Weinstein) reassured my irate RHO (who could almost
make 5H) that he can personally vouch for my not having a wire, since
he witnessed me making the same bid and going -1400 the previous day.
You would probably think that I cheated too.
> R-S landed on their feet *far* more often than not after their
> speculative actions. Is it any surprise that these guys were
> accused of cheating?? The only surprising fact was that they were
> not accused much earlier.
Among the American experts of yesteryear number many "Table Feelers".
Many of them pull spectacular stunts on a regular basis and get away
with a majority of their such actions.
> ... I am a believer that where there is smoke there is fire. And
> these guys were smoking like a chimney.
I happen to think that while we are unlikely to know the truth, R-S
probably was signalling. But I don't think that you described was a
good way to demonstrate that they must have cheated -- it was a spin.
Rahul Chandra
>
> Andrew Gumperz <agum...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ... I am a believer that where there is smoke there is fire. And
> > these guys were smoking like a chimney.
>
> I happen to think that while we are unlikely to know the truth, R-S
> probably was signalling. But I don't think that you described was a
> good way to demonstrate that they must have cheated -- it was a spin.
I'm not sure if it's just me, but it appears that this message has no
sender (@math.mit.edu), and no signature. Is eomebody hiding?
On examining the detailed headers, it appears to be Bo-Yin Yang. I'll
post this anyway, as I'm curious what happened.
Rahul Chandra
Jan Lagerman
wrote:
*SNIP*
>
>Here is an opening lead problem:
>
>xxx
>Axxx
>Axx
>QTx
>
>Auction: 1S-P-3S-P-4S-All pass. What do you lead? Obviously it is a
>guess, but I'd expect maybe 80-90% of people to lead a spade. Second
>choice, a club. Third choice--I can't imagine many people getting that
>far--but maybe Ace of diamonds or hearts.
If you belive 80-90% would lead a trump here you play in different
games than I do.
My guess would be closer to 8-9% for the trump.
I think a club lead would draw a LOT more votes than a trump.
The underlead of one ace or the other would also catch a few votes,
but only slightly fewer than the trump lead, which IMO is way worse
than any other suit.
Jan
*SNIP*
>Andrew
Bob Hamman
<rcha...@student.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>@math.mit.edu wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Gumperz <agum...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > ... I am a believer that where there is smoke there is fire. And
>> > these guys were smoking like a chimney.
>>
>> I happen to think that while we are unlikely to know the truth, R-S
>> probably was signalling. But I don't think that you described was a
>> good way to demonstrate that they must have cheated -- it was a spin.
>
>I'm not sure if it's just me, but it appears that this message has no
>sender (@math.mit.edu), and no signature. Is eomebody hiding?
What gets in the headers is to some degree up to the author of the
message, as you can see.
Only BY can tell us why it's like that (assuming we care to know and
he to tell).
--
Giovanni
Italy
math.mit.edu
><rcha...@student.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>@math.mit.edu wrote:
>>I'm not sure if it's just me, but it appears that this message has no
>>sender (@math.mit.edu), and no signature. Is eomebody hiding?
>What gets in the headers is to some degree up to the author of the
>message, as you can see. Only BY can tell us why it's like that
>(assuming we care to know and he to tell).
Because my local sysadmin munged the setup -- and sometimes I forgot
to change it to something sensible.
Gordon Rainsford
Perhaps you'd care to tell us why you think that, Jan?
--
Gordon Rainsford
LONDON UK
David Stevenson
Especially as this was before sputnik doubles appeared.
--
David Stevenson <bri...@blakjak.com> Liverpool, England, UK
Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send
For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum
at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm
Colin Ward
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Because it is far easier to lose a heart suit in the auction than it
>>is to lose a spade suit. This means there are more opportunities to
>>profit by signalling heart length than spade length.
>
> Especially as this was before sputnik doubles appeared.
As their original name suggests, Sputnik
(now "Negative") doubles appeared the day that
the Russians launched the Sputnik: October 4th,
1957. That would be almost eight years before
Buenas Aires. Whether they had gained popularity
in Britain yet and whether Reese-Schapiro were
playing them is another question, of course.
Andrew Gumperz
> Andrew Gumperz <agum...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In many of the psychic auctions, it is clear the psychic bidder's
> > partner knew, or strongly suspected, the presence of a psychic.
> > ... they were bidding on the basis of partnership tendencies they
> > very likely did not disclose.
>
> You just described George Rapee and Johnny Crawford and a bunch of
> other prominent Americans -- in fact, most top Americans in 1950s.
> Psychic bidding went out of fashion in the 1960s and the Americans
> then proceed to white-out that part of their bridge history.
No question about it. They were one of many pairs who used extensive
psychics in the 1950's.
>
> >But it is an example of a wildly speculative decision that almost no
> >other expert of the time would have made.
>
> Guess Marshall Miles (pioneer of the stopperless gambling 3NT and the
> 4-card overcall), Zia, the late John Lowenthal, and Eric Rodwell are
> must have been cheats. Eccentricity is common among top theorists.
My point is not that they were cheats, it is that they played a highly
speculative style. If you play a speculative style, you are not
automatically a cheat (as you know).
However, if you choose to play a speculative style, you should be
scrutinized. A speculative style is not "cheating" but it provides
many more opportunities where illicitly-gained information can be used
profitably.
> >Their game was littered with such wildly speculative actions. Truscott
> >shows another example. One of Reese's pet theories [doubling on a void]
> >my partners hold xxxx in trumps, and I wind up conceding 4MXX +5 when
> >I bid this way. But R-S managed to bid this way unscathed.
>
> Well, that's because you don't get to see the spectacular failures.
True, I don't have a full record of their results. I am relying on
Truscott's assertion that their psychic bidding was disproportionately
successful.
> One opponent of mine summoned the director because I bid 2H-P-4H-4S on
> S:Kxxx H:x D:xx C:AKxxxx and hit partner with S:Axxxxx, making 4Sx=6.
> The director (Sol Weinstein) reassured my irate RHO (who could almost
> make 5H) that he can personally vouch for my not having a wire, since
> he witnessed me making the same bid and going -1400 the previous day.
> You would probably think that I cheated too.
Wrong. I would not draw a conclusion on the basis of one successful
speculative action or on the basis of any number of successful
speculative actions.
If your bidding displayed a pattern of speculative actions that were
*disproportionately* successful (e.g., if you seemed to get more than
your share of good results), THEN I would think you were cheating.
A particularly important factor would be looking for situations where
you had had an opportunity to speculate, but chose not to do it. E.g.,
if you always underlead an ace in some scenario, OK you like to
gamble--no problem. If you seem to underlead inconsistently in that
scenario and seem to succeed (or avoid failure) both when you do and
do not underlead, then I'll call you a cheat.
> > R-S landed on their feet *far* more often than not after their
> > speculative actions. Is it any surprise that these guys were
> > accused of cheating?? The only surprising fact was that they were
> > not accused much earlier.
>
> Among the American experts of yesteryear number many "Table Feelers".
> Many of them pull spectacular stunts on a regular basis and get away
> with a majority of their such actions.
You will get no argument here. I never said the other experts of the
day were not also cheats.
I know I will catch some heat for the above statement. I do not mean
to suggest that other experts had explicit signalling agreements.
However, I do think that they had private agreements about when and
how they psyched that were not revealed to the opponents, and that
they applied their "table feel" to their partners. E.g., a player
might decide not to psyche if his partner's "vibe" seemed to suggest
he held a very strong hand.
> > ... I am a believer that where there is smoke there is fire. And
> > these guys were smoking like a chimney.
>
> I happen to think that while we are unlikely to know the truth, R-S
> probably was signalling. But I don't think that you described was a
> good way to demonstrate that they must have cheated -- it was a spin.
I never said it was evidence that either:
A They *must* have cheated (somehow)
B They were specifically passing finger signals about the heart length
My point is simply this: the auctions are strange enough, frequently
enough to raise suspicions in the mind of any observer. A pair bidding
this way would not last more than a session or two in a modern
environment--and for good reason.
The combination of this level of strange bidding with the reports of
disproportionate success are enough to raise strong suspicions that
illegal exchange of information of some sort was involved. However, it
is not proof of anything.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
None of these hands suggest or deny the presence of knowledge of the
length in the heart suit. As anyone can tell by reading either book,
whether or not you think a hand "shows" illegal knowledge of the
length in hearts is very much a matter of how you *interpret* the
hand, and multiple interpretations for each hand certainly exist.
Personally, I do not believe in hand analysis as a means for detecting
the presence (or absence) of some specific information exchange method
and I do not think it should have been considered at all in this
accusation. I think the case should have been handled very simply:
1. Record on a film the presence of suspicious body movements.
2. Correlate the movements with some aspect of the actual cards held
Trying to answer questions such as, "would a player who knew the
number of hearts have taken this action?" is a pointless waste of
time.
Andrew
David Stevenson
Ooooh! Oppos I like! I want to play against anyone who thinks
underleading a red ace better than leading a trump!!!
Douglas Newlands
:@math.mit.edu wrote in message news:<a93nvq$dj6$1...@galois.mit.edu>...
:> Andrew Gumperz <agum...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
:Wrong. I would not draw a conclusion on the basis of one successful
:speculative action or on the basis of any number of successful
:speculative actions.
:
:If your bidding displayed a pattern of speculative actions that were
:*disproportionately* successful (e.g., if you seemed to get more than
:your share of good results), THEN I would think you were cheating.
But "speculative" is a judgement made by you in light of how you think
bridge should be played. Perhaps another, equally valid conclusion, is
that you are seeing someone who has found a different, perhaps more
effective style, and that, since you are impressed by the results, you
should change to that style.
To label them cheats for using different more successful methods could
be considered to be a kind of intellectual arrogance in that you consider you
know the best way to play bridge and anyone who is successful with another
method must be cheating since their method is, by (your) definition, inferior.
Can you not conceive that one group of experts might know things that
other groups of experts do not (may be not about play but certainly
about bidding). Cathy Chua makes reference to this point in her book
"Fair play or Foul" (?) to which reference has already been made in this
thread.
:The combination of this level of strange bidding with the reports of
:disproportionate success are enough to raise strong suspicions that
:illegal exchange of information of some sort was involved. However, it
:is not proof of anything.
No, it is not. You have to consider your whole outlook on bridge.
It might be your view which is flawed - there is a phrase about
not seeing the mote in your own eye which springs to mind.
Douglas
--
Dr. Douglas A. Newlands, School of Computing & Mathematics,
Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria 3217, Australia,
Tel +61(03)52271165 [Fax 52272028]
email: do...@deakin.edu.au http://www.deakin.edu.au/~doug
Bill Jacobs
<98f45892.02041...@posting.google.com>:
Thanks Andrew for a very interesting post.
I find the examples unconvincing, in terms of cheating.
The psyches seem to me to rely on the opponents being honest, which was
perhaps a safe assumption.
For example, the 19-count heard the opponents show lots of values (takeout
double, free bid), so it was reasonable to assume partner was fooling
around.
And why shouldn't a comic NT overcall be made on a 5 card suit? People open
weak twos on 5-card suits - what's the essential difference? They were
probably ahead of their time.
The underlead of the ace looks OK to me as well. It's a tough lead problem.
The 1NT opening on Axx-x-AKxxxx-Jxx seems wild - was it third seat? It's
still an interesting tactical move - preempts hearts, with the intention of
coming back in with diamonds.
Cheers ... Bill.
Douglas Newlands
:about the hands was that Reese and Shapiro psyched an enormous amount
:by modern standards. It is hard to tell what proportion of hands
:featured a psychic bid since the book only provides a small sample of
:the hands they played, but Truscott seemed to have no trouble finding
:8-10 among the boards at Buenos Aires. Truscott reports that by 1965,
:R-S were the only top pair in the world still bidding this way.
:
:In many of the psychic auctions, it is clear the psychic bidder's
:partner knew, or strongly suspected, the presence of a psychic. This
:is a fairly typical example:
:xxxx
:KJTxx
:xx
:xx
:
:and RHO opens 1C. What do you bid? Reese chose to make a comic NT
:overcall. They had the agreement that 1NT could be either a normal
:strong NT overcall, or a weak 2 type hand and they had a control for
:showing these hands so 1NT is not as bizarre as it might look.
:However, This hand did not measure up to the mormal even for the comic
:part of a 1NT overcall.
Your description of this not being "normal" depends too much on your view
of how bridge should be played i.e. the one correct method.
Consider how one can accommodate both weak and intermediate jump overcalls
and how one can play michaels either both weak and strong or get the effect of
Michaels without playing it.
You have already shown that you understand that WJOs can be done via comic
NT but Michaels can be too. You wait for 1N to be doubled, bid the minor which
has not been shown and, when it is doubled, you redouble telling partner
to choose fromt he other two suits. On the hand above, Reese did bid 2D when
1N was doubled but we don't see the next part because Becker came in with 2S
and R+S didn't bid again.
Would you have considered it suspicious if it went (1C)-2C Michaels? Sure it
is light but you would be less suspicious because it fits into your view of
how bridge is played. Reese's approach is well structured and well understood,
by some experts at least - perhaps just not appreciated by your group of
players.
More Michaels type things. Oppo opens 1H and you have a weak 5-5 in S+D so
overcall 1N, it gets doubled, run to 2C and when it is doubled, redouble
for rescue to show the hand. Even S+C can be handled by redoubling the
eventual double of 2D. It might even be considered superior to Michaels
because over 1S, instead of bidding 2S for H+m which commits to hearts at
the 3 level, you can get partner into hearts at the 2 level.
It's just a different way and quite workable.
:Here is another one:
:
:AKxxx
:xx
:xx
:Kxxx
:
:You LHO Pard RHO
:1S X P 2D
:?
:
:Schapiro chose a 2H rebid.
Standard operating tactics, partner has passed and so will not do too
much. If he raises hearts, the first return to spades will clarify the
issue for him. It will give the oppos a problem if hearts is there spot.
Again, it is a matter of knowing what the normal, well known
to some experts, inferences are. Those who don't play this kind of game just
don't have the group of players around where such knowledge is standardised.
One of the pleasures of the game is playing new different systems (and playing
against them) to explore new inference structures and different tactics rather
than playing the one basic system for life. It is too easy to believe 1 approach is
optimal especially when everyone else cooperates by playing the same system
and making the same assumptions. The psychers and tactical bidders violate
all these assumptions and the 'standard' bidding system starts to look frail
and suboptimal. e.g. partner opens 2S(weak) and you hold xxxx.xx.Hxxx.xxx
or the like. The modern law-abiding man bumps spades to the 3 or 4 level but the
operator bids 3H and totally undermines the structure of the modern man's
bidding system.
Third in hand nv against v, two passes to you with xxx.xx.AKQxxx.xx the modern
man bids 3D, patting himself on the back for his preempting on the suit
which old ladies will not preempt on but the operator might try 1N, run to
2C when doubled and then to 2D, but more destructively he might preempt
3C, again totally undermining the assumptions of the oppos in contructing
their bidding system. There is not much danger with a passed partner
especially one who will act first time round or not at all. The ones
who pass ("to listen") and then choose dodgy actions shouldn't be
tolerated!
Sandy Barnes
was not cheating. Maybe he was, but I prefer to think not. In addition,
his book was far more readable.
I would ask this question: "How many cheaters would have written a book in
their own defense, if they were in fact guilty?". My experience with
cheaters is that they want the problem to go away as quietly and quickly as
possible. Writing a book really does not lend itself to a quiet ending.
In any event, I will never know with any certainty what the truth is. But I
am a happier person thinking they are innocent.
Sandy Barnes
<@math.mit.edu> wrote in message news:a93nvq$dj6$1...@galois.mit.edu...
Jan Lagerman
Probably because Im from Sweden.
Nobody here except Magnus Lindqvist leads trumps against games.
"When in doubt, leads trumps" is a really really poor rule to follow
IMO.
But why? I just have the feeling that a trumplead against a game with
no strong indication that its right more often than not gives away
either the trumpsuit and/or a valuable tempo.
Jan
Jan Lagerman
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Jan Lagerman <jan.la...@agresso.se> wrote
>>On 11 Apr 2002 00:20:47 -0700, agum...@hotmail.com (Andrew Gumperz)
>>wrote:
>>
>>*SNIP*
>>>
>>>Here is an opening lead problem:
>>>
>>>xxx
>>>Axxx
>>>Axx
>>>QTx
>>>
>>>Auction: 1S-P-3S-P-4S-All pass. What do you lead? Obviously it is a
>>>guess, but I'd expect maybe 80-90% of people to lead a spade. Second
>>>choice, a club. Third choice--I can't imagine many people getting that
>>>far--but maybe Ace of diamonds or hearts.
>>
>>If you belive 80-90% would lead a trump here you play in different
>>games than I do.
>>My guess would be closer to 8-9% for the trump.
>>I think a club lead would draw a LOT more votes than a trump.
>>The underlead of one ace or the other would also catch a few votes,
>>but only slightly fewer than the trump lead, which IMO is way worse
>>than any other suit.
>
> Ooooh! Oppos I like! I want to play against anyone who thinks
>underleading a red ace better than leading a trump!!!
So go and play Boris S for high stakes as he was the ace underleader.
Im not sure your wallet will be happy afterwards though. ;-)
Jan
t...@cix.compulink.co.uk
bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) wrote:
> Ooooh! Oppos I like! I want to play against anyone who thinks
> underleading a red ace better than leading a trump!!!
Anytime you're in London David - particularly if you can't see the
difference between the H and D underleads:)
Tim
t...@cix.compulink.co.uk
agum...@hotmail.com (Andrew Gumperz) wrote:
Surely Reese knew that the 1H could well be a psyche. But every player
should know this (and back then they did).
> It seems to me that regardless of whether or not they were signalling
> length in hearts, they were bidding on the basis of partnership
> tendencies they very likely did not disclose. Want some more? you
> hold:
>
> xxxx
> KJTxx
> xx
> xx
>
> and RHO opens 1C. What do you bid? Reese chose to make a comic NT
> overcall. They had the agreement that 1NT could be either a normal
> strong NT overcall, or a weak 2 type hand and they had a control for
> showing these hands so 1NT is not as bizarre as it might look.
If you are playing comic NT and this is non-vul against vulnerable the
hand looks reasonable. The four spades could well be an inconvenience to
oppos who bid the wrong game.
> However, This hand did not measure up to the mormal even for the comic
> part of a 1NT overcall.
>
> What do you open on this:
>
> Axx
> x
> AKxxxx
> Jxx
>
> Schapiro chose 1NT (12-14) as his call.
And so would I, at least some of the time. 3rd in hand I will certainly
open 1N and then pass a 2D transfer from partner if playing them.
(Indeed apologies to the pick-up partner on whom I inflicted this one last
week - he is still trying to recover form the shock, despite getting a 75%
board). The night before last I upgraded xx,xx,AKxxxx,AQx to an SAYC 1N
opener and got a nice top playing in an "unmakeable" 3N.
> Here is another one:
>
> AKxxx
> xx
> xx
> Kxxx
>
> You LHO Pard RHO
> 1S X P 2D
> ?
>
> Schapiro chose a 2H rebid.
A dangerous psyche, not one I would wish to risk.
> Here is an opening lead problem:
>
> xxx
> Axxx
> Axx
> QTx
>
> Auction: 1S-P-3S-P-4S-All pass. What do you lead? Obviously it is a
> guess, but I'd expect maybe 80-90% of people to lead a spade. Second
> choice, a club. Third choice--I can't imagine many people getting that
> far--but maybe Ace of diamonds or hearts.
At pairs a spade lead is probably right. At teams/rubber you need 4
tricks opposite one "useful" card. Either you play him for the CA or the
HKx (at a pinch HQx and K in dummy) or SA and doubleton H. I think the
low heart lead is clearly the best percentage shot of beating the contract
(I'm fairly sure that 3S back then was a limit raise showing useful values
and may even have been stronger).
> Schapiro actually led a low heart. This turned out spectacularly well
> for his side, when his partner held a small doubleton in hearts and
> Schapiro got to give Reese two overruffs of the dummy.
>
> Does this "prove" that Schapiro knew the heart length? Absolutely not.
> But it is an example of a wildly speculative decision that almost no
> other expert of the time would have made.
I call it a well reasoned lead - you think it wildly speculative:)
> Their game was littered with such wildly speculative actions. Truscott
> shows another example. One of Reese's pet theories was that it is a
> good idea to double a 4M contract on a trump void, because partner
> "must" have a trump stack. Well, I don't know about you, but sometimes
> my partners hold xxxx in trumps, and I wind up conceding 4MXX +5 when
> I bid this way. But R-S managed to bid this way unscathed.
And my theory is that when opponents have apparently bid a thin game and
you have clear defensive tricks and a trump shortage it is worth doubling
since it increases the chances of declarer misplaying the hand. Sometimes
I concede 4Mxx+1 it is true, more often I turn +100 into +500.
My game too is littered with speculative actions. My last set of 24
boards contained 7 outright tops (6 near ones), 4 bottoms/near bottoms and
only 3 hands close to average. My only real defence against this being
evidence of cheating is the sprinkling of spectacular failures my attempts
generate. A player of the calibre of Reese/Schapiro adopting a similar
style would no doubt have better judgement and fewer "honourable" failures
to display.
Tim
Andrew Gumperz
> In article <98f45892.02041...@posting.google.com> agum...@hotmail.com (Andrew Gumperz) writes:
> :@math.mit.edu wrote in message news:<a93nvq$dj6$1...@galois.mit.edu>...
> :> Andrew Gumperz <agum...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> :Wrong. I would not draw a conclusion on the basis of one successful
> :speculative action or on the basis of any number of successful
> :speculative actions.
> :
> :If your bidding displayed a pattern of speculative actions that were
> :*disproportionately* successful (e.g., if you seemed to get more than
> :your share of good results), THEN I would think you were cheating.
>
> But "speculative" is a judgement made by you in light of how you think
> bridge should be played. Perhaps another, equally valid conclusion, is
> that you are seeing someone who has found a different, perhaps more
> effective style, and that, since you are impressed by the results, you
> should change to that style.
> To label them cheats for using different more successful methods could
> be considered to be a kind of intellectual arrogance in that you consider you
> know the best way to play bridge and anyone who is successful with another
> method must be cheating since their method is, by (your) definition, inferior.
> Can you not conceive that one group of experts might know things that
> other groups of experts do not (may be not about play but certainly
> about bidding). Cathy Chua makes reference to this point in her book
> "Fair play or Foul" (?) to which reference has already been made in this
> thread.
As a general comment on bidding and play, I understand and accept your
point of view. You are absolutely right that my opinion of what
constitutes a speculative action is not necessarily the "truth" and is
very much shaped by the bridge culture in which I learned to play.
In America, there is still suspicion of European players. It is not
unusual to hear top experts mumbling about cheating pairs from <your
favorite European nation here>. Usually they back up these assertions
with examples of hands where the Europeans's bidding appears
nonsensical to the American eye.
In some cases, the bids of strong European players in strictly
judgment situations are often so different from my own, that I too
wonder how any good player could make such a call. Consider this
auction:
1H-X-P-?
You hold an eight count and 5 diamonds. Should you bid 2 or 3
diamonds? I have seen an excellent European player bid 2D in this
situation, where I felt he clearly had enough to show more values.
However I do understand that the value of the responding hand is
dependent on the likely values held by the TO doubler. If you come
from a world where doubles are frequently off-shape, responder's hand
is worth less than if you expect partner to hold 3-4 diamonds and
heart shortness virtually 100% of the time. Now there is nothing
particularly suspicious about a 2D underbid. However, when the TO
doubler raises 2D to 3D holding a 14-count and this pair recovers to
find a game, some might question the auction.
I do not assume that this auction must be dishonest. I understand that
if the expectations of double are different, not only must the
responder bid more conservatively but the doubler, holding a normal
minimumish hand with a fit, must bid more aggressively.
That being said, I would be foolish to completely ignore my instincts.
I guarantee that if you played a head-to-head match against a pair
using the R-S style today, you would walk out of it with major doubts
about their honesty. Simply the volume of psychic bidding should be
enough to provoke your radar.
> :The combination of this level of strange bidding with the reports of
> :disproportionate success are enough to raise strong suspicions that
> :illegal exchange of information of some sort was involved. However, it
> :is not proof of anything.
>
> No, it is not. You have to consider your whole outlook on bridge.
> It might be your view which is flawed - there is a phrase about
> not seeing the mote in your own eye which springs to mind.
That is true--my outlook may be arrogant and flawed. Or maybe my view
is realistic and yours is naive. The bottom line is this: when the
stakes are high, some people *will* cheat. And assuming there are
people cheating, the first ones we should look at are those who are
deviating significantly from the group norms with a great success.
The great players have often deviated from bridge norms. An early
recognition of a bridge truth which allows useful deviation from norms
grants a large legitimate advantage. The bidding methods developed by
players such as Al Roth, Marshall Miles and Bobby Goldman in the
1950's, 1960's and 1970's are excellent examples. In many instances,
they turned the conventional wisdom of the day on its head. But when
such deviations are legitimate, the explanation for the deviation is
clear because it is based on a demonstrable bridge principle. In
addition, the results include a mix of failures and successes.
In the case of R-S and their psychic bidding, you will find it very
difficult to call out the "principle" which underlay their methods.
Further, at least according to Truscott, the mix of success versus
failure they achieved using these methods was very skewed towards
success.
Andrew
Andrew Gumperz
> My feeling, after reading both books, is to believe that my favorite author
> was not cheating. Maybe he was, but I prefer to think not. In addition,
> his book was far more readable.
>
> I would ask this question: "How many cheaters would have written a book in
> their own defense, if they were in fact guilty?".
Someone who had a strong financial incentive to appear innocent to the
general public. Reese made his living by writing about bridge. A
belief among the public that he was cheat could reasonably be expected
to have a big negative impact on his income. With the result of the
Foster hearing in hand, he had an opportunity to write a book which
might be expected to sell well and to clear his name at the same time.
The Reese case differs from other cheating scandals because the other
cheaters have not made their living as bridge authors. A professional
bridge player accused of cheating just wants to get things behind him
so he can get back to work. Even if he admits the cheating many of the
clients will forgive him in time. The faster the unpleasantness
disappears, the better.
> My experience with
> cheaters is that they want the problem to go away as quietly and quickly as
> possible. Writing a book really does not lend itself to a quiet ending.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, you are certainly right about that. Truscott might have let
things lie if Reese had not published.
> In any event, I will never know with any certainty what the truth is. But I
> am a happier person thinking they are innocent.
>
> Sandy Barnes
OK, fair enough Sandy. I would hate to think that some one I had grown
to like and respect was really a cheat. I think one of the reasons
there is so much emotion about this issue is that Reese's writing
engendered much positive feeling for him personally among his readers.
I too love his books and I regard him as a better user of the English
language than any other bridge writer, living or dead.
Andrew
John Hall
jurg...@verizon.net writes:
>Why do people think that it makes sense to take sides when the
>evidence is intrinsically ambiguous?
Perhaps there is more evidence yet to come out. I like to speculate that
there could something written by Schapiro, stashed away in a bank safe
deposit box, that is to be published after his death. I think that
Schapiro is the only man living who knows for sure whether or not they
were cheating.
--
John Hall
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
sit next to me."
Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
Paul Hightower
<snip>
>
> R-S landed on their feet *far* more often than not after their
> speculative actions. Is it any surprise that these guys were accused
> of cheating?? The only surprising fact was that they were not accused
> much earlier.
They were accused earlier, in the 1960 Olympiad, by Don Oakie. Does
anyone have details of this? I know Truscott mentioned this but I
don't recall much int he way of specifics -- did he grumble out load,
make specific allegations to the WBF, or what? I do recall that this
was used to disparage "Americans who are always accusing others of
cheating", and others have stated B.J. Becker had a history of making
cheating allegations. Anyone have details on who Becker accused prior
to Buenos Aires?
Stephen Pickett
> Sorry to be a little picky but:
>
> On 11 Apr 2002 00:20:47 -0700, agum...@hotmail.com (Andrew Gumperz)
> wrote:
>
> >What do you open on this:
> >
> >Axx
> >x
> >AKxxxx
> >Jxx
>
> Actually it was
> Jxx
> x
> AKxxxx
> Axx
>
> >
> >Schapiro chose 1NT (12-14) as his call.
>
> And went a few off in 3NT when the opposition cashed the first 7 heart
> tricks and the AS. Some you win, some you lose :)
2-5,3-6,4-7 used the same fingers (splayed for the higher of each pair).
Perhaps 1 might have got mixed with 4 sometimes. Especially since the signal
for 1 stuck out like a sore thumb (well finger) and was in fact the way that
Dorothy Hayden rumbled the whole scheme. You will note from re-perusal of
the book, that <void> gave them a problem, and us as well (since there were
none or few enough to correlate in the data under study).
In the alternative, perhaps Reese took Schapiro's 1NT as honest and decided
that he had 4 hearts after all, based on a single finger?
Your example proves or disproves nothing. IMO.
--
Stephen Pickett, PO Box 44538, Vancouver BC Canada V5M 4R8
Telephone: (604) 874-7327, Fax: (604) 874-7326, ICQ UIN#212132
Go see BRidgeBRowser at http://www.microtopia.net/bridge/
Stephen Pickett
> > (6) What correlation did Butler find between the number of fingers
> > shown and the length of the heart suit? Do we have any record of his
> > findings?
>
> I have always wondered, if someone was going to go to the trouble of
> signaling the number of cards in a suit, why one would signal the number of
> hearts rather than the number of spades??
>
It seems that R-S may not have figured this out immediately either.
Truscott reports on an earlier spade code.
Paul Hightower
> "Paul Hightower" <paul...@infi.net> wrote in message
> news:6bb14ced.02041...@posting.google.com...
<snip, including by mistake question 2 about whether R-S only held
their cards oddly during the auction>
> >
> > (3) Did Reese or Schapiro hold their cards in such manner when playing
> > with other partners? (Reese-Flint and Schapiro-Rose, I believe.)
> To answer 2) and 3) would require that there have been objective
> observers keeping careful records of those partnerships ATT. Such
> records were spotty to the point of uselessness.
Is that statement opinion, or a matter of record? I'm asking, not
arguing -- the WBF was convinced by SOMETHING, I'm trying to determine
what they did and didn't base their judgement on.
> You are correct in
> your implication that such observations and records should have been
> kept when investigating a player or players for improper behavior.
I have no doubt that as the first major cheating scandal handled by
the WBF (that I'm aware of), they could've handled it better. This
does not automatically mean we whould dismiss their verdict.
>
> > The apologists so far have portrayed Alan Truscott and Ralph Swimer as
> > bitter rivals of Reese, B.J. Becker as an avid accuser, and Dorothy
> > Hayden as easily influenced. But according to the Bridge Encyclopedia,
> > they reported their findings to Geoffrey Butler, who conducted an
> > independent investigation. He convened a meeting of the WBF Appeals
> > Committee (which he chaired) and subsequently reported his findings to
> > the WBF Executive Committee, which voted 10-0 on the last day in
> > Buenos Aires that R-S were guilty of using illegal signals.
> The particulars of his "independent investigation" are a matter of
> record and unfortunately did not go far enough in making sure that
> totally neutral observations (for one thing the observers should have
> been told what to note but =not= what correlation was being tested.
> In addition, some observers should have been told =nothing= more
> specific than "report anything unusual" as a control on the first set
> of observers) be made by impartial observers over a statistically
> valid number of boards. The entire situation was "outed" with far
> more public distribution than it should have been, and highly partisan
> individuals on both sides of the issue were allowed to be involved in
> the proceedings inappropriately. Independently Investigate Truth and
> stop having us do it for you. That's lazy at best and implies all
> sorts of negative things about your attitudes towards the other
> members of this group at worst.
Mr. Peacetree, YOU started this with your request that the entire
group refrain from referring to Reese as a cheat. I've never heard of
you and I'm supposed to accept your word rather than that of the WBF?
Since you feel free to call me lazy, allow me to say you seem rather
arrogant. Now can we drop the name-calling, innuendos, and threats,
and stick to the known facts? Or is intimidation and character
assassination all you have to offer? If you object to providing
information in this forum, why respond?
>
> > I can practically answer this in advance: Butler, too, was a bitter,
> > partisan enemy of Reese, explaining his election as chairman of the
> > British Bridge League, member of the WBF Executive Committee, and
> most
> > importantly, chairman of the WBF Appeals Committee where one would
> > certainly expect to find a player well-known for his lack of
> fairness.
> > Spare me. More to the point:
> I do not recall any sources indicating there being a adversarial
> relationship between Butler and Reese. Surprise, most of us actually
> care very much about the truth, and comments like the above are
> unproductive at least and insulting at worst.
That's how I would characterize the vast bulk of what has been said in
Reese's defense. My post was simply a caricature of the attacks on
Swimer, Becker, and Truscott. Another poster has described the attempt
to discredit Butler as focusing on his reliability as a witness,
rather than the personal animosity angle.
>
> > (4) Did the WBF declare R-S guilty?
> >
<more questions, snipped>
> All of these are matters of public record. Go find out for yourself!
> Unless someone who was there or has a very close relationship to such
> a person is lurking in this group, the best sources of =information=
> are not in this group anyway. =Opinion=, of course, is in great
> supply.
Excuse me, I'm a single father of two struggling to play the rent
after nearly a year of unemployment, many years of illness, and no
permanent job in hand. One of best things about the internet is that
you can ask a question and often someone will have quick access to the
answer. I'm not expecting anyone to do extensive research, unless
perhaps they think they should convince others that a guilty verdict
was improper, and that they should therefore abstain from referring to
the convicted parties as cheats.
I believe that as a matter of public record the WBF found R-S guilty
in Beunos Aires, and reaffirmed this after the Foster hearing. Could
they have made a mistake, or reached a conclusion based on
insufficient evidence, then stonewalled to save face? Yes, that's
always a possibility. But the burden of proof IMO rests on those
arguing against treating a convicted cheat as such, not on those who
simply accept the verdict.
>
> I remain convinced you have some undisclosed special interest in
> making a certain view of this topic public and public dogma. Since
> you've dodged questions as to your identity, I'll ask the group: Does
> anybody out there know this guy?
I can't imagine anyone responding politely to the thinly-veiled-threat
you now have the gall to refer to as "dodging questions". (Those who
missed it can refer to the "Weeds" thread.)
Paul Hightower
> > shown and the length of the heart suit? Do we have any record of his
> > findings?
>
> I have always wondered, if someone was going to go to the trouble of
> signaling the number of cards in a suit, why one would signal the number of
> hearts rather than the number of spades??
Truscott's speculation IIRC was that hearts were often "lost" in a
competitive auction.
Good question -- how many pairs used negative doubles at Buenos Aires?
Julian Lighton
John Hall <jo...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3cb491a1...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
> jurg...@verizon.net writes:
>>Why do people think that it makes sense to take sides when the
>>evidence is intrinsically ambiguous?
>
>Perhaps there is more evidence yet to come out. I like to speculate that
>there could something written by Schapiro, stashed away in a bank safe
>deposit box, that is to be published after his death. I think that
>Schapiro is the only man living who knows for sure whether or not they
>were cheating.
Such a thing would only make a difference to people's opinions if it
were a confession. A denial would mean nothing.
Douglas Newlands
:Pam wrote:
:> On 11 Apr 2002 00:20:47 -0700, agum...@hotmail.com (Andrew Gumperz)
:> wrote:
:> >
:> >Schapiro chose 1NT (12-14) as his call.
:>
:> And went a few off in 3NT when the opposition cashed the first 7 heart
:> tricks and the AS. Some you win, some you lose :)
:
:2-5,3-6,4-7 used the same fingers (splayed for the higher of each pair).
:
:Perhaps 1 might have got mixed with 4 sometimes. Especially since the signal
:for 1 stuck out like a sore thumb (well finger) and was in fact the way that
:Dorothy Hayden rumbled the whole scheme. You will note from re-perusal of
:the book, that <void> gave them a problem, and us as well (since there were
:none or few enough to correlate in the data under study).
The matter of holding the hand with NO fingers for the void is a major
problem for the cheating method theorists who decide just to ignore it and
blame R+S for it! :)
The fitting of data is a bigger problem. As an analogy, let us look at a
(machine) learning approach to a problem of seeing detecting shapes (this is
rather allegorical but the principle should be easily grasped). Let us suppose
there is an underlying real shape like
**
******
**********
************
**********
******
** which I intended to be a circle
but doesn't really look like one :(
Let us suppose you get only a three observations of the data (shown below)
then you might hypothesise you are seeing a triangle like
*----*
\ |
\ |
\ |
*
If you get 4 observations, you might still get the triangle likw
*----*
\ |
\* |
\ |
*
or you might get a square
*----*
| |
| |
*---*
The problem is that you don't know you are looking for circles and
have to make a hypothesis which is flawed because you are only sampling the data
and hypothesising from the sample alone.
The same problem arises if I give you a small set of data points from a polynomial
of order 18,say. You will find a multitiude of equations to fit it even maybe
a cubic or quartic or other simple explanation WHICH FITS THE DATA AVAILABLE.
If we further add noise into the observations, it is usually tempting to
view data points as a movable feast within the amount of the error and to
assume they are where they would fit into the simplest hypothesis.
Now consider the observations made or R+S. There aren't many. There was undoubtedly
noise in the form of uncertainty in the observations (it is admitted in the texts
in the form of statements about the uncertainty of some observations)
and, with a simple theory in mind, it is easy to view noisy observations as fitting
the theory and implicitly accepting the error was in your observation, not in
external reality. It is also easy to assume that good observations which don't
fit the theory are noisy and therefore malleable. All of this removes confidence
in the observations as supporting a cheating allegation (at least of the specificity
in this case).
I have no confidence that the observation notes presented are contemporaneous with the
observation and absolutely untouched during the theory forming stage. I see one item
today suggests that some notes were copies of ones which went missing and it is unclear
whether they were exact copies made before the disappearance or reconstructions
after the fact.
From a technical viewpoint, I don't think the observations show anything.
A last snippet is that the method ascribed to R+S is described by John Scarne
in one of his massive tomes (Scarne on cards IIRC) as being that used by some bridge
cheats he detected prior
to the BA event and was published in a US magazine (the reference is in the book)
and it is entirely plausible that the US contingent knew of this prior publication
of the use of this method.
Douglas Newlands
:> In article <98f45892.02041...@posting.google.com> agum...@hotmail.com (Andrew Gumperz) writes:
:> :@math.mit.edu wrote in message news:<a93nvq$dj6$1...@galois.mit.edu>...
:> :> Andrew Gumperz <agum...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
:if the expectations of double are different, not only must the
:responder bid more conservatively but the doubler, holding a normal
:minimumish hand with a fit, must bid more aggressively.
:
:That being said, I would be foolish to completely ignore my instincts.
:I guarantee that if you played a head-to-head match against a pair
:using the R-S style today, you would walk out of it with major doubts
:about their honesty. Simply the volume of psychic bidding should be
:enough to provoke your radar.
No! That observation is entirely a product of where _you_ play and what _you_
are used to. Others (probably outside of the US if comments in rgb are typical)
are more used to a robust style which involves psyching and operating on a
regular basis. These people might view the game as entirely normal or just
at the exciting far edge of the kind of game they are used to.
:> No, it is not. You have to consider your whole outlook on bridge.
:> It might be your view which is flawed - there is a phrase about
:> not seeing the mote in your own eye which springs to mind.
:
:That is true--my outlook may be arrogant and flawed. Or maybe my view
^^^^^^^^
possibly the technically correct word
but some open to misinterpretation
and emotional response that we should
aboid it!
:is realistic and yours is naive.
:The bottom line is this: when the
:stakes are high, some people *will* cheat. And assuming there are
At low levels, there is undoubtedly much to disapprove of in terms of use
of tempo especially but that disappears in good to high quality company.
I think active cheating by design is extremely rare. One of the pleasures
is discussion afterwards of what wonderful plays etc one found and what
insightful inferences you found that others didn't. Nobody relying on a
wire can get into such discussions since they cannot explain what they did.
:people cheating, the first ones we should look at are those who are
:deviating significantly from the group norms with a great success.
I agree that we look at people deviating significantly from the norms
with great success but my first instinct is to understand the method to
emulate it - the thought of cheating isn't in the picture.
:
:In the case of R-S and their psychic bidding, you will find it very
:difficult to call out the "principle" which underlay their methods.
Do you psyche a lot? No (and there is no reason why that is not an acceptable
answer) but then you have got to accept that people who do psyche frequently
know truths about the game that you do not. Theoretical discussions are
all very well but count for little against experience (IMO).
David desJardins
>> I guarantee that if you played a head-to-head match against a pair
>> using the R-S style today, you would walk out of it with major doubts
>> about their honesty. Simply the volume of psychic bidding should be
>> enough to provoke your radar.
>
> No! That observation is entirely a product of where _you_ play and
> what _you_ are used to. Others (probably outside of the US if comments
> in rgb are typical) are more used to a robust style which involves
> psyching and operating on a regular basis.
You're mistaken. No one bids at the world championship level in
anything like this style any more. I think it's well established that
the move to more conservative and well-defined actions is correlated
with the introduction of screens. Whether that has to do with cheating,
or just "table presence", is unknowable.
> Do you psyche a lot? No (and there is no reason why that is not an
> acceptable answer) but then you have got to accept that people who do
> psyche frequently know truths about the game that you do not.
> Theoretical discussions are all very well but count for little against
> experience (IMO).
I happen to know that Andrew has plenty of experience with psychic
bidding.
David desJardins
Csaba
from jan.la...@agresso.se (Jan Lagerman ). Hmmm, doesn't sound like A,
doesn't sound like I. Must be a human:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:26:36 +0100, David Stevenson
> <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
[snip]
>>
>> Ooooh! Oppos I like! I want to play against anyone who thinks
>>underleading a red ace better than leading a trump!!!
>
> So go and play Boris S for high stakes as he was the ace underleader.
> Im not sure your wallet will be happy afterwards though. ;-)
Presumably he won his money not solely due to ace underleads :-)
Reg Day
proves they cheated but when it didn't they must have got their signals
wrong, and thus still cheated!?
Let's face facts, the 'evidence' falls a LONG way short of being conclusive
and if presented in front of a legal court would get short shrift.
Reg
Stephen Pickett
> So let's get this right - when it might have worked to their advantage it
> proves they cheated but when it didn't they must have got their signals
> wrong, and thus still cheated!?
Not at all. I was merely hypothesising that if one cheats, it may pay to mix
things up a little.
Here's another possibility with the 1NT: Schapiro *wanted* pard to think that
he had a NT opening, because if he (Reese) didn't there was even more
likelihood of the singleton H and six-card diamond suit being rumbled.
Human factors........ these guys in 1965 were not machines, and you cannot
apply the standard of a machine playing. It's clear from contemporaneous
accounts that Schapiro was/is a tower of emotions both at and away from the
bridge table. Not at all the mechanical perfection of some of today's starred
players.
Another point is that just like defenders who always signal length, it can pay
to mix it up on the hands which don't matter. Generally they didn't, I suspect
the whole thing (including the *levels* of the cards to show weak and strong
hands) was habituated. There's clues that the mystery void might have been some
other action with the non-card holding hand, but it's not clear what, from the
written accounts.
But sophisticated cheats on okbridge will deliberately perepetrate complete
foolishness as they "know" that any one or two hands where they "might" have
taken advantage but didn't is enough to gain them a verdict of "exculpatory".
Where you catch them is:
a. the really odd moves are always in favour of the overall +2 imps average.
Just as another writer in this thread observed about R-S. Combination of
bizarre actions and mostly success. One hand such as the one that precicipated
my involvement in this thread doesn't disprove the pattern, just as the same
bleeding hearts always maintain one hand doesn't prove guilt.
b. the poor players who are cheating will bid like geniuses in competitive
auctions but cannot play the hand to save their lives (not the case with R-S!).
> Let's face facts, the 'evidence' falls a LONG way short of being conclusive
> and if presented in front of a legal court would get short shrift.
If you want more evidence than the 20 or so hands that Oakie notated (without
knowing the code, some five years earlier), and a perfect match in 19 or 20 of
them, then I would suggest you go get some remedial probability and statistics
classes.
Reg Day
than I can remember. Where you err is in thinking that a 'perfect match in
19 or 20 ' hands selected other than randomly has questionable statistical
meaning. Perhaps you ought to book those classes for yourself!
"Stephen Pickett" <sf...@microtopia.net> wrote in message
news:3CB84B6C...@microtopia.net...
> Reg Day wrote:
>
> > So let's get this right - when it might have worked to their advantage
it
> > proves they cheated but when it didn't they must have got their signals
> > wrong, and thus still cheated!?
Charles Blair
>agum...@hotmail.com (Andrew Gumperz) wrote in message news:<98f45892.02041...@posting.google.com>...
><snip>
>>
>> R-S landed on their feet *far* more often than not after their
>> speculative actions. Is it any surprise that these guys were accused
>> of cheating?? The only surprising fact was that they were not accused
>> much earlier.
>They were accused earlier, in the 1960 Olympiad, by Don Oakie. Does
>anyone have details of this?
I posted a lengthy paraphrase of what Truscott has in his book
(a chapter written by Oakie himself) under the subject
heading "Oakie, Reese, and Schapiro" several years ago. I assume a
google search would find the thread.
Oakie took notes of what he felt were suspicious variations in fingers
and in which hand was used to hold the cards. He also got Alvin Landy,
Harry Fishbein, and Charlie Solomon to watch them play. They persuaded
Oakie not to publicize his suspicions, partly because this happened near
the end of the event, when it was too late to do anything.
Oakie gave the notes to Alan Truscott, who had considerable trouble
locating a set of hand records for the relevant session.
Charles Blair
>> I think it's well established that
>the move to more conservative and well-defined actions is correlated
>with the introduction of screens.
Most (all?) of the Blue Team's successes predated use of screens,
and I don't think they psyched much.
Charles Blair
>paul...@infi.net (Paul Hightower) writes:
>>They were accused earlier, in the 1960 Olympiad, by Don Oakie. Does
>>anyone have details of this?
> I posted a lengthy paraphrase of what Truscott has in his book
>(a chapter written by Oakie himself) under the subject
>heading "Oakie, Reese, and Schapiro" several years ago. I assume a
>google search would find the thread.
I posted on this in March of 2001, not "several years ago". You
can find the thread quickly in Google by searching for the group
"rec.games.bridge" (duh!) and including "Oakie Reese" in the subject
field.
David Stevenson
>George Priest wrote:
>
>> > (6) What correlation did Butler find between the number of fingers
>> > shown and the length of the heart suit? Do we have any record of his
>> > findings?
>>
>> I have always wondered, if someone was going to go to the trouble of
>> signaling the number of cards in a suit, why one would signal the number of
>> hearts rather than the number of spades??
>>
>
>It seems that R-S may not have figured this out immediately either.
>
>Truscott reports on an earlier spade code.
The reason for hearts was that hearts was more likely, especially
since Sputnik doubles were not regularly played by pairs like R-S.
The reason given for the alleged earlier spade code was that they were
playing Little Major at that time, which had a drawback that sometimes
it was not clear whether partner had spades or a balanced hand.
--
David Stevenson <bri...@blakjak.com> Liverpool, England, UK
For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum
at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm
David Stevenson
John Uchida
wrote:
>The professional use of statistics has been part of my job for more years
>than I can remember. Where you err is in thinking that a 'perfect match in
>19 or 20 ' hands selected other than randomly has questionable statistical
>meaning. Perhaps you ought to book those classes for yourself!
>
The odds of randomly matching fingers to the number of hearts 20 out
of 20 times is about 4 * 10^12, or 4/1000000000000 using expected a
priori distributions for the number of hearts.
John Uchida
wrote:
>paul...@infi.net (Paul Hightower) writes:
>
>>agum...@hotmail.com (Andrew Gumperz) wrote in message news:<98f45892.02041...@posting.google.com>...
>><snip>
>>>
>>> R-S landed on their feet *far* more often than not after their
>>> speculative actions. Is it any surprise that these guys were accused
>>> of cheating?? The only surprising fact was that they were not accused
>>> much earlier.
>
>>They were accused earlier, in the 1960 Olympiad, by Don Oakie. Does
>>anyone have details of this?
>
> I posted a lengthy paraphrase of what Truscott has in his book
>(a chapter written by Oakie himself) under the subject
>heading "Oakie, Reese, and Schapiro" several years ago. I assume a
>google search would find the thread.
In addition to finger signals, Oakie noticed that R-S switched between
right and left hands, and varied the height that they held their
hands. His conclusion was left hand = less than 10 points, right hand
10 or more. He didn't have access to the play records of the time and
didn't decode the finger signals.
Andrew Gumperz
> In article <98f45892.02041...@posting.google.com> agum...@hotmail.com (Andrew Gumperz) writes:
> :do...@Deakin.Edu.Au (Douglas Newlands) wrote in message news:<I1qt8.6$nV1....@news.deakin.edu.au>...
> :> In article <98f45892.02041...@posting.google.com> agum...@hotmail.com (Andrew Gumperz) writes:
> :> :@math.mit.edu wrote in message news:<a93nvq$dj6$1...@galois.mit.edu>...
> :> :> Andrew Gumperz <agum...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> :I do not assume that this auction must be dishonest. I understand that
> :if the expectations of double are different, not only must the
> :responder bid more conservatively but the doubler, holding a normal
> :minimumish hand with a fit, must bid more aggressively.
> :
> :That being said, I would be foolish to completely ignore my instincts.
> :I guarantee that if you played a head-to-head match against a pair
> :using the R-S style today, you would walk out of it with major doubts
> :about their honesty. Simply the volume of psychic bidding should be
> :enough to provoke your radar.
>
> No! That observation is entirely a product of where _you_ play and what _you_
> are used to. Others (probably outside of the US if comments in rgb are typical)
> are more used to a robust style which involves psyching and operating on a
> regular basis. These people might view the game as entirely normal or just
> at the exciting far edge of the kind of game they are used to.
The assumptions that you have stated above about US bridge and below
about my game in particular are quite wrong. Operating in many ways is
quite normal in good US bridge circles (though outright psychics are
no longer common). As David Desjardins pointed out in another post, I
spent many years where psychic bidding was a part of my own game, so I
do know whereof I speak in regard to this topic.
My opinion today, is that it is pretty much impossible to psyche
regularly in an extablished partnership without developing implicit
agreements about the situations where you psyche, the types of hands
you hold the continuations that reveal a psychic. And ethically, you
are obligated to disclose those agreements. Take this hand and auction
played by R-S as an example, Reese was the opener:
Qxx
AJxx
Kxx
AKQ
Auction:
1C-X-1H-2D
2NT-P-3C-All pass
This auction clearly suggest that Reese expected that 1H was a
psychic.
#1 he rebid 2NT instead of raising hearts, holding 4 card support
#2 he passed his partner's 3C correction, when if facing a natural 1H
bid, he might even make a game in hearts.
The auction (1m-X-?) is one where players frequently make psychic
bids. However, do they tell this to their opponents? Do they alert the
1H call, telling the opponents, "well in principle 1H is natural, but
in practice more than 25% of the time the bid shows shortness in
hearts and a club fit"? When the 1H bidder later shows club support do
they explain that 3C confirms the original 1H bid was a psychic? Of
course they don't.
When you play frequent psychics, a lot of bids become two-way bids.
If you like to psyche a 1M opening bid on hands like this: xx, KQxx,
xx, xxxx. Then you probably should offer an explanation something like
this:
"When NV in 1st and 3rd seat, a 1M opening is either a legitimate
opening or a hand with 4-6 HCP, and concentrated values in the bid
suit." Do you know anyone who offers these types of explanations?
Lack of accurate disclosure around psychics is one problem. Another is
that it is very easy to unconsciously read your partner for a psychic
and change your bidding accordingly. On the above auction, no bid by
the defenders unambiguously reveals that 1H is a psychic. The only
possible explanations (that don't involve finger signals) for the
auction are:
#1 Reese knew from experience that 1H was likely to be a psychic, and
that the 3C correction made it almost a certainty that 1H was a
psychic. If this was the case, then Reese failed to disclose an
implicit agreement to his opponents.
#2 Reese read from his partner's demeanor at the table that 1H was a
psychic. In this case Reese relied on unauthorized information.
In either case, he acted outside the laws of bridge. This is the root
of my objection to psychic bidding. Psychic bidders do not disclose
completely and often apply their table feel to their partner as well
as their opponents.
If Reese had been an honest bridge player he would have done one of
two things: * even if he was 100% certain that his partner had
psyched 1H, until the auction unambiguously revealed the psychic, he
would treat the 1H bid as real. He had no information to tell him that
1H was not real, therefore, he was obligated to treat it as real.
#2 Alternatively, he could choose to treat 1H as a psychic
immediately, but in that case he should have told his opponents in
advance the situations where he and his partners liked to psyche, the
types of hands on which they did it and the continuations that
revealed the psychics. BTW, if he choose this second approach he
should be watched like a hawk. If he almost never misjudges a
situation and plays his partner to have psyched when in fact his call
was real, then he is very likely using UI, although it is possible he
is not conscious of that fact.
But you can not have it both ways. You can not both psyche willy-nilly
and not tell the opponents your agreements about it.
> :> No, it is not. You have to consider your whole outlook on bridge.
> :> It might be your view which is flawed - there is a phrase about
> :> not seeing the mote in your own eye which springs to mind.
> :
> :That is true--my outlook may be arrogant and flawed. Or maybe my view
> ^^^^^^^^
> possibly the technically correct word
> but some open to misinterpretation
> and emotional response that we should
> aboid it!
>
> :is realistic and yours is naive.
> :The bottom line is this: when the
> :stakes are high, some people *will* cheat. And assuming there are
>
> At low levels, there is undoubtedly much to disapprove of in terms of use
> of tempo especially but that disappears in good to high quality company.
> I think active cheating by design is extremely rare.
Well, I hate to disabuse you of this notion. But it is sadly more
common than you might think. At the top level, a lot of money is
involved and unfortunately cheating by design is easy to do and hard
to prove. This situation is the perfect environment within which
cheating can develop.
Many pairs have been accused of cheating, some have been broken up or
banned for it. A great many more are widely believed to be cheating by
their peers, but not enough is known to really do something about it.
In general, the accusations are kept quiet, because the bridge
authorities know that it is very damaging to the image of the game.
> One of the pleasures
> is discussion afterwards of what wonderful plays etc one found and what
> insightful inferences you found that others didn't. Nobody relying on a
> wire can get into such discussions since they cannot explain what they did.
Not quite true. The wire usually operates to push a close decision in
favor of one direction. The actions can almost always be justified as
simply an application of good judgment or as brave risk-taking which
paid off today.
> :people cheating, the first ones we should look at are those who are
> :deviating significantly from the group norms with a great success.
>
> I agree that we look at people deviating significantly from the norms
> with great success but my first instinct is to understand the method to
> emulate it - the thought of cheating isn't in the picture.
In fact, I have tried to emulate frequent psychic bidding in my own
game, and I found that I got some spectacular good and bad results.
The cost of the bad ones was high and the embarassment of explaining
to teammates why we were -1100 for no reason was severe. But worst was
the realization that it was just way too easy to detect from a
partner's mannerism that he had psyched. I hated the feeling of having
this UI, and then trying to find the ethical bid in the presence of
the UI. It was easier just to give up psyching.
> :
> :In the case of R-S and their psychic bidding, you will find it very
> :difficult to call out the "principle" which underlay their methods.
>
> Do you psyche a lot? No (and there is no reason why that is not an acceptable
> answer) but then you have got to accept that people who do psyche frequently
> know truths about the game that you do not. Theoretical discussions are
> all very well but count for little against experience (IMO).
If these truths which R-S apparently knew in 1965 were so evident, I'd
expect frequent psychic bidding to be a part of every expert's arsenal
by now. In fact, no expert pair today bids the way this pair did, even
in events where anything is allowed.
Andrew
Andrew Gumperz
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:13:11 +0000 (UTC),
> gordonr...@btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) wrote:
>
> >Jan Lagerman <jan.la...@agresso.se> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11 Apr 2002 00:20:47 -0700, agum...@hotmail.com (Andrew Gumperz)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Here is an opening lead problem:
> >> >
> >> >xxx
> >> >Axxx
> >> >Axx
> >> >QTx
> >> >
> >> >Auction: 1S-P-3S-P-4S-All pass. What do you lead? Obviously it is a
> >> >guess, but I'd expect maybe 80-90% of people to lead a spade. Second
> >> >choice, a club. Third choice--I can't imagine many people getting that
> >> >far--but maybe Ace of diamonds or hearts.
> >>
> >> games than I do.
> >> My guess would be closer to 8-9% for the trump.
> >> I think a club lead would draw a LOT more votes than a trump.
> >> The underlead of one ace or the other would also catch a few votes,
> >> but only slightly fewer than the trump lead, which IMO is way worse
> >> than any other suit.
> >>
> >> Jan
> >>
> >Perhaps you'd care to tell us why you think that, Jan?
>
> Probably because Im from Sweden.
> Nobody here except Magnus Lindqvist leads trumps against games.
> "When in doubt, leads trumps" is a really really poor rule to follow
> IMO.
> But why? I just have the feeling that a trumplead against a game with
> no strong indication that its right more often than not gives away
> either the trumpsuit and/or a valuable tempo.
>
> Jan
OK Jan,
I agree with you about one thing: You and I *DO* play in a different
game! In retrospect, I did overstate the case for a spade lead. I now
think most experts would choose between a spade and a club. The one
area where I have not changed my opinion is about an underlead of an
ace. I think almost no experts would underlead an ace. Here are my
thoughts about this hand as a lead problem.
#1 A trump lead has the advantage of being very unlikely to blow a
trick at T1. The opponents rate to have 9 trumps between them, meaning
partner is stiff. Yes, a trump lead does give up a tempo, but when the
other leads are all iffy, you might be better off not guessing blindly
at T1.
#2 Nothing about this auction suggest that an underlead of an ace is
called for or rates to succeed. Either LHO or RHO or could be stiff in
either red suit. You are leading into an RHO who has values. Either
suit is likely to blow a trick and may blow a tempo too. Either red
suit is a blind guess, and not one that has great odds of succeeding.
Of the two aces to underlead, you might argue that hearts are slightly
more dangerous since it is slightly more likely that the opponents
hold a singleton heart.
#3 The club lead is not bad. It combines aggressiveness with
reasonably safety.
+++++++++++++++++
Of course all of this analysis is beside the point, since you seem to
agree with me that relatively few experts would be leading a low heart
from this hand which was the original point.
Andrew
Colin Ward
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:35:03 +0100, "Reg Day" <reg...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The professional use of statistics has been part of my job for more years
>>than I can remember. Where you err is in thinking that a 'perfect match in
>>19 or 20 ' hands selected other than randomly has questionable statistical
>>meaning. Perhaps you ought to book those classes for yourself!
>
>The odds of randomly matching fingers to the number of hearts 20 out
>of 20 times is about 4 * 10^12, or 4/1000000000000 using expected a
>priori distributions for the number of hearts.
That is amazing! Those are the exact same odds as
Schapiro approaching Swimer and confessing to him. What
a co-incidence! Gee, what were the chances of THAT?
Of course, we bear in mind that Swimer had just failed
in his duty to insist that his players be given a chance to
contest the charges through due process (yes, even if he
insisted or believed that they were guilty), that Swimer
was detested by Reese and Schapiro (a well known fact
conveniently ignored but, conspicuously, never denied by
Truscott), that Swimer had just taken part in a "hearing"
which, in not even allowing the pretence of a defence, fell
well short of the lofty standards set by Stalinist show
trials, and that this account by Swimer of the "confession"
meant that Schapiro would be confiding his "suicidal
depression" to the very person most responsible for it.
4/1000000000000, you say? Sounds about right to
me, but everyone who knows Schapiro is lining up at the
wicket and plunking their cash down against Swimer here.
Wait a minute, Pam. Isn't that your MORTGAGE money? :)
Colin Ward
wrote:
>do...@Deakin.Edu.Au (Douglas Newlands) wrote in message news:<m3Ot8.10$nV1....@news.deakin.edu.au>...
At this level of play? Are you joking? Anyone
who would need to be told that this is a frequent
psyching situation or that (in the absence of a
redouble of 1C) 3C is not forcing here is not
qualified to kibitz such an event, let alone play
in it.
<More comedy snipped>
>> Do you psyche a lot? No (and there is no reason why that is not an acceptable
>> answer) but then you have got to accept that people who do psyche frequently
>> know truths about the game that you do not. Theoretical discussions are
>> all very well but count for little against experience (IMO).
>
>If these truths which R-S apparently knew in 1965 were so evident, I'd
>expect frequent psychic bidding to be a part of every expert's arsenal
>by now.
Do you actually believe it isn't?
>In fact, no expert pair today bids the way this pair did, even
>in events where anything is allowed.
In another newsgroup we stumbled across a
lady from Australia who had never heard of
Pink Floyd and had to guess--yes, guess--that
Bob Dylan was a singer. Today we see a bridge
player who has never heard of Zia Mahmood.
Amazing.
Stephen Pickett
> The reason given for the alleged earlier spade code was that they were
> playing Little Major at that time, which had a drawback that sometimes
> it was not clear whether partner had spades or a balanced hand.
I seem to recollect Little Major was a brainchild of Jeremy Flint and Reese, and
was concocted in the early sixties (1962?), certainly after Oakie's accusations
(turned out to be hearts, not spades), which were made during the previous world
championship to Buenos Aires. Tell me it ain't so!
Thus they couldn't predate the heart code AND postdate the Little Major, if my
other recollection (I no longer have a copy of Truscott) is correct- namely that
the suggestion about spade codes referred to a time before heart codes.
Perhaps someone could contextualize Truscott's reference to spades.
By the way you don't mention *who* gave a reason. The first clause of your
sentence (up to the word "code") is preposterously vague, imprecise, and a whole
bunch of other things which can be lumped in with bad newspaper reporting such as
practised by News of the World, National Enquirer, and others.
Sorry David, I sent the first draft of this, by mistake and to you personally.
Please ignore the email.
Tony Warnock
So if a hand shows a lack of knowledge of heart length, you just
assume that the signals were misread and that R&S were still
signaling? Sort of like, if there are fingerprints the perp is guilty
and if none, the perp is guilty and erased the fingerprints.
Stephen Pickett
> So if a hand shows a lack of knowledge of heart length, you just
> assume that the signals were misread and that R&S were still
> signaling? Sort of like, if there are fingerprints the perp is guilty
> and if none, the perp is guilty and erased the fingerprints.
Not at all.
This is a circular argument, and doesn't prove or disprove anything about the main allegations. I'll
refrain from taking it as any sort of attack on my motivations.
You are putting words in my mouth with your analogies.
Unless something conclusively rules out guilt, then the hand in question ranks as neutral. The
unfairness (or not) of the accusation vis a vis that particular hand does *not* go to proving
innocence.
My comments were designed to show that this hand does not prove innocence, since it is possible to
explain it even in terms of a pair cheating on every board. Contrarily, you and I both recognise
that there are many apologists here who would leap in and remind us that one hand doesn't prove guilt
:)
One hand doesn't prove innocence.
David desJardins
>> Qxx
>> AJxx
>> Kxx
>> AKQ
>>
>> Auction:
>> 1C-X-1H-2D
>> 2NT-P-3C-All pass
>
> Amazing.
There's no way that Mahmood or Rosenberg would field this psyche in this
way. Might Zia psyche 1H? Sure. Would Rosenberg field it? No.
David desJardins
Stephen Pickett
> The professional use of statistics has been part of my job for more years
> than I can remember. Where you err is in thinking that a 'perfect match in
> 19 or 20 ' hands selected other than randomly has questionable statistical
> meaning. Perhaps you ought to book those classes for yourself!
Sounds like about 2^^20 to 1 against that these are all explicable by
coincidence.
What had you ingested when you considered this proposition?
sfbp
Colin Ward
<de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
But Reese would. Of course, I have never
suggested for an instant that Reese was not a
better play Rosenberg. He may have been even
better than David DesJardins. Who knows? He
might have reasoned that with LHO showing most
of the outstanding strength he did not relish
the thought of a Spade or Diamond lead coming
through his S-Qxx and D-Kxx. Or perhaps Reese
failed to appreciate the value of his fourth
round ruffing values in the pointed suits. If
so, he might have wanted to insist on playing
the hand even if Partner did have Heart length.
Given all of this, I would not bet my last
dollar that Rosenberg would have been unable
to bid this hand exactly as well as Reese did.
John Uchida
>On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 18:23:15 -0700, John Uchida <john_...@msn.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:35:03 +0100, "Reg Day" <reg...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The professional use of statistics has been part of my job for more years
>>>than I can remember. Where you err is in thinking that a 'perfect match in
>>>19 or 20 ' hands selected other than randomly has questionable statistical
>>>meaning. Perhaps you ought to book those classes for yourself!
>>
>>The odds of randomly matching fingers to the number of hearts 20 out
>>of 20 times is about 4 * 10^12, or 4/1000000000000 using expected a
>>priori distributions for the number of hearts.
>
> That is amazing! Those are the exact same odds as
>Schapiro approaching Swimer and confessing to him. What
>a co-incidence! Gee, what were the chances of THAT?
>
> Of course, we bear in mind that Swimer had just failed
>in his duty to insist that his players be given a chance to
>contest the charges through due process (yes, even if he
>insisted or believed that they were guilty)
>, that Swimer
>was detested by Reese and Schapiro
Didn't we already go around the block on this point? You previously
stated "One can only surmise that the privilege of captaining this
team did not come out of a popularity contest." and I pointed out
that Truscott states that Reese and Schapiro both voted for Swimer to
be captain of the team. I haven't heard a single plausible
explanation why Reese and Schapiro would vote for someone they
detested to be the captain (and the person who would be making out the
daily lineups) nor has anyone come up with information that
contradicts Truscott's version of the captain's story.
>(a well known fact
>conveniently ignored but, conspicuously, never denied by
>Truscott),
Quote from Truscott's book. "In the London inquiry, the prosecution
presented its witnesses before the defense and so had no opportunity
to rebut Schapiro's version of his relations with Swimer.
If there had been such an opportunity, Richard Preston, a fellow
member with Schapiro [and Swimer] of the Hamilton Club, could have
given important evidence. Says Preston:
On at least three occasions Boris Schapiro engaged me in conversation
either in the bar or in the card-room, and he told me how much he
liked and admired Ralph Swimer. He said that he was very much in
favor of the suggestion that Swimer be appointed non-playing captain
of the team for Buenos Aires, and furthermore that he intended to
telephone Swimer and urge him to accept the captaincy".
It might not be a denial to you, but it basically says those who said
that Schapiro detested Swimer before Buenos Aires were liars.
> that Swimer had just taken part in a "hearing"
>which, in not even allowing the pretence of a defence, fell
>well short of the lofty standards set by Stalinist show
>trials, and that this account by Swimer of the "confession"
>meant that Schapiro would be confiding his "suicidal
>depression" to the very person most responsible for it.
No, that would be,
1. R-S for signalling in the first place
2. Becker for being the only one at the tournament so spot the signals
(although the Italians were sure they were being cheated, they just
didn't know how).
3. Everybody else, including Swimer, who was alerted and saw the
signals.
Andrew Gumperz
> Pam wrote:
>
> > Sorry to be a little picky but:
> >
> > On 11 Apr 2002 00:20:47 -0700, agum...@hotmail.com (Andrew Gumperz)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >What do you open on this:
> > >
> > >Axx
> > >x
> > >AKxxxx
> > >Jxx
> >
> > Actually it was
> > Jxx
> > x
> > AKxxxx
> > Axx
> >
> > >
> > >Schapiro chose 1NT (12-14) as his call.
> >
> > And went a few off in 3NT when the opposition cashed the first 7 heart
> > tricks and the AS. Some you win, some you lose :)
Thanks for the correction.
<snip>
> Your example proves or disproves nothing. IMO.
I agree that these hands do not suggest (or deny) particularly
knowledge of the number of hearts--they were not intended to.
My point was only that this pair psyched an extraordinary amount, and
that any pair who did so, and in such unorthodox ways, really deserved
to be examined.
Andrew
Andrew Gumperz
>
>
> Thanks Andrew for a very interesting post.
>
> I find the examples unconvincing, in terms of cheating.
>
> The psyches seem to me to rely on the opponents being honest, which was
> perhaps a safe assumption.
>
> For example, the 19-count heard the opponents show lots of values (takeout
> double, free bid), so it was reasonable to assume partner was fooling
> around.
The auction 1m-X-1M is a favorite psychic for many pairs, so I agree
that Reese could reasonably suspect a psychic. However, do you think
he explained his partnership tendencies to his opponents? Do you think
he alerted 1H, saying, "it is natural in principle, but in practice 1H
often shows heart shortness and a club fit"? Do you think he explained
that the correction of 2NT to 3C essentially guaranteed that 1H had
been a psychic? I doubt it.
The point is that psychic bidding with the frequency employed by this
pair creates implicit agreeements about what different auctions do and
do not show, but those agreements do not get disclosed to the
opponents.
BTW, I do not think that the opponents's auction conclusively suggests
that 1H MUST be a psychic. There is no reason why RHO might not be
light for his bidding. And even if Schapiro's heart bid is light,
maybe he really has heart length too.
IMO, any player who bids 2NT on this auction to cater to the
possibility of a psyche is bidding on the basis of a hidden
partnership agreement unless he discloses in advance his partnership
tendencies.
> And why shouldn't a comic NT overcall be made on a 5 card suit? People open
> weak twos on 5-card suits - what's the essential difference? They were
> probably ahead of their time.
OK, fair enough.
> The underlead of the ace looks OK to me as well. It's a tough lead problem.
Would you do it? I'd choose a club over a heart any day.
> The 1NT opening on Axx-x-AKxxxx-Jxx seems wild - was it third seat? It's
> still an interesting tactical move - preempts hearts, with the intention of
> coming back in with diamonds.
No, it was in first seat. As it turned out, it worked out badly for
R-S. Reese held a 3-2-4-4 13 count with Kx of hearts and raised to
3NT. The opponents cashed 7 hearts and an ace.
The point of all this is not that these hands in any way "prove" R-S
were cheating. To my mind, the most interesting thing I learned from
analyzing the hands is just how inconclusive they are. On almost every
hand you can make an equally convincing case either for or against
knowledge of the heart suit.
The point is that this was a pair whose approach was far from the norm
of their day. Much of the bidding, if it is honest, is just bad. Do
you know any experienced player who would open Schapiro's hand above
with a weak NT? So you have to ask yourself, how could a pair who bid
so randomly succeed at this level? Further, any pair who psyches to
this degree is automatically suspect in my mind for other reasons.
They are almost certainly not disclosing their implicit agreements and
they are likely to be uncovering psyches based on reading their
partner's subtle mannerisms.
In any event, thanks for reading and contributing.
Andrew
Nicholas Hills
Oh, for heaven's sake. Just because you have a strong belief that R-S
didn't cheat, doesn't mean that you have to abandon all your critical
faculties.
Nick
--
Nick Hills Thermo-Fluid Mechanics Research Centre
N.J....@sussex.ac.uk University of Sussex
Tel: 01273 877136 Falmer, Brighton
Fax: 01273 678486
John Uchida
>On 13 Apr 2002 22:32:43 -0700, David desJardins
><de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>>Colin Ward <c...@escape.ca> writes:
>>>> Qxx
>>>> AJxx
>>>> Kxx
>>>> AKQ
>>>>
>>>> Auction:
>>>> 1C-X-1H-2D
>>>> 2NT-P-3C-All pass
>>>
>>> Today we see a bridge player who has never heard of Zia Mahmood.
>>> Amazing.
>>
>>There's no way that Mahmood or Rosenberg would field this psyche in this
>>way. Might Zia psyche 1H? Sure. Would Rosenberg field it? No.
>>
>> David desJardins
>
> But Reese would.
I couldn't agree more.
John Uchida
<sf...@microtopia.net> wrote:
>David Stevenson wrote:
>
>> The reason given for the alleged earlier spade code was that they were
>> playing Little Major at that time, which had a drawback that sometimes
>> it was not clear whether partner had spades or a balanced hand.
>
>I seem to recollect Little Major was a brainchild of Jeremy Flint and Reese, and
>was concocted in the early sixties (1962?), certainly after Oakie's accusations
>(turned out to be hearts, not spades), which were made during the previous world
>championship to Buenos Aires. Tell me it ain't so!
>
>Thus they couldn't predate the heart code AND postdate the Little Major, if my
>other recollection (I no longer have a copy of Truscott) is correct- namely that
>the suggestion about spade codes referred to a time before heart codes.
>
>Perhaps someone could contextualize Truscott's reference to spades.
>
North - Reese
AKJ9765
AQ3
J
KJ
South-Schapiro
Q
65
6543
875432
N E S W
1H* Dble 1S** P
P*** Dble P 2D
2S 3D P P
3S P P P
Per Truscott,
1H* - either psychic, or powerful hand needing little or no support
for game
1S** Negative, says nothing about spades
P*** Shows psychic type of opener
He also notes that R-S made 5 eccentric spot card leads in 1964, NY
Olympiad, 3 were in spades, none in hearts.
Andrew Gumperz
You are of course right Colin. 3C in this auction is a natural
non-forcing call showing clubs. Do you think it is possible that
Schapiro might have bid the same way holding this hand: xx, KTxxx, x,
xxxxx? This is the type of hand I would have held for his auction.
Both my example above, and a hand with short hearts and a club fit are
consistent with the auction. Yet Reese chose to interpret the call as
showing the latter--this is a strong indication of an implicit
agreement between them (or of illegal length signals if you prefer to
go that route).
The point of disclosure to the opponents is not to tell the opponents
the obvious fact that this is a situation where psychics are common.
It is to disclose your partnership agreements. The laws of bridge do
not provide any special protection that says you do not have to
disclose your partnership agreements regarding psychic bids.
> >> Do you psyche a lot? No (and there is no reason why that is not an acceptable
> >> answer) but then you have got to accept that people who do psyche frequently
> >> know truths about the game that you do not. Theoretical discussions are
> >> all very well but count for little against experience (IMO).
> >
> >If these truths which R-S apparently knew in 1965 were so evident, I'd
> >expect frequent psychic bidding to be a part of every expert's arsenal
> >by now.
>
> Do you actually believe it isn't?
yes I do. Operations of various sorts are quite common. But
old-fashioned psychic bids are pretty rare.
> >In fact, no expert pair today bids the way this pair did, even
> >in events where anything is allowed.
>
> In another newsgroup we stumbled across a
> lady from Australia who had never heard of
> Pink Floyd and had to guess--yes, guess--that
> Bob Dylan was a singer. Today we see a bridge
> player who has never heard of Zia Mahmood.
>
> Amazing.
Be my guest. Send these hands to Zia and see what he would bid.
Andrew
PS Colin, although we disagree, I have been nothing but polite towards
you. Your descent into ridicule was uncalled for and suggests that you
are at the end of your ability to provide actual arguments.
Andrew Gumperz
You are of course right Colin. 3C in this auction is a natural
non-forcing call showing clubs. Do you think it is possible that
Schapiro might have bid the same way holding this hand: xx, KTxxx, x,
xxxxx? This is the type of hand I would have held for his auction.
Both my example above, and a hand with short hearts and a club fit are
consistent with the auction. Yet Reese chose to interpret the call as
showing the latter--this is a strong indication of an implicit
agreement between them (or of illegal length signals if you prefer to
go that route).
The point of disclosure to the opponents is not to tell the opponents
the obvious fact that this is a situation where psychics are common.
It is to disclose your partnership agreements. The laws of bridge do
not provide any special protection that says you do not have to
disclose your partnership agreements regarding your psychic bids.
> >> Do you psyche a lot? No (and there is no reason why that is not an acceptable
> >> answer) but then you have got to accept that people who do psyche frequently
> >> know truths about the game that you do not. Theoretical discussions are
> >> all very well but count for little against experience (IMO).
> >
> >If these truths which R-S apparently knew in 1965 were so evident, I'd
> >expect frequent psychic bidding to be a part of every expert's arsenal
> >by now.
>
> Do you actually believe it isn't?
yes I do. Operations of various sorts are quite common. But
old-fashioned psychic bids are pretty rare.
> >In fact, no expert pair today bids the way this pair did, even
> >in events where anything is allowed.
>
> In another newsgroup we stumbled across a
> lady from Australia who had never heard of
> Pink Floyd and had to guess--yes, guess--that
> Bob Dylan was a singer. Today we see a bridge
> player who has never heard of Zia Mahmood.
>
> Amazing.
Be my guest. Send these hands to Zia and see what he would bid.
Andrew Gumperz
Michael Rosenberg is quite capable of recognizing a psychic, but
unlike the vast majority of players from the 1950's and 1960's, and
Mr. Reese in particular, Michael Rosenberg is scrupulously ethical in
his bidding. He would not play his partner for a psychic when his
partner's bidding could just as easily be natural as psychic. To do so
would be bidding on the basis of an undisclosed agreement. If the
situation came up, he would raise hearts in the full knowledge that
his partner probably held heart shortness.
If you'd like to verify, I'll happily make you a wager and we can call
him.
Andrew
Charles Blair
>>
>> Today we see a bridge player who has never heard of Zia Mahmood.
>> Amazing.
>There's no way that Mahmood or Rosenberg would field this psyche in this
>way. Might Zia psyche 1H? Sure. Would Rosenberg field it? No.
Just curious. Do we have examples of psychics by highly regarded
players in the last ten years being either spectacularly succesful
or unsuccessful?
The hand that comes to mind is Hamman leading the wrong ace
against a grand slam on the mistaken theory that a French opponent
in a world championship had cue-bid a suit that he didn't control.
However, that was more than ten years ago, and didn't involve a psychic.
jurg...@verizon.net
<sf...@microtopia.net> wrote:
>Reg Day wrote:
>
>> The professional use of statistics has been part of my job for more years
>> than I can remember. Where you err is in thinking that a 'perfect match in
>> 19 or 20 ' hands selected other than randomly has questionable statistical
>> meaning. Perhaps you ought to book those classes for yourself!
>
>Sounds like about 2^^20 to 1 against that these are all explicable by
>coincidence.
If that's what it sounds like to you then it is high time to sign up
for the stix class, probably preceded by a remedial math course. -
Also I would recommend a course of lectures on the psychology of
perception.
>
>What had you ingested when you considered this proposition?
Reg is making a valid and important point. If you want to apply
statistical logic, then knowledge of how the sample was selected is
necessary and how the observations were controlled is decisive.
Steve Grant
news:gkgu8.40423$tg4.4...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
> Just curious. Do we have examples of psychics by highly regarded
> players in the last ten years being either spectacularly succesful
> or unsuccessful?
If you can work with a large value of "ten," see 1983 Bermuda Bowl
semifinal, board 124. Ronnie Rubin, dealer at favorable vulnerability,
picked up 10643 Q984 1093 106 and opened 1S. The result was not a success.
Steve
--
All your base are belong to us.
http://www.angelfire.com/nj2/sjgrant
ICQ #37620434
One year, ten months, two weeks, 19 hours, 52 minutes and 17 seconds. 20514
cigarettes not smoked, saving $4,359.67. Life saved: 10 weeks, 1 day, 5
hours, 30 minutes.
Robert Tamlyn
> <de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> >Colin Ward <c...@escape.ca> writes:
> >>> Qxx
> >>> AJxx
> >>> Kxx
> >>> AKQ
> >>>
> >>> Auction:
> >>> 1C-X-1H-2D
> >>> 2NT-P-3C-All pass
> >>
> >> Today we see a bridge player who has never heard of Zia Mahmood.
> >> Amazing.
> >
I have read many of Zia's exploits. None of them have given me any reason to
suspect he is cheating. That is not true when I read about Reese's
weirdness.
Could we discuss the right bid over 3C (in a 1960's settings)?
Partner could have passed 2NT with a psyche but has given us another chance.
Perphaps he has some C-H two suiter. My high cards are well placed. I have
19 HCP and partner has kept the bidding going. The double fit seems to
compensate for the lower honors in the pointed suits.
My inclination is to bid 4H or 3NT.
Kxx
K10xx
x
Jxxxx
or
xx
K10xxx
-
Jxxxxx
Another question to ask is why would S bother to psyche 1H when he knows R
has 4 cards in the suit? It seems unlikely. The time to psyche is when R has
3 or less in the suit. Perhaps an opposing declarer will get messed up in
the play.
It seems with all this randomness that R and S throw into their bidding that
it must have been terribly innacurate. Obviously, they believed the monkey
wrenches they threw into the auctions messed up their opponents card play
and bidding enough to compensate.
I remain firmly convinced that it is impossible to determine guilt or
innocence from the hand recrords when the pair involved are world champions.
They can throw in the occasionaly whoops (such as the 4-2 fit played at the
one level vs the US).
> >There's no way that Mahmood or Rosenberg would field this psyche in this
> >way. Might Zia psyche 1H? Sure. Would Rosenberg field it? No.
> >
> > David desJardins
>
> But Reese would. Of course, I have never
> suggested for an instant that Reese was not a
> better play Rosenberg. He may have been even
> better than David DesJardins. Who knows? He
The first side in a debate that resorts to sarcasm loses credibility.
Robert Tamlyn
"Andrew Gumperz" <agum...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:98f45892.02041...@posting.google.com...
IIRC, Truscott in his book states that the British team agreed that they
would absolutely avoid underleading Aces in a team meeting before the event.
Ukrfan
"Andrew Gumperz" <agum...@hotmail.com> ???????/???????? ? ????????
?????????: news:98f45892.02041...@posting.google.com...
> OK Jan,
>
> I agree with you about one thing: You and I *DO* play in a different
> game!
Count me in the Jan's group.
>In retrospect, I did overstate the case for a spade lead. I now
> think most experts would choose between a spade and a club. The one
> area where I have not changed my opinion is about an underlead of an
> ace. I think almost no experts would underlead an ace. Here are my
> thoughts about this hand as a lead problem.
>
> #1 A trump lead has the advantage of being very unlikely to blow a
> trick at T1. The opponents rate to have 9 trumps between them, meaning
> partner is stiff. Yes, a trump lead does give up a tempo, but when the
> other leads are all iffy, you might be better off not guessing blindly
> at T1.
>
> #2 Nothing about this auction suggest that an underlead of an ace is
> called for or rates to succeed. Either LHO or RHO or could be stiff in
> either red suit. You are leading into an RHO who has values. Either
> suit is likely to blow a trick and may blow a tempo too. Either red
> suit is a blind guess, and not one that has great odds of succeeding.
> Of the two aces to underlead, you might argue that hearts are slightly
> more dangerous since it is slightly more likely that the opponents
> hold a singleton heart.
Heart lead has one big advantage : if you never underlead aces, then, if you
lead some suit where your partner has an ace, declarer immediately knows
that and never could err.
Regards, Yury
Colin Ward
wrote:
>> >The auction (1m-X-?) is one where players frequently make psychic
>> >bids. However, do they tell this to their opponents?
>>
>> At this level of play? Are you joking? Anyone
>> who would need to be told that this is a frequent
>> psyching situation or that (in the absence of a
>> redouble of 1C) 3C is not forcing here is not
>> qualified to kibitz such an event, let alone play
>> in it.
>
>You are of course right Colin. 3C in this auction is a natural
>non-forcing call showing clubs. Do you think it is possible that
>Schapiro might have bid the same way holding this hand: xx, KTxxx, x,
>xxxxx? This is the type of hand I would have held for his auction.
And, with Hearts 4-0, you will make 3H. But
subtract a Heart from that holding and 3C will make
while 3H may be a struggle if Hearts break 4-1
(as the takeout double of 1C suggests). This was
IMPs. One part score is about the same as any
other--assuming both make. Move your 5th Club and/or
your 5th Heart into either pointed suit and the
cleverness of Reese's bidding will become apparent
to you, Nick Hills and all other skeptics.
<SNIP>
>Andrew
>
>PS Colin, although we disagree, I have been nothing but polite towards
>you. Your descent into ridicule was uncalled for and suggests that you
>are at the end of your ability to provide actual arguments.
I, too, have been polite. Towards this end,
a friendly tip: you can avoid ridicule by
avoiding the ridiculous. Please consult with
your local experts or TDs in regards to whether
or not an internationalist actually needs to be
told that 1C-Dble-1H might be psychic. They can
tell you whether this lies outside the realm of
basic, general bridge knowledge or whether the
suggestion constitutes trolling for ridicule.
You can also avoid such responses by prefacing
your comments with "I am rather new to this game..."
if this happens to be the case.
John Uchida
Newlands) wrote:
>In article <98f45892.02041...@posting.google.com> agum...@hotmail.com (Andrew Gumperz) writes:
>:
>
>:Here is another one:
>:
>:AKxxx
>:xx
>:xx
>:Kxxx
>:
>:You LHO Pard RHO
>:1S X P 2D
>:?
>:
>:Schapiro chose a 2H rebid.
>
>Standard operating tactics, partner has passed and so will not do too
>much. If he raises hearts, the first return to spades will clarify the
>issue for him. It will give the oppos a problem if hearts is there spot.
Remarkably similar to a previous psychic auction I just posted.
Doesn't 2H show pretty good playing strength in addition to showing
hearts? So 2H isn't just misleading partner about hearts, it's also
misleading about hand strength. Okay, you psych 2H, RHO raises to 3D
and partner has a singleton or doubleton spade and great heart support
so raises to 3, or maybe even 4 hearts. I agree that partner will
probably clarify the psyche, although for pairs who do not psych, 3S
or 4S is not a psychic control, and how do you like playing in 3S or
4S doubled? against maybe nothing. You have no security level with
this hand because you don't know if you have a fit. Sure you can
psyche in any position, any round of bidding, but I strongly disagree
that it is SOP for world class experts.
>Again, it is a matter of knowing what the normal, well known
>to some experts, inferences are. Those who don't play this kind of game just
>don't have the group of players around where such knowledge is standardised.
>
>One of the pleasures of the game is playing new different systems (and playing
>against them) to explore new inference structures and different tactics rather
>than playing the one basic system for life. It is too easy to believe 1 approach is
>optimal especially when everyone else cooperates by playing the same system
>and making the same assumptions. The psychers and tactical bidders violate
>all these assumptions and the 'standard' bidding system starts to look frail
>and suboptimal. e.g. partner opens 2S(weak) and you hold xxxx.xx.Hxxx.xxx
>or the like. The modern law-abiding man bumps spades to the 3 or 4 level but the
>operator bids 3H and totally undermines the structure of the modern man's
>bidding system.
>Third in hand nv against v, two passes to you with xxx.xx.AKQxxx.xx the modern
>man bids 3D, patting himself on the back for his preempting on the suit
>which old ladies will not preempt on but the operator might try 1N, run to
>2C when doubled and then to 2D, but more destructively he might preempt
>3C, again totally undermining the assumptions of the oppos in contructing
>their bidding system. There is not much danger with a passed partner
>especially one who will act first time round or not at all. The ones
>who pass ("to listen") and then choose dodgy actions shouldn't be
>tolerated!
>
>
>Douglas
David desJardins
> Reese's approach is well structured and well understood, by some
> experts at least - perhaps just not appreciated by your group of
> players.
Or by anyone who has made it to the world championships in the past 20
years?
>> Here is another one:
>>
>> AKxxx
>> xx
>> xx
>> Kxxx
>>
>> You LHO Pard RHO
>> 1S X P 2D
>> ?
>>
>> Schapiro chose a 2H rebid.
>
> Standard operating tactics, partner has passed and so will not do too
> much. If he raises hearts, the first return to spades will clarify the
> issue for him.
You won't feel much better about "clarifying" the issue if you're in 4SX
opposite x Axxx Axx Jxxxx. Looks like -700 or so (old scoring).
No one at the world-championship level of competition uses your
"standard operating tactics" any more. There must be a reason for that.
David desJardins
John Uchida
>>(1) Did Reese and Schapiro hold their cards with a variety of odd
>>finger positions? (Since Reese admits this, I'll take this one at
>>least as proven.)
>>
>
>Almost certainly. Kehela testified to the Foster tribunal thatg he Kibitzed
>Argentina 125-134, and that different numbers of fingers were used.
>Incidentally, he testified that as a result of what he saw on these boards, he
>changed his view from believing Reese-Schapiro guilt to believing them innocent
>
>Dave Flower
The statement was "Later, after looking at a record of the hands, he
had come to the conclusion that Mr. Reese and Mr. Schapiro had not
been cheating since the hands showed no evidence of such cheating."
Truscott says, and Resse omitted, that during the hearings, Kehela
said in effect that he did not regard his own evidence as conclusive
in either direction.
Douglas Newlands
:old-fashioned psychic bids are pretty rare.
:
:> >In fact, no expert pair today bids the way this pair did, even
:> >in events where anything is allowed.
Elsewhere in this thread DDJ suggests that you are an experienced psycher,
do I take it from the above comment that you are saying he is mistaken?
Douglas
--
Dr. Douglas A. Newlands, School of Computing & Mathematics,
Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria 3217, Australia,
Tel +61(03)52271165 [Fax 52272028]
email: do...@deakin.edu.au http://www.deakin.edu.au/~doug
David Stevenson
>The auction 1m-X-1M is a favorite psychic for many pairs, so I agree
>that Reese could reasonably suspect a psychic. However, do you think
>he explained his partnership tendencies to his opponents? Do you think
>he alerted 1H, saying, "it is natural in principle, but in practice 1H
>often shows heart shortness and a club fit"? Do you think he explained
>that the correction of 2NT to 3C essentially guaranteed that 1H had
>been a psychic? I doubt it.
If the bidding goes [partnership] 2S=3S=4C=4S=6S=No do you htink there
is a case for leading a club? Do you think that there is a chance that
4C was a psyche?
Now, suppose I tell you that Zia bid 4C. What now?
The point is that everyone knew [at international level, anyway] that
R-S psyched a lot. It was not hidden. Everyone psyched more than they
do these days, and R-S more than others. It was not hidden.
--
David Stevenson <bri...@blakjak.com> Liverpool, England, UK
For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum
at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm
David Stevenson
>David Stevenson wrote:
>
>> The reason given for the alleged earlier spade code was that they were
>> playing Little Major at that time, which had a drawback that sometimes
>> it was not clear whether partner had spades or a balanced hand.
>
>I seem to recollect Little Major was a brainchild of Jeremy Flint and Reese, and
>was concocted in the early sixties (1962?), certainly after Oakie's accusations
>(turned out to be hearts, not spades), which were made during the previous world
>championship to Buenos Aires. Tell me it ain't so!
>
>Thus they couldn't predate the heart code AND postdate the Little Major, if my
>other recollection (I no longer have a copy of Truscott) is correct- namely that
>the suggestion about spade codes referred to a time before heart codes.
>
>Perhaps someone could contextualize Truscott's reference to spades.
>
>sentence (up to the word "code") is preposterously vague, imprecise, and a whole
>bunch of other things which can be lumped in with bad newspaper reporting such
>as
>practised by News of the World, National Enquirer, and others.
Thankyou for your gratuitous rudeness.
It just so happens that I am not being paid by anyone to research this
matter.
David Stevenson
>Lack of accurate disclosure around psychics is one problem. Another is
>that it is very easy to unconsciously read your partner for a psychic
>and change your bidding accordingly. On the above auction, no bid by
>the defenders unambiguously reveals that 1H is a psychic. The only
>possible explanations (that don't involve finger signals) for the
>auction are:
>
>#1 Reese knew from experience that 1H was likely to be a psychic, and
>that the 3C correction made it almost a certainty that 1H was a
>psychic. If this was the case, then Reese failed to disclose an
>implicit agreement to his opponents.
>
>#2 Reese read from his partner's demeanor at the table that 1H was a
>psychic. In this case Reese relied on unauthorized information.
>
>In either case, he acted outside the laws of bridge. This is the root
>of my objection to psychic bidding. Psychic bidders do not disclose
>completely and often apply their table feel to their partner as well
>as their opponents.
Are you sure that you are fully up with the Laws of Bridge and their
effects in the 1950s? Assuming what you say is true then we can simply
accuse practically every top pair in the world of unethical tactics:
take Goren and Sobel and their knowledge.
But you are talking glibly of another time, and trying to put modern
ethics onto those times. The game was different then.
[s]
>If these truths which R-S apparently knew in 1965 were so evident, I'd
>expect frequent psychic bidding to be a part of every expert's arsenal
>by now. In fact, no expert pair today bids the way this pair did, even
>in events where anything is allowed.
Shock! Horror! News!!! The game has changed in the last fifty
years!
David Stevenson
>My point was only that this pair psyched an extraordinary amount, and
>that any pair who did so, and in such unorthodox ways, really deserved
>to be examined.
Deserved? Why? This was not the 1990s with Americans afraid of
psyching by foreigners: this was the 1950s when everyone psyched. Sure,
perhaps R-S more than others.
In what way did the deserve to be examined for their psyches?
David Stevenson
>Michael Rosenberg is quite capable of recognizing a psychic, but
>unlike the vast majority of players from the 1950's and 1960's, and
>Mr. Reese in particular, Michael Rosenberg is scrupulously ethical in
>his bidding.
In what way were the players unethical? By not conforming to the
ethics of the next century?
Douglas Newlands
:
:Michael Rosenberg is quite capable of recognizing a psychic, but
:unlike the vast majority of players from the 1950's and 1960's, and
:Mr. Reese in particular, Michael Rosenberg is scrupulously ethical in
:his bidding. He would not play his partner for a psychic when his
:partner's bidding could just as easily be natural as psychic. To do so
...but
at some time it must become "common bridge knowledge" that partner may
(Note "may" not "has") have psyched and that one needs care in the auction.
There are upsides and downsides to knowing "may have psyched" which seem
quite acceptable with no hint of malpractice (if for no other reason
than you will get suboptimal results sometimes) whereas knowledge of
"has psyched" is quite a different kettle of fish.
It seems reasonable that the position where the line marking the edge of
reasonable common understanding is placed has varied over time. It seems
quite plausible that it was much further to the right in Reese's, and
earlier times, than it is now. In those times, and especially in world
championships, it was acceptable to have it there.
Nowadays, with some many people having the view that there is one way to
play bridge, that every sequence has a meaning which must be deducible
in a paradigm that they accept and with the uncritical acceptance of the
idea that once you have bid something, you cannot take back any info
which you have transmitted (i.e. once you have psyched a heart, you are not
allowed to doscount the heart length, ever), the line for what is regarded
as common bridge knowledge has come way back to the left. Adherence to the line
seems to be policed by policies like full disclosure which relies on the
very conservative placing of the "common bridge knowledge" line and, if
that fails, the accusation of being unethicall in not disclosing to some
required degree and, ultimately, the cheating accusation.
I know this view is out of line with the mainstream but the current
mainstream is not what the mainstream was in the past.
t...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(David desJardins) wrote:
> Colin Ward <c...@escape.ca> writes:
> >> Qxx
> >> AJxx
> >> Kxx
> >> AKQ
> >>
> >> Auction:
> >> 1C-X-1H-2D
> >> 2NT-P-3C-All pass
> >
> > Today we see a bridge player who has never heard of Zia Mahmood.
> > Amazing.
>
> There's no way that Mahmood or Rosenberg would field this psyche in this
> way. Might Zia psyche 1H? Sure. Would Rosenberg field it? No.
Rosenberg may be a pretty poor player, though somehow I doubt that. I am
not even half the player that Reese was but even I could detect pard's
psyche on this one (even with a pick-up partner). With regular partners I
would alert 1H if playing against novices (or modern duplicate players).
Back then it really wouldn't have been necessary.
Anyone who can't see the psyche has almost certainly avoided playing a
decent game of rubber bridge.
Tim
Douglas Newlands
:On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 02:06:04 GMT, do...@Deakin.Edu.Au (Douglas
:Newlands) wrote:
:>In article <98f45892.02041...@posting.google.com> agum...@hotmail.com (Andrew Gumperz) writes:
:>:Here is another one:
:>:
:>:AKxxx
:>:xx
:>:xx
:>:Kxxx
:>:
:>:You LHO Pard RHO
:>:1S X P 2D
:>:?
:>:
:>:Schapiro chose a 2H rebid.
:>
:>Standard operating tactics, partner has passed and so will not do too
:>much. If he raises hearts, the first return to spades will clarify the
:>issue for him. It will give the oppos a problem if hearts is there spot.
:
:Remarkably similar to a previous psychic auction I just posted.
:
:Doesn't 2H show pretty good playing strength in addition to showing
:hearts? So 2H isn't just misleading partner about hearts, it's also
:misleading about hand strength. Okay, you psych 2H, RHO raises to 3D
:and partner has a singleton or doubleton spade and great heart support
:so raises to 3, or maybe even 4 hearts. I agree that partner will
Partner does have 6 and probably not even 5 hearts on this auction (all
changes of suit were NF limited by failure to XX in those days).
Chances of a big raise are not huge - LOTT (yes I know this is an anachronism
but the feel for the law would be there even if the formulation wasn't)
would suggest no big raises.
You have a submin opener, partner has almost nothing so oppos have
game, so you have a fair bit to play with.
:probably clarify the psyche, although for pairs who do not psych, 3S
:or 4S is not a psychic control, and how do you like playing in 3S or
It's not a psychic control per se, it's just the auction becomes illogical
in the bidding paradigm at some point and the psyche becomes logically exposed.
I am happy to agree that the paradigm has shifted.
:4S doubled? against maybe nothing. You have no security level with
Psyching has no guarantee of success but when a psyche succeeds there
is more benefit than just the score - it introduces an uncertainty into
the oppos game, they don't feel the fully understand what is happening,
they may not be playing best methods.
Everyone knows that in the first few boards of long teams matches, it is
quite sound to stretch to game to force the defence to work hard, it makes
them aware of the pressure from the off. It doesn't matter whether the games make
or not for this to be true. The same goes for the psyche when it fails,
even a minus 11 or 14 has some upside.
:this hand because you don't know if you have a fit. Sure you can
:psyche in any position, any round of bidding, but I strongly disagree
:that it is SOP for world class experts.
It certainly doesn't seem to be a mainstream activity in this day and age.
David desJardins
> Rosenberg may be a pretty poor player, though somehow I doubt that. I am
> not even half the player that Reese was but even I could detect pard's
> psyche on this one (even with a pick-up partner).
I don't doubt that if you are sitting at the table, you know whether
partner has psyched. In fact, that's the problem.
Of all the times that this auction might occur at all of the bridge
tables everywhere in the world, the great majority of those times the
responder won't have psyched. So if you can "detect" this psyche solely
from the auction, knowing nothing about the players, then you really are
a psychic. Note that psychic communication between partners is against
the rules too.
David desJardins
Douglas Newlands
:Douglas Newlands <do...@Deakin.Edu.Au> writes:
:> Reese's approach is well structured and well understood, by some
:> experts at least - perhaps just not appreciated by your group of
:> players.
:
:Or by anyone who has made it to the world championships in the past 20
:years?
Agreed - the 'modern' approach is quite different.
That does not, per se, mean that Reese's approach is fundamentally
flawed (it might be but I don't think that it has been demonstrated) or
that it is unplayable
:You won't feel much better about "clarifying" the issue if you're in 4SX
:opposite x Axxx Axx Jxxxx. Looks like -700 or so (old scoring).
This sort of thing happens but the scoring is only part of the trade-off.
There is a psychological component which must not be overlooked even
if the proponents of the modern approach claim they are machines who are
unaffected by such trumperies.
:No one at the world-championship level of competition uses your
:"standard operating tactics" any more. There must be a reason for that.
I think I have to agree although I note that you only get a selection of hands
in the published records and it is difficult to commentate on hands with
psychic bidding, so they might tend to get omitted. Thus there is a
(small) caveat on acceptance but no more than that.
As to the reason, there are two obvious ones: those sort of tactics are fundamentally
flawed ; those sorts of tactics have gone out of favour for various reasons.
There is probably some truth in both . There may be further reasons but
none spring to mind.
David desJardins
> I think I have to agree although I note that you only get a selection
> of hands in the published records and it is difficult to commentate on
> hands with psychic bidding, so they might tend to get omitted.
I think this is backwards. Hands with unusual bidding are more
interesting and are more likely to be included.
> As to the reason, there are two obvious ones: those sort of tactics
> are fundamentally flawed ; those sorts of tactics have gone out of
> favour for various reasons. There is probably some truth in both.
> There may be further reasons but none spring to mind.
As I said in my previous posting, I think the introduction of screens in
high-level play has a lot to do with the reduction in psyching.
There's also been considerable evolution in the bridge world's
understanding of what "ethical conduct" and "full disclosure" entail.
Quite aside from any other issues, it's hard for frequent psychers to
meet modern standards of disclosure.
David desJardins
Reg Day
pseudo-statistics.
Unlike some of the posters who seem to know the 'truth' about these events,
I can only say that the 'evidence' presented was collected in a non
scientific way that was open to considerable bias, and even then the
'evidence' is far from conclusive. On many hands the accusers unable to
demonstrate thier case resort to claims that R-S either forget their
signalling system or intentionally mixed it up (which makes it of dubious
value). The 'evidence' seems to be sufficient to many if they start with
the premise that R-S were guilty, but falls woefully short if you start with
the belief that R-S were innocent. Personally I don't know, but in England
people are innocent until proven guilty, and the quality of the 'evidence'
isn't that good.
Reg
<jurg...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3cb9d5b6...@news.bellatlantic.net...
John Uchida
Newlands) wrote:
>In article <3CB76CB8...@microtopia.net> Stephen Pickett <sf...@microtopia.net> writes:
>:Pam wrote:
>:> On 11 Apr 2002 00:20:47 -0700, agum...@hotmail.com (Andrew Gumperz)
>:> wrote:
>:> >
>
>A last snippet is that the method ascribed to R+S is described by John Scarne
>in one of his massive tomes (Scarne on cards IIRC) as being that used by some bridge
>cheats he detected prior
>to the BA event and was published in a US magazine (the reference is in the book)
>and it is entirely plausible that the US contingent knew of this prior publication
>of the use of this method.
Was this published before or after 1960?
>
>Douglas
John Uchida
>
>Sorry to be a little picky but:
>
>On 11 Apr 2002 00:20:47 -0700, agum...@hotmail.com (Andrew Gumperz)
>wrote:
>
>
>>What do you open on this:
>>
>>Axx
>>x
>>AKxxxx
>>Jxx
>
>Actually it was
>Jxx
>x
>AKxxxx
>Axx
>
>>
>>Schapiro chose 1NT (12-14) as his call.
>
>And went a few off in 3NT when the opposition cashed the first 7 heart
>tricks and the AS. Some you win, some you lose :)
>
Had the heart Ace been onside, 3NT would have rolled since partner had
K doublleton. The question I would like to see answered is how R-S
would have bid if partner had a small doubleton or tripleton and a
flat hand.